Austin- how would she have done had her career not ended with injuries

[robertharris]

Even though she officialy retired in early 1984, one can say Tracy's career for all intents and purposes ended after the 81 season. She was never remotedly the same player after that. Years of serious injuries at such a young age already took its toll, and she really should have retired sooner, but understandably the inevitasble end of a promising career so young was something she couldn't bear to take.

How would she have done had her career not ended early with injuries and instead continued. In 1980 and 1981 many believed she was the best in the World, but she ended it #2 on the computer, narrowly behind Evert. She was over a somewhat slumping Navratilova who was #3 both years. WTA named her Player of the Year in 1980, and ITF probably would have named her as so in 1981 if Evert's best buddy Steve Flink was not in control of those rankings.

However would she have been able to keep up with a surging and GOATing Navratilova from 82-87. She likely would have done very well vs Chris from 82-84 when even in 79-81 she was regularly beating her, and Chris was if anything fading. Although the "pushed myself to the wall to get better and challenge Martina again" Chris from late 84-86 may have been a tougher opponent for her, depending how much Tracy had improved. Then she would have had to face a young pre prime but formidable Graf from 86-87, and a resurgent Hana from 85-87 too.

To a lesser extent you could also wonder about the 88-92 period where she still would have been in her 20s, but I don't think she would have matched up well at all with a peak Graf and peak Seles. Her serve even with advanced equipment and strength, would have been absolutely eaten alive by those two, and would have all but killed her chances even IF she could have hung with them from the baseline. So her chances for more time at #1 and more slams would likely have been 82-87. In theory 88-92 too, but again cant see her ever being competitive with Graf in 88-90 or Seles from 90-92 with that serve.

Her serve also would have been a big potential probably vs Navratilova who would likely even come in off Tracy's 1st serve given her ultra aggressive game plan and mentality, especialy while under Mike Estep from late 83-86. Evert has a great return of serve but doesn't generally rip winners off weak serves, especialy vs someone staying back on serve, so she would be more ok there.

 

[BTURNER]

I think there was a lot of problems in that game of hers, because she was basically a very limited player. I can't think of a single number one or former number one with so little versatility or raw talent. She was gritty, mentally tough, determined and strong but even those famous groundies had mechanical hitches. She has no variety off the ground, no volley to speak of, no overheard, no feel or touch, and although she moved very well, even that showed limited improvement. And that serve....uggg. I just don't think she matures well compared to virtually any of her contemporaries including Hana, Jaeger, Evert or Martina. I don't think she ever gets more than 6 or seven majors tops.

 

[robertharris]

Well I highly doubt Jaeger would have ever surpassed her. As for Hana she did not even get back to her 1980-first half of 81 level, let alone go beyond it, until late 85, and spent most of that 4 year window ranked below people like Shriver and Turnbull. Tracy was already firmly entrenched above her even back when Hana was really good in 80 and 81, so I doubt think she would have been much of an obstacle either.

 

[BTURNER]

Well I highly doubt Jaeger would have ever surpassed her. As for Hana she did not even get back to her 1980-first half of 81 level, let alone go beyond it, until late 85, and spent most of that 4 year window ranked below people like Shriver and Turnbull. Tracy was already firmly entrenched above her even back when Hana was really good in 80 and 81, so I doubt think she would have been much of an obstacle either.

I think Jaeger had far more potential for improvement and raw talent than Tracy. She lacked the desire. Hana had both talent and desire. She just needed a decent coach and some maturity like so many s/vers with so many options With Austin, I don't think there was much room for growth. She had those heavy groundies so many Evert clones had, but those were her only weapons, and they just couldn't take anyone to the next level in the eighties. Evert even from the early days of her career showed greater flexibility than Austin, places for her game to blossom in maturity. I never saw that in Austin.

 

[robertharris]

So you are saying Jaeger and Hana had more potential than Austin. That may be possible (although I would totally disagree on Jaeger, who I find nauseatingly overrated). Ultimately though despite this potential neither ever became close to as good a player as Tracy already was. Hana in brief spurts of 80-81 and 85-86 was I guess, but she never sustained it for a whole year. So Tracy would not have had to worry much about either, until Hanas resurgence in late 85.

 

[suwanee4712]

I think what Tracy had that Andrea and Hana (both had more game than Tracy) didn't was her fanatical intolerance for losing. Andrea and Hana didn't like losing, but both found it to be acceptable at times. This is what seperates BJK, Chris, Steffi, Monica, and Tracy from them. When you HATE losing more than you enjoy winning, that's as powerful of a weapin as a big forehand or devastating lob.

