Tennis Channel's "100 Greatest of All Time"

[The-Champ]

According to Michael Stich (paraphrasing), Sampras had better opponents and therefore had more difficulties winning majors than Federer. In other words, Federer is playing in a weak era.

from 02:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QslTiKVyh2s

 

[kiki]

According to Michael Stich (paraphrasing), Sampras had better opponents and therefore had more difficulties winning majors than Federer. In other words, Federer is playing in a weak era.

from 02:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QslTiKVyh2s

Stich was always a very inteligent man.

 

[The-Champ]

Stich was always a very inteligent man.

and don't forget the flawless serve.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Does anyone know where the episodes for this series can be downloaded? I'm finding it nigh on impossible to find anything other than 100-71. It's becoming annoying now.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

According to Michael Stich (paraphrasing), Sampras had better opponents and therefore had more difficulties winning majors than Federer. In other words, Federer is playing in a weak era.

from 02:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QslTiKVyh2s

Phillopousos also said in that video that Nadal is better than ever, i.e. peakiest of peak.

Also Sampras looks like a Sasquatch in that video.

 

[Big G]

Pancho Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver

Let's keep it simple. To make comparison use year's at No. 1. Gonzalez had almost 10. Laver 5 and Rosewall only 3. Rosewall was not a very dominant champion player. He was great though but probably not a GOAT candidate if you use being No. 1 as criteria. Gonzalez beat Rosewall very badly in '57 and '60. After two retirements, at 36 Gonzalez had winning record against Laver in 1964. At Wembly when 38 Gonzalez beat Rosewall and then took 10 minute and beat Laver 10-8 in the 3rd. He beat Laver twice when 42. He beat Connors at 43 in finals of LA Open and on his 44th Bday. How many other players could do that?

 

[TMF]

TMF, indulge in this for second. Because it was a very unique (not a tennis related injury or burnout) and psychologically horrific even for her where do you rank Seles if she had not been stabbed. when she was stabbed she took time off because she was in fear and grew three inches. When she came back all the angles were different due to her growth spurt, plus the weight gain caused by the trauma. If this had not happened she would have naturally adjusted to the increase in height she would have not noticed it. So she could no longer beat Steffi. Would you have her top 5? Top 3?

It was one of the most tragic event in tennis history, but I wouldn't use this argument to bump up Seles ranking. The problem here is we are dealing with hypothetical reasoning, in contrast to Graf who actually have accomplished for all of those years. What's worse is if we are going to bump up Seles ranking, then we have to diminish Graf achievements(lower her ranking), which certainly isn't fair to her. Plus, moving Seles up to #3, Chris, King and Williams also take a hit, where they are unfairly penalize because of the tragic stab incident. I'm not saying had the stab never happened, Seles wouldn't have a better career, but I believe the most objective way to judge the player's greatness is the actual fact...the player who actually played and deserve all the achievement. The if/woulda/shoulda argument never happened. Could you imagine had Federer retired after 2007? Nadal would at least still be sitting on 10 slams. Even the most objective fans could argue Nadal wouldn't have won a career slam had Fed still hang around. But the truth is, he did win the career slam. The hypothetical argument may sound like a strong case, but the outcome doesn't necessary be true.

This is the same problem I had with the old-timers arguing for Rosewall. They want to give him more credits because he was banned for years without competing at the slam events. Giving him credits will be at the expense of other players...like the Roche, Emerson, or Santana who actually compete and won those slams. Now had Rosewall was an amateur instead of a pro, he could compete at the slam during 1957-1967. But not competing in the pro means all of his pro majors titles would seize exist today. You can't have both way.

Lastly, TTC's ranking are based on achievements and performance. They don't based on who's a better player or who would have beat who at their peak. And I think that's the reason why Fed, Laver, Graf and Martina are at right at top simply they have the best results.

While you may not agree with me, it's still a great question. Some fans like to defend other players like the BS weak/strong era argument, had he/she was more commited, too many injuries or not played long enough, etc. I don't believe in all of these(although sometime I'm guilty of it when dealing with Fed's detractors) and dealt with what they have actually done. If you're a great player, show me the numbers. A player like Gretzky or Rice wasn't #1 player for nothing. They produce great numbers.

 

[merlinpinpin]

According to Michael Stich (paraphrasing), Sampras had better opponents and therefore had more difficulties winning majors than Federer. In other words, Federer is playing in a weak era.

from 02:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QslTiKVyh2s

Of course, the fact that Stich *was* one of these opponents makes it all so very objective, doesn't it?

