PDA

View Full Version : Who was the better player: Hanna Mandlikova vs. Martina Hingis


VeeJJ
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:08 PM
This thread will be based on achievements, better games, potential, quality wins/opponents, and PEAK vs. PEAK.


Hanna Mandlikova

Career Win/Loss: 565/194

Career Titles: 27

Majors: 4 (2 AO, FO, USO)
Finalist: 4 (2 Wimbledon, 2 USO)
2nd Week Finishes at Majors: 29 (4 W, 4 F, 6 SF, 8 QF, 7 4R) out of 44 she contended

Weeks at #1: 0 (CRH #3)


Martina Hingis

Career Win/Loss: 548/133

Career Titles: 43

Majors: 5 (3 AO, Wimby, USO)
Finalist: 7 (3 AO, 2 FO, 2 USO)
2nd Week Finishes at Majors: 27 (5 W, 7 F, 7 SF, 5 QF, 3 4R) out of 37 she contended

Weeks at #1: 209



Discuss.
(I know at first look the obvious answer is Martina. But remember, the era that each of these woman played in makes a difference and is what I believe makes this a closer debate.)

Sombrerero loco
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:13 PM
are you fucking kidding me?
Martina Hingis is way better

Brad[le]y.
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:15 PM
Hana of course; competed in the 80s with Martina I dominating

VeeJJ
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:18 PM
^ This was a big point of mine. The Era she competed in makes her better, but just slightly. I can't sit here and say Hingis would have achieved what she had competing against Peak Nav, Evert, and Graf.

Nicolás89
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:18 PM
Hana, from what I've seen in videos, had a really good serve for her time, other than that Martina wins in every aspect to be discussed.

Sammo
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:35 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZN9gu6-CWic/TfzUgRQWwUI/AAAAAAAAFmE/BAZwiSi9g0U/s1600/poker_face%255B2%255D.jpg

Hana is my favourite player from the 80's but Martina plays in another league.

thrust
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:54 PM
^ This was a big point of mine. The Era she competed in makes her better, but just slightly. I can't sit here and say Hingis would have achieved what she had competing against Peak Nav, Evert, and Graf.

I AGREE! Hingis would have won no Slams in that era, NONE.

Shvedbarilescu
Oct 31st, 2011, 01:28 AM
Hana without question. Does anyone really honestly believe Hingis could have beaten peak Martina and peak Chris back to back in the semis and final of the US Open? No damn way. Hana was a very inconsistant player but Hana's best was quite simply breaktaking and good enough to hold its own with any other player's best you could possibly think of.

VeeJJ
Oct 31st, 2011, 01:32 AM
^ How scary similar does that sound to Mary Pierce!!!!!!!! :eek:

Nicolás89
Oct 31st, 2011, 01:44 AM
Ok, I'm sorry to break it to you Chris' and Nav's fans but Martina would so over-pass Nav if they would had ever meet and Marti is an improved version of Chris, I mean no disrespect to them and their massive achievements, I'm sure if they had been in this era they would be contenders of every big tournament but IMO Martina would very much be able to beat them back to back.

Sammo
Oct 31st, 2011, 01:49 AM
Uh yeah Hingis would have lobbed Navratilova to death just like she did with Novotna and she would have figured out something against Evert like she always does. You either outplay Martina Hingis or you are dead

VeeJJ
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:00 AM
Okay, let me get this straight. according to recent polls majority here think that Nav would be Serena, our current GOAT. And now ya'll are saying that hingis would own Evert and Nav? :facepalm:

Nicolás89
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:04 AM
Okay, let me get this straight. according to recent polls majority here think that Nav would be Serena, our current GOAT. And now ya'll are saying that hingis would own Evert and Nav? :facepalm:

Yes, own was the word I used the most. I just said that it would be very much possible for Martina to defeat Nav and Chirs back to back had their meet, at least once wouldn't you agree? and in a similar fashion she defeated "our GOAT" and Venus back in the day, why not?

delicatecutter
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:09 AM
Hana without question. Does anyone really honestly believe Hingis could have beaten peak Martina and peak Chris back to back in the semis and final of the US Open? No damn way. Hana was a very inconsistant player but Hana's best was quite simply breaktaking and good enough to hold its own with any other player's best you could possibly think of.