If you look at Hana's scores with Tracy, it's a lot closer than the 7-2 edge for Austin suggests. But there is that mental difference in Tracy's favor. That's why Hana's 82 French win was so big for Hana at the time. It's funny that people always remember Tracy's back injury that affected her the last few years, because Hana also had missed 4 months from the tour with her own back injury. That's also part of the reason why Hana had little left for Martina in the SF. Similar to beating Chris, beating Tracy was like climbing a mountain.

I enjoyed the thread about that mixed doubles tournament in 1980. It illustrated all you needed to know about Andrea and her skills. At 14, she was already hitting between the legs shot (never got why people thought it was so unique when Gaby did that) and she was taking on the guys on the opposing teams. According to BJK and Emerson, Andrea was outhitting Jimmy Arias and even Emmo himself. I know from some of the commenters here that they never saw that side of Andrea, but that's the part of her that so impressed me.

As good as they were though, Tracy was closer to the level of Martina and Chris than Andrea and Hana. Now could she stay in the top 3 and for how long? Those are the questions. Chris, physically, had more potential than Tracy. But Tracy would've always been tough on her. With Martina, the question would have been could she play Martina close often enough to disrupt her reign? Personally, I doubt it. However, Tracy could've remained viable about as long as Chris and Hana did.

 

[Goosehead]

folk forget that apart from the French open and wimby finals..that andrea jaeger was a 3rd set tiebreak away from the 1980 uso final..

....aged 15yrs 3months.:shock: :shock:..think about that single fact just on its own.

 

[hoodjem]

I was injured by watching Austin win the USO in 1979.

Moonball city!

 

[robertharris]

I will admit I do hate watching even prime Austin play. Such a boring player. Nothing but standard crosscourt and down the line groundstroke drills, except done in matches. Very powerful groundstrokes for the time, and lots of steadiness, complete with the moonballs at times. She was good at creating the angles too. Apart from that not much else to her game.

Jaeger was more interesting to watch but I think she was more a jack of all trades but master of none. There wasn't anything she did quite well enough to truly penetrate the real elite of the time, while Tracy had her one thing she did exceptionally well.

 

[Goosehead]

I was injured by watching Austin win the USO in 1979.

Moonball city!

yes I seen that on youtube..the moonballing was a joke.

they were trying to out moonball each other.

 

[kiki]

I think Jaeger had far more potential for improvement and raw talent than Tracy. She lacked the desire. Hana had both talent and desire. She just needed a decent coach and some maturity like so many s/vers with so many options With Austin, I don't think there was much room for growth. She had those heavy groundies so many Evert clones had, but those were her only weapons, and they just couldn't take anyone to the next level in the eighties. Evert even from the early days of her career showed greater flexibility than Austin, places for her game to blossom in maturity. I never saw that in Austin.

Indeed, Andrea is kinda Sabatini, extremely talented but lacked the will of Austin, who was a lesser player compared to her.Jaeger had an uncredible tennis maturity at a very tender age, she seemed to me like she was born with a racket in her hand.At 15-16 she knew more about the game than many seasoned players.Fantastic touch and different options for each baseline stroke.and could really do some dammage at the net, which Austin was totally unable too.

...and this has nothing to see with her being my second favourite player of the 80´s, just behind Hana ( her closest friend on the tour).I place Goolagong more in the 70´s in spite of that amazing 1980.

 

[kiki]

I think what Tracy had that Andrea and Hana (both had more game than Tracy) didn't was her fanatical intolerance for losing. Andrea and Hana didn't like losing, but both found it to be acceptable at times. This is what seperates BJK, Chris, Steffi, Monica, and Tracy from them. When you HATE losing more than you enjoy winning, that's as powerful of a weapin as a big forehand or devastating lob.

If you look at Hana's scores with Tracy, it's a lot closer than the 7-2 edge for Austin suggests. But there is that mental difference in Tracy's favor. That's why Hana's 82 French win was so big for Hana at the time. It's funny that people always remember Tracy's back injury that affected her the last few years, because Hana also had missed 4 months from the tour with her own back injury. That's also part of the reason why Hana had little left for Martina in the SF. Similar to beating Chris, beating Tracy was like climbing a mountain.