 

[TMF]

Of course, the fact that Stich *was* one of these opponents makes it all so very objective, doesn't it?

Didn't Sergi Bruguera once said Fed is 10X better than Sampras ?

And since both Stich & Sergi was playing in the same era as Sampras, one can say Sergi has more merit.

 

[Carsomyr]

Didn't Sergi Bruguera once said Fed is 10X better than Sampras ?

And since both Stich & Sergi was playing in the same era as Sampras, one can say Sergi has more merit.

I remember him saying that. A pretty unusual opinion in all honesty. Not that I don't think Federer is better than Sampras, but for a guy who has a winning record over Sampras to say it?

 

[The-Champ]

Phillopousos also said in that video that Nadal is better than ever, i.e. peakiest of peak.


Also Sampras looks like a Sasquatch in that video.

So what? Phillipousis is entitled to his views, just like Stich.

 

[kiki]

Didn't Sergi Bruguera once said Fed is 10X better than Sampras ?

And since both Stich & Sergi was playing in the same era as Sampras, one can say Sergi has more merit.

Sergi didn´t like Pete too much...just the other way round, too...

 

[Deleted member 21996]

i wonder what Dominik Hrbaty and Paul Haarhuis have to say about this...

 

[fed_rulz]

I remember him saying that. A pretty unusual opinion in all honesty. Not that I don't think Federer is better than Sampras, but for a guy who has a winning record over Sampras to say it?

Definition of SELF-SERVING

: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others


Stich was my fav. player from the 90s, but given that he has never played Federer, and has such an assertive opinion, I can only conclude that he is subtly tooting his own horn..

 

[cknobman]

Watched the final episode and gotta say it was pretty sad seeing the interview with Pete Sampras.

He was obviously super pissed about being #5 on the list and even more pissed Roger was #1.
He kept clinging to the Nadal matchup issue being a reason Fed should not be #1 and how no one dominated him then went on to reluctantly say things like "I guess its hard to argue with 16 slams".

Pete show some class, jesus chrissakes already, you used to be my favorite player!!!!!!

I would also like to note that at this point in time I think it was poor form to put Nadal above Borg.

 

[pmerk34]

Watched the final episode and gotta say it was pretty sad seeing the interview with Pete Sampras.

He was obviously super pissed about being #5 on the list and even more pissed Roger was #1.
He kept clinging to the Nadal matchup issue being a reason Fed should not be #1 and how no one dominated him then went on to reluctantly say things like "I guess its hard to argue with 16 slams".

Pete show some class, jesus chrissakes already, you used to be my favorite player!!!!!!

I would also like to note that at this point in time I think it was poor form to put Nadal above Borg.

Nadal doesn't belong in the top 10 IMO

 

[namelessone]

I would also like to note that at this point in time I think it was poor form to put Nadal above Borg.

I agree.

I'm a Nadal fan but at this moment Borg has one more slam over Rafa and is still Rafa's equal on clay.

There are many variables in deciding who is better than who but the slam count has to matter most IMO.

 

[mattennis]

Watched the final episode and gotta say it was pretty sad seeing the interview with Pete Sampras.

He was obviously super pissed about being #5 on the list and even more pissed Roger was #1.
He kept clinging to the Nadal matchup issue being a reason Fed should not be #1 and how no one dominated him then went on to reluctantly say things like "I guess its hard to argue with 16 slams".

Pete show some class, jesus chrissakes already, you used to be my favorite player!!!!!!

I would also like to note that at this point in time I think it was poor form to put Nadal above Borg.

hahaha Pete is taking all this too seriously. He is a self-conceited poor old man.

 

[li0scc0]

hahaha Pete is taking all this too seriously. He is a self-conceited poor old man.

He was a jerk as a player, and now a jerk when retired.
And he was my favorite at the time!

 

[mattennis]

Yes, he is looking like a jerk, seriously.

He was one of the best ever, he knows it, everybody knows it, why does he care so much that many people put Federer or Laver above him? Why does he care so much what other people think?

This poll is just a game, an entertainment. Don't take these things THAT seriously man. What a jerk!

 

[pmerk34]

Yes, he is looking like a jerk, seriously.

He was one of the best ever, he knows it, everybody knows it, why does he care so much that many people put Federer or Laver above him? Why does he care so much what other people think?

This poll is just a game, an entertainment. Don't take these things THAT seriously man. What a jerk!

