@xxlucky84xx Not regular, but not against the rules. An early return gives the server less time to get into the play after serving, but is very hard to do. Usualy the returner stands at the base line, or behind the base line to have better time to react. Agassi was known as a excelent service returner, and often steped inside the base line, partiulary on 2nd service (as they usualy have less pace.
@xxlucky84xx lol yes it's legal. many players used to step into the court a few feet to take the opponent's second serve early and try to either create problems for the server, or to hit a winning return. this is what you're supposed to do in tennis; it puts pressure on the server
I remember this night match, amazing vibe just watching it on tv can't imagine being there. seemed like Sampras had a morning hangover against Safin and Hewitt those years in the finals
@farneyblakeley Agree. Pete should have definitely beaten Hewitt. Safin was playing out of this world tennis, so I can understand Pete losing. I am sure Pete would say the loss to Hewitt and Edberg at the US Open finals and the loss to Agassi at the 2000 Australian Open were his biggest disappointments.
este duelo es clasico, sin duda este tenis era de otro nivel,el de ahora es aburrido y feo!, y vaya que el jugador que mas me gusta es federer, pero pobrecito no es justo para el, sinceramente su tenis bonito no encaja con el tenis horrendo de nadal, y luego es 5 años mayor, que rivalidad tan estupida!, hubiera pagado por verlo jugar contra agassi, sampras o becker que si tienen un tenis de altura igual que el, lastima que de rival le toco un pasabolas que gana por lo mental y no por el talento
One of the best matches I have ever seen, and have seen a lot! Remember watching it live in Spain, several hours in front of US time! Every single point contested with intensity. Absolutely no lulls. USO audience at their best - gave a standing ovation at start of final tie break. Agree with many, especially after watching that again, that no one has been better than Pete Sampras. No one does 'slam dunks with nobs on´ for a start!
As for Fed and Sampras lol, you have in no way proven Fed pwns Sampras. Until you can prove that Fed dominated on the extreme surfaces of the 90s and not the pussy ass slowed down circuit that exists today, stfu. Even if Fed wins 30 slams, I will never consider him the GOAT. Not until he dominates on a real circuit with traditional surfaces, AND dominates Nadal, will I EVER consider him the GOAT. Go watch some Fed vids fagget, I heard he did an anal scene with Nadal a few weeks ago in France LOL
serve and volley is the only way to beat an opponent with superior ground strokes like agassi and nadal, finish the points quick, win or lose off your own initiative.
The reason why Sampras quit is because he was older and had lost a step and his desire to keep playing on a grueling circuit. He had a new family to look after as well. He broke the record and didnt have much else to prove. He proved that even at 32 years old, he could still beat the new young player like Roddick, Hewitt and Saffin.
He lost the 2000 and 2001 finals because he was tired and fatigued by the end of the of those tournaments... you cant win it everytime... not to mention he was recovering from injury and had already lost a step. He wasnt prime then. Even in his prime, players like Korda and Krajicek both beat Pete and handled his serve. But neither of them went on to win 7 Wimbledons and 5 US Opens each. Neither did Agassi.
I still remember this game. It WAS a game to remember forever. Pure tennis, no stupid tactics just play your best. I miss that serve-voley style of tennis. Ball after ball, 2nd serve no matter... Sampras was on the attack all the time :) Eat that Murray, Nadal and all the other defensive arses
This is the best match I have ever seen in person. The half volley of Sampras in this match are just perfect. Agassi too played a great match. It could've gone either way. These two always bring out the best of each other.
Notice the two completely different ways of playing tennis. Sampras represented the very best of serve-volley and Agassi the very best from the baseline. I wish we could have similar matches today because we simply got the best of what tennis has to offer - all the wonderful elements.
@Steenhrgroen I love serve and volley, but I'd have to say that the passing shots of today's players are by standard of far higher quality than they were in the height of serve and volley. Llodra is quite a talented serve and volley player, and almost made it to the finals of Paris Masters last year, but I think with today's athleticism and racquet technology it's not really a viable option anymore. I still revel in the opportunity to watch Llodra play though, even if he loses to top seeds.
LoL... The reason why s&v is gone is because they slowed down Wimbledon and US Open SEVERELY. Its no coincidence that the disappearance of s&v coincides perfectly with the circuit surface modifications... Has nothing to do with today's athleticism.
@splendid1000 So I guess when Boris Becker says that because of racquet technology baseline tennis is way more effective, he's incorrect and is utterly oblivious to your perfect analysis? Also, if Federer wanted to play serve and volley among the best, he could. Watch Wimbledon 2001 against Sampras, where he played serve and volley to a T without even being that developed of a player and defeated the best grass player of all time? I don't care that Sampras was in the twilight of his career btw.
LOL Racquet technology... HAHAHA. Did racquet technology just change overnight? No. Racquets were no different in 2002 then they were in 2001 you absolute mind. Thats when s&v just 'magically' disappeared at Wimbledon and that just also happens to be when they modified the surface. Same exact thing happened at US Open. Its a known fact that Wimbledon was severely slowed down in 2001 and again in 2006, and US Open in 2003.
And PETE SAMPRAS himself agrees with me, along with many other grass court specialists like Tim Henman, Ivanisevic, Philloppoussis also have said this. Players who actually PLAYED on the surface. Becker never played on it lol so I dont really give a fuck what he says. The evolution of technology over maybe the last 15 years has helped baseline, but it didnt eliminate s&v from Wimbledon and US Open. The surface changes did.
You should care that Pete was not in his prime lol. He was in a total slump and on the decline. He was losing to nobodies all the time and didnt win a single slam for two straight years until he finally re-dedicated himself and trained his ass off to win the US Open one last time. Exactly one year before it was slowed down...Sampras was recovering from a herniated disc as well and lost next year's Wimbledon to #80 ranked George Bastl !!! LOL !!!
Fed was a great s&v player, but one win over a 30 year old Sampras on the decline, battling injury, is not evidence that he could win 7 Wimbledons by s&v on fast 90s grass lol. He lost the next round to Tim Henman... Sampras destroyed Henman on a regular basis, yet Henman destroyed Fed. Just more proof that Sampras was in anything but top form in 2001 lol.
@splendid1000 lol this and the 2001 wimby video proves federer return better than agassi. Agassi put high % of balls back but those rarely trouble sampras, easy put-aways. Federer is strongest against players who put pace on the ball, so sampras could still lose on the faster grass, maybe even most of the matches. Only top spin specialists trouble him, not s&v, flat hitters, big hitters.
Federer has a GREAT return no doubt... But Sampras would definitely NOT lose most of his matches on fast 90's grass LOL. The grass had already been slowed down by 2001, so that match really wasnt true 90s grass. The grass was then slowed down even more after 2001 too. US Open also. Not to mention Sampras was in a serious slump. He was losing to mediocre players all the time and lost next year's Wimbledon to #80 ranked George BastL. LOL
@splendid1000 people's misconception that federer cannot block sampras serve. The match at wimbledon more than proved it. Sampras' serve is always there, didnt failed before. Maybe sampras' flexibility aged but the player has to make good returns in first place against sampras to beat him. Its more like players are starting to return serve and pass him a lot that he quit. I agree for grass slower speed but not USopen. Moreever, the surface faster and bounce lower is better for federer.