I enjoyed the thread about that mixed doubles tournament in 1980. It illustrated all you needed to know about Andrea and her skills. At 14, she was already hitting between the legs shot (never got why people thought it was so unique when Gaby did that) and she was taking on the guys on the opposing teams. According to BJK and Emerson, Andrea was outhitting Jimmy Arias and even Emmo himself. I know from some of the commenters here that they never saw that side of Andrea, but that's the part of her that so impressed me.

As good as they were though, Tracy was closer to the level of Martina and Chris than Andrea and Hana. Now could she stay in the top 3 and for how long? Those are the questions. Chris, physically, had more potential than Tracy. But Tracy would've always been tough on her. With Martina, the question would have been could she play Martina close often enough to disrupt her reign? Personally, I doubt it. However, Tracy could've remained viable about as long as Chris and Hana did.

Remember when 15 yrs old Jimmy Arias and Andrea Jaeger won the mixed doubles title at Roland Garros?

 

[jrepac]

Tracy had stellar skills....right up there with Chris Evert, minus the many years of play. If you think that's 3rd rate, not sure what tennis you may have been watching.

Hana's a very different sort of creature from Tracy. Incredible talent, but not as much focus, drive, etc. But, when she was on, she could make Martina look bad.

Andrea, I just don't think is up there with the others. A good player, just not of the same caliber/talent level.

 

[gully]

People think Nadal is fidgety! He got nuthin', nuthin' at all on Austin....

 

[AngieB]

I think there was a lot of problems in that game of hers, because she was basically a very limited player.

I feel that Tracy made the most of her game. She was a mental giant for such a young girl. US Open at 16 during the Evert-Navratlova era was amazing. I don't know of who else at the time could have ended Evert's clay court winning streak. Austin and Navratilova were the only two players that I think could ever get into Evert's head, if you will.

AngieB

 

[AngieB]

Remember when 15 yrs old Jimmy Arias and Andrea Jaeger won the mixed doubles title at Roland Garros?

God blessed Andrea that day.

AngieB

 

[suwanee4712]

Remember when 15 yrs old Jimmy Arias and Andrea Jaeger won the mixed doubles title at Roland Garros?

Yes I do! It was hoped to be a sign of things to come for both. There is a nice picture of Jimmy watching Andrea blow out her birthday candles during that French.

 

[kiki]

Tracy had stellar skills....right up there with Chris Evert, minus the many years of play. If you think that's 3rd rate, not sure what tennis you may have been watching.

Hana's a very different sort of creature from Tracy. Incredible talent, but not as much focus, drive, etc. But, when she was on, she could make Martina look bad.

Andrea, I just don't think is up there with the others. A good player, just not of the same caliber/talent level.

I agree.I never liked Tracy´s game but she needs to be credited for what she got, basically on guts and that incredible iron mind.As somebody said before, maybe yourself, she basically did the drills ON A MATCH and that is huge.

It would have been very interesting to see what would have happened between Mandlikova and Austin.yes, Tracy dominated till 82 but that FO quarterfinal in 82 could have changed everything - or maybe not-.

And even more interesting if Mandlikova and Jaeger both had really fulfilled their promises.I look at a potential clash between them and all I see is something probably more exciting than the great Evertilova´s great finals.

And finally, Andrea would have been up there if she had had the needed focus and health.Something went wrong with the three girls that should have challenged Evertilova in the 80´s and would have delayed Graf´s prominence at least till 1990 or so.Maybe injuries affected them when they were on their curve up.I think some of that may have been a decisive factor too.

Andrea,Hana and Tracy are just a living proof of how great the late 70´s-early 80´s were for women, because ( other than those one woman shows Hana displayed when you didn´t expect), as great as they were each one with their strengths and weaknesses, they could not sustain it for a long time.As I said, only Hana became a constant threat, if only when she wanted or decide to (she also beat Graf´s prime on clay).

 

[robertharris]

Hana's win over Graf on clay came in 1986, which was most definitely not Steffi Graf's prime. She had not even reached a slam final yet, and didn't even win her first pro tournament until that year. Even so Graf was on a 25 match win streak, and led 6-1, 5-4 in that match so it was still an impressive win. Evert was probably thrilled, as Graf probably would have defeated her in the semis (she had beaten Chris in straight sets on clay only weeks earlier) and won that years French Open had Hana not intervened. It was also to be Hana's only ever win over Steffi Graf.

