Mandlikova and Sanchez Vicario-how to compare their careers?

[anointedone]

Hana Mandlikova managed to win 4 slams in the era of Navratilova and Evert. Sanchez Vicario managed to win 4 slams in the era of Graf and Seles. Mandlikova was known for her stunning talent, but inconsistent performances. Sanchez Vicario was known for her dogged determination, enormous heart and fighting spirit, and getting the absolute most out of very good but not top notch talent. Mandlikova is by far the more talented player, but Sanchez Vicario maxed out her potential far more then Mandlikova. How would you compare these two.

[jaggy]

I met Hana once in Eastbourne at a tennis camp kind of place and she was really nice to talk to.

[ktownva]

I would have to go with Mandlikova, especially since her results were during Martina & Chris in their primes. Had she played in the same era as Sanchez-Vic she probably would have won more than 4 slams. The 85 US Open Final against Martina was one of the best women's matches of the decade. Her backhand stab volley winner on match point was a great end to a tense 3rd set.

[Moose Malloy]

Sanchez won 3 of her 4 slams after Seles got stabbed. Seles owned Sanchez, do the match.

The 85 US Open Final against Martina was one of the best women's matches of the decade. Her backhand stab volley winner on match point was a great end to a tense 3rd set.

Yeah, most match points are pretty boring(yet they always get shown on highlight reels)
That shot was something special, esp in a 3rd set tiebreak in a major final.

[Borat72]

Originally Posted by anointedone

Hana Mandlikova managed to win 4 slams in the era of Navratilova and Evert. Sanchez Vicario managed to win 4 slams in the era of Graf and Seles. Mandlikova was known for her stunning talent, but inconsistent performances. Sanchez Vicario was known for her dogged determination, enormous heart and fighting spirit, and getting the absolute most out of very good but not top notch talent. Mandlikova is by far the more talented player, but Sanchez Vicario maxed out her potential far more then Mandlikova. How would you compare these two.

Sanchez was extremely talented in the determination, fighting spirit, mental fortitude, grittiness, stamina, foot work, retrieving ability departments. Mandlikova didn't have those talents.
She could strike a beautiful ball, though.

[Borat72]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Sanchez won 3 of her 4 slams after Seles got stabbed. Seles owned Sanchez, do the match. ....

Mandlikova - being 24-26 years old - lost 6 of 7 matches aganst a 16-18 year old Graf. Graf struggled a lot more against Sanchez in later years.
Sanchez made 12 slam finals, Mandlikova only 8.
Arantxa hands down!

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by anointedone

Hana Mandlikova managed to win 4 slams in the era of Navratilova and Evert. Sanchez Vicario managed to win 4 slams in the era of Graf and Seles. Mandlikova was known for her stunning talent, but inconsistent performances. Sanchez Vicario was known for her dogged determination, enormous heart and fighting spirit, and getting the absolute most out of very good but not top notch talent. Mandlikova is by far the more talented player, but Sanchez Vicario maxed out her potential far more then Mandlikova. How would you compare these two.

You've answered your own question. Your analysis is spot on.

[bluetrain4]

If I had to compare, I'd say Mandlikova underachieved slightly, while Sanchez overachieved.

Again, I see that innate "talent" is sometimes respected more than determination, guile, and other intangibles. But, those are just as much of a "talent" as a wide variety of shots and beautiful strokes. No one thinks of those intangibles as being innate because we all assume that a player can obtain them at any moment upon some realization that their talents are being squandered.

But, it usually doesn't happen. We're still waiting for Safin, for example, to get focused and put a consistent brain behind those strokes. Won't happen. Gonzo had a brief epiphany, but it seems to be over for now. Not that an undisciplined, extremely talented player can't become a mental giant: see, Agassi, Andre. But, most of the time, it won't happen.

[Borat72]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

If I had to compare, I'd say Mandlikova underachieved slightly, while Sanchez overachieved.

Again, I see that innate "talent" is sometimes respected more than determination, guile, and other intangibles. But, those are just as much of a "talent" as a wide variety of shots and beautiful strokes. No one thinks of those intangibles as being innate because we all assume that a player can obtain them at any moment upon some realization that their talents are being squandered.