I thought he enjoyed tennis up until about 1998-1999. then unless he was beating Agassi he was miserable it did seem

 

[Fed Kennedy]

Pete: awesome game but a choad

 

[mattennis]

Around 1998 he was clearly burnt out, that is why he did not enter Australian Open'99, he wanted to take a break.

In fact I truly believe that Agassi's great come back to the top in 1999 was the only thing that motivated Pete to compete hard again, and that is why Pete had that amazing summer of 1999 winning 23 consecutive matches till the serious back injury that took him out of the US OPEN and the rest of that year.

But after he won Wimbledon'00, achieving the GS record, he looked totally miserable out there, like part of him didn't want to be there training and competing.

Annacone spoke about this recently, that at 28,29,30 Sampras was totally burnt out (mentally) because of the way he internalized things (the competition, the stress, the press, the problems in life...) whereas he (Annacone) was kind of surprise to see how thrilled and passionate was still Federer at that age about tennis.

And you can see even today, Federer, at 30 is still in a fabulous physical and mental shape, still loving the game so much.

That is a fantastic thing of Roger. He still loves to compete at the highest level.

 

[pmerk34]

Around 1998 he was clearly burnt out, that is why he did not enter Australian Open'99, he wanted to take a break.

In fact I truly believe that Agassi's great come back to the top in 1999 was the only thing that motivated Pete to compete hard again, and that is why Pete had that amazing summer of 1999 winning 23 consecutive matches till the serious back injury that took him out of the US OPEN and the rest of that year.

But after he won Wimbledon'00, achieving the GS record, he looked totally miserable out there, like part of him didn't want to be there training and competing.

Annacone spoke about this recently, that at 28,29,30 Sampras was totally burnt out (mentally) because of the way he internalized things (the competition, the stress, the press, the problems in life...) whereas he (Annacone) was kind of surprise to see how thrilled and passionate was still Federer at that age about tennis.

And you can see even today, Federer, at 30 is still in a fabulous physical and mental shape, still loving the game so much.

That is a fantastic thing of Roger. He still loves to compete at the highest level.

And most of Feds recent Grand Slams losses were very close. he's still a major threat everywhere he plays.

 

[mattennis]

And most of Feds recent Grand Slams losses were very close. he's still a major threat everywhere he plays.

Absolutely!

 

[fed_rulz]

Watched the final episode and gotta say it was pretty sad seeing the interview with Pete Sampras.

He was obviously super pissed about being #5 on the list and even more pissed Roger was #1.
He kept clinging to the Nadal matchup issue being a reason Fed should not be #1 and how no one dominated him then went on to reluctantly say things like "I guess its hard to argue with 16 slams".

Pete show some class, jesus chrissakes already, you used to be my favorite player!!!!!!

I would also like to note that at this point in time I think it was poor form to put Nadal above Borg.

Exactly! It cracks me up when Petetards refer to Pete as "classy" -- his "10-slams" remark directed at Rafter should've been proof enough that classy he was not. Then his not-so-subtle digs at Federer after Federer broke his GS record (h2h vs Nadal, claiming he had tougher competition when asked to compare eras -- this during one of his 3 exhibitions with Roger in 2007) left no doubt in my mind that he was a sore loser. He actually had me fooled during wimby 09 with nice remarks on Roger breaking his record, but a few days later, he revealed his true thoughts on the subject.

Funny thing is, I've seen Pete refer to himself as "classy" in interviews ("I've always conducted myself with class...blah blah").

Disclaimer: I haven't watched the Sampras clip that is referenced here; I'm merely observing that Pete's facade of being "classy" is just plain BS, and is not surprising at all.

 

[blinkinrogue]

justine should be slightly above venus, winning 3/4 slams and reaching each GS final at least twice, something not many of her competitors managed to do so far, all doing this in a relatively shorter career....

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

20-11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-SJkqWcOhA

10 - 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuvymzBTVDo

 

[kiki]

I agree.

I'm a Nadal fan but at this moment Borg has one more slam over Rafa and is still Rafa's equal on clay.

There are many variables in deciding who is better than who but the slam count has to matter most IMO.

and Borg retired at 25...Nadal is 26 this year, so...

 

[cknobman]

Yesterday was yet another example of why Borg should 100% be higher than Nadal on the list.

Nadals poor etiquette is pathetic, habitual, and a disgrace.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yesterday was yet another example of why Borg should 100% be higher than Nadal on the list.

Nadals poor etiquette is pathetic, habitual, and a disgrace.

Borg had to change his game completely to adapt from a clay court to faster surfaces like hard courts/grass courts (especially for Wimbledon).