I trust your impartial opinion. :yeah: I'm too young (not that I'm young) to have ever seen Hana play.

Sammo
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:14 AM
Okay, let me get this straight. according to recent polls majority here think that Nav would be Serena, our current GOAT. And now ya'll are saying that hingis would own Evert and Nav? :facepalm:

Navratilova would have been Hingis' bitch. Don't know about Evert though :shrug:

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:20 AM
Hingis, and this is not even close..
Hanna is probably the best number three in the world ever, but she can't beat Hingis in any category.

Shvedbarilescu
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:36 AM
Navratilova would have been Hingis' bitch. Don't know about Evert though :shrug:

Even Novotna was able to beat Hingis at Wimbledon. :help:

And believe me Navratilova was a good 20x better than Novotna.

Shvedbarilescu
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:40 AM
Yes, own was the word I used the most. I just said that it would be very much possible for Martina to defeat Nav and Chirs back to back had their meet, at least once wouldn't you agree? and in a similar fashion she defeated "our GOAT" and Venus back in the day, why not?

This was before either of the Williams sisters hit their stride. And the time the two of them had won only 3 slams between them. ....And then Hingis lost in the final to Capriati.

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:41 AM
Even Novotna was able to beat Hingis at Wimbledon. :help:

And believe me Navratilova was a good 20x better than Novotna.
Novotna was whipping the floor with Graf in 1993. 6-1 4-1 up in the last two sets up until her choke.

You put a :help: smile like losing to Novotna is one of the biggest things in the world. Navratilova was also beaten by Novotna at Wimbledon 1993. So your post pretty much :help: :rolleyes:

Grass is Hingis's worst surface, no news about this.

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:46 AM
This was before either of the Williams sisters hit their stride. And the time the two of them had won only 3 slams between them. ....And then Hingis lost in the final to Capriati.
Hingis beat Venus 6-1 6-1 after Venus had played the best tennis of her life in 2000. She also beat Serena after she won her first slam (1999) , so your point is?

Ok she did not beat Serena after she hit her stride in 2002, still she lost a close three setter in the process, and then retired that year, she never faced her once again... But still she beat Venus on clay in 2006.

Hingis had to face an improving Davenport, Venus Williams and Serena Williams since 1996 to 2001, she remained number one most of the time, and won more grand slams than any player of her generation at the time.

JCTennisFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:52 AM
Hingis had to face an improving Davenport, Venus Williams and Serena Williams since 1996 to 2001, she remained number one most of the time, and won more grand slams than any player of her generation at the time.

So by this Number 1 logic.... Woz is doing a fantastic job even though her contemporaries (Li, Stosur, Sharapova,etc) are winning the slams this year or getting to the Finals? BEING NUMBER ONE MEANS NOTHING if you cant back it up with Slam results. Just like Hingis in 2000... honestly just like hingis from mid 99 to mid 2002....

VeeJJ
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:53 AM
Novotna was whipping the floor with Graf in 1993. 6-1 4-1 up in the last two sets up until her choke.

You put a :help: smile like losing to Novotna is one of the biggest things in the world. Navratilova was also beaten by Novotna at Wimbledon 1993. So your post pretty much :help: :rolleyes:

Grass is Hingis's worst surface, no news about this.

Your references are totally irrelevant. Don't compare Nav's/Steffi's 93 Wimbledon to their play in the 80's :help: Hanna competed against PEAK Nav, Evert, Steffi. They were totally different players in 93. :rolleyes:

JCTennisFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:59 AM
I would venture to say that Mandilkova was the more talented player... but she was nowhere near as mentally strong as Hingis. There are alot of people saying that since Hingis was able to beat both WS that it somehow compares to Mand and her struggles with Chris and Nav. There are many things wrong with that equation (firstly the fact that Venus was not equivilant to Chris or Nav on anything other than grass... and even then only a few years).

The main problem, in my opinion, is the fact that Chris and Nav had such completely contrasting styles of play. So to beat both players... you quite simply had to be a more complete player than someone who has beaten both Venus and Serena. When facing the Williams sisters... you dont really have to adapt your game that much. They play a much, much more similar game to one another than Nav and Chris ever did. So I cant really agree with any sort of connection between the two generations in that respect.