But Sampras is more than just a serve. He has to be in order to win. If all it took was a big serve for him to win than he would have never lost to anyone, especially Saffin and Hewitt in the US Open finals. If all it took was a big serve then Ivanisevek would have won Wimby every year. Theres a reason why Sampras would beat Goran every time. He has a tremendous all around game including great groundstrokes, great volleys, and a great return of his own. He outhit Agassi all the time
@mrbobevans Nadal has the lefty advantage, which is his only real weapon. If Nadal wasn't left handed he wouldn't be nearly as hard to beat as he is. The high topspin off the cross court forehand plays well out of the strike zone of a one handed back hand player. Djokovic and Murray have no trouble hitting that ball since they both hit a two handed back hand and their back hands are their stronger shots.
Fed should have gone on and won the entire tournament easily with Sampras out of the way. Guess what? He didnt. He didnt even come close lol. He got spanked in the quarters. End of story. Krajicek beat Pete in his prime at Wimbledon but guess what? Krajicek didnt go on to win 7 Wimbledons. In fact, he never won again after that LOL
@Steenhrgroen it is great because we are fortunate to also have lived through the federer nadal era. both baseliners but still very different style of play. Will be interesting to see when we will have the fortune of watching 2 legends with contrasting styles play again
why would anyone dislike this. this is the best tennis there is. everyone is trying to hit winners on every shot and not pound away at the baseline hoping their opponent would make a mistake.
Berdych, Soderling, Djokovic are all out attack. All in the top 7. Federer is not bad. Nadal uses the moon ball but hits the ball as aggressive as anyone Ive ever seen. Moon balling? Your entitled to your opinion, just throwing my 2 cent in.
@SamCoreJ Djokovic all out attack? He was far more aggressive in 2007 and 2008 than he is now. Federer's past it. Nadal hits as aggressive as anyone you've ever seen? My god.
I disagree with you on Djokovic and Federer as would most people who know the game. The Nadal comment may have been misconstrued? What i meant with the Nadal comment is not that his has the most aggressive game. I meant he hits the ball with aggression. His racket head speed is rapid. The fact he hits masses of topspin doesn't take away from the aggression he puts in.
@SoooBlue you'd be hard pressed to call it moonballing if you were on court with the current ATP pros. Theres a lot more weight on groundies these days. Strategy in this match is incredible though.
@AwesomeSauce602 Nonsense. A lot more weight? Djokovic who's been on a lengthy win streak has hardly won on the weight of his strokes, more like his unbelievable defence. Guys like Agassi, Sampras, Enqvist, Kafelnikov, Becker, Safin, Krajicek, Philippoussis, Pioline, Moya, Calleri didn't have huge strokes?
Thanks to the balls and slower courts guys are building their premise at the top on defensive skill more than anything else.
@SoooBlue hey I have nothing against yesterday's tennis, but even the old timmers agree. Today's tennis is as hard as beautiful if not more than the 90's and earlier tennis.
If you are looking for style of play. Federer and Sampras have... if you are looking for sheer determination on court, Aggassi and Nadal have, If you are looking for an on court joker with attitude McEnroe and Djokovic ... The list goes on...
@squirtaka Every retiring generation spouts the same nonsense, if they didn't, they'd look like bitter old men. Do you also believe Juan Carlos Ferrero when he said that he played just as well in 2008 as he did in 2003?
Please do go on with your 'list'. How you can compare Djokovic's and Mcenroe's attitude is beyond me, they are nothing alike. Federer and Sampras also had a very different style of play. And as I said, please do go on with your list. Monfils, Fish top 10 etc.
@SoooBlue Couldn't of said it better myself. Exactly.......Where are all the players that want to force the action now??????? I still say Pete was the best ever. He played in a time where the competition at the top was the stiffest.
@gornhorror I'm not one for declaring someone the best ever because TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, you just can't compare era's however, Pete Sampras was one hell of a match player, he was no choker and he never became a choker. He was clutch until the day he retired.
Who do we have outside of the top 5 today (and even then, the top 5 isn't even great, Soderling never brings it any more and Murray chokes in every slam plus Nadal and Federer are shadows of their former selves) Ferrer, Berdych, Monfils?
@DanimalLawlz Pete just made his backhand neutral because his forehand was so overpowering. He dared his opponents to go wide so he could hit his running forehand, arguably one of the ten best shots of all-time. He also played SNV so his game wasn't completely focused on groundstrokes.
Altough Federer has the most complete game, more elegant than Sampras style, I still state that Sampras is more extreme player on the court. He seems faster sometimes and watching his bomb serve and after volleying is superb even compare to Federer's all-court game. Sampras,Agassi,Becker and Safin at their prime were at least as good as Federer.Only thing is that Federer has the longest prime of them all.That's why he's the greatest maybe.
@yoChris76 no. because its like "nah, i dont want to play........ i ll just go to the net to get this done quick." its not a match you can really enjoy. neighter to watch or to play
@federicou324 This was a ridiculous comment. If you knew anything about tennis you'd know that it's not about "nah, i dont want to play" it's about "i am faster, stronger, more resilient than you, more determined to win, that's why I'll move in to play a killer volley and you only get one shot to pass me or make me do an error. Give me your best, I can handle it"
@DestroyerAlexandros man..... i know about tennis. im a player! i play 3 days a weak!! so dont say i dont know anything about tennis. why would you say that!? u dont know me.
And i get what your saying, when i play i also go to the net, but only on rallies. i dont play serve and volley style. and if you see profecional tennis now, you'll notice that the only player to do that is roddick (and only sometimes)
@DestroyerAlexandros i agree with everything you've said, sampras isnt looking to rallying because he doesn't need to, he has an all attacking game which doesn't allow him to rally, he has so much feel for the ball hes trying to attack on every shot and go to the net, he has the most efficient and effortless game which makes him the greatest player ever. why waist your time, energy, and body rallying when you can finish points almost as quickly as you want.
The same can be said about Federer. His technique is so fluid and effortless. Thats why he was able to make 23 consecutive slam semi finals, why he hasn't missed a slam through injury, and I don't think he has retired from a match in his career. I love Sampras, I grew up on him, but reluctantly, I have conceded that Federer is the greatest of all time. The record books show it, no doubt.
@SamCoreJ yep u are right his game is also as fluid but what makes pete a better player is that you are under constant pressure when playing against him, players were even scared to hit to his forehands and the way he set up his running forehands r ridicules, no one plays the way he does nowadays cause people have this thought in there head that SNV is dead ....
Sorry but you cant compare the two. Sampras was injured several times because of the simple fact that he was s&v. After they slowed down the courts, s&v died and baseline completely took over. Serve and volley is MUCH more taxing on the body in terms of injury because of the extreme angles you have to cover on your way into/at net. Federer actually has a tremendous s&v game as well, but fortunately for him, has never had to use it.
By slowing down the courts and eliminating serve and volley, you have basically cut the competition in half lol. There's no doubt Federer would do well in the 90s, but he definitely would not have 16 slams, especially at the age he did. Its much harder to face a tour with both the best baseliners in the world, AND the best serve and volleyers in the world. Injury to do s&v coupled with his blood-iron deficiency robbed Pete of at least 2-3 slams.
