For anyone who thinks Agassi hits his forehand with an Eastern Grip, they just need to watch the slomo at 1:48. Clearly, he is using a Semi-Western grip.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. These two guys were both better tennis players than Federer, and if they were in the same era we would have seen that proved without doubt.
Most of Federer's career has been the beneficiary of a period of tennis that was sparse with true elite talent at the top (in distinct contrast to Sampras and Agassi's era).
Then Nadal arrived and suddenly Federer became human.
Not a coincidence.
Federer is an all-time great, but his stats making him *the* all time great are falsely inflated by an era of low parity and uneven competition, an inevitable valley following the peak that was the 90s.
@louislewis89: You're in a bit of a hurry. He's an incredible player, but he's only just got started. Give him another ten slam titles and I'll agree.
That's one thing I'm starting to hate about tennis. There doesnt always have to be the next "Greatest ever". Even if you win more majors then another players (say if Nadal was to pass Pete or Fed) that doesnt mean your the greatest ever. Look at the talent Pete had to play in his prime. You can go on and on about how it's better then today's top 10 players.Tennis is always trying to crown someone as the greatest ever. Pete Sampras is my favorite and the best in my book but I never seen Laver tho
any one of these two guys in best years would beat todays players without even sveading, today players just waiting for oponent to uinforce error no one attcks, ff
Good job the top guys stopped playing like this... it was exciting... but it's like watching superheroes play... mere mortals can't comprehend whats going on!
The most stylish, the most talented, the most charismatic player ever:Pete Sampras. Simply a genius of the game and definitel the most amazing player to watch. Tennis was more exciting when he was part of it...still waiting for a real offensive player of this quality (Edberg was also incredible) in the future..
@Hitaru07 he's one of the only all-round players left. mixes up his strokes and game plans with a huge variety. one of the only guys left that CONSTANTLY come forward. i mean actually look to come forward in points. not like the rest of the players today who will ONLY transition and approach net when they get a shortball or weak reply from their opponent.
Stupid video maker didn't post the year of this. Say what year it is, dope. Total incompetence is annoying!!!! If you are going to post a title and video description at all, do it right. Mention the basics. Unbelievable!
Tired of waiting for your video downloads to finish? Our youtube url grabber is capable of downloading videos from youtube in a jiffy! You can also rip mp3's without breaking out in a sweat! Go to youtubeurlgrabber.co.cc and see the groovy new features of the youtube url grabber!
I used to admire Agassi but when he did something as venal as call Sampras cheap in his book and then to stupidly needle him about in a friendly match....I lost all respect for Agassi
@Chipinjack No, you mischaracterized Agassi's remark. Agassi merely defended himself from Sampras's attack. Sampras made fun of Agassi's pigeon-toed walk, which is the result of a birth defect in his lower spine. That's like making fun of Dudley Moore's club foot. It's a cheap shot. Agassi was perfectly justified in coming back hard as a RETORT. It was not his opening line. Big difference.
this is old staff .fans crazy 2 see simple passing shot .roger rafa shots are much exciting and tough if good returner passer like rafa was they could not di any thing vamooos rafa
FUCK evrybody whom say pete sampras won so much only because he had a big serve.if that was the case why have rusedski,dent.arthurs,ivanisevic,roddick and philipousis all of them together not won half as much as sampras has.some of them even had a bigger service.
yah dude, i agree 100%. I just had like a week long arguement with some moron who tried to say Sampras was just a serve. You dont win 14 slams with just a serve. Ivanisevic, the service king who could consistently serve harder than Sampras, won ONE slam and only on grass, the fastest and most serve oriented surface of the 4. Sampras' and Fed's coach, Paul Annacone, said himself that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer "have the most touch and precision" of any players in history
@marykate0909 Sampras is my favorite player to watch, followed by McEnroe, Laver, Federer, Borg and Rafter. Kind of wierd as I play two-handed. Pete's game is so fluid yet powerful. Roger's game may be more graceful, but Pete's is purer. The men's game is getting boring with the emphasis on baseline power tennis. Hopefully, there is will be some attackers like Pete.
its also a walk in the park for Pete. I cant even count the number of times i saw him make that shot or better shots. He only emphasised it because he was trying to amp up the crowd since he was always criticized for showing little to no emotion.
Tennis needed this rivalry. It was the best in 1995. Agassi won 3 of 5 against Sampras that year but Pete won the final showdown at the U.S. Open. This was an awesome tiebreaker!!! High quality stuff.
It seems like Agassi has to work so hard for each point. He has to come up with a brilliant passing shot almost every time. Pete's serve and volley and chip and charge just puts you under pressure..i wish the last set was posted here so we could see how Andre won it 6-1...
@zaqw1111 no..federer use 2 kind's of strings a wilson natural gut in the mains and a luxilon alu power rough on the crosses and he also uses a babolat elasto cross2 string saver locks to extend the life of the natural gut
If you want to become a GREAT TENNIS PLAYER (match player), go to my channel: ( 2knowfun2 ) and watch the video: World Class Tennis (Part1/2) and (Part2/2). I have designed both tennis videos in a very unique way . When you have watched and mastered both my videos (part 1 and part 2), you will become a Great Match Player.
Furthermore, he had a pretty bad service game for much of his career. Despite that, he still competed wtih guys like Sampras, who had serves that ranked among the best ever. If you think of it, it's damn incredible that he achieved what he did with the weak service that he possessed. Sure it was part of the game, but he lacked in it noticeably, yet still competed vs the biggest servers. I remember watching matches when Agassi hit so many winners, but Sampras just aced his way to points.
When it comes to natural talent, I think Agassi topped them all. Think about it, he had things behind the scenes that obviously hindered his ability to achieve his full potential, yet he achieved 8 grand slams in possibly the most competitive era of tennis, ever. Furthermore, he never played the Austrialian open till like the age of 25, and I believe, though I'm not sure, that he won his first 3 attempts. His GS count could have been doubled what it was, or more, given his life.