And quite honestly... if Hingis had to of faced Evert she would of been Evert's whipping girl. Evert was more steady from the back of the court, was better at finding openings in the court, had a mentality that Hingis could only dream of possesing, and Evert was all-round more versatile. In many ways Evert was simply a more successful version of Hingis...

If Hingis was gonna have any sort of success against Nav,Evert, or Graf... I think her chances would of been best against Nav. Nav was by far the least flexible out of the three in her gamestyle which would of allowed Hingis to work her way into the match, upsetting Nav's rhythm. Evert and Graf would of wiped the floor with Hingis consistently if they were all playing at the same time (and an ageing Graf proved this in 1999).

Shvedbarilescu
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:59 AM
Hingis beat Venus 6-1 6-1 after Venus had played the best tennis of her life in 2000. She also beat Serena after she won her first slam (1999) , so your point is?

Ok she did not beat Serena after she hit her stride in 2002, still she lost a close three setter in the process, and then retired that year, she never faced her once again... But still she beat Venus on clay in 2006.

Hingis had to face an improving Davenport, Venus Williams and Serena Williams since 1996 to 2001, she remained number one most of the time, and won more grand slams than any player of her generation at the time.

And after 1997 which was a VERY transitional year she was able to win only two more Grand Slams.

In contrast, in 1981 Hana beat Chris at the French Open when Evert was number 1 in the World and unbeatable on clay. It was Chris's 1st loss at Roland Garros since 1973 and broke Chris's 72 consecutive wins on clay streak. Also in 1981 Hana beat Martina on Grass at Wimbledon. Hingis had nothing like that competition and based on how she did after 1997 when the standard of tennis began to rise again it is clear she would not have been able to win if she had.

Linguae^
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:11 AM
She is HaNa. :p

thrust
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:22 AM
Navratilova would have been Hingis' bitch. Don't know about Evert though :shrug:

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!

JCTennisFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:22 AM
Hingis beat also beat Serena after she won her first slam (1999) , so your point is?



What was YOUR point with this? You do remember who Serena beat in the Final to get her first slam right?

justineheninfan
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:06 AM
Novotna was whipping the floor with Graf in 1993. 6-1 4-1 up in the last two sets up until her choke.

You put a :help: smile like losing to Novotna is one of the biggest things in the world. Navratilova was also beaten by Novotna at Wimbledon 1993. So your post pretty much :help: :rolleyes:

Grass is Hingis's worst surface, no news about this.

Novotna only played against a 32-37 year old Navratilova and went 1-7 against her. With all due respect to Jana, I shudder to think what a prime Martina would have done to her. Jana lost the last 2 sets of her final match to 37 Navratilova 6-1, 6-0 (albeit winning the first set).

Jana often gave peak Hingis a very tough time on hard courts, but she usually choked at the end when she had a chance to win (which was actually most of their matches on hard courts). Jana still won the majority of their grass/indoor matches from late 96-98 though. The only surface Hingis had it easy was clay.

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:11 AM
Not sure who the "better" player is since I haven't seen Hana often enough (I'd say both players were extremely talented) but as far as achievements are concerned, Hingis wins this quite clearly.

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:13 AM
And after 1997 which was a VERY transitional year she was able to win only two more Grand Slams.

In contrast, in 1981 Hana beat Chris at the French Open when Evert was number 1 in the World and unbeatable on clay. It was Chris's 1st loss at Roland Garros since 1973 and broke Chris's 72 consecutive wins on clay streak. Also in 1981 Hana beat Martina on Grass at Wimbledon. Hingis had nothing like that competition and based on how she did after 1997 when the standard of tennis began to rise again it is clear she would not have been able to win if she had.


