PDA

View Full Version : Mary Pierce and Hana Mandlikova


MisterQ
Dec 10th, 2006, 04:45 PM
Continuing this off-season obsession with comparing players through history... :lol:

Mary Pierce and Hana Mandlikova are the only two multiple slam winners in the last 25 years who did not also make the No. 1 Ranking. For this reason, they are often overlooked. How would you place them historically among players with similar numbers of slams, such as:

Aranxta-Sanchez Vicario
Jennifer Capriati
Lindsay Davenport
Tracy Austin
Amelie Mauresmo
Maria Sharapova
Kim Clijsters

HANA MANDLIKOVA: 4 GS (2 Australian, 1 French, 1 USO)
4 GS Finals (2 Wimbledon, 2 U.S.)
1 WTA Championship Final
27 Singles Titles
Career High Singles Ranking: No. 3

MARY PIERCE: 2 GS (1 Australian, 1 French)
4 GS Finals (1 Australian, 2 French, 1 USO)
2 WTA Championship Finals
18 Singles Titles
Career High Ranking: No. 3

Nicolás89
Dec 10th, 2006, 04:59 PM
good comparison:worship: i was thinking the same about these two ladies but i was afraid to do a similar thread about it:lol:

i think that both have similar achievements for the more competitive age for mary and a evgranova age for hana (evgranova= graf + navratilova + evert and company:lol: ). hana have a better career tha mary:sad: but i hope for unforgettable 2008 for mary:bounce: so we will see:wavey:

laurie
Dec 10th, 2006, 09:19 PM
That's amazing that both you guys were thinking the same thing :D

That's something I never thought about but very interesting.

Silly question but when was Sanchez Vicario world number 1?

MisterQ
Dec 10th, 2006, 09:54 PM
That's amazing that both you guys were thinking the same thing :D

That's something I never thought about but very interesting.

Silly question but when was Sanchez Vicario world number 1?

:)

For 12 weeks total between February and June of 1995 --- it flip-flopped back and forth a few times between Graf and Sanchez-Vicario. Arantxa held both the French Open and US Open titles at that time.

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 10th, 2006, 10:05 PM
I don't agree with the comparison with Mary and Hana, because Hana accomplished much more professionally, sandwiched between two All-Time greats in the history of tennis.

Hana won more tournaments, twice as many majors and won those majors during a time when Chris and Martina dominated.

chris whiteside
Dec 10th, 2006, 10:10 PM
I couldn't begin to think what would happen if they were to meet playing at their best.

Hana was obviously the more consistent because Mary had so many lows but the few times she hit her peak she was awesome. But Hana was also an immensely talented all court player who was unfortunate to come along at the same time as Evert and Navratilova - Navratilova in particular I don't think liked to see her on the other side of the net.

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 10th, 2006, 10:11 PM
Navratilova in particular I don't think liked to see her on the other side of the net.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

MisterQ
Dec 10th, 2006, 10:56 PM
I don't agree with the comparison with Mary and Hana, because Hana accomplished much more professionally, sandwiched between two All-Time greats in the history of tennis.

Hana won more tournaments, twice as many majors and won those majors during a time when Chris and Martina dominated.

I can see why this came across as an attempt to compare the two players, but I didn't intend it as such. :) I meant it as an attempt to compare each of them with those No. 1 players I named above, if that is possible.

Morrissey
Dec 11th, 2006, 12:08 AM
Hana was definitely the superior talent compared to Mary Pierce. And Hana did amazingly well considering Hana was the ONLY woman in that Navratilova/Evert era that managed to actually WIN some slams. It is truly incredible but between 1981 to 1987 PRIOR to Graf's emergence only Tracy Austin and Hana managed to win slams other then Chrissy and Martina. Its shocking how dominant those two were in women's tennis. So Hana deserves credit especially for her greatest victory the 1985 US OPEN when Hana beat both Chrissy and Martina to win the US OPEN. It was such an incredible upset and a shocking result. Hana in my mind is a great champion that is similar in my mind to Sanchez Vicario. Hana managed to win 4 slams and made all the four grand slam finals. She's a better player and more consistent then Pierce.

MyskinaManiac
Dec 11th, 2006, 12:29 AM
The funny thing is, everyones talking about the emergence of players, various styles play which in your eyes seems incredible in terms of Hana's achievements and the dominence of two or three players in a particular era. However, Mary was wedged into every players worst nightmare in terms of being a legend. Mary started off having to contend with Graf, of which she faired well... we all remember that FO semi thrashing she delt to graf, the dominence of Vicario - the rivalry between these two was just great, the Hingis era which saw Hingis basically cleaning up everything for a year or two, the emergence of the WIlliams sisters and Davenport and recently the Belgians and Russians.

In recent time, tennis has changed in the womens sector to point where one can not even compare. 20 years ago players could have been on performance enhancing drugs for all we know. The game is more aggressive, fast and far more athletic.

Given the time of which Mary picked up the racket (which was 10 I believe) and the abusive father for which she had to deal with, I think Mary did pretty damn well. On paper Hana was a much better player.

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 11th, 2006, 01:37 AM
Given the time of which Mary picked up the racket (which was 10 I believe) and the abusive father for which she had to deal with, I think Mary did pretty damn well. On paper Hana was a much better player.
Hana had a very natural, graceful flow on-court which made her game appear to look very easy on the eyes.

Her movement was athletically surperb and she easily glided towards the net and attack when she had the opportunity.

Nothing she did on-court looked forced. It was as if she were born with a tennis racquet and ball in hand.