insideoutforehands
Semi-Pro
I am differentiating between greater and better as they can be two different things. I find these 3 ladies an interesting comparision. Sanchez and Mandlikova both have 4 slams. Neither ever managed a YE #1 but Sanchez did reach #1, and most regard her as the real #1 of 1994, even though the computer #1 is Graf. Austin has only 2 slams, but this was in the days of non focus on the Australian and French Opens, both which Austin didn't play in 79 or 80, her 2 best years (missed RG in 81, another strong year, but due to illness this time). She also was forced to retire at only 20 with back problems that basically ended her prime at only 17/18, and was at that point seen as a likely future ATG/probable double slam winner, although in hindsight that might be overreaching even had she not been forced into very early retirement by injury.
I think of the 3 Sanchez Vicario is by far the least talented. Definitely an overall overachiever who got the absolute most out of her abilities and potential, which is a major compliment btw. I think despite what a teen phenom Austin was, Mandlikova is probably the most naturally talented, even over Austin. Mind you Austin was by far the most likely of the 3 to have potential to be a dominant or semi dominant player (whether it is in the reality both faced of the Navratilova/Evert era, or a hypothetical in a vacuum in another era) as Mandlikova's mindset, consistency, and the sheer riskiness and almost flakiness of her game, would have never allowed that. She might have reached #1 at a couple points in a weak era, but never would sustain being even a semi dominant player either.
I do think Sanchez Vicario benefited greatly from the Seles stabbing. And to be clear I am not one of the Seles nutter blind fanboy fanatics like many of the ridiculous ones on this site, who think Seles was a lock to win anywhere from 20-30 slams without the stabbing. However she totally owned Sanchez throughout their careers, even post stabbing (granted Sanchez was already starting her own permanent tail off by the point they even began playing again in late 96), and Sanchez rose to #2 in the rankings likely only due to the absence of Seles, which led to much easier draws, paths, and aura to the other players minus Graf. She also is fortunate, with the combination of the aid of the Seles stabbing and timing of everyone/everything else that her only real obstacle for a few years is Graf who out of Graf, Hingis, Seles, Navratilova, all the greats she faced in her career, was by far her easiest match up for some reason. For a parallel it would be like if say Novotna had coincided her 97-98 peak and world #2 for a period where Seles (by far her easiest match up of the players I just listed) was her only real obstacle in a depth less time. Or Davenport's coincided with Hingis, which actually basically happened, but unfortunately for her now in a time of insanely high depth in the womens game, so still was only able to net 3 slams during those few years.
Austin rose to the top as a teen phenom, reaching the #1 ranking at one point in the time of fully prime Evert and Navratilova, who were both older and more experienced than her. Two of the strong female GOAT candidates. There is no way to downplay something like this. Beat prime Evert 5 times in a row at one point, and even with some losses at 14, and 1 loss in late 82 when she was already a shadow of herself, ended her career with a winning record against the great Chris Evert. Again there is no way to downplay how great a feat this is, and the sort of thing Mandlikova (her head to heads vs both Navratilova and Evert, and in fact Graf even if we end the series sometime in 87 when Graf wasn't even in her prime yet and Mandlikova still in hers) nor Sanchez (her head to heads vs Seles, Hingis, a very old Navratilova, and even her best match up Graf is still a lopsided losing one). For the record I honestly don't believe she would have ended her career with a winning record vs Evert, even if she had stayed healthy, had a long and glorious prime, and even with a winning record vs her as a teenager, but these are still super noteable facts in her favor compared to these other 2. She did win "only" 2 slams, but this was in the era there was only focus on Wimbledon and the US Open for a lot of players, and indeed she did not play a non Wimbledon/US Open until December 81 when her prime was basically already ending. Now in fairness Austin was never a particularly great grass courter, and even clay she is somewhat unproven, despite being the one to end Evert's 125 win streak on clay in 1979, so her chances of winning these 2 slams even had she played regularly are questionable. However in the context of that era events like the Avon and even Toyota Championships were really the 3rd or 4th biggest events, or atleast top 5 adding on the French Open, which puts Austin at the equivalent of more like 4 or 5 slams (all as a teenager before her prime/career basically being force ended) than 2.
Mandlikova as I said I believe is the most naturally talened of the group. She also had the bad luck of really hitting her best years at the height of the Evert/Navratilova dominance, where they both took their physical, mental, and even technical games to a higher level in response to each other (and also the challenge both Austin and Mandlikova, and briefly a super promising Andrea Jaeger). She still managed to win 4 slams and reach numerous other finals, even with her own inconsistency, and lack of disciplined shot selection and mental focus. With super impressive wins en route. Beating prime Evert on clay (Hana's own worst surface, although she is still excellent on it) to win RG 81. Sanchez, the actual clay specialist, who you would generally say is far above Hana on clay, has only one win her entire career at RG on par with that, over Graf in the 89 final, and that was a come from behind 7-5 in the 3rd after Graf choked serving for it vs Hana's straight sets win over an Evert, playing well enough around that time to crush Hana on grass weeks later, in 81. Beating Evert atleast close to her prime at Wimbledon 86 en route to the final. Beating prime Navratilova en route to the 80 US Open final, before losing to Evert in 3 sets. Beating prime Navratilova to win Australia 87. Beating Graf, not in her prime, but coming in on a long win streak including wins over prime Navratilova and Evert on clay, at RG 86. And some others that are only slightly less impressive than these, plus others I am sure I am forgetting. The one drawback is the Australian Open was a depleted slam at the time, even still up to 87, and that is where 2 of her 4 slam wins come. For instance in winning the 80 Australian Open, Navratilova was in the draw, and many other noteable players, but both Austin and Evert (top 2 at that exact point in time) were absent. While she did beat then #1 ranked Navratilova in the final, Evert and Graf were both absent from the 87 Australian Open. Not saying there isn't a good chance she still wins even in a full field those 2 years, but factually it was still a depleted slam even at that point, and where 2 of her 4 ultimately came.