Agassi didn't bother with the Australian Open and Wimbledon for 4 or 5 years into his career. He won Wimbledon at (I think) his 3rd attempt, 6 yrs after turning pro. He ended up winning 4 Australian Opens in all, the surface seemed to really suit his game.
Sampras was arguably the greatest player ever, but Agassi's record against him was an acceptable 14:20, and 9:11 on hard surfaces.
Agassi won 8 majors; without his chaotic private life distracting him, who knows how many he could have won?
@aidyonline I don't think agassi was better. I think agassi wouldn't make a difference. I think had it not been for injuries to pete in his late career, could of had couple more slams.
@Thutmosis7 And you don't think Andre's bad back limited him late in his career as well? Agassi skipped so many tournaments(Aussie Open and Wimbledon) for years early in his career and still won 8 slams. Had Agassi been as focused as Sampras his entire career I think Agassi would've won more slams than Sampras.
@Hallucination I disagree. He won most of his slams after pete was declining. I would say he lasted a lil more longer than pete. But he didn't have the natural skillz as pete did. I just think pete was ahead of him.
@aidyonline Well said. Agassi had an up and down life and carrer, if you read his book you'd follow the struggles and uncertainty of his life. That is why i respect him so much, he made it through the greatest pitfalls and moments of crippling doubt. He shows his humanity.
@aidyonline so true. He´ll always be one of those guys you could attatch a`"what if" tag to. What if he had been focussed his entire career? What if he didn´t skip the Australian Open and Wimbledon so often early in his career.? Oh well. Still the only player ever to wn all four majors and an Olympic Gold Medal.
@aidyonline Who knows? He also decided to get completely out of shape and fall out of the top 100. Athletes need to learn to balance their career and private life, something Agassi couldn't do at times. He also creeps me out immensely.
I would say that Sampras has no viable claim to be the greatest player ever, as not only did he never win the French, he didn't even reach the final. He was an extremely dominant player on the fast attacking surfaces, but didn't have that much to offer on the others. Twelve of his fourteen slams are either Wimbledon or the US.
Two Australian Opens is nothing to sneeze at, and he'd have more had he not been playing with possibly the greatest Aussie Open player of all time, Andre.
Definitely the best tennis match I've ever seen. Too young for Borg vs McEnroe, I saw the Federer vs Nadal Wimbledon final and good as that was I thought this was better. I couldn't believe how Agassi managed to keep going as Sampras fired down ace after ace. I remember feeling sorry for Agassi, that he was showing great heart but had no chance. And yet, somehow, almost through pure force of will, he won. Unbelievable. If only Agassi had gone to more Australian Opens, how many would he have won?
You're very very right. Everybody' s always so fired up about the 2008 Wimbly final for instance.., first of all I state that for great that it was, the two best matches of the entire Fed-Nadal rivarly came both in 2006 and were the Dubai final (2 out of 3 sets distance) and most of all the Rome final (3 out 5 sets distance). And then, as you said, this is more "do or miss" highly risky tennis, more enjoyable for my taste.
God I miss these days of tennis. What a great rivalry, and even though Sampras had the better of Agassi mostly during their careers, this was when Andre was at the total peak of his career, and really had Petes number for a short period of time.
Great memories, and thanks for posting Shirley!
Can we get some more American talent like these guys anytime soon, and maybe some guys with the charisma as well?
Agassi got the best of Pete at the Aussie and French Opens - the slow hard and red clay. Pete clearly dominated Andre at Wimbledon and the US Open. They played more often at Wimbledon and US Open which is why Pete had the better won-loss. IMHO, Agassi is in the top 5 slow hard court players of all-time.
lol everything is a strategy in tennis. waiting for an amount of time period to take away momentum is what you want. whatever it takes to win. you gotta consider nadal's knees too. how would you know if they don't hurt or bother him in any way.
nadalhater900, you're embarrassing yourself. If Nadal is one-dimensional, how do you explain that he typically wins a much higher percentage of points at the net than Federer and hits more drop shots? Also, watch his matches with a more open mind. He's not just out there smacking a ball in the same way that Fed doesn't actually construct every single point he wins. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and Nadal simply maximizes his strengths, as does Fed. And both are changing the game.
Nadal>>Sampras you know why I know this.....Look at their heads up matches. Butterfly is an idiot, everyone else who disagrees with him is right. You play sports to win my friend, not to look pretty. If they happen to go together then that's even better but the first thing you try and do is win!
Sampras is one of those huge, flat hitters that give Nadal lots of trouble by taking away his rhythm. Nadal will also have a lot of trouble returning Sampras' serve from where he normally returns serves, which is way behind the baseline. Even if he does make a lot of returns in, because he is standing so far back he will be easy prey for Sampras' volleys.
Compounding these factors is the fact that the AO surface that year was unusually fast.
Nadal has better H2H record against Roger only because most of the time Nadal was eliminated before the final in any other surface; so Roger did not even have a chance to beat him. But Roger got in most clay court finals so Nadal can face him more on Nadal's favourite face. You cant count only H2H, but also look at how consistent a player is, Nadal truely cannot compare to Roger. Roger is the best!!
Agassi is my favorite. He's didn't have the natural soft hands like Sampras or Federer, but he had heart. He didn't have the big serve or natural volleying talents to win easy points. He won with hard work and desire. He never had an easy way to win points, just earned them the hard way. He had to hit harder or try harder or find a way to win. That's what gave all of us the hope that you can win without all the natural talents that some are blessed with.
Ok I agree with you on the heart, sure, Agassi had heart but this..."gave us hope that you can win without all the natural talents..." Uhh, Agassi had loads of talent lol what are you talking about. What's your definition of talent, Federer?
for me the most talented one was agassi. but sampras was working harder then agassi, practicing much more then agassi. but all of the 3 (federer sampras, agassi are talented guys, legends. federer = technicity of sampras + agassis talent
Agassi: excellent drop shots,lobs and backcourt play, good server + volley player.