Hana was very good and at times was able to beat the VERY best players no doubt...but was she as consistant as Hingis? Was she able to compete with Evert and Navratilova on a consistant basis? I think the answer is "no".

justineheninfan
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:13 AM
Hingis was better. Hana in the zone (eg- 85 U.S Open) would definitely beat Martina though IMHO. Overall it is clearly Martina though. Hana was never a genuine threat for #1, albeit playing in an era with 2 GOATs. She just didnt have the ability to play day in and day out at the highest level like someone like Hingis. 5 slams to 4 is pretty close, but it is about the only stat that is close. If we want to get into the hard luck Hana had to be playing in the Martina/Chris era, which is true, she also had some great luck to win 2 Australian Opens with her main 2 threats (other than Martina in 87) missing (Austin and Evert in 80, and Graf and Evert in 87). Then the bad luck of Hingis to be soon overtaken by the premier period of power tennis in womens tennis history from late 98-2003.

UncleZeke
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:19 AM
Like both girls. Hingis was the better player, tho.

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:30 AM
Jana often gave peak Hingis a very tough time on hard courts
Do you really think Hingis was at her peak at the Usopen 1998? please elaborate.

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:33 AM
Hingis was better. Hana in the zone (eg- 85 U.S Open) would definitely beat Martina though IMHO. Overall it is clearly Martina though. Hana was never a genuine threat for #1, albeit playing in an era with 2 GOATs. She just didnt have the ability to play day in and day out at the highest level like someone like Hingis. 5 slams to 4 is pretty close, but it is about the only stat that is close. If we want to get into the hard luck Hana had to be playing in the Martina/Chris era, which is true, she also had some great luck to win 2 Australian Opens with her main 2 threats (other than Martina in 87) missing (Austin and Evert in 80, and Graf and Evert in 87). Then the bad luck of Hingis to be soon overtaken by the premier period of power tennis in womens tennis history from late 98-2003.
And as brilliant as Hana was, she could be really bad. Especially in that era where really the two best players by a long long way were Evert and Navratilova.

See her record outside her slam wins, she has very very few grand slams QF and SF to show.

Hana would compare better vs a Sanchez Vicario, and still i think she would lose in carreer achievements and longer period of greatness.

justineheninfan
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:37 AM
Do you really think Hingis was at her peak at the Usopen 1998? please elaborate.

I consider Hingis's peak period to be 97-early 99. Not sure when else it would be. OK she probably wasnt playing her exact best at the exact time of the 98 U.S Open, but she had almost lost to Jana at Miami 97 in their prior hard court meeting too despite Jana making alot of errors and not even playing that well (and choking at the end is usual), during her longest ever win streak. On grass or carpet Jana probably even had the edge, while still being moderately competitive on hard courts.

Of course not saying Jana is better than Hingis, but remember you were responding to someone who was responding to someone who said Martina H. would own Martina N. in her prime. You have to admit that is quite ridiculous. :lol:

justineheninfan
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:39 AM
And as brilliant as Hana was, she could be really bad. Especially in that era where really the two best players by a long long way were Evert and Navratilova.

See her record outside her slam wins, she has very very few grand slams QF and SF to show.

Hana would compare better vs a Sanchez Vicario, and still i think she would lose in carreer achievements and longer period of greatness.

Definitely true. In terms of talent Hana >>> Sanchez Vicario, but in terms of overall career even Sanchez trumps her. Hana was the epitome of inconsistent, especialy outside the slams (and even had numerous bad early exits in the slams throughout her years as a very highly ranked player).

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:50 AM
Jana still won the majority of their grass/indoor matches from late 96-98 though. The only surface Hingis had it easy was clay.
Wrong actually although i added Novotna's 1999 loss to Hingis early in Tokio Pan Pacific, basically because Jana was still at a great level and Hingis was just winning her last slam. See Jana's Hannover 1999.

See their hardcourt/grass courts/indoors

Hardcourt matches 3-0 Hingis
Usopen 1996 7-6 6-4
Miami 6-3 2-6 6-4 (Little Choke a break up in the third)
Usopen 1998 3-6 6-1 6-4 (HUGE CHOKE 2 breaks up and 4-1 in the third)

Carpet/Indoors 2-2
Zurich 1996 6-2 6-2
Chicago 1996 7-5 6-4
Fed Cup 98 Hingis 4-6 6-3 6-2
Tokio PP 1999 Hingis 6-3 6-4


Grass Courts 1-1 (Wimbledon 97/WImbledon 98)
Hingis 2-6 6-3 6-3
Novotna 6-4 6-4

They were evenly matches even on Jana's best surface.. grass/indoors.

justineheninfan
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:11 AM
Jana in 1999 I would not say was still at a great level at all. She had only one really good tournament all year, mostly some pretty poor showings with a few respectable ones, and clearly wasnt a main contender anymore. Remember she ended 1998 at #3 and had already dropped to #18 by later in the year. After the U.S Open it was pretty much a foregone conclusion she would soon retire.

