Sampras Courier French Open 1996

[dvh065]

Both use Wilson Prostaff Original 6.0 85 (me too), love the "pop".

[TsunetaroMoriyama]

don't really see how its an argument, fed won more slams on more surfaces against just as good if not better players and has a more 3 dimensional game

[anismessi]

omg

imagine nadal vs sampras roland garros

that will be a disaster

6/0 6/0 6/0

[gabe228]

courier's fh - epic at the time

his backhand - one of the ugliest form shown by a top player in that era.

[leverwork1]

Sampras was terrible on clay, he lucky the large rackets came in at his time, as he would be possibly a non major winner, shows where the game was going at that time.

[AceGuitarR7]

@leverwork1 large racquets arent that much of an advantage. roger federer still uses pete smapras's racquet. wilson just give it a paint job. its not the racquets that make a huge difference, besides comparing to wood off course but the strings and surface of the court actually make the biggest differences

[SrMatos]

Sampras' backhand in this match was just ridiculous.

[reyalmanski]

Nice I enjoy watching this game!

[pablotjob]

courier seems paul scholes

[raff23]

the difference in quality from the rosset v karbacher QF is on another level, heavier ground strokes, speed around the court etc.

[timafi]

I never understood why the tennis world considered Sampras the "greatest" when he won nothing but one Masters Series on clay in Rome and 2 other small titles on the surface and made it to just 1 semifinals in the French capital his whole career when there are 4 slams.Never understood that at all

[thisnamealsotaken]

@timafi the reason my friend is very simple: cus he won more slams than anyone else at that time. borg never won anything but grass and clay and still he is considered top 5 all time, why? cus he won frkin 11 slams.

[leverwork1]

@thisnamealsotaken

Borg only played 7 years won yes 11 slams, but he also has and would have destroyed both players hands down, What would Pete's serve be like with a wood racket?. Connors has said this for years about Borg, after all he played the guy. Pete would have to take a few bathroom breaks to get his breath back, as Borg would still be running his ass off 5 hours later, though the match would ever go that long, as Pete would have probably be in a wheel chair like me

[thisnamealsotaken]

@leverwork1 first of all i defended borg, so why u arguin me is a mysterie lol.

second of all u now talking about a total different thing but ill adress it since we here anyway. we cant base something on what another player says or has said. agassi always said federer was greatest ever, better than nadal pete etc but after those yrs when nadal destroyed everything he changed his mind. im sure in a few yrs he will be on novaks dick lol. and ifs dont count, if it didnt happen it ends there.

[leverwork1]

@thisnamealsotaken ''S

Sorry man, my fault, need to read before commenting on a comment!!

[supergf1986]

Ok, so what if these guys had it? What are you trying to say?

[quest8899]

If I used nadals racquet and his strings I could hit harder and with more spin than these guys

[MattyOyola21]

French Open equals Sampras losing.

[Balugavic]

@MattyOyola21 lol French Open equals Crampras

[riteasrain]

it's enjoyable listening to jim courier commentating @ the australian open last week and this. He does a great job. I thought smashup tennis was only the last few years but looking at this Sampras/Courier match they did it then too!

[Tabilanga]

one of the best claycourt matches of sampras

[RBaltovi]

The last place anyone should be arguing federer-Sampras is underneath French Open highlights. Sampras made one semi whereas Federer won it, made four finals and five semis.

Case CLOSED...

[Kevinxnam10]

@RBaltovi You realize the courts were different back than now, Clay courts are now a lot faster, plus the rackets are strings were also different now you can have more power with the newer rackets, so it is still hard to say who is better

[LittleVinnyCock]

Petey the best ever!!!!!

[nitturo]

do someone know where can we find Courier winning a match played with a skillet instead of racket? that were so fun! good old 80's, we don't see games like that anymore..

[Meshalhasseen]

In my mind the greatest player I've ever seen is Sampras. This match was one heck of a show of heart. If only he'd stuck to the baseline and changed his racquet in the later years, he would've won a French.