Sampras= excellent serve+volley, good baseline player.
Federer=excellent in everything and every surface!!!
Sampras wasn't good at RG. Agassi was 3 times in final!::!!!
Yep I agree. Agassi was talented probably more so than Pete. Pete was an incredibly hard worker and improved his game quite a bit from 1990-93 before he started his 6 year reign. As far as Fed goes lol yea the guys just too damn good, and his game fits all surfaces. Pple say his weakest is clay, yet hes made the final 4 x's in a row. Anyways, I believe Pete is the hardest worker, he has a very conventional, meat and drink type game, where as Agassi and Fed have more variety in their games.
specially when you see some points of roger when he was young, it's like agassi finding angles, drop shoting , making incredible lobs...., great returns, even sometimes great volleys . Sampras game is really efficient solid and conventionnal. agassi fed are less conventionnal type
ummm dude i don't know but i think you got it the other way around. agassi is the hard working one he realises almost purely on speed and power. meanwhile sampras is slightly more skilled and relies also on technique.
Agassi had fight. But please don't tell us Pete or Rog didn't have heart.
Pete and Rog have passion, drive, and champion's hunger to win (heart). That much is inarguable.
We've all seen how much Rog wants it when he shows all his emotion. And don't tell us Pete didn't have heart when he battled Coretia in that epic match when he was throwing up and still won. Don't tell us Pete didn't have heart when he persevered through tears to win against Currier upon news of his coach's condition.
I agree. Pete's extreme Yang-oriented game was both frightening and beautiful to watch at the same time.
Pete had excellent defense and court coverage, but not as good at defense as Rog. But personally I loved how attack-oriented and forward-moving Pete's game was.
People are trying to compare the rival of Nadal Federer to Agassi Sampras but Agassi and Sampras were about the same age while Nadal is signifcantly younger than Federer. So I think Agassi and Sampras had the better rivalry.
Agassi and Sampras met many times and had many memorable matches not only in slams but also in tournaments. They met around 34 times which is plenty of times.
well sampras and agassi played in 5 slams finals and some of their matches are classics like this one. The only match i find truly remarkable between roger and rafa is Wimbly 2008 when roger dethroned roger but the others are not in the best matches of all time.
the 07 wimby was better in terms of quality of tennis, the 08 was only better in terms of drama. the problem with rafa V fed matches since 2008 is rafa has become extremely one dimensional against fed (absolutely everything to the backhand EVERY time, and fed just doesnt look like the guy he was from 04-07. actually now i think about it you may be right, when u watch nadal/federer all you really see is federers one handed baclhand being raped for 4 hours ....
during the 4 years when federer was playing his classic level tennis, nadal wasnt getting to hard court major finals so federer didnt have chances to beat him, but federer was good enough to get to finals on rafa's best surface, giving nadal many chances to beat him. so the head 2 head is skewed by nadals failure on other surfaces, rafa conveniently is able to get to major finals on all surfaces just as soon as federer is out of his prime.
Listen dude, you are blind. Rafa has beaten fed in all grand slams' surfaces: Hard)australian, Clay(french), Grass(wimbledon). Rafa owns your fed and that's the truth whether you like it or not. Rafa gets in fed's head like nobody.
he only started owning him after the mono and subsequent slump. before 2008 they were close in the head 2 head and even in major finals. beating fed since 2008 deserves much less credit than beating him, say, 3 years ago. and anyway, nadals just lucky that high balls are hard to hit with one hand on the backhand side, that is the ONLY reason federer has a problem with nadal
whatever, go kiss your fed's ass. Nadals owns your champion and people dare to call fed the best ever when he's got owened by the world's second player hhahahhaah, simply laughable........
and Sampras got owned by hewitt and safin. does that make them better? no, head to head isnt everything. and even if it is, their careers arnt over, federer is playing nadal smarter these days and i expect him to make the H2H look mmore respectable
Listen dude. Sampras was never owened by any second best player in the world. Agassi never got into sampra's head the way nadal has. You can't be the best ever if you haven't been able to dominate the second best player of your generation period.
but you're ignoring why nadal owns federer. its not like federers being beaten by genius, its his high heavy balls. 9 of his wins were on clay where federer literally had to jump to hit the ball sometimes. thats not tennis thats too good, its tennis thats too weird. maybe you think nadal is amazing for going to feds 1HBH all the time but im not impressed. and if you take out the clay matches theyve played, federer leads the H2H. imagine if they played 9 matches on grass...
Listen i don't care about the H2H unless you talk about grand slam finals and the results speak for themselves. Rafa has beaten Roger in every surface in slam finales(hard,clay and grass). Roger has beaten rafa only on his favorite surface:grass. Don't give the B.S that roger had mono. No excuses. Rafa has a 6-2 record against Roger in Slams.
he was affected for mono for the whole of 2008, during the french and wimbledon there was a lesion on his face. mono is serious just ask mario ancic how he's feeling now, he's been out for like a year n a half with it. but even if it wasnt mono making him play bad, he definitely was playing bad in 2008. at one stage in the wimby final he lost 5 games in a row. and its 5-2 not 6-2.
he's lucky federer has a one hander. thats the only reason he beats him. its the cheapest simplest easiest tactic possible, just hit to that side of the court all the time, a well trained gorilla could be taught this. when federer beats nadal its with variety, all court performance. when nadal beats fed its with backhand attack, backhand attack, backhand attack, backhand attack. it must be so boring being a rafa fan when he plays federer, they know what shot he's gonna hit everytime
it's not 'hard' for him to get that much spin, that's just how he hits the ball. he has a full western grip and a lasso swing. he hits that way no matter who he plays
these two were amazing. agassi was playing great here, while sampras was serving second serve aces. that second one was at 124 mph
cain2335 1 month ago
For anyone who thinks Agassi hits his forehand with an Eastern Grip, they just need to watch the slomo at 1:48. Clearly, he is using a Semi-Western grip.
mrbobevans 1 month ago
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. These two guys were both better tennis players than Federer, and if they were in the same era we would have seen that proved without doubt.