@splendid1000 lmao at your "knowledge of assuming" who are you by the way? are an analyst of tennis or what? and your "lols" are so funny. FACT: laughing in an argument doesn't mean you win and 16>14
lmao at you English. Yes 16 is greater than 14. But he never won on 90s extreme surfaces and never faced real s&v competition in his prime. FACT. It's obviously just my opinion that he wouldnt have 16 slams in the 90s, but the fact is, when you slow down the courts you eliminate half the competition. FACT
@splendid1000 lol at my english when yours is rubbish. FACT: he started his first years on the end of 90's how could he have won a grandslam? and even sampras didn't win tons of gs in 2000 fact! bullshit
Yep and I also stated that Fed won all his slams on a modified circuit that plays much slower and caters to baseline pussies lol? A modification that eliminated serve n volley from the tour and made it only logical that one man would dominate lol? Rod Laver has WAY more slam victories than Federer lol and if they had kept the Australian Slam up from 63 to 67, he'd have even more lol? 7 Wimbledons > 6 lol. 286 weeks > 285 weeks lol ? Bridgette Wilson > Mirka Vavrinec lol ? LOL u fail
@splendid1000 rod laver huh? how many does he have? 16 is the record last time I checked. And also Federer is the longest number 1 in CONSECUTIVE WEEKS PUSSY. and lmao to women's division did that get into the debate? lol lmao you faggot
LOL Last time I checked YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON LOL !!!??? If you knew anything about tennis, you'd know that Rod Laver has 19 total slams and the only reason he doesnt technically have the record is because the slams were called Pro Slams instead of Grand Slams from 1963 to 1969 and they also didn't have an Australian slam during those years either. All they did was change the name... If they had kept the slams as ' Grand Slams ' Laver would have well over 20 DIPSHIT.
Sampras has the most total weeks at #1 overall and played on a much tougher tour with much more diversified talent (Serve n Volley AND Baseline), which is more important PUSSY. And I'm not talking about the women's division you IDIOT, im just saying Bridgette is flat out hotter than Mirka LOL. Wow, you are a fucking retard.
@splendid1000 that's why I said grand slams huh? you pwned your fucking self bitch. grandslam is what it is called today and now you switch to rod laver because CLEARLY FED PWNS SAMPRAS, and now I'm ready to help fed to say to you faggot that he is better than laver bitch
I switched to Laver because you used Fed's 16 slams as proof that he is the GOAT. If you are gonna use total slam wins as criteria for determining the GOAT then you would have to consider Laver the GOAT. I dont give a fuck what the slam happens to be called when he won it LOL. A slam is a slam and he faced the same top competition he would have faced whether it was called a 'Grand' Slam or a 'Pro' Slam. You clearly have pussy lips tucked between those pathetic legs.
@splendid1000 so you admit that fed is better than sampras which earlier in the comments you said that sampras is gonna destroy fed? i don't give a fuck if you don't give a fuck! It's called grand slam now and that's what I said if you can't read properly then I can send you some glasses fuckface
LoL, you're kidding right ? Please tell me this is a joke. Noone can be this stupid. No, I don't admit Fed is better than Sampras LOL. I just wrote an entire paragraph explaining why he's not better than Sampras and why he's definitely not the GOAT.HAHAHA. I now realize I am dealing with a person who suffers from abnormal retardation.
@splendid1000 then why did you switch to laver? lmao, fed is the goat you dumbfuck, and you are the person who has the abnormal retardation cuz your mum is fat and your dad is gay
I didnt switch to anything. I dont know who the GOAT is, thats what I'm trying to say. Im saying there are reasons for and against each of the top candidates and theres no clear winner.
Yes thats true, Fed didnt have the chance to win on 90's extreme surfaces. They changed it before he hit his prime. Its not his fault obviously, but he still didnt do it. FACT.
@foul01 Your very existence is a mistake. Let alone the boisterous comment you just made. Sampras doesn't rush the net out of "incapability" to rally. He has the best forehand the game has ever seen. He rushes the net because he's outstanding at it and he's a 3-dimensional athlete (forehand, forehand volley, backhand, backhand volley, serve and smash), not a 2-d one like djokovic (forehand and backhand) or Ivanisevic (first serve). It's just a joy to watch Sampras play cause he has everything!
@foul01 He's reached an RG semi-final, which doesn't mean he's bad on clay. It means he's pretty fucking good actually. Safin has reached a french open semi-final but nobody says Safin is bad on clay/bad at rallying. Safin is pretty fucking good on clay/pretty fucking good at rallying actually.
@foul01 You don't know anything about tennis, why bother arguing with someone who's been playing and watching it since literally day 1? You're the one that says Sampras is bad at rallying!
Actually Sampras had an blood-iron deficiency that caused anemia. Thats why Sampras never did as well at the French. He also strung his racket at 80 lbs and that hurt him as well. It worked for him on faster courts like US Open and Wimbledon but not on clay. Sampras made a semi final run and several quarter runs losing ONLY to the best clay courters in the world. He lost only to French Open finalists and champions in his good runs. He's not quite as good as Fed, but he didnt suck
DON'T READ THIS CUZ IT ACTUALLY WORKS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY FROM THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE, TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE; HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T POST THIS TO OVER THREE VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN TWO DAYS. NOW THAT YOU STARTED READING THIS DON'T STOP. THIS IS SO SCARY! POST THIS TO OVER FIVE VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES. WHEN YOU'RE DONE PRESS F6 AND YOUR CRUSH'S NAME WILL APPEAR ON SCREN IN BIG LETERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BUT IT REALLY
Yes Federer won in their only meeting but a peak Federer against a peak Sampras on USO decoturf, Sampras would win.
Anyway, I'll let you carry on kissing Federer's ass. The Swiss would not have won 16 GS playing in a weak era with just Nadal as his serious challenger.
Pete played a stunning US Open in 2001, likewise the year before and of course in 2002, when won the final. He was still a big player, the big Pete, when Federer beat him. Nevertheless, I have to say, that Pete in top shape would be hard to beat on fast courts, both for Federer and Nadal. But on clay, both Federer and Nadal would rip him apart. I wonder how Nadal would cope with the speedy and FLAT groundstrokes of Pete and how he would answer Rafa´s topspin.
Sampras & Federer are very alike, same heigth and weight. Pete & Roger are the ones,who really have this extra talent. They don´t run, they fly on the court. Pete plays more aggressive & direct, Fed tries to outplay his adversary with cunning angles, slices and defense-to-offense game.
Federer should watch this to copy Pete: E.G. more aggresive returns, more flat shots instead of topspin, more net play and more risky 2nd serves. He showed some Pete elements in London vs Rafa.
Federer would not have a chance in hell in beating Sampras in this form back in 2001. Had he contested in Sampras' era, the Swiss might only have 8 slams at best.
Always wondered why Agassi never continued to improve on that backhand down the line, he certainly was stubborn about this department. If he added the backhand down the line to his arsenal he would have been even better
if sampras wants any indication of how he would do against the best players of todays era, this match would be equal to him playing nadal on a bad day.
Amazing. How often does this happen in tennis? When both players are world-class and are so consistent they don't break once, and one of them can win three tiebreakers in a row?
Just listening to the announcer at 7:19 "7-6, 7-6. 7-6" is just epic.
