Was Mandlikova basically a lesser Navratilova, but with Evert's basline craft?

When I watch tapes of Austin play I am amazed she achieved all she did so young, and had the great success vs prime Evert and Navratilova as she did. Sorry she just doesnt impress me much, even for the time frame. I even find Jaeger had a better game, but I guess she didnt have as strong a mind. I dont think she would have achieved all that much after 1981 even without her health problems. Her game was incredibly limited, what she excelled at she did very well but that was all she could do. Her serve was pitiful even for 70s standards, her volleys or attempts at them, lol, she had absolutely no variety, no real feel for the ball or any finesse shots, and her hitting patterns from the baseline were so unoriginal, the same crosscourt or down the line drills repeatedly. She makes Evert who some suggest is limited look like an incredibly complete player with so many dimensions by comparision. OK I admit I might be a bit biased since I really hate watching Tracy play in any of the old videos I saw, I find her game incredibly numbing and boring. I actually love her as a commentator today, way better than Evert or Navratilova IMO, I think I am a big fan of Tracy the person but not Tracy the tennis player, even though I acknowledge she was a great and unfortunate one.

I guess she could have won a few hard court slams spread out over time and ended up with say 5 slams or something in that area had she stayed healthy, but she would have never had the serious challenge to being #1 like she did in 1980 and 1981 ever again IMO. Her game just didnt have much capacity for growth at all, and I think that was part of her decline in 1982 and 1983, it wasnt just her health problems, she couldnt keep up with the new athletic standard Navratilova was setting, Evert was trying to follow, and the improvements Mandlikova, Jaeger, Shriver, and others were making. Plus people figured out how to play her, her game was so simplistic in nature, it was only a matter of time that happened. I think Evert cracked the code on how to play Austin in that 1980 U.S Open upset over Tracy who was starting to be considered the dominant player at the time, and other players started to follow suit.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

When I watch tapes of Austin play I am amazed she achieved all she did so young, and had the great success vs prime Evert and Navratilova as she did. Sorry she just doesnt impress me much, even for the time frame. I even find Jaeger had a better game, but I guess she didnt have as strong a mind. I dont think she would have achieved all that much after 1981 even without her health problems. Her game was incredibly limited, what she excelled at she did very well but that was all she could do. Her serve was pitiful even for 70s standards, her volleys or attempts at them, lol, she had absolutely no variety, no real feel for the ball or any finesse shots, and her hitting patterns from the baseline were so unoriginal, the same crosscourt or down the line drills repeatedly. She makes Evert who some suggest is limited look like an incredibly complete player with so many dimensions by comparision. OK I admit I might be a bit biased since I really hate watching Tracy play in any of the old videos I saw, I find her game incredibly numbing and boring. I actually love her as a commentator today, way better than Evert or Navratilova IMO, I think I am a big fan of Tracy the person but not Tracy the tennis player, even though I acknowledge she was a great and unfortunate one.

I guess she could have won a few hard court slams spread out over time and ended up with say 5 slams or something in that area had she stayed healthy, but she would have never had the serious challenge to being #1 like she did in 1980 and 1981 ever again IMO. Her game just didnt have much capacity for growth at all, and I think that was part of her decline in 1982 and 1983, it wasnt just her health problems, she couldnt keep up with the new athletic standard Navratilova was setting, Evert was trying to follow, and the improvements Mandlikova, Jaeger, Shriver, and others were making. Plus people figured out how to play her, her game was so simplistic in nature, it was only a matter of time that happened. I think Evert cracked the code on how to play Austin in that 1980 U.S Open upset over Tracy who was starting to be considered the dominant player at the time, and other players started to follow suit.

Actually according to Evert, Evonne Goolgong 'cracked the code' at Wimbledon a few months earlier, on her way to victory. I think it was a QF match that Evert watched. Evonne sliced and diced, looped and volleyed her way to victory. Never give Tracy the same look at the ball, you gave her the last stroke. Depth and spin is more important than pace. Its also the same tactic King used to beat Tracy at the Big W in her late thirties. Much harder to employ successfully on hard or indoor courts than on grass or clay. The odd bounce could be your new BFF vs Austin. her strokes were actually less compact than Evert's, far less versatile, but more steady and powerful. She hit a heavy ball that kept you well behind the baseline.

[gavna]

Originally Posted by kiki

Never forget while Leconte never won anything big, Mandlikova won 4 big events.

Austin was very good but she lacked some versatility and I don´t think she had anything left after 1981...not at Chris,Martina and Hana´s level.But she would have made it very interesting for a few more years.

I never said that Riton ever won anything major BUT he had more talent in his little pinky than the rest of the top ten.......issue was he couldn't control it and again like any of the French has mush between the ears. Remember Tiriac was Very very vocal in the early 80s when he was coaching and after he dropped Riton that the guy was THE most talented player he had ever seen - Hana had similar talent and at times just looked like she couldn't decide what the hell she would do......it was like she had Too many shots to choose from and very often picked the wrong one. Thus with all that talent she ends up with ONLY 4 when she could have won twice that if not more.