CognizantCheddar 1 month ago
Most of Federer's career has been the beneficiary of a period of tennis that was sparse with true elite talent at the top (in distinct contrast to Sampras and Agassi's era).
Then Nadal arrived and suddenly Federer became human.
Not a coincidence.
Federer is an all-time great, but his stats making him *the* all time great are falsely inflated by an era of low parity and uneven competition, an inevitable valley following the peak that was the 90s.
CognizantCheddar 1 month ago
Best shot of the match at 1:33
jenachon1998 1 month ago
Comment removed
jenachon1998 1 month ago
havent seen anyone in modern tennis serve that fast like pete did on a 2nd serve...epic stuff !
Maradonabecks 1 month ago
@louislewis89: You're in a bit of a hurry. He's an incredible player, but he's only just got started. Give him another ten slam titles and I'll agree.
Molybdaenmornell 4 months ago
Pete Sampras is the greatest serve & volley tennis player ever & will always be.
mamuteta1 4 months ago
que excelente nivel, pero como me dejan a si quien gano?
ciligueda 6 months ago
That's one thing I'm starting to hate about tennis. There doesnt always have to be the next "Greatest ever". Even if you win more majors then another players (say if Nadal was to pass Pete or Fed) that doesnt mean your the greatest ever. Look at the talent Pete had to play in his prime. You can go on and on about how it's better then today's top 10 players.Tennis is always trying to crown someone as the greatest ever. Pete Sampras is my favorite and the best in my book but I never seen Laver tho
Scarecrowman27 6 months ago
any one of these two guys in best years would beat todays players without even sveading, today players just waiting for oponent to uinforce error no one attcks, ff
mahircz 6 months ago
@mahircz i completely agree, it is rare to see a consistent serve and volleyer in todays game... Sampras is the greatest ever, he could do it all
packerfan1268 5 months ago
incredible
juangy88 7 months ago
that running forehand was insane
cain2335 7 months ago
"no he believed it alright." hahaha
CBarbosa23 7 months ago
fucking epic
trai4okostov 8 months ago
Good job the top guys stopped playing like this... it was exciting... but it's like watching superheroes play... mere mortals can't comprehend whats going on!
dudemusicspace 8 months ago
The AO was always Agassi's preferred slam. I believe he never lost a final here? Similar to Sampras who never lost a Wimbledon final?
ruaridh2k7 8 months ago
Best matchup tennis can ever have.
The best SV-er and the best attacking player ever vs. the best baseliner, returner and ball striker ever.
cammpinno 9 months ago
hi
sup3rchamp 9 months ago
The most stylish, the most talented, the most charismatic player ever:Pete Sampras. Simply a genius of the game and definitel the most amazing player to watch. Tennis was more exciting when he was part of it...still waiting for a real offensive player of this quality (Edberg was also incredible) in the future..
nicodougy 10 months ago
@nicodougy roger is the only real attacking tennis player left
cj397 9 months ago
@cj397 To me he's a baseliner, not an allround-player
Hitaru07 8 months ago
@Hitaru07 he's one of the only all-round players left. mixes up his strokes and game plans with a huge variety. one of the only guys left that CONSTANTLY come forward. i mean actually look to come forward in points. not like the rest of the players today who will ONLY transition and approach net when they get a shortball or weak reply from their opponent.
cj397 8 months ago
@cj397 Well it's just my opinion, that he's more of a Baseliner. I'm just comparing todays play with the older ones..
Hitaru07 8 months ago
Steffi gave him the power.
Konduffi2 10 months ago
after 4:20 i cannot watch any more. it is 2 perfect for human eyes...
sesoula 10 months ago
main difference between oldschool and newschool tennis is : now u can watch it in HD :-P
mauldepp 10 months ago 24
Stupid video maker didn't post the year of this. Say what year it is, dope. Total incompetence is annoying!!!! If you are going to post a title and video description at all, do it right. Mention the basics. Unbelievable!
JoeyFudd 10 months ago
best tennis ever best tennis ever best tennis ever . every point is a highlight.
tsontakiasful 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tired of waiting for your video downloads to finish? Our youtube url grabber is capable of downloading videos from youtube in a jiffy! You can also rip mp3's without breaking out in a sweat! Go to youtubeurlgrabber.co.cc and see the groovy new features of the youtube url grabber!
agilefuseconsulting6 1 year ago
I used to admire Agassi but when he did something as venal as call Sampras cheap in his book and then to stupidly needle him about in a friendly match....I lost all respect for Agassi
Chipinjack 1 year ago
@Chipinjack No, you mischaracterized Agassi's remark. Agassi merely defended himself from Sampras's attack. Sampras made fun of Agassi's pigeon-toed walk, which is the result of a birth defect in his lower spine. That's like making fun of Dudley Moore's club foot. It's a cheap shot. Agassi was perfectly justified in coming back hard as a RETORT. It was not his opening line. Big difference.
JoeyFudd 10 months ago
since i read agassis book i like him alot more, really awesome guy who is a fighter
seidl01 1 year ago
I love to see the good old times matches =)
Deeennisteeennis 1 year ago
who read agassis book?
13chickennoodlesoup 1 year ago
australian open 2000 semifinal BEST TENNIS EVER
delatudela 1 year ago
australian open 2000 semifinal BEST TENNIS EVER
delatudela 1 year ago
year?