Agassi would have dominated so much more in this generation, or really any other generation. But he just had to be born in the generation with the guy who gave the least rhythm of anyone in history. It demoralized him, and that combined with the fact that he didn't have the same competitive drive as the other guys because he was forced into tennis against his will meant that he "only" won 8 majors, when with his talent he should have won twice that.
@superman11978 Are you saying that Agassi is the more gifted player than Pete? Maybe Andre has better baseline feel. But Pete is unique. He had arguably the best serve ever, and could explode around the court like an NBA allstar player.
It is great to watch Pete's Eastern Forehand. So retro as compared to the more Semi Westerns and Westerns that are so prevalent in today's game. Please bring back the Eastern/ Serve and Volley game.
what i find most funny was @ 6:02
Kiser153 1 month ago
Fuck me these two could make a match back then.
imavaughanstar 1 month ago
el mejor de la historia
alevele13 2 months ago
Sickest QF in a Grand Slam EVER! So bad it wasn't the Final.
Edu2503 2 months ago
Good god Sampras' serve is a masterpiece
cooltoast12 3 months ago
2:02, LOVE IT
LeafVillItachi 3 months ago
Was there any break in that game? Or even break point?
bolivaskurac 4 months ago
@bolivaskurac there were zero breaks of serve in this match. both did have break points, but they fought them off.
cain2335 4 months ago
@bolivaskurac Nice username!! LOL
davd1986 1 month ago
that could have gone either way, I wanted agasi to win but that was fu to watch.
kelman221 4 months ago
Was this match on 9/11/2001? =/
itsjonkuo 4 months ago
Comment removed
ontatio1 4 months ago
@itsjonkuo The 9th
tubica100 4 months ago
This is tennis at its very best.Such a sharp contrast in playstyles.
If this had gone 5 sets,it could be the greatest match of all time
KaminariKatta 4 months ago in playlist Tennis Matches
Rafa & Federer
Rodgers2raw12 4 months ago
@Rodgers2raw12 not even close
cain2335 4 months ago
2:59
"Agassi's eyes sorcerer-like, and that was a wizard return"
lol =D
JMSONE 5 months ago
i find this more interesting to watch
efremch0 5 months ago
Last Point!!
7min 07sec ..Sampras is into the court before Agassi's service. Is that regular??
xxlucky84xx 5 months ago
Comment removed
l33ttennis 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xxlucky84xx Not regular, but not against the rules. An early return gives the server less time to get into the play after serving, but is very hard to do. Usualy the returner stands at the base line, or behind the base line to have better time to react. Agassi was known as a excelent service returner, and often steped inside the base line, partiulary on 2nd service (as they usualy have less pace.
l33ttennis 5 months ago
@xxlucky84xx lol yes it's legal. many players used to step into the court a few feet to take the opponent's second serve early and try to either create problems for the server, or to hit a winning return. this is what you're supposed to do in tennis; it puts pressure on the server
cain2335 5 months ago
@xxlucky84xx of course, you can be wherever you want on a service return
klem2A 5 months ago
un partido increible el primero que pude ver de estos dos grandes jugadores es para admirarlos
gonzytomy 6 months ago
1 day after that match there was no world trade center anymore......
Klamsy4Life 6 months ago
I remember this night match, amazing vibe just watching it on tv can't imagine being there. seemed like Sampras had a morning hangover against Safin and Hewitt those years in the finals
farneyblakeley 6 months ago
@farneyblakeley Agree. Pete should have definitely beaten Hewitt. Safin was playing out of this world tennis, so I can understand Pete losing. I am sure Pete would say the loss to Hewitt and Edberg at the US Open finals and the loss to Agassi at the 2000 Australian Open were his biggest disappointments.
mrbobevans 5 months ago
este duelo es clasico, sin duda este tenis era de otro nivel,el de ahora es aburrido y feo!, y vaya que el jugador que mas me gusta es federer, pero pobrecito no es justo para el, sinceramente su tenis bonito no encaja con el tenis horrendo de nadal, y luego es 5 años mayor, que rivalidad tan estupida!, hubiera pagado por verlo jugar contra agassi, sampras o becker que si tienen un tenis de altura igual que el, lastima que de rival le toco un pasabolas que gana por lo mental y no por el talento
LilitaEsperanza07 6 months ago
The best match i have ever seen!
Zebes14 6 months ago
One of the best matches I have ever seen, and have seen a lot! Remember watching it live in Spain, several hours in front of US time! Every single point contested with intensity. Absolutely no lulls. USO audience at their best - gave a standing ovation at start of final tie break. Agree with many, especially after watching that again, that no one has been better than Pete Sampras. No one does 'slam dunks with nobs on´ for a start!
theolaurent 6 months ago
awesome
diamondssjordan 6 months ago
Much much better tennis than today.
Viandox 6 months ago
se extraña este duelo!!!!
petrusss555 7 months ago
Pure Greatness .. Not The Stupid MoonBalling As Today .. Miss You Sampras <3
Leonardo4190 7 months ago in playlist Jogos De Tênis
As for Fed and Sampras lol, you have in no way proven Fed pwns Sampras. Until you can prove that Fed dominated on the extreme surfaces of the 90s and not the pussy ass slowed down circuit that exists today, stfu. Even if Fed wins 30 slams, I will never consider him the GOAT. Not until he dominates on a real circuit with traditional surfaces, AND dominates Nadal, will I EVER consider him the GOAT. Go watch some Fed vids fagget, I heard he did an anal scene with Nadal a few weeks ago in France LOL
splendid1000 7 months ago
serve and volley is the only way to beat an opponent with superior ground strokes like agassi and nadal, finish the points quick, win or lose off your own initiative.
cindygirlification 7 months ago
The reason why Sampras quit is because he was older and had lost a step and his desire to keep playing on a grueling circuit. He had a new family to look after as well. He broke the record and didnt have much else to prove. He proved that even at 32 years old, he could still beat the new young player like Roddick, Hewitt and Saffin.
splendid1000 7 months ago
He lost the 2000 and 2001 finals because he was tired and fatigued by the end of the of those tournaments... you cant win it everytime... not to mention he was recovering from injury and had already lost a step. He wasnt prime then. Even in his prime, players like Korda and Krajicek both beat Pete and handled his serve. But neither of them went on to win 7 Wimbledons and 5 US Opens each. Neither did Agassi.
splendid1000 7 months ago
I still remember this game. It WAS a game to remember forever. Pure tennis, no stupid tactics just play your best. I miss that serve-voley style of tennis. Ball after ball, 2nd serve no matter... Sampras was on the attack all the time :) Eat that Murray, Nadal and all the other defensive arses
acalin5 7 months ago
are aces really a highlight of a game?
PornobrillenAli 7 months ago
What a wonderful game between two greats!
pedrozzzzzzz099 7 months ago
This is extra-terrestrial tennis.
cammpinno 8 months ago
This is the best match I have ever seen in person. The half volley of Sampras in this match are just perfect. Agassi too played a great match. It could've gone either way. These two always bring out the best of each other.
newworldharbour 8 months ago
Notice the two completely different ways of playing tennis. Sampras represented the very best of serve-volley and Agassi the very best from the baseline. I wish we could have similar matches today because we simply got the best of what tennis has to offer - all the wonderful elements.
