Was Austin just a hard court specialist?

[NadalAgassi]

Tracy's prime and career were cut very short by injury of course. However the question I have about her is if she was just a hard court and carpet specialist or if she was capable of winning on the natural surfaces of clay and grass someday. She played Wimbledon every year from 1977-1982 but failed to win it or reach a final. She did not play the French Open until 1982, but had a win over Evert on clay in 1979, so never gave herself much chance to win there as she did not bother trying during her prime years.

So was she capable of winning big titles on clay and/or grass or was she just a hard court specialist predominantly. Like another version of Clijsters 3 decades earlier.

[BTURNER]

I think she was perfectly capable of winning on clay. Most of her experience was on hard courts so she would have to get used to the movement, but she had the temperament stamina and strokes for clay victories. If she had continued, both Evert and Navratilova's mid 80's RG titles would have been at more risk.

I don't see much success on grass at all, though she did win Eastbourne. She had more backswing/ followthrough in her strokes than Evert, so adjusting to the bounces would be more troubling. Tracy was less willing to volley or use underspin/ slice than Chris. Finally, Austin's serve was just plain awful. Tracy could break serve by passing, but she is not going to hold serve at all well. while some of this stuff gets learned, Tracy just was't the tactician Chris was. She did not have much in the way of plan's B, C and D.

[NadalAgassi]

If she was capable of winning on clay I dont understand why she wouldnt have played the French from 79-81. It seems a silly decision on her part to skip a major event she had a chance of winning at. Of course at that point she probably felt she had her whole career ahead of her.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

If she was capable of winning on clay I dont understand why she wouldnt have played the French from 79-81. It seems a silly decision on her part to skip a major event she had a chance of winning at. Of course at that point she probably felt she had her whole career ahead of her.

Remember too she was still under the thumb of her parents. Who knows what marching orders she got.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

If she was capable of winning on clay I dont understand why she wouldnt have played the French from 79-81. It seems a silly decision on her part to skip a major event she had a chance of winning at. Of course at that point she probably felt she had her whole career ahead of her.

Her school work is the reason why Austin didn't play the French Open before 1982.

[GS]

Chris Evert won a record 125 consecutive matches on clay between '73 and '79. Who beat her in the semis at the Italian Open to end that streak? Austin.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Her school work is the reason why Austin didn't play the French Open before 1982.

Makes sense. she was still in high school trying to prepare for finals about that time .

[suwanee4712]

I look at Austin's intangible strengths similarly to Seles'. As disadvantaged as Seles seemed on a grass court I would not put anything past her will power and resolve. She lost so badly in the 1992 final partially because Steffi played so well and partially because I don't believe Seles was confident enough to win on grass yet.

Same thing with Austin. She hadn't really paid her dues on grass and clay. But she would have, and once she gained the confidence necessary I do think she would've been a threat at any slam.

Unlike Seles though, I do think Tracy had more than one obstacle in her way. Trying to deal with an ever improving Martina would've been a huge challenge to her fitness and fragility. And once Evert won the psychologically important 1980 US Open Tracy lost a bit of an edge against Chris. Not to say that she couldn't or wouldn't have been able to beat those two from time to time. But Tracy would've had a lot of work to do to be able to stay with those two.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

Unlike Seles though, I do think Tracy had more than one obstacle in her way. Trying to deal with an ever improving Martina would've been a huge challenge to her fitness and fragility. And once Evert won the psychologically important 1980 US Open Tracy lost a bit of an edge against Chris. Not to say that she couldn't or wouldn't have been able to beat those two from time to time. But Tracy would've had a lot of work to do to be able to stay with those two.

Tracy is also not as good as Seles, even considering their eras and the different racquets, etc... I cant see Tracy being #1 over a prime Martina or prime Graf, the way Seles was able to be #1 over a prime Graf. Not a chance IMO. The 83-84 Martina or 88-89 Graf she would be lucky to get maybe 1 win total against out of the 2 years combined for each. Challenging and possibly being #1 over Chris is easier only since Chris's game style fits into her own better, and even then Chris was still year end #1 over her in 80 and 81 (and #2 over her in 79).