365to173repubsPWNED 1 year ago
sampras never beat agassi in austrlian open
personify505 1 year ago
mofils is the best!!!!! not really but my favorite
lehmanike13 1 year ago
This was when tennis was a proper sport, not like the farcical business it's become today :(
ownthelaws 1 year ago
Sampras had no chance in the 5th set, Andre was reborn after winning that tie-break
89Pleasek 1 year ago
this is old staff .fans crazy 2 see simple passing shot .roger rafa shots are much exciting and tough if good returner passer like rafa was they could not di any thing vamooos rafa
MrPrasunroy 1 year ago
lol Sampras would murder Nadal. Only reason he can win now is because the courts are all slowed down
splendid1000 1 year ago
FUCK evrybody whom say pete sampras won so much only because he had a big serve.if that was the case why have rusedski,dent.arthurs,ivanisevic,roddick and philipousis all of them together not won half as much as sampras has.some of them even had a bigger service.
yassigole 1 year ago
yah dude, i agree 100%. I just had like a week long arguement with some moron who tried to say Sampras was just a serve. You dont win 14 slams with just a serve. Ivanisevic, the service king who could consistently serve harder than Sampras, won ONE slam and only on grass, the fastest and most serve oriented surface of the 4. Sampras' and Fed's coach, Paul Annacone, said himself that Pete Sampras and Roger Federer "have the most touch and precision" of any players in history
splendid1000 1 year ago
What's the best rivalry? Sampras vs Agassi? or Federer vs Nadal?
Naradio 1 year ago
@Naradio Sampras vs. Agassi because they were closer in age than Federer and Nadal. And they were two Americans going at it.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
It was the legend. The only thing I hate is HD didn't exist at that time.
kawaihui 1 year ago
i bet all the faults sampras is gettin on his first serve is probably in if they had hawk eye or shot spot check it
lordofkronos 1 year ago
I revere both players and will always agree that Pete is the better player. But Andre should have won double-digit majors.
tyruk 1 year ago
With all due respect, please stfu with the Federer vs Nadal. This is a video of Sampras and Agassi.
bjarktron 1 year ago 46
that forehand return by sampras at 0:58 is insane
AceGuitarR7 1 year ago
the tennis matched these days contains so little serve and volley play styles =(
futuramaishot 1 year ago
@futuramaishot thats because the racket technology alows you to hit passing shots so much easier, but i agree, that style of play is fun to watch.
lehmanike13 1 year ago
@lehmanike13 Do you think Pete would have been effective in today's game by playing his serve and volley game.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
Sampras is / was my king. I love him soooo much :-))
marykate0909 1 year ago
@marykate0909 Sampras is my favorite player to watch, followed by McEnroe, Laver, Federer, Borg and Rafter. Kind of wierd as I play two-handed. Pete's game is so fluid yet powerful. Roger's game may be more graceful, but Pete's is purer. The men's game is getting boring with the emphasis on baseline power tennis. Hopefully, there is will be some attackers like Pete.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
If Pete had never had the T. Minor condition....
If Andre had never had the vertebrae spine condition...
mrbobevans 1 year ago
@mrbobevans
Pete would have won the French Open.
LDis1 1 year ago
@mrbobevans
yah agassi prolly would have won a couple more if he didnt. he still wouldnt have been as good as sampras though. at least not at the US and Wimby
splendid1000 1 year ago
the shot pete hit at around 4:30 is a walk in the park for fed
kblade95 1 year ago
@kblade95 u are so wrong....that was an insane shot!
Pyro7502 1 year ago
@kblade95 and how is that shot at 2 50!?!?!
oisashko 1 year ago
@kblade95
its also a walk in the park for Pete. I cant even count the number of times i saw him make that shot or better shots. He only emphasised it because he was trying to amp up the crowd since he was always criticized for showing little to no emotion.
splendid1000 1 year ago
sampras and agassi bring out the best in each other
xridethelightningx 1 year ago
God bless Pete and that Eastern forehand of his.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
If Pete had beaten Andre, he would have been 5-0 in head to head GS finals. This would clearly make Pete the victor in the rivalry.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
Love this match and these two guys where so good against eachother.
4golfonline 1 year ago
sampras , definitly my favorite player of all time
back2hell1 1 year ago
Tennis needed this rivalry. It was the best in 1995. Agassi won 3 of 5 against Sampras that year but Pete won the final showdown at the U.S. Open. This was an awesome tiebreaker!!! High quality stuff.
WillySaint76 1 year ago
Next to Evert-Navritilova, the best tennis rivalry of all time.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
Andre is truly one of the greatest slow hard players of all time.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
At 5:00 is that Brad Gilbert? The commentator?
Shazzington 1 year ago
@Shazzington you do know gilbert was andre's coach for several years right?
cj397 1 year ago
@cj397 It's just strange seeing him NOT all smiles and cracking terrible jokes
Shazzington 1 year ago
legends!!!!
feelrythm8 1 year ago
It seems like Agassi has to work so hard for each point. He has to come up with a brilliant passing shot almost every time. Pete's serve and volley and chip and charge just puts you under pressure..i wish the last set was posted here so we could see how Andre won it 6-1...
azarel7 1 year ago
@azarel7 Agassi was better than Pete on slow hard.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
Sampras always number one
MrSpiritualBeing 1 year ago
4:00 '(O.O)' amazing...the best...no dude...
TmVRCTY 1 year ago
why does sampras's racquet have babalot markings on the strings?
zaqw1111 1 year ago
@zaqw1111 becouse he used babolat strings on wilson raquet
florinbuf 1 year ago
@florinbuf lol they dont mind? usually players are only sponsored by one brand....
zaqw1111 1 year ago
@zaqw1111 no..federer use 2 kind's of strings a wilson natural gut in the mains and a luxilon alu power rough on the crosses and he also uses a babolat elasto cross2 string saver locks to extend the life of the natural gut
florinbuf 1 year ago
@florinbuf and he uses his dick to fack ur mum
mudda001 1 year ago
Sampras goes to the net alot. Sometimes he beats guy that way, and sometimes he get beat by doing it alot.
Thutmosis7 1 year ago
Clash of the Titans !!
VelvetViolator 1 year ago
omg sampras service is sick
ffallenaangel 1 year ago
If you want to become a GREAT TENNIS PLAYER (match player), go to my channel: ( 2knowfun2 ) and watch the video: World Class Tennis (Part1/2) and (Part2/2). I have designed both tennis videos in a very unique way . When you have watched and mastered both my videos (part 1 and part 2), you will become a Great Match Player.
