OK

He was in the zone most of the time when he played Agassi in the final of a GS. It cost Agassi a few titles.

Sampras played like he knew the match was his as soon as he stepped on the court. You don’t often see a physically dominant men’s player at this level.

No shit

Back in 1990 Pete Sampras was announcing his arrival as the Gotha of the Tennis game. But only Soothsayers knew how big he would become in Years to come.

Yeah tennis had great commentators back then.

I thought that too why are they so comforting tho

HOWWW

Muster in 1990 was any good?

@@matiascostanzo9893 Muster on anything but clay was ever any good? LOL

@@grantgoffin4774 i mean, you don't get to no. 3 in the world by being a one trick pony.

The day after Sampras dominated the last two sets against Muster, my wife asked me who I thought would win the Open. I told her that this young guy I didn’t know looked great beating Muster, and that if he was really that good I didn’t think anyone could beat him. Hey, getting one out of a thousand right ain’t too shabby!

@@oldfrend But 95% of his titles were clay, so Mustard was def a one-surface pony.

Totally agree. Perfection is not boring.

I have heard he was arrogant but that could just be another’s opinion

why is pete "boring"? pete has one of the most beautiful and lethal game of all time to me. djokovic is the definition of boring and perfection imho.

I always remember watching Sampras and hoping he would get knocked out early as he was always in the final. A great champion and a nice guy too

@@jakehuang3545 correct.

Never made a grunt silient agassin👈 haha

@@ALSILVERU2 Hehe 😀

The second volley was incredible.

@@carlosenriquebardalezgomez2590 really cute indeed

The game of tennis?

The clothes weren't retro then. His hair was also a wig, as he discussed in his autobiography.

At the time, Agassi was touted as the "heir apparent"

@@FLYBOY-eh5th More like hairpiece apparent.

@@th8257 : and Andre Agassi not only used a wig but also illegal drugs to enhance his athletic physical performance, doping he said that in his autobiography!! look his eyes, he's clearly high on drugs

@@th8257 Actually, his hair here was real. He discusses that in his autobiography.

true his tennis was technically perfect even today nobody beats him

@@Rauliki_U_u can’t serve and volley with the slower courts and poly strings. Pete’s backhand would get exposed.

@@Rauliki_U_u For that particular era perhaps, even tho he never managed to win much on clay. Today he'd stand no chace with that style, tennis is evolving.

He would be nobody now

Pete loose to Roger

Pete definitely would have competed with them for sure but the game changed and courts are slower. That serve and volley style died out. Look what Hewitt did to him in the 2001 US open final and imagine what Rafa would have done.

On that time Jim courier also peak

Those days never come back...long live pete sampras

Once Sampras beat Lendl in the quarterfinals, I knew he would win it. Lendl was still a great player in 1990 and the US Open hardcourt was his best surface. Sampras kept him from getting to his 9th consecutive US Open final.

I like Peter since he is so humble.

Epic

I think I mentioned this elsewhere but how interesting Tony Trabert described this court at the start of the match as "medium slow". I don't think the court was that fast as Sampras stayed back on his 2nd serve quite a lot.

​@@BurnsTennishe only began rushing the net on his second serve later in his career.

@@BurnsTennisthe court looks very fast compared to what it is now, but it could be the hard flat shots of Sampras.

@@jakeasinjake3347 Yes perhaps. But interestingly, watch Jimmy Arias v Michael Chang on the same court from 1990 2nd round and the court looks a lot slower. Mainly because Arias brushes up the ball and puts so much topspin, hitting off the backfoot and the ball jumping all over the place. In that match the same court looked medium slow. Very interesting indeed.

@@jakeasinjake3347 Having said that, I think you're right. In today's terms that court would be called medium fast. Back then much more variations in game styles.

He didn't have much swag after that beat down did he?

@@ericw3229 he won Wimbledon 2 years after this 😂

@@dannysan1272 Only because Pete lost to Goran in the semis.

@@boke75 😂

Totally agree. Master of both.