Nadal doesn't have to do that as the speed of hard and grass courts have been slowed down which allows him to win playing his usual clay tennis.

Fact.

 

[cknobman]

Borg had to change his game completely to adapt from a clay court to faster surfaces like hard courts/grass courts (especially for Wimbledon).

Nadal doesn't have to do that as the speed of hard and grass courts have been slowed down which allows him to win playing his usual clay tennis.

Fact.

???

I think you missed the point of my post.

My post was in regards to Nadals MTO right before Nishikori served to stay in the first set. It was a blatant **** poor attempt to throw off his opponents concentration.
Then you had excessive time in between points, so much so that TTC started showing how long it was on TV.

Yeah Nadals leg started bothering him so bad he had to take a MTO for it right after he holds serve to go up in the first set and right before Kei has to serve to stay in it????? LMAO! Then after the MTO he comes out running like a jack rabbit on meth with absolutely no indications of a "problem".

Nadal is a fracking cheater(rule bender at the very least). A cheater should never be higher than someone like Borg.

 

[tennis_pro]

???

I think you missed the point of my post.

My post was in regards to Nadals MTO right before Nishikori served to stay in the first set. It was a blatant **** poor attempt to throw off his opponents concentration.
Then you had excessive time in between points, so much so that TTC started showing how long it was on TV.

Yeah Nadals leg started bothering him so bad he had to take a MTO for it right after he holds serve to go up in the first set and right before Kei has to serve to stay in it????? LMAO! Then after the MTO he comes out running like a jack rabbit on meth with absolutely no indications of a "problem".

Nadal is a fracking cheater(rule bender at the very least). A cheater should never be higher than someone like Borg.

I agree, just threw in my 2 cents on why I also think Borg should be higher than Nadal on the list.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Nadal, unfortunately, is a cheater. His MTO timings are extremely questionable. This has always been the way and will continue to be the way. Nobody desires the victory more desperately than Nadal, perhaps in the history of tennis. That's how it is. Nadal must win.

 

[TMF]

I agree.

I'm a Nadal fan but at this moment Borg has one more slam over Rafa and is still Rafa's equal on clay.

There are many variables in deciding who is better than who but the slam count has to matter most IMO.

It's not about who's the better player at their best. The criteria is based on achievements and performance for the entire career. Borg has the edge with one more slam, but there's more area to look into....


PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribuition to tennis)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeBui1DoQ-4

 

[TMF]

and Borg retired at 25...Nadal is 26 this year, so...

This is not about achievements at a specific age, but their oveall achievements. I don't care if a player played only 5 yrs, 10yrs, or if Borg retired at 20. Just go by their entire career.

 

[namelessone]

???

I think you missed the point of my post.

My post was in regards to Nadals MTO right before Nishikori served to stay in the first set. It was a blatant **** poor attempt to throw off his opponents concentration.
Then you had excessive time in between points, so much so that TTC started showing how long it was on TV.

Yeah Nadals leg started bothering him so bad he had to take a MTO for it right after he holds serve to go up in the first set and right before Kei has to serve to stay in it????? LMAO! Then after the MTO he comes out running like a jack rabbit on meth with absolutely no indications of a "problem".

Nadal is a fracking cheater(rule bender at the very least). A cheater should never be higher than someone like Borg.

Trust me, regardless of what you think about Nadal and his "cheating" ways, if he makes it to 12 slams(especially with another RG), most tennis historians will put him above Borg. These rankings tend to favor slamcount above all.

 

[TMF]

Trust me, regardless of what you think about Nadal and his "cheating" ways, if he makes it to 12 slams(especially with another RG), most tennis historians will put him above Borg.

Yeah but Borg will be remember as a true class, repected champion.

I'm not taking any side, but trying to separate the debate between tennis accomplishments and a person's character(on & off court).

 

[namelessone]

Yeah but Borg will be remember as a true class, repected champion.

And I assure you that for most people Nadal will remain in the same light. Outside of the haters he has here, he has a huge fan following and is very respected in the tennis establishment. He's no Rios no matter how many people try to paint him that way.