[gavna]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

When I watch tapes of Austin play I am amazed she achieved all she did so young, and had the great success vs prime Evert and Navratilova as she did. Sorry she just doesnt impress me much, even for the time frame. I even find Jaeger had a better game, but I guess she didnt have as strong a mind. I dont think she would have achieved all that much after 1981 even without her health problems. Her game was incredibly limited, what she excelled at she did very well but that was all she could do. Her serve was pitiful even for 70s standards, her volleys or attempts at them, lol, she had absolutely no variety, no real feel for the ball or any finesse shots, and her hitting patterns from the baseline were so unoriginal, the same crosscourt or down the line drills repeatedly. She makes Evert who some suggest is limited look like an incredibly complete player with so many dimensions by comparision. OK I admit I might be a bit biased since I really hate watching Tracy play in any of the old videos I saw, I find her game incredibly numbing and boring. I actually love her as a commentator today, way better than Evert or Navratilova IMO, I think I am a big fan of Tracy the person but not Tracy the tennis player, even though I acknowledge she was a great and unfortunate one.

I guess she could have won a few hard court slams spread out over time and ended up with say 5 slams or something in that area had she stayed healthy, but she would have never had the serious challenge to being #1 like she did in 1980 and 1981 ever again IMO. Her game just didnt have much capacity for growth at all, and I think that was part of her decline in 1982 and 1983, it wasnt just her health problems, she couldnt keep up with the new athletic standard Navratilova was setting, Evert was trying to follow, and the improvements Mandlikova, Jaeger, Shriver, and others were making. Plus people figured out how to play her, her game was so simplistic in nature, it was only a matter of time that happened. I think Evert cracked the code on how to play Austin in that 1980 U.S Open upset over Tracy who was starting to be considered the dominant player at the time, and other players started to follow suit.

You must not realize Austin was DONE by the end of 1982 due to her back and sciatica issues.....she had whole stretches in 81, 82 when she could almost not walk or bend over you cannot downplay how bad she was hurt. It's amazing she was able to last the 83 season - yes her game was a mirror of Everts but Austin hit the ball and flatter and when she was on could hit thru all of them when she was 100%.
I was there live from the late 70s thru the 80s watching her on court and the YouTube garbage does not give her justice......She was out of tennis by the time she was 22 because of her back and leg.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by gavna

I never said that Riton ever won anything major BUT he had more talent in his little pinky than the rest of the top ten.......issue was he couldn't control it and again like any of the French has mush between the ears. Remember Tiriac was Very very vocal in the early 80s when he was coaching and after he dropped Riton that the guy was THE most talented player he had ever seen - Hana had similar talent and at times just looked like she couldn't decide what the hell she would do......it was like she had Too many shots to choose from and very often picked the wrong one. Thus with all that talent she ends up with ONLY 4 when she could have won twice that if not more.

Agreed.on pure talent and ability Hana is one of the top five players of the open era

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by gavna

You must not realize Austin was DONE by the end of 1982 due to her back and sciatica issues.....she had whole stretches in 81, 82 when she could almost not walk or bend over you cannot downplay how bad she was hurt. It's amazing she was able to last the 83 season - yes her game was a mirror of Everts but Austin hit the ball and flatter and when she was on could hit thru all of them when she was 100%.
I was there live from the late 70s thru the 80s watching her on court and the YouTube garbage does not give her justice......She was out of tennis by the time she was 22 because of her back and leg.

I'd say by mid 82 she had very few good matches left, but I tend to believe her. If she said she is healthy before she walked out on the court in interviews during a tournament, she was healthy when she lost on that court in that tournament. I am pretty dismissive of the retro-excuse by nature and philosophy. But to Tracy's credit, she really wasn't one to give them out.

[kiki]

The title of the thread is totally wrong.You cam say Hana was a lesser player or a lesser champ than Martina but never in life say she was a little copy of Navy...unless you never watched her, of course

[treblings]

Originally Posted by kiki

The title of the thread is totally wrong.You cam say Hana was a lesser player or a lesser champ than Martina but never in life say she was a little copy of Navy...unless you never watched her, of course

OP was asking a question that could have simply been answered with a clear ´no´or ´wrong´
or the way i answered it in post #2
i often think that the title of any thread should change according to what´s talked about in the thread. totally misleading sometimes

[PDJ]

Originally Posted by treblings

OP was asking a question that could have simply been answered with a clear ´no´or ´wrong´
or the way i answered it in post #2
i often think that the title of any thread should change according to what´s talked about in the thread. totally misleading sometimes

But wasn't the OP to invite discussion? I think if you changed the title as the thread changed, it seems to me, that the majority regarding women's tennis would end up being called 'Graf/Seles'.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by PDJ