Steenhrgroen 9 months ago 7
@Steenhrgroen I love serve and volley, but I'd have to say that the passing shots of today's players are by standard of far higher quality than they were in the height of serve and volley. Llodra is quite a talented serve and volley player, and almost made it to the finals of Paris Masters last year, but I think with today's athleticism and racquet technology it's not really a viable option anymore. I still revel in the opportunity to watch Llodra play though, even if he loses to top seeds.
DanimalLawlz 8 months ago
@DanimalLawlz
LoL... The reason why s&v is gone is because they slowed down Wimbledon and US Open SEVERELY. Its no coincidence that the disappearance of s&v coincides perfectly with the circuit surface modifications... Has nothing to do with today's athleticism.
splendid1000 8 months ago
@splendid1000 So I guess when Boris Becker says that because of racquet technology baseline tennis is way more effective, he's incorrect and is utterly oblivious to your perfect analysis? Also, if Federer wanted to play serve and volley among the best, he could. Watch Wimbledon 2001 against Sampras, where he played serve and volley to a T without even being that developed of a player and defeated the best grass player of all time? I don't care that Sampras was in the twilight of his career btw.
DanimalLawlz 8 months ago
@DanimalLawlz
LOL Racquet technology... HAHAHA. Did racquet technology just change overnight? No. Racquets were no different in 2002 then they were in 2001 you absolute mind. Thats when s&v just 'magically' disappeared at Wimbledon and that just also happens to be when they modified the surface. Same exact thing happened at US Open. Its a known fact that Wimbledon was severely slowed down in 2001 and again in 2006, and US Open in 2003.
splendid1000 8 months ago
And PETE SAMPRAS himself agrees with me, along with many other grass court specialists like Tim Henman, Ivanisevic, Philloppoussis also have said this. Players who actually PLAYED on the surface. Becker never played on it lol so I dont really give a fuck what he says. The evolution of technology over maybe the last 15 years has helped baseline, but it didnt eliminate s&v from Wimbledon and US Open. The surface changes did.
splendid1000 8 months ago
You should care that Pete was not in his prime lol. He was in a total slump and on the decline. He was losing to nobodies all the time and didnt win a single slam for two straight years until he finally re-dedicated himself and trained his ass off to win the US Open one last time. Exactly one year before it was slowed down...Sampras was recovering from a herniated disc as well and lost next year's Wimbledon to #80 ranked George Bastl !!! LOL !!!
splendid1000 8 months ago
And when did I ever say that Fed couldn't s&v ??
splendid1000 8 months ago
Fed was a great s&v player, but one win over a 30 year old Sampras on the decline, battling injury, is not evidence that he could win 7 Wimbledons by s&v on fast 90s grass lol. He lost the next round to Tim Henman... Sampras destroyed Henman on a regular basis, yet Henman destroyed Fed. Just more proof that Sampras was in anything but top form in 2001 lol.
splendid1000 8 months ago
@splendid1000 lol this and the 2001 wimby video proves federer return better than agassi. Agassi put high % of balls back but those rarely trouble sampras, easy put-aways. Federer is strongest against players who put pace on the ball, so sampras could still lose on the faster grass, maybe even most of the matches. Only top spin specialists trouble him, not s&v, flat hitters, big hitters.
youziness 7 months ago
@youziness
Federer has a GREAT return no doubt... But Sampras would definitely NOT lose most of his matches on fast 90's grass LOL. The grass had already been slowed down by 2001, so that match really wasnt true 90s grass. The grass was then slowed down even more after 2001 too. US Open also. Not to mention Sampras was in a serious slump. He was losing to mediocre players all the time and lost next year's Wimbledon to #80 ranked George BastL. LOL
splendid1000 7 months ago
@splendid1000 people's misconception that federer cannot block sampras serve. The match at wimbledon more than proved it. Sampras' serve is always there, didnt failed before. Maybe sampras' flexibility aged but the player has to make good returns in first place against sampras to beat him. Its more like players are starting to return serve and pass him a lot that he quit. I agree for grass slower speed but not USopen. Moreever, the surface faster and bounce lower is better for federer.
youziness 7 months ago
@youziness
But Sampras is more than just a serve. He has to be in order to win. If all it took was a big serve for him to win than he would have never lost to anyone, especially Saffin and Hewitt in the US Open finals. If all it took was a big serve then Ivanisevek would have won Wimby every year. Theres a reason why Sampras would beat Goran every time. He has a tremendous all around game including great groundstrokes, great volleys, and a great return of his own. He outhit Agassi all the time
splendid1000 7 months ago
@youziness Why does Federer struggle against Nadal? And would a Federer in his prime, ie 2005, beat a Nadal in his prime?
mrbobevans 6 months ago
@mrbobevans Nadal has the lefty advantage, which is his only real weapon. If Nadal wasn't left handed he wouldn't be nearly as hard to beat as he is. The high topspin off the cross court forehand plays well out of the strike zone of a one handed back hand player. Djokovic and Murray have no trouble hitting that ball since they both hit a two handed back hand and their back hands are their stronger shots.
Maniac742 5 months ago
@Maniac742 hes naturally right he plays with left
KN10SKILLED 3 months ago
@splendid1000 although 16>14 lol
calugcug21 7 months ago
Fed should have gone on and won the entire tournament easily with Sampras out of the way. Guess what? He didnt. He didnt even come close lol. He got spanked in the quarters. End of story. Krajicek beat Pete in his prime at Wimbledon but guess what? Krajicek didnt go on to win 7 Wimbledons. In fact, he never won again after that LOL
splendid1000 8 months ago
@splendid1000 Get a grip man.Who do you think you are taking up almost the whole comments page to vent your opinions.Make your point and go on.Ty
pedrozzzzzzz099 7 months ago
@pedrozzzzzzz099
It's hard to get a grip when you've just snorted 18 extenZe.
splendid1000 7 months ago
@pedrozzzzzzz099
I'm Splendid1000 bitch !!
Recognize
splendid1000 7 months ago
@splendid1000 you speak alot of sence but without causing offence your spamming the page.
WindsweptHQ 7 months ago
@Steenhrgroen it is great because we are fortunate to also have lived through the federer nadal era. both baseliners but still very different style of play. Will be interesting to see when we will have the fortune of watching 2 legends with contrasting styles play again
Elohite 3 months ago
@5.57.. the serve just goes.. ping... nothing to it, probably 210km, on the line, wide, with spin... we can all dream at least :) lol
yoChris76 9 months ago
Fun trying to replicate this in Top Spin 4....... lol
yoChris76 9 months ago
why would anyone dislike this. this is the best tennis there is. everyone is trying to hit winners on every shot and not pound away at the baseline hoping their opponent would make a mistake.
AZIANxPRIDE1 9 months ago
This is called variety. Not today's moonballing from the baseline and waiting for the error. Carpe diem.
SoooBlue 9 months ago 28
@SoooBlue
Berdych, Soderling, Djokovic are all out attack. All in the top 7. Federer is not bad. Nadal uses the moon ball but hits the ball as aggressive as anyone Ive ever seen. Moon balling? Your entitled to your opinion, just throwing my 2 cent in.
