Sampras "tennis-show" vs Roddick in Us Open 2002

[365to173repubsPWNED]

sampras and agassi got heavier as they got older. federer has stayed as lean as ever

[TheNarutoflo]

hahaha andys hairs...:D

[Steve0904]

I would have loved to see Fed and Sampras play in their primes. It would have been very interesting to see Fed's insane reflexes against Sampras's killer serve. Personally without making any predictions on what would happen in theory I think Fed prefers playing big servers because as I said earlier he has a crazy ability to just block back huge serves much like he did when they played at Wimbledon.

[uberathlete]

Schooled.

[rebelian7]

@TrakiyaThrash These days, nobody can be that cool and confident coming to the net without getting passed or overpowered -_-

[Germinsound]

For me, Pete is the best player at the history !

[TrakiyaThrash]

These days nobody is that cool and confident coming to the net.

[TheMadhir]

@maximilian533 sound-video synchronization does not matter here. thank you for allowing us the privilege of watching a legendary master at work. fantastic highlight reel.

[Jaewon12345]

roddick had hair?!

[365to173repubsPWNED]

@Jaewon12345 had

[TheSupertennisking]

If I give Sampras a help, Sampras will beat Roger again in 2011.

[kennethlundgren]

Clinic. Sampras at his peak beats Federer at his peak. Just unbeatable when in the zone. BEST EVER.

[LM14921]

What a lesson of tennis

[volvariella]

0:26 Roddick's glorious hair now is HISTORY

[thepikachuvoltage16]

@Mzee1084 All Nick Bollietieri does is feed forehands. That explains why Agassi's serve was crap compared to Sampras.

[dinkydodgem93]

roddicks serve sucks on this video lol

[davd1986]

It's interesting that for three straight US Open tournaments Sampras played Safin, Hewitt and Roddick, in that order, and they were all 20 years old at the time they played Sampras! Sampras was 20 years old when he won his first GS title, and Federer was a mere month shy of 20 when he beat Sampras in the epic 2001 Wimbledon match! Something about 20 being when great players truly break through! It takes a 2-4 years of grinding to get to that next, huge level.

[randykarmakum]

@davd1986 and history shows top players can stay on top for 5 years. 5 year end no.1 signifies greatness.

[PornobrillenAli]

the sound doesn't match up with the wideo

[rockerduff1231]

ive been looking for highlights to this match for 24 years

[Techtribal1990]

@rockerduff1231

Eh? This match was only played 9 years ago ;-)

[patriciohfernandez]

Thank you so much for this!!!!!

[edbruby]

Thanks for the video. I miss this type of tennis so much. Sampras is the last great serve and vollyer. He has the best serve ever. He probably is the best player there ever has been on grass (the old grass at Wimbledon). With the current Fed/Rafa dominance, people forget how agressive and overwhelming good serve and vollyers were and believe that since current players' groundstrokes are more powerful (largely due to string/racquet advances), they are somehow far superior to past players.

[maximilian533]

@edbruby

thanks to you...i'm 100% agree!...just remembering that pete retired after this tournament while roddick won Us open one year later says it all!

[hattrickster33]

@edbruby yea Fed tries to do more serve and volley but he's nowhere near as good as Sampras

[demondayzzz]

@edbruby players are more all-round nowadays, and the surfaces have slowed down as well. and the players' fitness has improved due to new techniques and just the nature of sport/training in general evolving. i would argue that at least on paper players today are better than before, but then again i don't know if nadal would have ever won wimbledon if it was as fast as it was when sampras won it.

[Mzee1084]

@demondayzzz A lot of players look completely lost at the net when they do finally get a short ball. Roddick is one of them, and he won the USOPEN in 2003 1 year after this. The women are even worse than the men in this respect. The top mens players look comfortable at the net at least when they do come in, though not often. The game is boring now compared to what it was. I'm tired of long base line rallies every point with the occasional drop shot.

[demondayzzz]

@Mzee1084 that's definitely true that they are worse at net than before, i would guess that's due to players hitting the ball harder and with more spin so it's harder to actually play at net, surfaces have gotten slower, and that it's just a part of the game that's been phased out as a consequence.

as to preferring s/v to baseline tennis you can have incredible quality in both even nowadays, but s'v marathons can bore me even more than baseline ones.

[Mzee1084]

@demondayzzz The Rafter vs Sampras match at USOPEN 1998 is a great example of serve and volley being exciting tennis. Watch the highlights. The Bolleteri academy was criticized a while ago a lot for all the players coming out with heavy groundstrokes and no volleys. The spin does probably have a lot to do with it but the technology and slower surfaces have allowed players to hit better passing shots. I like variety in my tennis and the 90s had a good balance of baseline and volleying.

[demondayzzz]

@Mzee1084 fair point!

[TomTrix99]

@Mzee1084 Totally agree with you. Players like Djokovic does make the sport less fun to watch. There are too many defensive players today. Would like to see some more serve and volley guys. Too bad they keep slowing the game down with slower balls and surfaces.

[edbruby]

You're right that today's players are fitter. That's true of all athletes today. Their training is so much more academic and precise. Back in the day, they ran, did sit-ups, push-ups, pull-ups, and not much else. No doubt that Federer is way, way better on clay than Sampras on clay (no need to speak of Nadal). On grass, I would give it to Pete without any hesitation, however. Nadal has never faced a real serve and vollyer. That would really be tough for him, especially on grass.

[TomTrix99]

@edbruby Well I am sure you have seen Sampras losing to Federer in Wimbledon in 2001. I would say they were pretty even on grass. I don´t think its right to say either being the better. Especially not Sampras since he lost the only match between the two.

[edbruby]

@TomTrix99 I disagree. After winning Wimbledon in 2000, Pete didn't win a tournament for another two years. I think it is important to look at the overall story. It is kind of liking asking if Robin Soderling or Tomas Berdych are better than Federer. Of course, they are not, even though they beat him this year. Also, Wimbledon's original surface (which changed in 2001) was much faster than it is now. Thus, it really benefited serve and vollyers like Pete.

[PornobrillenAli]

@edbruby

And they use more advanced anabolic steroids !

[bahaako1]

@edbruby

Actually, because tennis became a lot of rallies played serve-volley, they changed the surface of the court, to make it a bit slower (:

[cammpinno]

@edbruby Exactly, 95 % agreed:-)))) People, all people, obviously tend to forget quickly. And with today´s media propaganda it´s even more difficult to keep these names (like Sampras) and their game in mind. Thanks to videos like this you can always refresh your memory.

[laumilia1]

thanks to much for posting this video...Sampras was and still is amazing player