But wasn't the OP to invite discussion? I think if you changed the title as the thread changed, it seems to me, that the majority regarding women's tennis would end up being called 'Graf/Seles'.

of course it´s about discussion that´s the fun of it.
all threads evolve and change topics or they die soon. if Joe Pike were still around, this thread would long ago have changed into a Graf appreciation thread

[kiki]

Originally Posted by treblings

OP was asking a question that could have simply been answered with a clear ´no´or ´wrong´
or the way i answered it in post #2
i often think that the title of any thread should change according to what´s talked about in the thread. totally misleading sometimes

You're right but the starting question is imo wrong,that was what I meant

[treblings]

Originally Posted by kiki

You're right but the starting question is imo wrong,that was what I meant

wrong in the sense, that the answer to his question was no?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by treblings

wrong in the sense, that the answer to his question was no?

Wrong in the concept that Mandlikova is a lesser Navratilova.Like she played like her just a bit worse...not true, each had their strokes and their personality on court and mandlikova didn´t learn to play the game by watching Navratilova.

I can accept somebdoy saying martina was the better player or the most accomplished champion between the 2.But it makes no sense to say something like Hana was in the middle of Martina´s S&V game and Chris backcourt game.She was Hana Mandlikova for the good and for the bad.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by kiki

Wrong in the concept that Mandlikova is a lesser Navratilova.Like she played like her just a bit worse...not true, each had their strokes and their personality on court and mandlikova didn´t learn to play the game by watching Navratilova.

I can accept somebdoy saying martina was the better player or the most accomplished champion between the 2.But it makes no sense to say something like Hana was in the middle of Martina´s S&V game and Chris backcourt game.She was Hana Mandlikova for the good and for the bad.

i obviously agree with you and have said so as early as post #2

[kiki]

Originally Posted by treblings

i obviously agree with you and have said so as early as post #2

As I said before, Hana was a better volleyer than Chris and a better baseliner than Martina...or, in other words, Hana was a better baseliner than Martina was a better S&V and Hana was better at the net than Evert was better at the backcourt...

[BTURNER]

Kiki is right of course, for me its utterly astonishing to think Hana had Evert's baseline 'craft. Her baseline game could not be more different. It was intuitive, inspired and sometimes impulsive, but there was none of the clinical and tactical frame of mind Chris had. The strokes were different, the thought process was different, the goals during the rally were different. Polar opposites in every respect.

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

Kiki is right of course, for me its utterly astonishing to think Hana had Evert's baseline 'craft. Her baseline game could not be more different. It was intuitive, inspired and sometimes impulsive, but there was none of the clinical and tactical frame of mind Chris had. The strokes were different, the thought process was different, the goals during the rally were different. Polar opposites in every respect.

Chris was a master chess player who thought 4 shots ahead in order to open up the court or wear the opponent down. You might be wrong footed or beaten with an angle. You also may suffer the death of a thousand cuts. No one was her equal at what she did.

Hana's baseline game was largely centered on getting the opponent to reach or stretch so that she had to take her eye off of Hana. Most any baseline shot she hit might at the last moment be used to approach the net which might be good for Hana or be bad. It's all about what her instincts told her to do.

I always thought Martina's ground game was about moving an opponent over to one side so that she could come forward and cut off the percentage angle.

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

Chris was a master chess player who thought 4 shots ahead in order to open up the court or wear the opponent down. You might be wrong footed or beaten with an angle. You also may suffer the death of a thousand cuts. No one was her equal at what she did.

Hana's baseline game was largely centered on getting the opponent to reach or stretch so that she had to take her eye off of Hana. Most any baseline shot she hit might at the last moment be used to approach the net which might be good for Hana or be bad. It's all about what her instincts told her to do.

I always thought Martina's ground game was about moving an opponent over to one side so that she could come forward and cut off the percentage angle.

I totally agree on your assessments on which each of those women tried to do with their baseline games. Graf's baseline game was all about opening up her forehand wing from towards the backside side of the court so she could start hitting inside out forehands, very unusual but what worked for her. I think Austin's baseline game was more simple, overpower or outlast an opponent with her shots.

[kiki]

While some think Evert game to be boring and predictable some of us love the way she played chess with a racket and what great craftmanship involved.The only other woman that played like that was Martina Hingis
I supose we can name it "inteligence"

[PDJ]

Originally Posted by kiki

While some think Evert game to be boring and predictable some of us love the way she played chess with a racket and what great craftmanship involved.The only other woman that played like that was Martina Hingis
I supose we can name it "inteligence"

I agree. Her court craft was exemplary. There have been been few to match her in this area. What I find particularly admirable is that she rarely seemed hurried. And yes Hingis was possibly the last of the top ranked players to use all the court. Personally I find most women's matches a slug fest bore, although the Italians can be a joy to watch, they normally get steamrollered at some point in a tournament. That said, I do like bartoli as she's such an original.