 

[Monsieur_DeLarge]

My own opinions from a cursory glance:

• Pancho Gonzales' place on the list is indicative of why slavish reliance on slam counts can lead you down the wrong path. Clearly, he should be higher, even if his lack of numbers would stop him getting a top ten position.
• Becker ahead of Perry? Perry has more slams overall, more consecutive Wimbledon wins, and a career slam. All despite a much smaller window of opportunity because of turning pro. Don't get that one at all, given the poll's criteria.
• 6-10 are suspect. I think I'd order them Tilden, Budge, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, and not all of them would keep their top ten spot. Especially given...
• ...Rosewall at 13?! Harrumph.
• Nadal ahead of Borg? Rafa has the career slam, but in the '70s the status of the Aussie made that almost a non-goal. Bjorn has pretty much all the other important records in his favour (slam count, five wins at two different slams, longer at #1, three FO-W doubles to two, YEC titles). They're close, yes, but I really can't see a way of giving Nadal primacy based on the given criteria.

The top three... I wouldn't agree with (I put Laver first for his singular double CYGS), but there's certainly a case for both guys. Unfortunately for Pete, Federer's taken most of his records, and the two big ones he hasn't (overall W titles, overall weeks at #1) are mitigated by his greater consecutive successes at both. I think Sampras has to be no higher than #3.


Regards,
MDL

 

[Carsomyr]

I agree.

I'm a Nadal fan but at this moment Borg has one more slam over Rafa and is still Rafa's equal on clay.

There are many variables in deciding who is better than who but the slam count has to matter most IMO.

I don't think Slams are even the most relevant criteria; Borg was the best player in the world, either by rankings or journo consensus, 3 or 4 times ('78-80 for sure, possibly '77 as well). Nadal has thus-far been the best player in the world only twice.

 

[mcenroefan]

Fed was arguably ranked too high.

Nadal was definitely ranked too high.

Nole was definitely ranked too low.

 

[Fedex]

if federer aint no.1 this is a BS list

You read these things called numbers and letters and next to no.1 is Federer.

 

[mcenroefan]

Borg had to change his game completely to adapt from a clay court to faster surfaces like hard courts/grass courts (especially for Wimbledon).

Nadal doesn't have to do that as the speed of hard and grass courts have been slowed down which allows him to win playing his usual clay tennis.

Fact.

I agree completely.

 

[cknobman]

Nole was definitely ranked too low.

Why do you think Nole was ranked too low?

 

[TMF]

You read these things called numbers and letters and next to no.1 is Federer.

They are just bitter because the experts ranked their favorite player lower than they expected.

 

[kiki]

My own opinions from a cursory glance:

• Pancho Gonzales' place on the list is indicative of why slavish reliance on slam counts can lead you down the wrong path. Clearly, he should be higher, even if his lack of numbers would stop him getting a top ten position.
• Becker ahead of Perry? Perry has more slams overall, more consecutive Wimbledon wins, and a career slam. All despite a much smaller window of opportunity because of turning pro. Don't get that one at all, given the poll's criteria.
• 6-10 are suspect. I think I'd order them Tilden, Budge, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, and not all of them would keep their top ten spot. Especially given...
• ...Rosewall at 13?! Harrumph.
• Nadal ahead of Borg? Rafa has the career slam, but in the '70s the status of the Aussie made that almost a non-goal. Bjorn has pretty much all the other important records in his favour (slam count, five wins at two different slams, longer at #1, three FO-W doubles to two, YEC titles). They're close, yes, but I really can't see a way of giving Nadal primacy based on the given criteria.

The top three... I wouldn't agree with (I put Laver first for his singular double CYGS), but there's certainly a case for both guys. Unfortunately for Pete, Federer's taken most of his records, and the two big ones he hasn't (overall W titles, overall weeks at #1) are mitigated by his greater consecutive successes at both. I think Sampras has to be no higher than #3.


Regards,
MDL

Good post.I fully agree with your opinions.

 

[NadalAgassi]

jeez, what a joke ..... Hana Mandlikova had to go through BOTH evert and navratilova to win slams and that was/is probably the most toughest thing to do in the WTA history ...

Except she didnt have to except for once. The 1980 Australian Open was as usual back then a hugely depleted field. Evert and Austin, by far the two best players in the World at the time skipped it. Most of the top 10 then. A fat Navratilova in her worst slump ever, who had recently dropped to #5 in the World, showed up but went out before the final. Mandlikova won the title by beating Jausovec and Turnbull in the semis and final.

At the 1981 French, Mandlikova had had a huge win over Evert in the semis, but then beat Syliva Hanika in the final. Austin missed that years French, as did some of the other top players. Navratilova was still in her major slump and no threat, going out easily to Hanika in the quarters.

The 1985 U.S Open is where Hana did go through both Evert and Martina to win her slam but it was her only ever time doing so. Evert was also 30 by then.