Your breakdown just shows what I said. Jana was a tough opponent for Hingis on all but clay, and atleast equal odds (or slightly favored) on grass or carpet. Martina N. (the original reference of comparision to Martina H. made by another person who seems to think Martina H. could own her, LOL) plays virtually the same exact same game as Jana but is much better at it in everyway, in addition to being much smoother, more gifted, and far mentally tougher to boot.

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 07:21 AM
Jana in 1999 I would not say was still at a great level at all. She had only one really good tournament all year, mostly some pretty poor showings with a few respectable ones, and clearly wasnt a main contender anymore. Remember she ended 1998 at #3 and had already dropped to #18 by later in the year. After the U.S Open it was pretty much a foregone conclusion she would soon retire.

Your breakdown just shows what I said. Jana was a tough opponent for Hingis on all but clay, and atleast equal odds (or slightly favored) on grass or carpet. Martina N. (the original reference of comparision to Martina H. made by another person who seems to think Martina H. could own her, LOL) plays virtually the same exact same game as Jana but is much better at it in everyway, in addition to being much smoother, more gifted, and far mentally tougher to boot.
I never meant to include the whole 1999, just the start of the year, and Jana then was still in a pretty good top 10 form.

A bad loss at the Australian Open (no surprise) she followed with SF Tokio PP losing to Hingis, Hannover Win (over Venus), QF Indian Wells losing to Graf, Miami QF losing to Venus, Hilton Head SF losing to Hingis.

Still i would not say facing Novotna is exactly the same match up as facing Navratilova. Neither can we assure how good or how bad Hingis would have done against Navratilova at her best.

tommyk75
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:09 PM
This is actually a pretty interesting comparison. If they played at the same time, I'd say Martina wins 8 out of 10 matches. Her game and her mind were both far more stable and consistent than Hana's. However, if they both brought out their A games, I'd pick Hana. She had a bigger capacity to attack with a bigger serve, a better volley, and (a slightly) better forehand. Even Pam Shriver, who didn't much like Hana at the time, said that Hana "has more shots than any woman who ever played the game" (paraphrasing from memory).

Marionated
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:15 PM
Navratilova would have been Hingis' bitch. Don't know about Evert though :shrug:

:tape:

TheHangover
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:21 PM
martina, but the other girl had a lot of talent, i saw some highlights of her on youtube vs navratilova and she was amazing!

Viennalover
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:21 PM
who is Hanna ... :confused:

Hingis maybe had a short life but was a queen in some point.

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:46 PM
This is actually a pretty interesting comparison. If they played at the same time, I'd say Martina wins 8 out of 10 matches. Her game and her mind were both far more stable and consistent than Hana's. However, if they both brought out their A games, I'd pick Hana. She had a bigger capacity to attack with a bigger serve, a better volley, and (a slightly) better forehand. Even Pam Shriver, who didn't much like Hana at the time, said that Hana "has more shots than any woman who ever played the game" (paraphrasing from memory).
I think this is a lot of myth about Hanna and her talent and the comparisson against the superb talent of a player like Hingis.

Hingis could actually hit any shot in the book, and even improvise the best in the most difficult situations as well. She was not a slouch in the talent department.

Hanna maybe beat Chris and Evert in one Usopen, but to imply she did it in a consistent basis that´s ridiculous.

As for their matches would hypotetically go, i think that Hingis would win 6 or 7 matches out of 10, because of her long term consistency, but Hanna would probably spank Hingis very easily in one of those meetings when she is at her best.

These peak vs peak comparissons are ridiculous anyway, this would make peak Lucic beat Hingis everytime at her peak, because of her much more superior power and serve.

medved
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:14 PM
People here are probably too young to remember Hanka at her peak.
I am not :-) (or :(?) - she is one of my all time favourites, I loved her game and I´d prefer her in this poll too. But it isn´t easy to compare as they played in different eras, with different competition, etc.. To see a match between (peak) Mandlikova and (peak) Hingis would be one of my dreams.