Becker could did the same, but Sampras was better mover so it help a lot, especially against Agassi and Chang

Exactly that's what made him better than the likes of Ivanesevic, Rafter and Kraijecek

Legend has it he was a genetic clone, made from steroids. True fact 😬

HIs groundstrokes, too. Pete had so much weight of shot ! I liked how his topspin backhand was so heavy and consistently reached the baseline pinning André wayyy back (for him, at least).

A great tennis player.next to federer.

His backhand was his weakest shot - even though it was pretty good. Very solid, powerful baseliner. Should've done better at the French Open - though he did get a semi and a few quarters....

@@boke75 yes it is his weakest shot, says a lot about how good he is.

@@boke75 he had very good backhand as well. Have bot watched his clay matches to see whaf faults he did. He could play baseliner though.

His fitness is also poor compare with Big 3

You're in luck, they're releasing an updated version of the one agassi is wearing in this video this year!

ANDROMEDA I have the shorts still , and the shoes , but purple ones. Brand new in box

You got it!!!!

@@spirg i need a christmas gift,send them shoes to me 😜

Back in the 90’s, like loads of Agassi’s fans, I had his whole outfit. The “only” problem for instance is that the t-shirt (made in Bangladesh or China) was as badly cut and thin for its price as his Nike’s earnings were big 😋

Thee thing is the USTA channel has so many options for great matches, its incredible, we have to give them time to get through them, they are doing a great job.

One is lazy and boring while the other is just average and a cheater.

Two of the best players ever

Sampras played brilliant groundstrokes here,he had all the package.

@@clarkkent8428 who's lazy and who's cheater? :)

In all eras.

Completely agree I want Pete to come back to the extero much 🙁

They were s talented but There is no doubt that the gold âge of tennis is the one of the big three

It wasn't the golden age at all. Sampras started to get big as of 1993. That was the time when players like Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, etc had either already retired or were on the decline.

@@luperamos7307 Sampras started to dominate in 93. But this win was the start of his rise. Lendl, mac, and wilander were definitely past their primes in 93, but Becker and Edberg should’ve been in the middle of their primes (mid to late 20s). Some would argue this young crop of American players were the reason why Becker and edberg didn’t win more. Chang broke thru the scene first by winning the French in 89. Even though he never won again, he was a consistent top 5 player for a decade. Courier was next winning a bunch of titles in between, but once Sampras got rolling in 93, he was hands down the most dominant. This was the golden age of sports for many. US mens tennis was arguably the best it’s ever been, Jordan’s bulls, and the niners dominated the NFL. Lol

@@dustierbottoms Edberg really didn't have the results anymore as of 93 and went downhill as of 94. The results show that. Becker still hung around, but he was always a little on the heavy side. He got rid of coaches bc he felt that they had too much say and I feel that he didn't have the right work ethic anymore. A big reason was also that bigger servers like Sampras and Ivanisevic came along as racket technology and surfaces basically ensured that the big servers would dominate. That is also why I didn't like the 90s.

agreed

9:50 this shot is also very difficult

@@thebigmonstaandy6644 not like the first one not even close

@@djordjenikolic9059 yes.but it was olso diffucult shot

Holy shit. Looks like a magic trick

you had no idea because he wasn't going to be. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Agee with you Steve , Sampras is the greatest tennis player of all time.

@@madonnacicone4944 lol he never won the french. he was a giant, historic, great player. but you can't be the Greatest of All Time and totally skip ever winning one of the majors, on an entire surface of the game of tennis, sorry.

@@DanielBoonelight So what?

@@madonnacicone4944 i'm sure you can read my stated point. you need it repeated? good gracious. need a kleenex too?

he wasnt unplayable on clay

@@juanestebankruhsanmguel1960 he was on the truly fastest of courts, unbeatable. You know you're good when they slow the game down because you made the game boring.

Agassi put him in his place many times. But Pete always seem to learn.

His running forehand was his killer shot !

This was the first slam he won

I think had he ever had success in winning on clay he'd still be up there. He came close in 96 at the French beating 2 past champions in Courier and Bruguera. But Kafelnikov absolutely killed him in the Semis. After that he never got out of the 2nd round.