But, it usually doesn't happen. We're still waiting for Safin, for example, to get focused and put a consistent brain behind those strokes. Won't happen. Gonzo had a brief epiphany, but it seems to be over for now. Not that an undisciplined, extremely talented player can't become a mental giant: see, Agassi, Andre. But, most of the time, it won't happen.

Yes, having stamina, determination and focus is having talent as well.
Some have it, some don't. I never understood why some people think only the ability to hit artistic shots is "talent".

[CEvertFan]

I would have to say that Mandlikova was definitely the more talented of the two in terms of pure shotmaking ability and had wins over both Evert and Navratilova while those two all time greats were in their prime, but Sanchez-Vicario had the more consistent career and in 1994-95 gave Steffi Graf, who was still in her prime, all she could handle for a good portion of those two years. My vote goes with Arantxa for making the very most out of what talent she possessed, but it's a very close call.

Seles definitely owned Arantxa before the stabbing but had a couple of losses to Arantxa once she came back including the FO final of '98. Evert and Navratilova have pretty one sided winning records against Mandlikova even though she did get the occasional win over both on the big stage.

Final head to heads for Mandlikova:
vs Evert 19-7 for Evert
vs Navratilova 29-7 for Navratilova

Final head to heads for Sanchez-Vicario:
vs. Graf 28-8 for Graf
vs. Seles 20-3 for Seles

They have pretty similar records vs. the very best of their era.

[CEvertFan]

It always brings a smile to my face every time I hear/read about the story when Mandlikova was talking all kinds of smack about how she would destroy Evert in the '84 Wimbledon semis because in her opinion Evert wasn't as good as she was especially on grass and then Chris destroyed her instead 6-1, 6-2. Evert always got especially riled and determined if someone was talking s**t about her.

[suwanee4712]

Hana - 4 slams (2 Australians on grass, 1 French on clay, 1 US Open on hard)
Aranxta - 4 slams (3 French on clay, 1 US Open on hard)

Hana's wins over C&M - 14 (7 vs. Martina, 7 vs. Chris)
Arantxa's wins over S&M - 11 (8 vs. Steffi, 3 vs. Monica)

Hana's wins over Martina in slams - 4 (2 US Open, 1 Wimbledon, 1 A Open)
Hana's wins over Chris in slams - 3 (1 French, 1 Wimbledon, 1 US Open

Arantxta's wins over Steffi in slams - 4 (2 French, 2 US Open)
Arantxta's wins over Monica in slams - 1 (1 French)

Aranxta - 29 tour titles in 17 years
Hana - 27 tour titles in 12 years


----------------------------------

Looks pretty close to me. I won't blame anyone for favoring Aranxta because she was #1 and more conistent than Hana. But realistically, I don't think that Arantxa would be much more than a 1 slam wonder had Monica not been stabbed. And she would've never reached #1. So she was fiesty, tenacious, and also opportunistic. Which are all great qualities to have. But she also caught a huge break.

Though it is strange that Hana still has only 2 fewer regular tour titles than Aranxta does in 5 less years. You would think that Aranxta's consistency would've won her more titles than that. Given that fact, if I had to pick which record I'd rather have, I'd pick Hana's.

I also think that Hana represented a threat to C&M regardless of surface or how they were playing. While with Arantxa, she needed more help. She needed S&M to be off and surface did make a big difference for her.

If I had to pick one of the two to play a match for my life decided on effort, I'd go with Aranxta by a mile. If I had to pick one based on how good they were on their best day, it would be Hana by 2 miles.

If I gave Aranxta the advantage of playing Hana on clay, I'd like Hana's chances of winning MUCH better than I would Aranxta's chances of beating Hana on grass or indoors.

I don't think the comparison of how each did vs. Steffi means much. Hana's peak was finished in the spring of 1987. At that point, she was 1-2 vs. Steffi. After that came a heel injury, a hamstring injury, her recurring back problems, an abortion that caused her to miss Wimbledon, and a divorce. She was never the same after that. Still, as poorly as her last full year on the tour was, Hana still was good enough to have a set point on Steffi in San Antonio. I have no doubts that Steffi would've had a healthy series record vs. Hana under even the best of circumstances for Hana. But the 1-9 record is very skewed given the timing and circumstances.