Anyway on Jaeger I really think she is being overrated by some of you in this thread. 1983 was her peak tennis and even that year she was barely getting games from Martina and Chris. I think this post summed them up best, especialy Andrea:

Tracy had stellar skills....right up there with Chris Evert, minus the many years of play. If you think that's 3rd rate, not sure what tennis you may have been watching.

Hana's a very different sort of creature from Tracy. Incredible talent, but not as much focus, drive, etc. But, when she was on, she could make Martina look bad.

Andrea, I just don't think is up there with the others. A good player, just not of the same caliber/talent level

Sorry but I never saw a future #1 or all time great. Maybe she could have snuck out a slam at some point, had she stuck with it, but it would be super hard with Martina and Chris dominating for years to come, Hana returning to peak form in 85-87, and then Graf emerging.

I think people are saying she is better than Tracy since you just found her more fun to watch. I did not like Tracy's game at all and did find Andrea more fun to watch as she had more dimensions and creativity to her play, but that doesn't mean she was better. Austin was exceptionally effiecient at what she did well, and it simply added up to more than all of Andrea's dimensions and various options of her game did.

 

[kiki]

God blessed Andrea that day.

AngieB

Yes, such a talent with no major win, even a mixed doubles, would have been a demons act.

 

[kiki]

Hana's win over Graf on clay came in 1986, which was most definitely not Steffi Graf's prime. She had not even reached a slam final yet, and didn't even win her first pro tournament until that year. Even so Graf was on a 25 match win streak, and led 6-1, 5-4 in that match so it was still an impressive win. Evert was probably thrilled, as Graf probably would have defeated her in the semis (she had beaten Chris in straight sets on clay only weeks earlier) and won that years French Open had Hana not intervened. It was also to be Hana's only ever win over Steffi Graf.

Anyway on Jaeger I really think she is being overrated by some of you in this thread. 1983 was her peak tennis and even that year she was barely getting games from Martina and Chris. I think this post summed them up best, especialy Andrea:



Sorry but I never saw a future #1 or all time great. Maybe she could have snuck out a slam at some point, had she stuck with it, but it would be super hard with Martina and Chris dominating for years to come, Hana returning to peak form in 85-87, and then Graf emerging.

I think people are saying she is better than Tracy since you just found her more fun to watch. I did not like Tracy's game at all and did find Andrea more fun to watch as she had more dimensions and creativity to her play, but that doesn't mean she was better. Austin was exceptionally effiecient at what she did well, and it simply added up to more than all of Andrea's dimensions and various options of her game did.

Graf was a very top player in 86.No discussion about it, like it or not.

Jaeger played much better tennis in 80-81 than in 83.And she was handling Tracy,Evertilova and the rest ( except Hana) in those two years

 

[robertharris]

You said prime Graf though. Yes Graf was a top player in 1986, but that was most definitely not prime Graf. Nobody would say that. Navratilova was a top player in 1993 too, so was that prime Navratilova.

Jaeger was handling Evert in 80 and 81? Her only ever wins over Evert were in 1982 AFAIK, and her overall record vs her even in 80-82 is terrible. The only top player she has a close record vs is Hana. Jaeger was playing great in 1983, which is why she had risen to #3 in the World. She simply couldn't keep up with the continued improvement of Navratilova and Evert, despite being younger. The same is probably true of Austin to a degree, despite her injuries.

Navratilova was in a bad slump most of 1980 and 1981, and playing nowhere near the kind of tennis she would from 1982-1989 in her prime, or even as well as 1977-1979 or 1990-1993 in old age for that matter. Various books detail how during her relationship with Rita Mae Brown she was not nearly as focused on tennis as she should be, and she became extremely overweight and unfit during this period too, basically reverting back to the 1976 version of NaFatrilova. Still good on Andrea getting a few wins even then as even a bad Martina is very tough to beat and a win is a win. However the 83 Wimbledon final and 82 French Open finals indicate how she stacks up vs a prime Navratilova. Not a contest really. Whatever you think of Tracy's one dimensional game she would have atleast (in her prime form) put up a way better fight than that. I don't think I need to tell you what Jaeger's head to head vs Austin is either.


BTW I just checked and Jaeger was 0-6 vs Evert in 80/81, and 3-17 overall, about what I had thought it was. She lost their last 9 matches in a row, gaining a total of 1 set, and 41 games, for an average of 2.2 games per set.