The 1987 Australian Open was missing both Graf and Evert. Graf would have been by far Hana's worst opponent to face by then including Navratilova and Evert, and her chances of beating Graf had she played would have been almost none. She did post a win over Navratilova in the final, but it was at the start of a 6 month tournament drought for Martina.

Outside of Evert and Navratilova the mid 80s were the worst field in WTA history, apart from possibly the 2010-2011 field. The top 10 was full of obscure and pedestrian players who couldnt be top 30 in many other times.


She still probably ranks over Mauresmo only since 4 slams to 2 is hard to overcome. Then again Mauresmo won many more Premier type events outside the slams, won the WTA Championships, was #1 in the World, so it is close between them. If they played in their mutual primes Mauresmo probably would have been higher ranked most of the time as she was much more consistent. They should be closer than their ranks are here. Mauresmo was underrated since she should be above someone like Capriati. Mauresmo's vastly superior stats everywhere else and her superior overall play should overcome Capriati's 1 extra slam.

Hingis is light years above Mandlikova, the two arent even close. The list agreees as well, ranking Hana 13 female spots below Hingis, and rightfully so.

 

[pmerk34]

Except she didnt have to except for once. The 1980 Australian Open was as usual back then a hugely depleted field. Evert and Austin, by far the two best players in the World at the time skipped it. Most of the top 10 then. A fat Navratilova in her worst slump ever, who had recently dropped to #5 in the World, showed up but went out before the final. Mandlikova won the title by beating Jausovec and Turnbull in the semis and final.

At the 1981 French, Mandlikova had had a huge win over Evert in the semis, but then beat Syliva Hanika in the final. Austin missed that years French, as did some of the other top players. Navratilova was still in her major slump and no threat, going out easily to Hanika in the quarters.

The 1985 U.S Open is where Hana did go through both Evert and Martina to win her slam but it was her only ever time doing so. Evert was also 30 by then.

The 1987 Australian Open was missing both Graf and Evert. Graf would have been by far Hana's worst opponent to face by then including Navratilova and Evert, and her chances of beating Graf had she played would have been almost none. She did post a win over Navratilova in the final, but it was at the start of a 6 month tournament drought for Martina.

Outside of Evert and Navratilova the mid 80s were the worst field in WTA history, apart from possibly the 2010-2011 field. The top 10 was full of obscure and pedestrian players who couldnt be top 30 in many other times.


She still probably ranks over Mauresmo only since 4 slams to 2 is hard to overcome. Then again Mauresmo won many more Premier type events outside the slams, won the WTA Championships, was #1 in the World, so it is close between them. If they played in their mutual primes Mauresmo probably would have been higher ranked most of the time as she was much more consistent. They should be closer than their ranks are here. Mauresmo was underrated since she should be above someone like Capriati. Mauresmo's vastly superior stats everywhere else and her superior overall play should overcome Capriati's 1 extra slam.

Hingis is light years above Mandlikova, the two arent even close. The list agreees as well, ranking Hana 13 female spots below Hingis, and rightfully so.

That's no excuse. Evert was still a great player in 1985.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Fine, it doesnt detract from my overall point. Hana only beat Chris and Martina back to back once to win a Slam. Only once did she even win a slam with both the top 2 players in the World at the time (which was only Chris and Martina at the time of 1 of her 4 slam wins anyway) even in the draw, and once neither of the top 2 and most of the top 10 not in it. The only period that was truly the era of Evert/Navratilova domination was 1982-1986 and Hana won exactly 1 slam, and went 3 years without reaching a slam final at one stretch. She had her most success in 1980 and 1981 when Tracy Austin was always at #1 or #2, and when 2 of the 4 slams were always depleted, 1 of them embarassingly so.

She is definitely weaker than Hingis, and overall Mauresmo had much more competition to try and win her slams than Hana did. Mauresmo played in the era Venus, Serena, Henin, Sharapova, Davenport, for awhile Hingis, were all at their best, and everyone played all 4 slams regularly.

One could easily argue Austin should be over Hana. In the late 70s and early 80s the Avon and Toyota Championships were considered bigger to the players, drew better fields, and were more the real slams than the Australian and French. Counting Wimbledon, U.S Open, and those two events, Austin won 5 of the then "big 4" events from aged 16 to 18 before her career was derailed with injury. In reality the Australian and French werent even part of the big 4 events at the time Hana won her first 2 slams, especialy the Australian, which would leave her with only 2 or 3 her whole career by comparision. Austin was also #1 in the World for a time over Evert and Navratilova, something Hana never came close to, and at only age 17 to boot.