[federerfanatic]

It is interesting how much better Aranxta did vs Steffi then against Monica. When comparing one must remember Aranxta played almost entirely the retrievers role when she played one of those two much more powerful hitting and agressive women. So I think that what it was is mainly because against Graf she had the bit of reprieve to go to the backhand. She could often run down 1 or 2 huge shots from Monica or Steffi in a row, not always but often. However with Steffi those 1 or 2 huge shots almost always came from the forehand alone, and she could then try to get it to the backhand somehow and get back into the rally. Against Monica if she got those 1 or 2 huge shots back there was no reprieve going to a forehand or backhand, you would then get a 3rd or 4th huge shot, and it would be too much.

[Warriorroger]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

It is interesting how much better Aranxta did vs Steffi then against Monica. When comparing one must remember Aranxta played almost entirely the retrievers role when she played one of those two much more powerful hitting and agressive women. So I think that what it was is mainly because against Graf she had the bit of reprieve to go to the backhand. She could often run down 1 or 2 huge shots from Monica or Steffi in a row, not always but often. However with Steffi those 1 or 2 huge shots almost always came from the forehand alone, and she could then try to get it to the backhand somehow and get back into the rally. Against Monica if she got those 1 or 2 huge shots back there was no reprieve going to a forehand or backhand, you would then get a 3rd or 4th huge shot, and it would be too much.

Graf played her 36 times! Of course she has more loses.

[Borat72]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

It is interesting how much better Aranxta did vs Steffi then against Monica. ....

Simple answer:
Sanchez peaked in 1993/95 when Seles was out.
Subtract all the Sanchez-Graf matches from that time and you get a 21-4 H2H in favour of Graf. Similar to the 20-3 Seles-Sanchez H2H.

[navratilovafan]

Originally Posted by Borat72

Simple answer:
Sanchez peaked in 1993/95 when Seles was out.
Subtract all the Sanchez-Graf matches from that time and you get a 21-4 H2H in favour of Graf. Similar to the 20-3 Seles-Sanchez H2H.

Good point.

[navratilovafan]

Originally Posted by CEvertFan

I would have to say that Mandlikova was definitely the more talented of the two in terms of pure shotmaking ability and had wins over both Evert and Navratilova while those two all time greats were in their prime, but Sanchez-Vicario had the more consistent career and in 1994-95 gave Steffi Graf, who was still in her prime, all she could handle for a good portion of those two years. My vote goes with Arantxa for making the very most out of what talent she possessed, but it's a very close call.

Seles definitely owned Arantxa before the stabbing but had a couple of losses to Arantxa once she came back including the FO final of '98. Evert and Navratilova have pretty one sided winning records against Mandlikova even though she did get the occasional win over both on the big stage.

Final head to heads for Mandlikova:
vs Evert 19-7 for Evert
vs Navratilova 29-7 for Navratilova

Final head to heads for Sanchez-Vicario:
vs. Graf 28-8 for Graf
vs. Seles 20-3 for Seles

They have pretty similar records vs. the very best of their era.

That is basically how I feel comparing them. Hana is the more gifted shotmaker, but even with what she accomplished being still quite impressive being in the Evert-Navratilova era, still she was considered somewhat an underachiever by many. Sanchez Vicario was a bit of an overachiever in alot of ways. She got absolutely the most she could out of her career and game, which I rarely hear said about Hana, who probably had the much higher potential of the two.

You are right it is an extremely close call. There are so many arguments both ways.

I will say though the head to heads you mentioned vs the two greatest of their respective eras are in Hana's favor though. A 19-7 vs Evert, is slightly better then the 28-8 vs Graf; while a 29-7 vs Navratilova, is far clearly superior to a 20-3 vs Seles.

Mandikova reminds me of Goolagong, in that many people say they were two of the greatest talents but underachived, despite accomplishing a great deal at a very tough period in the time of Court, King, Evert, and Navratilova. Both were very fluid players and natural athletes, who went for alot of low risk fancy shots which worked against them alot. However the personalities of Goolagong and Mandlikova are so completely different, that while they both probably underachived I would think the reasons for that are very different from the other.