[ulizinho]

Anyway, this particular match here and the whole tournament was surely Pete´s best achievement on clay. I remember that he beat clay super star Bruguera before. All these heavy battles exhausted him, unfortunately, so he was done in the semis against Kafelnikov.

[angelwebeza]

Guys don't you cheat yourselves I saw Sampras play on clay and he wasn't great, he was a decent player but he would've defenitely lost against Federer period (Nadal would've destroyed him).

I'm not so sure if Sampras would've had the upper hand at Wimbledon (19 years old first apperance at Center Court Federer beat defending champion Sampras at 2001) but it would've been his best shot to beat Federer at a slam.

[robertk2007]

sampras is the best grass court player of all time.

[angelwebeza]

@robertk2007

When Federer wins Wimbledon this year then Sampras won't be the best grass court player by the numbers because everybody who knows something about tennis knows that Federer is way better than Sampras everywhere.

[robertk2007]

way better than sampras? federer wouldnt have a chance against Pete in his prime. he wouldnt be able to break pete on the grass. Sampras is the best grass court player of all time. i dont care what eurotrash says otherwise.

[angelwebeza]

@robertk2007

Well man the numbers don't lie and if Federer wins one more he'll become the best grass court player of all times in addition to his already GOAT Tittle. You can't compare eras but you can compare numbers and statistics and guess what, Federer is better. Besides the only time they met in a real match he beat Sampras, and don't come out with the prime bulls*** because Federer wasn't at his prime either and Sampras was the defending champion.

[ulizinho]

Federer can do what he wants. If people hate hum because he is European and not US American...what shall he do about that?

For Pete fanatics, all of Pete´s titles and weeks as Nr 1 are a proof for his greatness whereas Roger´s achievements are for them just a proof for the weakness of his opponents.

BUT: Speed has increased, intensity has increased, the whole level has increased.

[ulizinho]

Hi. You lose your credibilty when you start to insult other people. It is as if you have no real argument.

Fed won vs aceservers in Wimby: Roddick & Karlovic. He won on the old fast grass vs Phillipoussis, served more aces then the aussi, who hit over 40 aces vs Agassi in that tournament.

And most important: Fed, still not mature and on top DID beat Sampras in Wimby 2001. Sampras was defending champion and still was to win the US Open in 2002, so he was still the big Pete which we all love.

[robertk2007]

no one can stop pistol pete on grass in his prime. it took federer 5 sets to be pete and he was 31 years old. Sampras lost the next year in the first round. federer needed 5 sets to beat nadal and roddick on grass and lost to Nadal. Pistol would have destroyed both of them.

[ulizinho]

What was wrong with Pete in Wimby 2001?

He hit 27 aces, just like Fed. Grass is not physically demanding like clay. It is all reaction time and quick decision. In this, Fed & Pete are the masters.

I repeat: Pete may have been at 90 % of his best but so was Federer or even less.

He was a mere talent at that time, lost against Henman in the next round and lost in first round the following year. So, we may also ask what would Federer do with Pete, if he was in his prime!?!?

[angelwebeza]

@robertk2007

Pete Sampras was 29 when he lost against Federer and let me remind you that he was the defending champion.

[ulizinho]

so true. Watching the Sampras Federer match does not give the impression that Sampras was an old feable man.

His career was in the twilight zone, that is true, but on fast courts he was still the best. Sampras hit 27 aces, so this is a high number, indicating that most things worked very well for him.

And at that time it was still fast grass.

[robertk2007]

so what? a year is a lifetime in tennis...

[ulizinho]

Robert, dear, you lose yourcredibilty whenever you start to be rude.

Sampras was of course way better then Roger concerning Serve n Volley. But does this make him the better player overall?

What about Roland Garros? Or Melbourne?

Sampras set the standard, and I never expected anyone to pass his 14 majors. But Fed did ! And he won in Paris.

And the level, the speed the professionality today is higher then in Pete´s time, just compare some matches here on youtube.