SamCoreJ 9 months ago
@SamCoreJ Djokovic all out attack? He was far more aggressive in 2007 and 2008 than he is now. Federer's past it. Nadal hits as aggressive as anyone you've ever seen? My god.
I think I'll ignore your reply.
SoooBlue 9 months ago
I disagree with you on Djokovic and Federer as would most people who know the game. The Nadal comment may have been misconstrued? What i meant with the Nadal comment is not that his has the most aggressive game. I meant he hits the ball with aggression. His racket head speed is rapid. The fact he hits masses of topspin doesn't take away from the aggression he puts in.
SamCoreJ 9 months ago
@SoooBlue you'd be hard pressed to call it moonballing if you were on court with the current ATP pros. Theres a lot more weight on groundies these days. Strategy in this match is incredible though.
AwesomeSauce602 7 months ago
@AwesomeSauce602 Nonsense. A lot more weight? Djokovic who's been on a lengthy win streak has hardly won on the weight of his strokes, more like his unbelievable defence. Guys like Agassi, Sampras, Enqvist, Kafelnikov, Becker, Safin, Krajicek, Philippoussis, Pioline, Moya, Calleri didn't have huge strokes?
Thanks to the balls and slower courts guys are building their premise at the top on defensive skill more than anything else.
SoooBlue 7 months ago
@SoooBlue I agree, but look at Federer's game, perhaps the most stylish player in the history of the game
addy72222 7 months ago
@addy72222 Federer hit his prime years ago, when there was still a little variety left in the game.
SoooBlue 7 months ago
@SoooBlue That's it. This is tennis. Today's bullshit... still don't know what the hell it is.
aleoferdie 6 months ago
@SoooBlue hey I have nothing against yesterday's tennis, but even the old timmers agree. Today's tennis is as hard as beautiful if not more than the 90's and earlier tennis.
If you are looking for style of play. Federer and Sampras have... if you are looking for sheer determination on court, Aggassi and Nadal have, If you are looking for an on court joker with attitude McEnroe and Djokovic ... The list goes on...
squirtaka 6 months ago
@squirtaka Every retiring generation spouts the same nonsense, if they didn't, they'd look like bitter old men. Do you also believe Juan Carlos Ferrero when he said that he played just as well in 2008 as he did in 2003?
Please do go on with your 'list'. How you can compare Djokovic's and Mcenroe's attitude is beyond me, they are nothing alike. Federer and Sampras also had a very different style of play. And as I said, please do go on with your list. Monfils, Fish top 10 etc.
SoooBlue 6 months ago
@SoooBlue Couldn't of said it better myself. Exactly.......Where are all the players that want to force the action now??????? I still say Pete was the best ever. He played in a time where the competition at the top was the stiffest.
gornhorror 6 months ago
@gornhorror I'm not one for declaring someone the best ever because TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, you just can't compare era's however, Pete Sampras was one hell of a match player, he was no choker and he never became a choker. He was clutch until the day he retired.
Who do we have outside of the top 5 today (and even then, the top 5 isn't even great, Soderling never brings it any more and Murray chokes in every slam plus Nadal and Federer are shadows of their former selves) Ferrer, Berdych, Monfils?
SoooBlue 6 months ago
i can't get over how overpowering sampras' serve is
pulpnorwood 9 months ago
Reversed roles at 5:09
mitokhandria 10 months ago
Kind of amazing Sampras got away with that backhand of his
DanimalLawlz 10 months ago
@DanimalLawlz Pete just made his backhand neutral because his forehand was so overpowering. He dared his opponents to go wide so he could hit his running forehand, arguably one of the ten best shots of all-time. He also played SNV so his game wasn't completely focused on groundstrokes.
mrbobevans 8 months ago
sampras's wife is hot
jigesh18 10 months ago
Best match ever end of story
DestroyerAlexandros 11 months ago
Altough Federer has the most complete game, more elegant than Sampras style, I still state that Sampras is more extreme player on the court. He seems faster sometimes and watching his bomb serve and after volleying is superb even compare to Federer's all-court game. Sampras,Agassi,Becker and Safin at their prime were at least as good as Federer.Only thing is that Federer has the longest prime of them all.That's why he's the greatest maybe.
locyka19 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You know it's a good match when 3/4 of the points leave the commentator laughing or speechless.
anonymousLeroy 1 year ago
Comment removed
anonymousLeroy 1 year ago
all tie breaks ,could this be anymore close ?
niizk 1 year ago
Agassi, the best two handed backhand in the history
leonfe30 1 year ago
Love the mungrel in Sampras's game personality.... the return volleys are sick :)
yoChris76 1 year ago
the serve-volley style annoyes the hell out of me
federicou324 1 year ago
@federicou324 because it limits game play ?
yoChris76 1 year ago
@yoChris76 no. because its like "nah, i dont want to play........ i ll just go to the net to get this done quick." its not a match you can really enjoy. neighter to watch or to play
federicou324 1 year ago
@federicou324
Two players banging away from the baseline is just as boring.
FYTYTY 1 year ago
@federicou324 This was a ridiculous comment. If you knew anything about tennis you'd know that it's not about "nah, i dont want to play" it's about "i am faster, stronger, more resilient than you, more determined to win, that's why I'll move in to play a killer volley and you only get one shot to pass me or make me do an error. Give me your best, I can handle it"
DestroyerAlexandros 11 months ago
@DestroyerAlexandros man..... i know about tennis. im a player! i play 3 days a weak!! so dont say i dont know anything about tennis. why would you say that!? u dont know me.
And i get what your saying, when i play i also go to the net, but only on rallies. i dont play serve and volley style. and if you see profecional tennis now, you'll notice that the only player to do that is roddick (and only sometimes)
federicou324 11 months ago
@DestroyerAlexandros i agree with everything you've said, sampras isnt looking to rallying because he doesn't need to, he has an all attacking game which doesn't allow him to rally, he has so much feel for the ball hes trying to attack on every shot and go to the net, he has the most efficient and effortless game which makes him the greatest player ever. why waist your time, energy, and body rallying when you can finish points almost as quickly as you want.
federerownz 11 months ago
@federerownz
The same can be said about Federer. His technique is so fluid and effortless. Thats why he was able to make 23 consecutive slam semi finals, why he hasn't missed a slam through injury, and I don't think he has retired from a match in his career. I love Sampras, I grew up on him, but reluctantly, I have conceded that Federer is the greatest of all time. The record books show it, no doubt.