[navratilovafan]

Originally Posted by CEvertFan

It always brings a smile to my face every time I hear/read about the story when Mandlikova was talking all kinds of smack about how she would destroy Evert in the '84 Wimbledon semis because in her opinion Evert wasn't as good as she was especially on grass and then Chris destroyed her instead 6-1, 6-2. Evert always got especially riled and determined if someone was talking s**t about her.

Yes I remember that too. Hana also said before her semi with Chris Evert that she felt she had "a good chance to beat Martina in the final." She was even looking past Evert to the final with Navratilova already. Being confident is one thing, but that is way over the top. Complete state of delusion about her place on the pecking order in womens tennis. Also to say it publicly, it is one thing to say those things to her own private little camp. However she should have known a champion like Evert would get riled up by that, and really just use it as impetus to smack her behind as good as possible. Which of course she did.

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by navratilovafan

Yes I remember that too. Hana also said before her semi with Chris Evert that she felt she had "a good chance to beat Martina in the final." She was even looking past Evert to the final with Navratilova already. Being confident is one thing, but that is way over the top. Complete state of delusion about her place on the pecking order in womens tennis. Also to say it publicly, it is one thing to say those things to her own private little camp. However she should have known a champion like Evert would get riled up by that, and really just use it as impetus to smack her behind as good as possible. Which of course she did.

After that drubbing from Evert, Hana said in her book that she felt that Chris intentionally tried to humiliate her by beating her so badly and because Chris made her wait to walk off the court. In those days both players had to leave Centre Court together because they had to bow/curtsy to the Royal Box. If I had been in Evert's position, I would have made her wait too.

The same thing happened with Shriver at Wimbledon/Newport 1985. Here's an excerpt of a quote about it on a great Evert fansite:

Pam Shriver, back then ranked 3 or 4, Chris #1, was complaining to the press that she never got to play Chris, but always Martina, inferring she could possibly win more if she got to play Chris instead. She had not played Chris in almost 3 years. I think she had lost in the semis or quarters of Wimbledon to Martina and made the comment then. So a month later, they got to play in the Newport finals. It was on grass, Pam’s favorite, and she went up 2-0. But Chris was on one of those ‘I will not give you one point’ frames of mind when she thought someone had been “out of line” as Pam had been in suggesting she would beat Chris. From 0-2, Chris lost only 3 more games, and won 6-4 , 6-1 with some of the best tennis I ever saw her play. When she got riled, there was no one who could beat her.

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by navratilovafan

That is basically how I feel comparing them. Hana is the more gifted shotmaker, but even with what she accomplished being still quite impressive being in the Evert-Navratilova era, still she was considered somewhat an underachiever by many. Sanchez Vicario was a bit of an overachiever in alot of ways. She got absolutely the most she could out of her career and game, which I rarely hear said about Hana, who probably had the much higher potential of the two.

You are right it is an extremely close call. There are so many arguments both ways.

I will say though the head to heads you mentioned vs the two greatest of their respective eras are in Hana's favor though. A 19-7 vs Evert, is slightly better then the 28-8 vs Graf; while a 29-7 vs Navratilova, is far clearly superior to a 20-3 vs Seles.

Mandikova reminds me of Goolagong, in that many people say they were two of the greatest talents but underachived, despite accomplishing a great deal at a very tough period in the time of Court, King, Evert, and Navratilova. Both were very fluid players and natural athletes, who went for alot of low risk fancy shots which worked against them alot. However the personalities of Goolagong and Mandlikova are so completely different, that while they both probably underachived I would think the reasons for that are very different from the other.

My main reason for going with Arantxa over Hana is that even though Steffi Graf was in her prime, Arantxa still managed to grab the #1 ranking. Hana never even came close to doing that, heck she never even threatened Evert for the #2 ranking. I would say that Arantxa put herself forward to the greatest degree possible that she could to fill the void left by Seles' absence and she made things interesting when it could just as easily have been 3 more "Grand Slams" for Graf. I do agree though that things might have been very different for Sanchez-Vicario if Seles hadn't been out of the game for so long, as she had much more trouble against Seles' power off BOTH sides as opposed to just the power of the Graf forehand.

My favorite ASV match is her US Open win in '94, which wasn't her best surface. Sheer persistence and footspeed and tireless retrieving won the day, which always did drive Graf nuts as Steffi always liked to end the points quickly.