[robertk2007]

i said GRASS, GRASS!!!! read

[ulizinho]

Well Grass GRASS GRASS !

Did you smoke some of that shyt?

Federer has only one wimby title less then Sampras but has the longest record of wins on this surface.

The GRASS in wimby is now more resistant, not really slower, but it remains even in the second week with a real GRASS surface. THe ball now bounce higher therefore Nadal could make it into the finals.

Still it is GRASS !

And still the surface in Paris is CLAY ! CLAY ! A surface for real men.

[robertk2007]

the GRASS isnt slower at wimbledon today? you must smoking something heavier than GRASS. maybe CRACK! besides every player saying its slower plus heavier balls i guess there is no real evidence. no one puts pressure on federer cause no one can serve and volley anymore. sampras beat becker, goran, kraijeck, and others who were monsters on the GRASS. I am sure Federer may have beaten some of them during 90's but not 7 out of 8. Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt are all baseliners who pose no real threat.

[angelwebeza]

@robertk2007

Federer defated Sampras on a fast grass and non of them were in their prime so you just simply can't say that Federer wouldn't have had a chance against Pete with both players in their primes. And nowdays the conditions are pretty much slower than before so serve and volley isn't as effective. Man is ok if you don't like Federer but give the guy his credit.

[ulizinho]

Hi Robert, finally you are more more objective and respectful. Thanks.

I dare say that Pete had a better Serve and Volley game and a slightly better serve then Roger, mostly because of his better second serve. Whether this or Roger´s way better overall game would decide an encounter of the two in their prime will always remain pure speculation. On fast courts, all the ex champs may have a chance, true. But none of them would win many matches vs Roger on hard court or clay.

[ulizinho]

Besides: Roger repeatingly defeated players with superb serve in Wimby:

Karlovic, Roddick, Del Potro, Safin, Phillipoussis among others.

Karlovic does not have a good overall play, but his serve is really deadly.

I would like to see Roger putting a bit more risk into his second serves and play some serve and volley in Wimby, which might help vs Nadal. Rafa has created a style with which he can beat Roger on all surfaces. So Roger should adapt.

[ulizinho]

Indeed, Wimby changed the grass seed in 2001, the year in which Ivanisevic finally won and Pete´s reign was ended.

The grass mixture lets the ball bounce higher, therefor return play is easier and baseline tennis is possible.

However in this year the ground kept soft, because of rain.

The final of 2002 showed the first final without serve and volley.

The old grass would have been an advantage for Pete.

[ulizinho]

For example: Look at the final of the US OPEN 1995. There was a superb baseline rally, Andre & Pete were hitting the ball with a speed and precision unseen before and Pete won this point with a cross backhand. The crowd in the stadium could not wuite believe what they saw and applauded for a minute.

Now, such rallies are standard. You can see those rallies in many matches and even better ones. Pete & Andre set the standard and now we are constantly having this standard.

Cheers from Europe !

[pmo1983]

@robertk2007

As soon as you use terms like "eurotrash" your argument starts to look like an emotional one- you begin to look pathetic and desperate.

You dont like Fed because he is European. You like like Sampras because he is American. You are a moron.

Maybe Sampras was thje better grass court player (time will tell), but Federer is the better player. His record on clay and HC dosent lie.

[thrillamf]

What a comeback from Sampras. If Federer and Sampras played at their peaks, Federer would destroy Sampras at the French Open, Pete would have the upper hand at Wimbledon, the other two slams would be close.

[FightwithDream]

@thrillamf I don't know that Federer would have destroyed Sampras. While he never won the French Open, Sampras was definitely a contender for that tournament. I do agree with you that Federer would have won with these circumstances.

[thrillamf]

He was only really a contender in one year and that was this year when he got to the semi final. After this he failed to get past the third round. If they played at the old faster Wimbledon courts then Federer would have gotten blown away by the serve volley tactics of Sampras. However nowadays Wimbledon has changed so much and slowed down, before it was extremely rare for the same person to win both the French Open and Wimbledon. You harldy used to see any rallies in the older days.