I actually think Hana is even more talented than Tracy but much less driven so Tracy probably would have been better over the long haul.

Of course that isnt to say she wasnt a threat to win future slams but she was never a dominant player in waiting.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

And once Evert won the psychologically important 1980 US Open Tracy lost a bit of an edge against Chris.

Don't know about that. Austin battered Evert 6-1, 6-2 in the semi finals of the Toyota Championships in 1981. The 1980 US Open match was more about Evert ending her period of being spooked by Austin rather than having any mental effect on Austin.

[kiki]

Played well on clay,indoors and hard and was not bad at Wimbledon.But her game IMo was too limited.She wouldn´t have stand up in front of the Martina of the mid 80´s or the Graf of the early 90´s.She was a one sided player, whose game was based on will and endurance, but little else.I think she is very overrated as a player, she isn´t just in the same league of Martina,Evert,Stefi or Seles....and quite less talented ( but menthally stronger) than Mandlikova.

[NadalAgassi]

I really think Tracy's best ever chances to win Wimbledon were always 80 and 81, but especialy 1980. She was never going to beat Martina on grass at Wimbledon from 82-87, nor was she ever going to beat Graf there from 88-93, and after that she would be too old to be a real threat.

In 1980 she lost a very winnable semifinal match to a past her prime Goolagong. Goolagong then went out to easily beat a flat Evert in the final. Evert was Austin's lapdog around then, so I really think Tracy would have beaten her in the final, even on grass.

1981 she also would have had a chance since as Mustard said she was still doing well against Chris in 81, and Hana played a poor final. She ended up losing to Shriver in a big upset in the quarters, her first ever loss to Pam. She would have played Chris in the semis if she won. However Chris was really in top form at this Wimbledon and is a better grass courter, so I doubt Tracy beating her this year.

We all seem in agreement she had more chances of being a threat on clay than on grass. I do think she could have definitely been a contender at the French Open in future years, as well as the years she didnt play it.

[BTURNER]

If you could have taken Jaeger's brain and put in with Austin's body and will, you have a real Wimbledon contender. Jeger was much more willing to improvise, volley and be tactically flexible.

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

If you could have taken Jaeger's brain and put in with Austin's body and will, you have a real Wimbledon contender. Jeger was much more willing to improvise, volley and be tactically flexible.

I think you hit the key word here..."flexible" as it relates to Tracy. Her mental strength was rare. That's why I wouldn't give up on her too easily. There's no doubt that the bad bounces on grass courts would've been a real challenge for Tracy because she was so mechanical. Evert was much better at being able to handle those types of things.

I think Tracy would've remained a solid #3 in the game at least until the oversized racquet era. I don't think she would've won a ton of slams. But she could've cut into the Martina/Chris strangle hold more often than Hana did.

I also agree about Andrea. The only thing that stopped Andrea from winning at least one or two slams in her career was Andrea herself, mentally and physically. She had so much talent and the ability to play from all over the court. Neither she nor Hana had that one key element that seperated them from Tracy and the others and that's hating to lose more than they love to win. I think that's absolutely essential to being on the higher level that both failed to reach.

[NadalAgassi]

I remember seeing a match between Tracy and Jaeger at Easborne in the final one year. It really showed the differences between the two. Jaeger seemed to have alot more variety, alot more creativity, more all court ability, and even as much or at times more power than the hard hitting groundstroker Austin. However Tracy still crushed her since she continued playing her straightforward baseline game with accuracy, pace and depth, and utmost focus, and Jaeger just seemed to be in and out of focus and have too many options for shots she didnt know what to do with.

One could also use that analogy to compare Sabatini and Zvereva to Graf, Seles, and Sanchez Vicario for instance, particularly Sanchez who most believe when all three (Sabatini, Zvereva, Sanchez) were coming up to be less talented yet ended up being infinitely better and having the better career by a long ways than those two (even if aided by the Seles stabbing).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

If you could have taken Jaeger's brain and put in with Austin's body and will, you have a real Wimbledon contender. Jeger was much more willing to improvise, volley and be tactically flexible.

