The thing is Austin and Jaeger were written about CONSTANTLY in 84-86 by the press, but mainly in relation to the buzzword of the moment, "burnout". Jaeger and Austin were exhibits A and B as far as the press was concerned regarding burnout. and there were tons of articles and television pieces done on this "new, insidious malady that was infecting tennis" (Borg was not immune from these articles, though cited much less frequently) which was, no doubt, the consequence of turning pro too young. Hence the age limitations that were put into effect, not only in terms of when an athlete could start playing professionally, but how many events they would be allowed to play in a calendar year.
Austin and Jaeger were considered casualties of "burnout," although the term itself as the press put it forth in relation to tennis had no real definition; they kind of made it related, sort of, to physical injury (which is not really how the term "burnout" is understood in the non-tennis world) and kind of also related it to emotional and mental fatigue. An extensive article written in Sports Illustrated in early 1984 went to great lengths in exploring the Jaeger situation and speaks of an unhealthy and rather sad situation, and one would surmise after reading that article that Jaeger's competing with Chris and Martina was the last of her, or anyone else's concerns.
So Austin and Jaeger were sort of treated like sociological specimens by the press, a thing to be studied, and their competing with Chris and Martina wasn't so much a concern so much, as either of them ever competing again. I also think that because of the whole "burnout" issue, Jaeger and Austin were delicate subjects for the WTA as well as Chris and Martina, and as such were not voluntarily brought up by them. The reason being that it could be thought that the tour was at fault for demanding too much of them too young (which could very well be true) and as such, I don't think they were voluntary brought up by Chris or Martina or the WTA in general, as they were thought of as something that could reflect negatively on the gleaming, healthy image of women's tennis that they were trying to project. This also explains the hyper-emphasis on the Chris-Martina rivalry, which really was something that shouldn't have existed the way it did by 1984-85--that is as the sole show of women's tennis, both women were pushing 30 and had been around the block for well over a decade, and while their rivalry was incredible, it had more to do with losing a generation (Austin, Jaeger, Mandlikova) than it had with their overarching dominance of the sport.
I also suspect that there were other variables to the stories of Austin and Jaeger that went on behind the scenes that we'll never know about which might also provide a means of explaining why their absence wasn't addressed in a more optimistic light.
Here's the article on Jaeger: http://www.si.com/vault/1984/04/09/6...nly-the-racket