 

[kiki]

Austin was like Hewitt.A limited - relatively- player with great hunger and great fighting spirit, which took her farer than ever expected.hurrahhh¡¡¡

 

[NLBwell]

I think there was a lot of problems in that game of hers, because she was basically a very limited player. I can't think of a single number one or former number one with so little versatility or raw talent. She was gritty, mentally tough, determined and strong but even those famous groundies had mechanical hitches. She has no variety off the ground, no volley to speak of, no overheard, no feel or touch, and although she moved very well, even that showed limited improvement. And that serve....uggg. I just don't think she matures well compared to virtually any of her contemporaries including Hana, Jaeger, Evert or Martina.

Sounds like she isn't much of a player

I don't think she ever gets more than 6 or seven majors tops.

Oh, OK.

 

[robertharris]

Hewitt did not overtake two all time greats in their prime to get to #1, or win 5 major events (I am counting the Avon and Toyota Championships as major events then, they were bigger than the Australian and French those years) by age 18. Hewitt like Austin was very limited, but unlike Austin he was just an outstanding defensive player. Austin was more an outstanding offensive baseline (while also having incredible steadiness and consistency) who could overpower virtually all her opponents, something Hewitt never could do.

 

[kiki]

Tracy owed so much of her success to Robert Landsdorp, the californian whose next gem would have been Pete Sampras.

The Austin family also holds a mixed doubles title at the All England.

 

[robertharris]

I like Tracy as a commentator better than a player. She is far superior to Evert or Navatilova. Evert was a good commentator when Bud Collins was in the booth with her, but once John got him booted, she became horrendous. She was so embarrassingly bad that she constantly got information on players wrong, match results that occurred the same year wrong, disrespected anyone outside her 2 or 3 favorite players, and used the same clichéd statements over and over. She also tried to cover many of her over the top and bold bad predictions by excessive pushing of a contradicting point during a match (eg- boasting Clijsters had no hope of winning more than a few games vs Capriati in the 2001 FO final than screaming out loud all match Capriati was so incredibly subpar when it became a tough 3 setter Capriati was lucky to win). She was so bad NBC finally fired her for Mary Carillo of all people in 2003, and she had to wait almost a whole decade before being given another chance by anyone.

We also had to hear about her supposably choking the 73 French open final to Court about 1000 times, and saying that almost no players win their first slam finals (completely untrue). It is amazing one of the best tactical minds in tennis history, if not the best, had the simplistic and close minded thinking and rational of a 5 year old just learning tennis when she was put into the booth.

 

[kiki]

If we just could stop time at 80-81, we still had the Evertilova duo severely tested by the likes of Hana and Tracy with Andrea and maybe Pam Shriver looming at a certain distance.Evonne had just won Wimbledon and King was still giving nightmares to both, Chris and Martina, specially at the AELTC grass.Wade was still tough, even not in her prime and the we had the exciting new american group led by Kathy Jordan, with Barbara Potter,Leslie Allen and Anne Smith who had an exciting, yet very unsteady S&V game.The aussies had Fromholtz,Turnbull and Reid, and also we had the very competitive Barker,Ruzici,Hanika,Jausovec,Bunge and Stevens.

Maybe the deepest quality and variety.Although, the 90´s were a bit better as a whole.

 

[Goosehead]

I like Tracy as a commentator better than a player. She is far superior to Evert or Navatilova. Evert was a good commentator when Bud Collins was in the booth with her, but once John got him booted, she became horrendous. She was so embarrassingly bad that she constantly got information on players wrong, match results that occurred the same year wrong, disrespected anyone outside her 2 or 3 favorite players, and used the same clichéd statements over and over. She also tried to cover many of her over the top and bold bad predictions by excessive pushing of a contradicting point during a match (eg- boasting Clijsters had no hope of winning more than a few games vs Capriati in the 2001 FO final than screaming out loud all match Capriati was so incredibly subpar when it became a tough 3 setter Capriati was lucky to win). She was so bad NBC finally fired her for Mary Carillo of all people in 2003, and she had to wait almost a whole decade before being given another chance by anyone.

We also had to hear about her supposably choking the 73 French open final to Court about 1000 times, and saying that almost no players win their first slam finals (completely untrue). It is amazing one of the best tactical minds in tennis history, if not the best, had the simplistic and close minded thinking and rational of a 5 year old just learning tennis when she was put into the booth.

McEnroe got bud Collins chucked off tv commentary

I thought they were friends :-? always matey in the youtube clips when I see then on, and he did that documentary on his early days as a pro.