2knowfun2 1 year ago
who won this match??
Rfederer987 1 year ago
@Rfederer987 Agassi
mystikr 1 year ago
Furthermore, he had a pretty bad service game for much of his career. Despite that, he still competed wtih guys like Sampras, who had serves that ranked among the best ever. If you think of it, it's damn incredible that he achieved what he did with the weak service that he possessed. Sure it was part of the game, but he lacked in it noticeably, yet still competed vs the biggest servers. I remember watching matches when Agassi hit so many winners, but Sampras just aced his way to points.
mousavsm 1 year ago
When it comes to natural talent, I think Agassi topped them all. Think about it, he had things behind the scenes that obviously hindered his ability to achieve his full potential, yet he achieved 8 grand slams in possibly the most competitive era of tennis, ever. Furthermore, he never played the Austrialian open till like the age of 25, and I believe, though I'm not sure, that he won his first 3 attempts. His GS count could have been doubled what it was, or more, given his life.
mousavsm 1 year ago 2
Sampras sucks as a player AND as a person. He could care less about others, selfish prick. I know him personally.
jaimebondez 1 year ago
second serve ace, you don't see that often anymore
fewpeople 1 year ago
SAMPRAS #1
leelibros1234567890 1 year ago
Agassi number 1 4ever
heartofzorro 1 year ago
samprassssss # 1
maracampim 1 year ago
the greatest armenian player of all time
vikenm1 1 year ago
@vikenm1 he's from usa ;)
seidl01 1 year ago 2
His father is of Iranian descent.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
@vikenm1 yeah, and sampras was the best greek player of all time. and while were at it, rios the best chinese
dmoore2310 1 year ago
you mean argentinian...!!!
baywatchrules12 1 year ago
Agassi didn't bother with the Australian Open and Wimbledon for 4 or 5 years into his career. He won Wimbledon at (I think) his 3rd attempt, 6 yrs after turning pro. He ended up winning 4 Australian Opens in all, the surface seemed to really suit his game.
Sampras was arguably the greatest player ever, but Agassi's record against him was an acceptable 14:20, and 9:11 on hard surfaces.
Agassi won 8 majors; without his chaotic private life distracting him, who knows how many he could have won?
aidyonline 2 years ago 27
@aidyonline I don't think agassi was better. I think agassi wouldn't make a difference. I think had it not been for injuries to pete in his late career, could of had couple more slams.
Thutmosis7 1 year ago
@Thutmosis7 And you don't think Andre's bad back limited him late in his career as well? Agassi skipped so many tournaments(Aussie Open and Wimbledon) for years early in his career and still won 8 slams. Had Agassi been as focused as Sampras his entire career I think Agassi would've won more slams than Sampras.
Hallucination 1 year ago
@Hallucination I disagree. He won most of his slams after pete was declining. I would say he lasted a lil more longer than pete. But he didn't have the natural skillz as pete did. I just think pete was ahead of him.
Thutmosis7 1 year ago
@Hallucination
i doubt it. He might have won another french or two or another australian or two, but he'd never be better than Pete at the US and Wimby.
splendid1000 1 year ago
@aidyonline Well said. Agassi had an up and down life and carrer, if you read his book you'd follow the struggles and uncertainty of his life. That is why i respect him so much, he made it through the greatest pitfalls and moments of crippling doubt. He shows his humanity.
RobT89 1 year ago
@aidyonline so true. He´ll always be one of those guys you could attatch a`"what if" tag to. What if he had been focussed his entire career? What if he didn´t skip the Australian Open and Wimbledon so often early in his career.? Oh well. Still the only player ever to wn all four majors and an Olympic Gold Medal.
Hallucination 1 year ago
@Hallucination i have a feeling Nadal may have won an olympic gold?
aidyonline 1 year ago
@aidyonline Touche. Totally slipped my mind. Not to mention I always seem to forget Nadal has won Wimbledon.
Hallucination 1 year ago
@aidyonline sampras is not the greatest player, hell no. he didnt even win RG for a start
personify505 1 year ago
@personify505 That does mean He's not the greatest
federerbestcIass 1 year ago
@aidyonline Who knows? He also decided to get completely out of shape and fall out of the top 100. Athletes need to learn to balance their career and private life, something Agassi couldn't do at times. He also creeps me out immensely.
DanimalLawlz 1 year ago
@aidyonline
I would say that Sampras has no viable claim to be the greatest player ever, as not only did he never win the French, he didn't even reach the final. He was an extremely dominant player on the fast attacking surfaces, but didn't have that much to offer on the others. Twelve of his fourteen slams are either Wimbledon or the US.
KaitainCPS 1 year ago
@KaitainCPS
Two Australian Opens is nothing to sneeze at, and he'd have more had he not been playing with possibly the greatest Aussie Open player of all time, Andre.
splendid1000 1 year ago
@aidyonline - many players have chaotic private life, Aggasi isn't the only sports player to have had a chaotic life.
PilotRiaz 9 months ago
Definitely the best tennis match I've ever seen. Too young for Borg vs McEnroe, I saw the Federer vs Nadal Wimbledon final and good as that was I thought this was better. I couldn't believe how Agassi managed to keep going as Sampras fired down ace after ace. I remember feeling sorry for Agassi, that he was showing great heart but had no chance. And yet, somehow, almost through pure force of will, he won. Unbelievable. If only Agassi had gone to more Australian Opens, how many would he have won?
aidyonline 2 years ago 2
You're very very right. Everybody' s always so fired up about the 2008 Wimbly final for instance.., first of all I state that for great that it was, the two best matches of the entire Fed-Nadal rivarly came both in 2006 and were the Dubai final (2 out of 3 sets distance) and most of all the Rome final (3 out 5 sets distance). And then, as you said, this is more "do or miss" highly risky tennis, more enjoyable for my taste.
Thetoughestweight1 2 years ago
God I miss these days of tennis. What a great rivalry, and even though Sampras had the better of Agassi mostly during their careers, this was when Andre was at the total peak of his career, and really had Petes number for a short period of time.