And his also in a different league compared to all the current greats. Federer , Nadal or Novak fanboys wont like this , but I lived through that 90s era and am a fan of today’s tennis , but no one comes even close to what Pete was . It’s one thing to win and dominate but it’s another to win and dominate the way he did . His the real goat and if a 93/4 Pete or a 96 Pete ever stepped on the court today the big 3 would all shit themselves cos they know too .

@@stealthcat100 Federer beat him the only time they met on grass. Also Sampras was no good on clay.

@@Bhavik630 He was quiet good in clay , 4th best actually in the 90s . At French open couldn’t do it but had a good record on clay overall

@@stealthcat100 But Federer is more of a complete all court player than Sampras ever was. Sampras was a Serve and volley greatest ever, but thats about it.

@@Bhavik630 Sampras had a more powerful penetrating forehand which is why he beat the best baseliners ever like Agassi , Becker etc . Better serve , better volley , more athletic . Only shot Federer had that was maybe better than Sampras was the backhand . No one could hurt Pete in any area and as time goes on history will show that Sampras was the most feared . Federer unfortunately can’t even put away his rivals , both Djokovic & Nadal have a better head to head against him. His the darling of tennis and dominated heavily at a time when tennis had no major champions but if you want to break it all down , sorry . Pete is Pete, record will always show who he dominated and how he dominated and that he was truly untouchable at his peak against what are considered one of the strongest eras on the fastest courts ever . Federer’s success will be overshadowed by the two other guys who beat him . Unfortunately

@@kucingmeowcanteq7994 no they even ain't ready to serve one time

Probably better than the big 3

Venció a Federer al 80% de este partido

In Pete's heyday the courts and balls were way faster. Plus Pete's second serve was the best ever. Djokovic would find it much more of a challenge plus there's Pete's tremendous net game.

Pete is being diplomatic. Djokovic hasn't faced an elite serve and volley player like Sampras so his return game looks good against baseliners.

@@outatime16 games and eras are different. Slower balls and court normalized, it would be a good match up

@@outatime16 Djokovic entire game has matured mostly in the slower plexi era. Those 90s surfaces would not give him the luxury of baseline encampment. Wimbledon was also much quicker. Pete's incredible beatdown on Agassi in 99 gives us an idea of what Djokovic would've faced.

@@Fontsman And also the fact that Djokovic wouldn't be able to just get away with getting the return back in play. It works in today's game because guys don't come in. But back then, when facing a serve and volleyer who was coming in, if a returner just blocks the serve back or floats the return, it's an easy put away volley. That's why Agassi knew he had to be offensive with his returns and go for a target to make the S&V player volley up. That's how he won Wimbledon in 92 and why he had such a good record against S&V opponents.

Boris Becker had a pretty good ground game and packed a punch off both sides ,

Correction : He WAS/IS the best “clutch” server in the history of tennis. Only player to have a first serve for a second serve !

Yeah....

Spot on, man

Bored tennis 🥱

Grunting yes, fist pumps..have you ever player an individual sport? False love show is actually class, în win or lose gotta act properly

not annoying Nadal, this guy is the dead of tennis....

​@@Murakami666🤡

if exact, the execution was harmonious and technically perfect very beautiful

Add sub-90 square inch to that too.

The top players nowadays are far better at the dipping passing shot. Pete was hitting many of these volleys from relatively high up. He also bunted the ball back deep relatively softly often as he knew he could rely on his volley to often win the point. Nowadays he would get passed or at least a much more difficult to hit dipping ball. Often from closer to his feet than above the net.

@@Bravo4013 The surfaces are slower nowadays and that's why they can get to the ball for those passing shots.

We lived through that awful era of VHS video tapes! Why couldn't they have invented DVD recorders in the 1990s? 😢

We still have the Willams sisters, for now.

dont forget Edberg

@@fiwoci43 ofcourse

I think that is also to do with the court speed. Courts were much faster during Sampras' time and so it was easier to force the issue and take the game to the opponents. Nowadays, more often than not, players have to engage in a lot of rallies, their preference notwithstanding.

Wawrinka when he's go-goating

Check out Poncho Gonzalez. He has passed on but he was Andrea's father in law. One of the best players EVER

HAD scary precision.

If the two very precise, only that Sampras had the most beautiful execution