SamCoreJ 9 months ago
@SamCoreJ yep u are right his game is also as fluid but what makes pete a better player is that you are under constant pressure when playing against him, players were even scared to hit to his forehands and the way he set up his running forehands r ridicules, no one plays the way he does nowadays cause people have this thought in there head that SNV is dead ....
federerownz 9 months ago
@SamCoreJ
Sorry but you cant compare the two. Sampras was injured several times because of the simple fact that he was s&v. After they slowed down the courts, s&v died and baseline completely took over. Serve and volley is MUCH more taxing on the body in terms of injury because of the extreme angles you have to cover on your way into/at net. Federer actually has a tremendous s&v game as well, but fortunately for him, has never had to use it.
splendid1000 8 months ago
By slowing down the courts and eliminating serve and volley, you have basically cut the competition in half lol. There's no doubt Federer would do well in the 90s, but he definitely would not have 16 slams, especially at the age he did. Its much harder to face a tour with both the best baseliners in the world, AND the best serve and volleyers in the world. Injury to do s&v coupled with his blood-iron deficiency robbed Pete of at least 2-3 slams.
splendid1000 8 months ago
@splendid1000 lmao at your "knowledge of assuming" who are you by the way? are an analyst of tennis or what? and your "lols" are so funny. FACT: laughing in an argument doesn't mean you win and 16>14
calugcug21 7 months ago
@calugcug21
lmao at you English. Yes 16 is greater than 14. But he never won on 90s extreme surfaces and never faced real s&v competition in his prime. FACT. It's obviously just my opinion that he wouldnt have 16 slams in the 90s, but the fact is, when you slow down the courts you eliminate half the competition. FACT
splendid1000 7 months ago
@splendid1000 lol at my english when yours is rubbish. FACT: he started his first years on the end of 90's how could he have won a grandslam? and even sampras didn't win tons of gs in 2000 fact! bullshit
calugcug21 7 months ago
@calugcug21
Fact : You dont even make sense !!
LOL !!!!!
Fact : I never said Pete won a ton of slams in the 2000s.
What are you smoking ??? Fact : Crack. LOL!!!!
splendid1000 7 months ago
@splendid1000 now you're just making fun because your facts aren't even facts, checkmate son checkmate
calugcug21 7 months ago
@calugcug21
LOL nice bro. What did you win?
splendid1000 7 months ago
@calugcug21
I already won this battle long ago bud, but i'll let you take second place.
splendid1000 7 months ago
@splendid1000 lol not stating facts anymore because fed is clearly better than pete. LOL
calugcug21 7 months ago
@calugcug21
I already stated the facts LOL. Go back and read. LOL
You have yet to disprove anything I have said. LOL
splendid1000 7 months ago
@splendid1000 yep and I also stated the facts lol? fed wins lol? 16>14 lol? 1>0 FO lol? longest number 1 lol? the GOAT lol?
calugcug21 7 months ago
@calugcug21
Yep and I also stated that Fed won all his slams on a modified circuit that plays much slower and caters to baseline pussies lol? A modification that eliminated serve n volley from the tour and made it only logical that one man would dominate lol? Rod Laver has WAY more slam victories than Federer lol and if they had kept the Australian Slam up from 63 to 67, he'd have even more lol? 7 Wimbledons > 6 lol. 286 weeks > 285 weeks lol ? Bridgette Wilson > Mirka Vavrinec lol ? LOL u fail
splendid1000 7 months ago
Sampras vs Agassi ( Pete leads 20 - 14) > Federer vs Nadal ( Nadal leads 17 - 8 ) lol ?
splendid1000 7 months ago
@splendid1000 lol you posted a little too much >>
Megajanitor 7 months ago
@splendid1000 rod laver huh? how many does he have? 16 is the record last time I checked. And also Federer is the longest number 1 in CONSECUTIVE WEEKS PUSSY. and lmao to women's division did that get into the debate? lol lmao you faggot
calugcug21 7 months ago
@calugcug21
LOL Last time I checked YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON LOL !!!??? If you knew anything about tennis, you'd know that Rod Laver has 19 total slams and the only reason he doesnt technically have the record is because the slams were called Pro Slams instead of Grand Slams from 1963 to 1969 and they also didn't have an Australian slam during those years either. All they did was change the name... If they had kept the slams as ' Grand Slams ' Laver would have well over 20 DIPSHIT.
splendid1000 7 months ago
Sampras has the most total weeks at #1 overall and played on a much tougher tour with much more diversified talent (Serve n Volley AND Baseline), which is more important PUSSY. And I'm not talking about the women's division you IDIOT, im just saying Bridgette is flat out hotter than Mirka LOL. Wow, you are a fucking retard.
splendid1000 7 months ago
@splendid1000 that's why I said grand slams huh? you pwned your fucking self bitch. grandslam is what it is called today and now you switch to rod laver because CLEARLY FED PWNS SAMPRAS, and now I'm ready to help fed to say to you faggot that he is better than laver bitch
calugcug21 7 months ago
@calugcug21
I switched to Laver because you used Fed's 16 slams as proof that he is the GOAT. If you are gonna use total slam wins as criteria for determining the GOAT then you would have to consider Laver the GOAT. I dont give a fuck what the slam happens to be called when he won it LOL. A slam is a slam and he faced the same top competition he would have faced whether it was called a 'Grand' Slam or a 'Pro' Slam. You clearly have pussy lips tucked between those pathetic legs.
splendid1000 7 months ago
@splendid1000 so you admit that fed is better than sampras which earlier in the comments you said that sampras is gonna destroy fed? i don't give a fuck if you don't give a fuck! It's called grand slam now and that's what I said if you can't read properly then I can send you some glasses fuckface
calugcug21 7 months ago
@calugcug21
LoL, you're kidding right ? Please tell me this is a joke. Noone can be this stupid. No, I don't admit Fed is better than Sampras LOL. I just wrote an entire paragraph explaining why he's not better than Sampras and why he's definitely not the GOAT.HAHAHA. I now realize I am dealing with a person who suffers from abnormal retardation.
splendid1000 7 months ago
@splendid1000 then why did you switch to laver? lmao, fed is the goat you dumbfuck, and you are the person who has the abnormal retardation cuz your mum is fat and your dad is gay
calugcug21 7 months ago
@calugcug21
I didnt switch to anything. I dont know who the GOAT is, thats what I'm trying to say. Im saying there are reasons for and against each of the top candidates and theres no clear winner.
splendid1000 7 months ago
@splendid1000 yeah, well I think we have something in common, Im quite tired arguing about this
calugcug21 7 months ago
Yes thats true, Fed didnt have the chance to win on 90's extreme surfaces. They changed it before he hit his prime. Its not his fault obviously, but he still didnt do it. FACT.
splendid1000 7 months ago
@federicou324
i get what you're saying
serve and volleyers rush to the net more out of the incapability to rally more than the necessity to finish the point
same goes for baseliners staying at the baseline
thats why its such a joy to watch federer play, he has every weapon, and he does things the way they need to be done
foul01 11 months ago
@foul01 Your very existence is a mistake. Let alone the boisterous comment you just made. Sampras doesn't rush the net out of "incapability" to rally. He has the best forehand the game has ever seen. He rushes the net because he's outstanding at it and he's a 3-dimensional athlete (forehand, forehand volley, backhand, backhand volley, serve and smash), not a 2-d one like djokovic (forehand and backhand) or Ivanisevic (first serve). It's just a joy to watch Sampras play cause he has everything!
DestroyerAlexandros 11 months ago
@DestroyerAlexandros
i'm sure sampras rallies handsomely, which is why he's reached so many french open finals on clay where serve and volley isnt as effective
no, his backhand isnt weak at all and his running forehand never leaves him out of position to return the next shot
foul01 11 months ago
@foul01 He's reached an RG semi-final, which doesn't mean he's bad on clay. It means he's pretty fucking good actually. Safin has reached a french open semi-final but nobody says Safin is bad on clay/bad at rallying. Safin is pretty fucking good on clay/pretty fucking good at rallying actually.