Great memories, and thanks for posting Shirley!
Can we get some more American talent like these guys anytime soon, and maybe some guys with the charisma as well?
LightningJanitorial 2 years ago 2
Agassi got the best of Pete at the Aussie and French Opens - the slow hard and red clay. Pete clearly dominated Andre at Wimbledon and the US Open. They played more often at Wimbledon and US Open which is why Pete had the better won-loss. IMHO, Agassi is in the top 5 slow hard court players of all-time.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
lol everything is a strategy in tennis. waiting for an amount of time period to take away momentum is what you want. whatever it takes to win. you gotta consider nadal's knees too. how would you know if they don't hurt or bother him in any way.
wngo70 2 years ago
nadalhater900, you're embarrassing yourself. If Nadal is one-dimensional, how do you explain that he typically wins a much higher percentage of points at the net than Federer and hits more drop shots? Also, watch his matches with a more open mind. He's not just out there smacking a ball in the same way that Fed doesn't actually construct every single point he wins. Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and Nadal simply maximizes his strengths, as does Fed. And both are changing the game.
Fernball21 2 years ago
Sampras the legend of tennis! The best tennis player EVER !!
thielas 2 years ago 3
too bad he didn't win an Olympic GOLD or the French Open.
Agassi is the GREATEST ever!
Hail2TheVictorsBaby 1 year ago
who won the match?
livingeasi 2 years ago 2
@livingeasi
Agassi. And in the final he kicked Kafelnikov's russian popka:)
chkanyusha 2 years ago
agassi, 6-1 in the 5th
Fernball21 2 years ago
What I meant was Nadal>>Federer, sorry for the confusion.
mousavsm 2 years ago
Nadal>>Sampras you know why I know this.....Look at their heads up matches. Butterfly is an idiot, everyone else who disagrees with him is right. You play sports to win my friend, not to look pretty. If they happen to go together then that's even better but the first thing you try and do is win!
mousavsm 2 years ago
After seeing this, Nadal would have whooped Sampras' ass here.
Polarcupcheck 2 years ago
I disagree.
Sampras is one of those huge, flat hitters that give Nadal lots of trouble by taking away his rhythm. Nadal will also have a lot of trouble returning Sampras' serve from where he normally returns serves, which is way behind the baseline. Even if he does make a lot of returns in, because he is standing so far back he will be easy prey for Sampras' volleys.
Compounding these factors is the fact that the AO surface that year was unusually fast.
TWKang 2 years ago
I think Federer is very lucky he wasn't born at the same time as Sampras and Agassi. He wouldn't have won a single grand slam.
dodododa 2 years ago
Nadal has better H2H record against Roger only because most of the time Nadal was eliminated before the final in any other surface; so Roger did not even have a chance to beat him. But Roger got in most clay court finals so Nadal can face him more on Nadal's favourite face. You cant count only H2H, but also look at how consistent a player is, Nadal truely cannot compare to Roger. Roger is the best!!
gregoryaebi 2 years ago
who won this?
kusta345 2 years ago
Agassi ran away with it in the 5th set.
Holygrail2 2 years ago
Agassi is my favorite. He's didn't have the natural soft hands like Sampras or Federer, but he had heart. He didn't have the big serve or natural volleying talents to win easy points. He won with hard work and desire. He never had an easy way to win points, just earned them the hard way. He had to hit harder or try harder or find a way to win. That's what gave all of us the hope that you can win without all the natural talents that some are blessed with.
tigercrap 2 years ago 2
Ok I agree with you on the heart, sure, Agassi had heart but this..."gave us hope that you can win without all the natural talents..." Uhh, Agassi had loads of talent lol what are you talking about. What's your definition of talent, Federer?
tikealpzyx 2 years ago
for me the most talented one was agassi. but sampras was working harder then agassi, practicing much more then agassi. but all of the 3 (federer sampras, agassi are talented guys, legends. federer = technicity of sampras + agassis talent
Agassi: excellent drop shots,lobs and backcourt play, good server + volley player.
Sampras= excellent serve+volley, good baseline player.
Federer=excellent in everything and every surface!!!
Sampras wasn't good at RG. Agassi was 3 times in final!::!!!
UchihaGege 2 years ago
Yep I agree. Agassi was talented probably more so than Pete. Pete was an incredibly hard worker and improved his game quite a bit from 1990-93 before he started his 6 year reign. As far as Fed goes lol yea the guys just too damn good, and his game fits all surfaces. Pple say his weakest is clay, yet hes made the final 4 x's in a row. Anyways, I believe Pete is the hardest worker, he has a very conventional, meat and drink type game, where as Agassi and Fed have more variety in their games.
tikealpzyx 2 years ago
specially when you see some points of roger when he was young, it's like agassi finding angles, drop shoting , making incredible lobs...., great returns, even sometimes great volleys . Sampras game is really efficient solid and conventionnal. agassi fed are less conventionnal type
UchihaGege 2 years ago
ummm dude i don't know but i think you got it the other way around. agassi is the hard working one he realises almost purely on speed and power. meanwhile sampras is slightly more skilled and relies also on technique.
ForzaAquila 2 years ago
Agassi had fight. But please don't tell us Pete or Rog didn't have heart.
Pete and Rog have passion, drive, and champion's hunger to win (heart). That much is inarguable.
We've all seen how much Rog wants it when he shows all his emotion. And don't tell us Pete didn't have heart when he battled Coretia in that epic match when he was throwing up and still won. Don't tell us Pete didn't have heart when he persevered through tears to win against Currier upon news of his coach's condition.
awesomerepublican 2 years ago 3
Sounds a lot like Connors.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
Pete is more fun to watch than Roger.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
I agree. Pete's extreme Yang-oriented game was both frightening and beautiful to watch at the same time.