[angelwebeza]

@thrillamf

Wasn't the grass fast at 2001 Wimbledon?, of course that was the year that they slowed down the grass.

[thrillamf]

I would say 2002 was the year they slowed down Wimbledon. That was when Hewitt won. In 2001 Sampras was good but not at his peak.

[angelwebeza]

@thrillamf

And Federer was of course at his highest peak...

[thrillamf]

No. But it was only one match. in the next round Federer lost to the 'mighty' Tim Henman, so what does that show?

[angelwebeza]

@thrillamf

That shows that Federer wasn't even near his prime at that moment and if it wasn't for Federer, Sampras would've won his 8th Wimbledon. Besides it shows that Federer has a good match up against Sampras and he would've dominated the most of their matches.

[copavida]

I remember one time i played a guy and lost on the 5th set, it was a 4 hour marathon match and at the end i went home all pissed off, i should of won but i blew it, even the best can b beatten on a bad day

[poiuzttrewq]

@copavida : HA AHA AHA AHA

[Thetoughestweight1]

How in the hell did he come back in that case is amazing! Missed a slam dunk, lost badly the second set..against Courier on clay..that was amazing!!

[bbbgogo]

Oh, jesus, can you guys just leave it be? Everywhere I go to watch highlights, you guys have to bring up the discussion of Federer VS Sampras, aint u even tired?

For christ sake, theres no way to know who is the greatest of all time, everything just changed so much from court speed to the ball.

Can u just come here to discuss more about the past tennis and enjoy matches played by past greats? Just grow up and stop being such a blind fanboy/fangirl.

[OneWingDuck]

@bbbgogo your not going to get people to stop by insulting them.

[Stier19812002]

@bbbgogo

In fact, Jim Courier ist the best. :D

[thalivest]

@bbbgogo Cuz you have idiotic buffoons who know nothing, just trying to further their agendas and their own personal feelings. Just read what's being posted and you see biased and uneducated statements.

Determining the greatest isn't an exact science, but these ppl here aren't even close anyway.

[kokser29]

@bbbgogo My opinion is, that the generation sampras, becker, stich, mcenroe and so on were better than federer and nadal. The talent and technics were better. The weakness from Sampras was his backhand but nadal only play with power, if he is tired he lost games. federer is on downside trend and play with his experience about other players. 20 years ago there were more top players in the top 10 the only live for tennis. Today there are players in the top 40 and they lost every first round.

[Johnnybraveo]

OK I take it back about Fed having an easy life. I forgot about Peter Carter. But Pete still had a better serve when he was at his peak, though his backhand was always his achilles' heel. Pete was also very prone to injuries, which was also an achilles' heel. Fed didn't really get injured much, except for that bout with mono a while back.

[TheFitConnection]

Pete had the far better serve - probably the best of all time - not the hardest,but the best. However, Roger's serve is still dominant, and he's better off the ground than Pete - and he's a much better all-court player. I'm a huge fan of both, but the edge definitely goes to Roger. The problem with Roger is that he makes it look easy - but he had his own problems with emotion control when he was younger - once he got his outbursts under control - he became a force on the court.

[Johnnybraveo]

I still think sampras was the better player compared to fed. pete had to contend with a dying coach and other emotional crises, and really could serve out of trouble at will. fed basically has a very smooth life, with not too many problems in life.

[strojzabelu]

You are totally wrong, man. Fed's coach Peter Carter, from Australia, the man who trained him from 2000-2002 i think, died in a car accident late in 2002. Fed was very connected with Carter and his family, so he hasn't had a very smooth life, has he? Besides, what the heck do you mean by "other emotional crises"??? It's totally irrelevant to a player's quality. None of them had smooth lives early on in their careers.