Beakling
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:03 AM
I love Hingis and both were great players but Hana's game was ridiculously pretty. She also wins in the flakiness department (for example, obsessively picking up invisible bits of debris between points). They would be a fun pair to watch.

justineheninfan
Nov 1st, 2011, 03:55 AM
I never meant to include the whole 1999, just the start of the year, and Jana then was still in a pretty good top 10 form.

A bad loss at the Australian Open (no surprise) she followed with SF Tokio PP losing to Hingis, Hannover Win (over Venus), QF Indian Wells losing to Graf, Miami QF losing to Venus, Hilton Head SF losing to Hingis.

Still i would not say facing Novotna is exactly the same match up as facing Navratilova. Neither can we assure how good or how bad Hingis would have done against Navratilova at her best.

Hingis was most vurnerable to players who could overpower her and Navratilova overpowered everyone at her peak. Granted she wasnt facing baseline and serving power like Graf, Seles, or the Williams while doing so. Still I think Navratilova's ultra agressive game, amazing athletic ability, and supreme fitness and confidence at her best, would have been a very tough challenge for Martina to overcome. You are right, Jana isnt the exact same matchup as Martina in that Jana like Martina doesnt really overpower people so much as outplay them. Martina N. though at her best did overpower people, and that is the biggest threat to the Hingis game, and it would be an attacker too, rather than the mostly serve + baseline power players she faced.

The Hingis serve would be a problem too as it would create too many opportunities for Martina N. to come in right off the serve, which if you saw her play Evert in many matches in the 80s you would see she was incredibly eager to do (she even did it against fairly good servers like Hana and Pam Shriver, especialy on 2nd serves).

VeeJJ
Nov 1st, 2011, 04:13 AM
I severly think this thread is so lopsided because majority of the posters here are under 21.

justineheninfan
Nov 1st, 2011, 04:37 AM
The OP also says the era these women played in makes a big difference. Hana did play in the Martina-Chris era but the field was overall really weak except for Martina and Chris in the 82-86 period. While part of it was her own decline Hana still found herself quickly buried by the increased depth in the womens game once Graf, Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, Seles, Zvereva, and other young stars all crashed on the scene in the late 80s. Hingis had most of her slam wins in a soft year, but continued to have great success overall as womens tennis entered what many feel was it deepest field ever in 98-2003 (well 98-2002 for Martina). She too began to lose ground but had become a headcase after some tough slam defeats and missed almost all of 2002 with a bad foot injury, which was the main reason for her retirement. She was 1 point from winning a 6th slam in her final year so was a real threat right to the end, and in her comeback at close to the same age Hana retired resumed being a top 10 player with relative ease.

VeeJJ
Nov 1st, 2011, 05:19 AM
The OP also says the era these women played in makes a big difference. Hana did play in the Martina-Chris era but the field was overall really weak except for Martina and Chris in the 82-86 period. While part of it was her own decline Hana still found herself quickly buried by the increased depth in the womens game once Graf, Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, Seles, Zvereva, and other young stars all crashed on the scene in the late 80s. Hingis had most of her slam wins in a soft year, but continued to have great success overall as womens tennis entered what many feel was it deepest field ever in 98-2003 (well 98-2002 for Martina). She too began to lose ground but had become a headcase after some tough slam defeats and missed almost all of 2002 with a bad foot injury, which was the main reason for her retirement. She was 1 point from winning a 6th slam in her final year so was a real threat right to the end, and in her comeback at close to the same age Hana retired resumed being a top 10 player with relative ease.

Why does the rest of the field matter when you have to play against 2 of the greatest women's tennis players of all time, at their peak. And be able to beat them

Those girls are no slouches

80's "weak field" >>> 2000-current "weak field


Sidenote: Am I the only one who see's the shockingly nearly identical careers between Hanna and Pierce. :eek:

justineheninfan
Nov 1st, 2011, 05:34 AM
Per each time she beat Martina or Chris in a slam, she lost to some total no-name in an early round of a slam another 2 or 3 times. That is what shows she wasnt able to consistently play at the level Hingis did even if Hana could possibly reach even greater highs.