Pete had excellent defense and court coverage, but not as good at defense as Rog. But personally I loved how attack-oriented and forward-moving Pete's game was.
awesomerepublican 2 years ago
The more I have read about Pete's illness/disease, the more apparent it is that Pete could have won more majors is he didn't have the T. Minor.
mrbobevans 2 years ago 2
The shot at 4.00 is out of this world
alin1975 2 years ago
i would like to say the battle of the titans
crashbandicootable 2 years ago
People are trying to compare the rival of Nadal Federer to Agassi Sampras but Agassi and Sampras were about the same age while Nadal is signifcantly younger than Federer. So I think Agassi and Sampras had the better rivalry.
frost122585 2 years ago
I agree with that!!
UchihaGege 2 years ago
agassi and sampras should have met in alot more major finals. id say nadal and fed have had much better matches.
butterflycaught900 2 years ago
Agassi and Sampras met many times and had many memorable matches not only in slams but also in tournaments. They met around 34 times which is plenty of times.
juandi2570 2 years ago
yeh but really, the only things people remember are the majors. and federer/nadal have played 7. some of which are among the best matches of all time
butterflycaught900 2 years ago
well sampras and agassi played in 5 slams finals and some of their matches are classics like this one. The only match i find truly remarkable between roger and rafa is Wimbly 2008 when roger dethroned roger but the others are not in the best matches of all time.
juandi2570 2 years ago
the 07 wimby was better in terms of quality of tennis, the 08 was only better in terms of drama. the problem with rafa V fed matches since 2008 is rafa has become extremely one dimensional against fed (absolutely everything to the backhand EVERY time, and fed just doesnt look like the guy he was from 04-07. actually now i think about it you may be right, when u watch nadal/federer all you really see is federers one handed baclhand being raped for 4 hours ....
butterflycaught900 2 years ago
listen, rafa owns fed in grand slams finals period. The record speaks for itself. 5-2 in favor of rafa so..........? what's the excuse now?
juandi2570 2 years ago
during the 4 years when federer was playing his classic level tennis, nadal wasnt getting to hard court major finals so federer didnt have chances to beat him, but federer was good enough to get to finals on rafa's best surface, giving nadal many chances to beat him. so the head 2 head is skewed by nadals failure on other surfaces, rafa conveniently is able to get to major finals on all surfaces just as soon as federer is out of his prime.
butterflycaught900 2 years ago
thank you
skyvaulter13 2 years ago
Listen dude, you are blind. Rafa has beaten fed in all grand slams' surfaces: Hard)australian, Clay(french), Grass(wimbledon). Rafa owns your fed and that's the truth whether you like it or not. Rafa gets in fed's head like nobody.
juandi2570 2 years ago 3
he only started owning him after the mono and subsequent slump. before 2008 they were close in the head 2 head and even in major finals. beating fed since 2008 deserves much less credit than beating him, say, 3 years ago. and anyway, nadals just lucky that high balls are hard to hit with one hand on the backhand side, that is the ONLY reason federer has a problem with nadal
butterflycaught900 2 years ago
whatever, go kiss your fed's ass. Nadals owns your champion and people dare to call fed the best ever when he's got owened by the world's second player hhahahhaah, simply laughable........
juandi2570 2 years ago
and Sampras got owned by hewitt and safin. does that make them better? no, head to head isnt everything. and even if it is, their careers arnt over, federer is playing nadal smarter these days and i expect him to make the H2H look mmore respectable
butterflycaught900 2 years ago
Listen dude. Sampras was never owened by any second best player in the world. Agassi never got into sampra's head the way nadal has. You can't be the best ever if you haven't been able to dominate the second best player of your generation period.
juandi2570 2 years ago
but you're ignoring why nadal owns federer. its not like federers being beaten by genius, its his high heavy balls. 9 of his wins were on clay where federer literally had to jump to hit the ball sometimes. thats not tennis thats too good, its tennis thats too weird. maybe you think nadal is amazing for going to feds 1HBH all the time but im not impressed. and if you take out the clay matches theyve played, federer leads the H2H. imagine if they played 9 matches on grass...
butterflycaught900 2 years ago
Listen i don't care about the H2H unless you talk about grand slam finals and the results speak for themselves. Rafa has beaten Roger in every surface in slam finales(hard,clay and grass). Roger has beaten rafa only on his favorite surface:grass. Don't give the B.S that roger had mono. No excuses. Rafa has a 6-2 record against Roger in Slams.
juandi2570 2 years ago
he was affected for mono for the whole of 2008, during the french and wimbledon there was a lesion on his face. mono is serious just ask mario ancic how he's feeling now, he's been out for like a year n a half with it. but even if it wasnt mono making him play bad, he definitely was playing bad in 2008. at one stage in the wimby final he lost 5 games in a row. and its 5-2 not 6-2.
butterflycaught900 2 years ago
It's 6-2, i was talking about h2h is slams and rafa beat roger in a roland garros semifinal.
juandi2570 2 years ago
oh ok, well thats what happens when yr good enough to get far on yr opponents best surface but he sucks on your best surface
butterflycaught900 2 years ago
How do you know that Ancic wasn't affected by a stronger form of mono?
TWKang 2 years ago
how is it lucky that highballs are hard to hit. his tactic against federer obviously works: topspin his backhand; i don't think that is luck. lol
cwdfr0st 2 years ago
he's lucky federer has a one hander. thats the only reason he beats him. its the cheapest simplest easiest tactic possible, just hit to that side of the court all the time, a well trained gorilla could be taught this. when federer beats nadal its with variety, all court performance. when nadal beats fed its with backhand attack, backhand attack, backhand attack, backhand attack. it must be so boring being a rafa fan when he plays federer, they know what shot he's gonna hit everytime
butterflycaught900 2 years ago
You're not giving Nadal's forehand enough credit, I think. If it was so easy to get balls high to Federer's backhand then everyone would be doing it.
TWKang 2 years ago
it's not 'hard' for him to get that much spin, that's just how he hits the ball. he has a full western grip and a lasso swing. he hits that way no matter who he plays
butterflycaught900 2 years ago