DestroyerAlexandros 11 months ago
@DestroyerAlexandros
safin is so inconsistent his best tennis last less than 3 years combined
sampras is in the top ten for ages and he made 1 SF
and sampras is a great player, so its inexcusable to compare him to players that have won anything less than 5 slams
by great players standard, he's weak on clay
and you're the one that started an argument with insults on a statement i made on players in general not sampras
so up yours, you low life son of a bitch
dont bother replying
foul01 11 months ago
@foul01 You don't know anything about tennis, why bother arguing with someone who's been playing and watching it since literally day 1? You're the one that says Sampras is bad at rallying!
DestroyerAlexandros 11 months ago
@foul01 he had many injuries that would take him out the game close to a year almost everytime dot forget
cj397 11 months ago
@foul01
Actually Sampras had an blood-iron deficiency that caused anemia. Thats why Sampras never did as well at the French. He also strung his racket at 80 lbs and that hurt him as well. It worked for him on faster courts like US Open and Wimbledon but not on clay. Sampras made a semi final run and several quarter runs losing ONLY to the best clay courters in the world. He lost only to French Open finalists and champions in his good runs. He's not quite as good as Fed, but he didnt suck
splendid1000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DON'T READ THIS CUZ IT ACTUALLY WORKS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY FROM THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE, TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE; HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T POST THIS TO OVER THREE VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN TWO DAYS. NOW THAT YOU STARTED READING THIS DON'T STOP. THIS IS SO SCARY! POST THIS TO OVER FIVE VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES. WHEN YOU'RE DONE PRESS F6 AND YOUR CRUSH'S NAME WILL APPEAR ON SCREN IN BIG LETERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BUT IT REALLY
dev97up 1 year ago
@marionmarcano
Yes Federer won in their only meeting but a peak Federer against a peak Sampras on USO decoturf, Sampras would win.
Anyway, I'll let you carry on kissing Federer's ass. The Swiss would not have won 16 GS playing in a weak era with just Nadal as his serious challenger.
lavaman233 1 year ago
@lavaman233
Pete played a stunning US Open in 2001, likewise the year before and of course in 2002, when won the final. He was still a big player, the big Pete, when Federer beat him. Nevertheless, I have to say, that Pete in top shape would be hard to beat on fast courts, both for Federer and Nadal. But on clay, both Federer and Nadal would rip him apart. I wonder how Nadal would cope with the speedy and FLAT groundstrokes of Pete and how he would answer Rafa´s topspin.
Fed should copy Pete.
ulizinho 1 year ago
@lavaman233
Sampras & Federer are very alike, same heigth and weight. Pete & Roger are the ones,who really have this extra talent. They don´t run, they fly on the court. Pete plays more aggressive & direct, Fed tries to outplay his adversary with cunning angles, slices and defense-to-offense game.
Federer should watch this to copy Pete: E.G. more aggresive returns, more flat shots instead of topspin, more net play and more risky 2nd serves. He showed some Pete elements in London vs Rafa.
ulizinho 1 year ago
Federer would not have a chance in hell in beating Sampras in this form back in 2001. Had he contested in Sampras' era, the Swiss might only have 8 slams at best.
lavaman233 1 year ago
''Federer would not have a chance in hell of beating Sampras in this form back in 2001''
Yeah, that's exactly what the scoreboard of their 2001 Wimbledon 4th round showed, right?
mariomarcano 1 year ago
Always wondered why Agassi never continued to improve on that backhand down the line, he certainly was stubborn about this department. If he added the backhand down the line to his arsenal he would have been even better
GyariSan 1 year ago
Alot of those volleys, for nadal they would have been routine passing shots.
GyariSan 1 year ago
Best tennis match ever ¡¡¡¡¡¡
EMIUP 1 year ago
go andre!
TsunetaroMoriyama 1 year ago
if sampras wants any indication of how he would do against the best players of todays era, this match would be equal to him playing nadal on a bad day.
brawlaccount 1 year ago
Both of these guys loved to play with pace and feed off of pace, none of this moonball baseline crud you see today!
davd1986 1 year ago
A great tennis rivalry. Federer and Nadal is obviously great, but they are not meeting that much anymore. WIM 2008 - GREATEST MATCH EVER
theone225 1 year ago
@RobT89 i'm sure
Saucy94 1 year ago
I so wanted neither of them to lose. It sucks that some1 has to. Thats life.
Empry 1 year ago
Volley must change his name by a Sampras xDDD
elkabras 1 year ago
Sampras and Agassi Sucks. Who would post something like this?? I have a better jump smash than the two of them combined
RobT89 1 year ago
@RobT89 Pete and Andre better than slow court players Rafa and Roger.
thisislaser 1 year ago
@RobT89 For obvious troll comment, a puppy dies. Help stop the puppy pandemic.
rubix0110 1 year ago
@RobT89 dont kid yourself
Mr30051994 1 year ago
We haven't seen these kind of net play for a loooooog time.
kawaihui 1 year ago
Lol at Sampras 2:17. Michael Jordan who??? hahaha jk
Deadeye287 1 year ago
Amazing. How often does this happen in tennis? When both players are world-class and are so consistent they don't break once, and one of them can win three tiebreakers in a row?
Just listening to the announcer at 7:19 "7-6, 7-6. 7-6" is just epic.
demosj 1 year ago
beasts
rolf85 1 year ago
Oh boy! I remember watching this match on my TV and what a spectacle it was!
derhundchen 1 year ago
Agassi would have dominated so much more in this generation, or really any other generation. But he just had to be born in the generation with the guy who gave the least rhythm of anyone in history. It demoralized him, and that combined with the fact that he didn't have the same competitive drive as the other guys because he was forced into tennis against his will meant that he "only" won 8 majors, when with his talent he should have won twice that.
superman11978 1 year ago
@superman11978 Are you saying that Agassi is the more gifted player than Pete? Maybe Andre has better baseline feel. But Pete is unique. He had arguably the best serve ever, and could explode around the court like an NBA allstar player.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
man was this HQ!
nofearfor13 1 year ago
guga kuerten had the best single handed backhand ever .watch the SF in lisboa beetween sampras and guga in 2000 .
gcarvalhoodontologia 1 year ago
The player with the most awkward looking single handed backhand ever is Pete Sampras.
XrenegadeZ 1 year ago
@XrenegadeZ I say Pete did pretty good with that "awkward looking backhand". He only won 14 grand slams.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
@XrenegadeZ What do you think Pete's strengths were. For me, it was that he is the best pure athlete to pick up a tennis racquet.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
what a match sampras serve was huge and agassi returns incredible
Deeennisteeennis 1 year ago
It is great to watch Pete's Eastern Forehand. So retro as compared to the more Semi Westerns and Westerns that are so prevalent in today's game. Please bring back the Eastern/ Serve and Volley game.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
thanks again AznHylite, again - great editing.
I think its BS to diss one incredible match over another... they are all unique spectacles of humans at the edge of reality... n thats gwd enuf 4 me
rohedron 1 year ago
A shame Agassi ruined his reputation with drugs
computermaster 1 year ago
@computermaster he didnt ruin his reputation, read his book.
stevehollandsnz 1 year ago
the king of serve and volley vs the king of answers!!!!the best match
MsTennisplayer 1 year ago