I think of the 3 Sanchez Vicario is by far the least talented. Definitely an overall overachiever who got the absolute most out of her abilities and potential, which is a major compliment btw. I think despite what a teen phenom Austin was, Mandlikova is probably the most naturally talented, even over Austin. Mind you Austin was by far the most likely of the 3 to have potential to be a dominant or semi dominant player (whether it is in the reality both faced of the Navratilova/Evert era, or a hypothetical in a vacuum in another era) as Mandlikova's mindset, consistency, and the sheer riskiness and almost flakiness of her game, would have never allowed that. She might have reached #1 at a couple points in a weak era, but never would sustain being even a semi dominant player either.
I do think Sanchez Vicario benefited greatly from the Seles stabbing. And to be clear I am not one of the Seles nutter blind fanboy fanatics like many of the ridiculous ones on this site, who think Seles was a lock to win anywhere from 20-30 slams without the stabbing. However she totally owned Sanchez throughout their careers, even post stabbing (granted Sanchez was already starting her own permanent tail off by the point they even began playing again in late 96), and Sanchez rose to #2 in the rankings likely only due to the absence of Seles, which led to much easier draws, paths, and aura to the other players minus Graf. She also is fortunate, with the combination of the aid of the Seles stabbing and timing of everyone/everything else that her only real obstacle for a few years is Graf who out of Graf, Hingis, Seles, Navratilova, all the greats she faced in her career, was by far her easiest match up for some reason. For a parallel it would be like if say Novotna had coincided her 97-98 peak and world #2 for a period where Seles (by far her easiest match up of the players I just listed) was her only real obstacle in a depth less time. Or Davenport's coincided with Hingis, which actually basically happened, but unfortunately for her now in a time of insanely high depth in the womens game, so still was only able to net 3 slams during those few years.
Austin rose to the top as a teen phenom, reaching the #1 ranking at one point in the time of fully prime Evert and Navratilova, who were both older and more experienced than her. Two of the strong female GOAT candidates. There is no way to downplay something like this. Beat prime Evert 5 times in a row at one point, and even with some losses at 14, and 1 loss in late 82 when she was already a shadow of herself, ended her career with a winning record against the great Chris Evert. Again there is no way to downplay how great a feat this is, and the sort of thing Mandlikova (her head to heads vs both Navratilova and Evert, and in fact Graf even if we end the series sometime in 87 when Graf wasn't even in her prime yet and Mandlikova still in hers) nor Sanchez (her head to heads vs Seles, Hingis, a very old Navratilova, and even her best match up Graf is still a lopsided losing one). For the record I honestly don't believe she would have ended her career with a winning record vs Evert, even if she had stayed healthy, had a long and glorious prime, and even with a winning record vs her as a teenager, but these are still super noteable facts in her favor compared to these other 2. She did win "only" 2 slams, but this was in the era there was only focus on Wimbledon and the US Open for a lot of players, and indeed she did not play a non Wimbledon/US Open until December 81 when her prime was basically already ending. Now in fairness Austin was never a particularly great grass courter, and even clay she is somewhat unproven, despite being the one to end Evert's 125 win streak on clay in 1979, so her chances of winning these 2 slams even had she played regularly are questionable. However in the context of that era events like the Avon and even Toyota Championships were really the 3rd or 4th biggest events, or atleast top 5 adding on the French Open, which puts Austin at the equivalent of more like 4 or 5 slams (all as a teenager before her prime/career basically being force ended) than 2.
Mandlikova as I said I believe is the most naturally talened of the group. She also had the bad luck of really hitting her best years at the height of the Evert/Navratilova dominance, where they both took their physical, mental, and even technical games to a higher level in response to each other (and also the challenge both Austin and Mandlikova, and briefly a super promising Andrea Jaeger). She still managed to win 4 slams and reach numerous other finals, even with her own inconsistency, and lack of disciplined shot selection and mental focus. With super impressive wins en route. Beating prime Evert on clay (Hana's own worst surface, although she is still excellent on it) to win RG 81. Sanchez, the actual clay specialist, who you would generally say is far above Hana on clay, has only one win her entire career at RG on par with that, over Graf in the 89 final, and that was a come from behind 7-5 in the 3rd after Graf choked serving for it vs Hana's straight sets win over an Evert, playing well enough around that time to crush Hana on grass weeks later, in 81. Beating Evert atleast close to her prime at Wimbledon 86 en route to the final. Beating prime Navratilova en route to the 80 US Open final, before losing to Evert in 3 sets. Beating prime Navratilova to win Australia 87. Beating Graf, not in her prime, but coming in on a long win streak including wins over prime Navratilova and Evert on clay, at RG 86. And some others that are only slightly less impressive than these, plus others I am sure I am forgetting. The one drawback is the Australian Open was a depleted slam at the time, even still up to 87, and that is where 2 of her 4 slam wins come. For instance in winning the 80 Australian Open, Navratilova was in the draw, and many other noteable players, but both Austin and Evert (top 2 at that exact point in time) were absent. While she did beat then #1 ranked Navratilova in the final, Evert and Graf were both absent from the 87 Australian Open. Not saying there isn't a good chance she still wins even in a full field those 2 years, but factually it was still a depleted slam even at that point, and where 2 of her 4 ultimately came.