I always believed Andrea had something special, while Austin was just a ground stroke machine.jaeger is certainly one of the most underperforming players I´ve seen in the women´s ranks ( she was like a women´s Mecir)

[kiki]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

I think you hit the key word here..."flexible" as it relates to Tracy. Her mental strength was rare. That's why I wouldn't give up on her too easily. There's no doubt that the bad bounces on grass courts would've been a real challenge for Tracy because she was so mechanical. Evert was much better at being able to handle those types of things.

I think Tracy would've remained a solid #3 in the game at least until the oversized racquet era. I don't think she would've won a ton of slams. But she could've cut into the Martina/Chris strangle hold more often than Hana did.

I also agree about Andrea. The only thing that stopped Andrea from winning at least one or two slams in her career was Andrea herself, mentally and physically. She had so much talent and the ability to play from all over the court. Neither she nor Hana had that one key element that seperated them from Tracy and the others and that's hating to lose more than they love to win. I think that's absolutely essential to being on the higher level that both failed to reach.

I agree on the basic concepts but...Austin won 2 GS and Mandlikova won 4...

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by kiki

I agree on the basic concepts but...Austin won 2 GS and Mandlikova won 4...

That is because Mandlikova had a decade plus long career and Austin was retired at 20 (and physically finished at 18 ). Austin had she stayed healthy would have most likely had the better career, despite that Hana is the more talented player. Even as it is many would rate Austin higher all time than Hana since she was World #1 in the Evert/Navratilova era, ended two years at #2 over Navratilova, was WTA Player of the Year in 1980, and won events like the Toyota and Avon Championships which were bigger than the Australian and French Opens in the WTA until around 1982 or 1983 while Hana non won a Season Championship event. Thus plus winning the U.S Open 2 times in 3 years which shows a brief semi dominance of the event, which Hana never had anywhere. I remember some major magazines doing some all time lists over the last decade and while I dont have them on me right now, I do remember Austin was placed higher than Hana in each one, some very slightly, some by a bigger margin. ACE in the late 90s came up with a top 50 women players all time list and had Tracy at #14 I believe an Mandlikova at #27 (Martina was #1 over Graf at #2).

Anyway 2 of Hana's 4 slam wins Tracy while at the top of the game didnt play which given their relative position in the womens game and head to head encounters at the time was most likely to Hana's gain (although they were on grass and clay, so who knows, I guess this is where the thread title comes into play).

[BTURNER]

No doubt about Austin's best surface, but where would Jaeger have gotten her majors/ I think her RG final is a bit deceptive. My gut instinct is that she, like Hingis, would find more ultimate favor on hard or grass.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

That is because Mandlikova had a decade plus long career and Austin was retired at 20 (and physically finished at 18 ). Austin had she stayed healthy would have most likely had the better career, despite that Hana is the more talented player. Even as it is many would rate Austin higher all time than Hana since she was World #1 in the Evert/Navratilova era, ended two years at #2 over Navratilova, was WTA Player of the Year in 1980, and won events like the Toyota and Avon Championships which were bigger than the Australian and French Opens in the WTA until around 1982 or 1983 while Hana non won a Season Championship event. Thus plus winning the U.S Open 2 times in 3 years which shows a brief semi dominance of the event, which Hana never had anywhere. I remember some major magazines doing some all time lists over the last decade and while I dont have them on me right now, I do remember Austin was placed higher than Hana in each one, some very slightly, some by a bigger margin. ACE in the late 90s came up with a top 50 women players all time list and had Tracy at #14 I believe an Mandlikova at #27 (Martina was #1 over Graf at #2).

Anyway 2 of Hana's 4 slam wins Tracy while at the top of the game didnt play which given their relative position in the womens game and head to head encounters at the time was most likely to Hana's gain (although they were on grass and clay, so who knows, I guess this is where the thread title comes into play).

I agree Austin´s season end championship wins place, at least, at the same level if not higher than Hana´s 2 AO wins.I admit it.And she was menthally stronger.Possibly a combination of Hana´s talent and physichal strength and Tracy´s will and menthal steadiness would have made a bigger player than Navratilova,Evert, might be Graf,Court...