[cam230723]

sorry bud-you're in denial. Fed is the far superior player which Sampras (to his credit) has publicly acknowledged

[suckmydick90210]

sure....dying coach..is that even an excuse??...fed plays without any coach...how is that??...fed is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than sampras anyday....i was a fan of sampras and a great fan of fed....both a fact is a fact..!

[tws112]

courier did reach the wimbledon final in 1993, qtr final in 1991 and 4th rd in 99. He wasn't a factor on grass, but had some success.

[mugiwarafan14]

Sampras is amazin at serve and volley. HOLY MOLEY HE ROCKS

[Hypnos7]

Can't believe Sampras won this match. Not only was he down 2 sets, but he looked miserable. Footwork was really bothering him. At Wimbledon and US Open, he moved so precisely ...

[dpistons149]

federer is better

[nizzam1]

stop smokin too many drugs, if federer had to face players like sampras and courier in their prime he wud not have won as many grand slams as he has won today

[dpistons149]

u should stop sucking so much dick if federer wasnt around in 2days era so many other players would have grand slam titles...and plus federer in his prime is better than sampras in his

[nizzam1]

bro i ma not the one sucking anything, its clearly u if u belive federer in his prime is better than sampras. when it comes to serve and attacking game no one was better than sampras, federer definitely has a better backourt game, back hand andshot variety, however in the lightning fast courts of the 90s a match between prime federer and prime sampras cud have gone both ways with no one player really dominating the series

[timafi]

hate 2 burst your bubble but your boy Pete NEVER made ALL 4 major FINALS because "in his prime" Pete made just 1 SEMIS in Paris while Federer made it to 3 straight FINALS!

Pete won just 1 tournament on the real red clay of Europe in Rome and he owned Houston,the same way Roddick owns that tournament in Houston.

Federer has won Hamburg 5times;Estoril,Madrid and made finals in Monte Carlo,Rome

don't remember Courier being a factor on grass either.Check ur facts and then come back again!

[nizzam1]

courier reached the final of wimbledon in 93 but defeated by pete, plus where in my comments did i mention anything abt clay, i said in the "lightning" fast courts of the 90s which were the hard courts at us open, aus open, the indoor courts, and the fast paced grass courts of wimbledon. if u really believe that "prime" federer wud own prime sampras and courier than you must b on drugs. a match between them during their prime years cud go anyway with sampras winning some and federer winning some

[tws112]

federer is just an unique player, I think him and pete would've had a great rivalry, if that was the case neither one of em could've broken the GS record or win wimbledon 5 or 7 times.

[nizzam1]

tnx tws u understood what i meant, i have nothing against federer, however i just hate it when some ppl just make claims out of their ass that federer wud own and easily defeat past great players such as laver, sampras, courier, borg etc, when the speed of courts , playing styles, equipment, competition and so many other factors were different between their eras

[SimonCoulthard]

true, but fed in his prime playing during the sampras era would've meant much less wimbledons for sampras..

[thrillamf]

@SimonCoulthard

Probably not. Back in those days Wimbledon had much faster courts. Pretty much whoever had the biggest and best serves won. Guys like Sampras, Krajicek, Ivanisavic used to do well. Agassi was the exception.

[melende1966]

courier led by 2 sets to love but he lost it's unbelievable

[elduce77]

NO MARK ON RACKET LOL....

[awesomerepublican]

EXCELLENT WIN ON CLAY.

[stell29]

I love the end of video, courier looks like he wants to kill somebody. After blowing the 2-0 lead against Pete at the 1995 Aussie Open, this had to be a killer defeat, the kind you don't come back from

[tws112]

can't believe sampras came back and won this match, esp on a clay court. Too bad for jim, he never really got back into the top 10 after this match, not did he ever make it to the qtrs of any other GRANDSLAM after this debacle.

[gamblerpete]

I remember watching this match. When Pete was 2-0 down, somehow I felt he would win :)

[monthejoe]

Man, Sampras had some ugly groundstrokes.

[BLACKTREAT]

A GOOD WIN ON CLAY

[popkorn2565]

2 superbes joueurs