Agassi's movement is very underrated because everyone thinks of him as this slow old man. He had world class footwork and had to make very quick movements to deal with these big serve and volleyers on fast courts. He was not a speedster who could run 10 feet behind the baseline all day like Nadal, but he could hug the baseline and cover the court fast.

Did Agassi have back trouble in the 2000s, didn't know that! Still won the Australian in 2001 and 2003, and got to Wimbledon semis in 2000 and 2001!

@@mddistribution30 We certainly don't know exactly when or how badly it bothered him, but he said that it had been bothering him 5 years when he retired. Interesting that you mention Wimbledon 2000, because that was also a question mark for him - he withdrew from Queens with a BACK problem! Off the top of my head, the earliest I can remember him having back issues was 1990... was struggling with back tightness at the Canadian Open - though whether that had any relation to the sciatic issues he had at the end, I cannot say. Nevertheless, he was clearly stiffer and slower in most of the 2000's from the quickness he had in the early and mid 90's.

I think even the big 3 would have had big problems against these two in their prime

better than Rafa, a nuance better than Federer because of his agressive game...

Sampras never played to the gallery to get cheap popularity. He always said he let his racquet do the talking. GOAT.

Sampras was extremely popular among fans,the half of today's top-100 still have as their favorite player.

Oddly, when he first came on the scenes, old-timers read about him...Bud Collins, used to talk about sending Rino Tommasi out to see the "future of American tennis" - Michael Chang...and when the guy came back, he kept saying he reminded him of Santana - smooth, lanky....and Collins realized he was talking about the loser of the match - Sampras! (Tommasi then convinced Sergio Tachinni to sign Sampras) Ellsworth Vines, Stan Smith, and many others believed in him too. People raved about his "easy" power... then the media stuck him with the "boring" and "all serve" label....

Hard court or grass, I still think Sampras was the GOAT.

@@tagskinner778 I have watched a long time, I have coached players that became world class. To me, if I had to pick THE player who at his absolute peak in one match was the best, it's Sampras. On his best day....everything is a weapon, and his defence and offence are as good or better than anyone ever. Many do not realize Boris Becker retired very early because of Pete Sampras, he realized: "on his best day and my best day, he's going to beat me" - it was the first time Boris ever faced that reality. There is no player ever that will win if Sampras is having his best day....except perhaps a Nadal having his best day on clay.

Agree, bravo 1224. Fed had no worthwhile competition for some years. Rafa and Novak prove, imo, that he was a weak era champ in the years before they arrived.

@@michelez715 this argument is as popular as it is wrong.

bravo1224 I agree the level is high here, but you should understand that they look a little more superhuman than usual because some idiot decided to distort the original footage to fit the more modern 16:9 aspect ratio. It makes their side to side movement look faster when it’s stretched like that. Completely unnecessary and stupid.

@@ViaticalTree really? I do not see the faces of the players being stretched?

ldjstudy Yes, really. I don’t see how you could not. It’s so obvious. Pause it at 0:47 Do you really think Agassi’s head is wider than it is tall in real life?

Bull hockey! Sampras couldn't complete a career grand slam, I would say that makes him an incomplete player. He was marginal on clay.

Your ass is marginal

Geko Okeg dude is clearly a troll. If it wasn’t for Soderling in 2009, Fed wouldn’t have a career slam either. Sampras also won year end championships, when Nadal hasn’t....

Yes, absolutely amazing...

🤩🔥💪💛⭐️PETE SAMPRAS IS THE GOAT THE ONE AND ONLY🎖🏆🎗😍

alex s I would put Ivan Lendl and Marat Safin on that list as well. It is scary how hard Lendl and Safin hit the ball. Safin's 2005 Australian Open semi against Federer was the best ball striking I have ever witnessed. In many of the rallies, Safin simply overpowered Federer. I have watched many Federer matches and have seen him outplayed, ie Nadal and Djokovic, (except to a lesser extent the US Open final against Del Potro) but never so overpowered as he was in that match against Safin. Safin had so much physical talent, but the mind wasn't there. He and Fed should have had an Agassi/Sampras rivalry.

+mrbobevans My man.

+mrbobevans Soderling via Nadal at the French Open was also pretty amazing.

Sampras the GOAT

Courier too hit it with power and neatness.

Totally agree , Edberg, Becker,Lendl etc. , I miss that time so much.....

I kind of disagree. Nadal djokovic matches in rome, monte carlo in 2009 were of the highest quality. Infact 2012 us open final was of top quality. Wawrinka djokovic matches are great. Tennis was great in 90s, but 2008-2015 has been on another level alltogether

There have been some amazing matched in the last 15 years. Check out Nadal vs Federer Rome 2006 for example.

That's highlights! But, yeah, I dont think when I see that kind of match again (and also complete matches from the era 1980-2002) that today tennis players are better. They have great athleticism, but not greater tennis skills (but Federer).

rajeshsweet194 of all matches those are the ones u Pick? Murray - Djokovic? 😒 Id prefer the top 3 over that.

Sampras was far more of a natural athlete than Agassi. But Agassi's shot-making was the best in the ATP for a decade. Sampras's serve was the key difference that gave him more titles than Agassi. And remember this is an era when the surfaces and tech made it easy for big servers to go deep into tournaments.

At the time, with racquets and surfaces as they were, someone with as good a serve as Sampras could get SO many free points on hard courts. Ten years later he wouldn't have been nearly so dominant. And it's part of the reason he never won the French.

TitanFind Yup. But I don't even think the surfaces have gone slower. The athletes have just got faster (and hit spinnier) making it look like the ball is slower. Tennis Abstract's Sackmann's ace rate and break rate analysis seems to suggest the surfaces in the aughts were faster and more variable than the 1990's ... but we'll never know ... as CPI wasn't a thing pre-2000.

Throughout the whole video I thought that Agassi was winning, until the final point. And then I was thinking that at least he won a set. Silly me, it was a straight sets victory for Sampras, crazy!

Exactly.

It was an era where attacking players were rewarded on fast courts , not big servers. Look up the stats and you’ll see across the board that serve %, first serve points won and second serve points won are higher today across all players than the 90s. Why? Better strings has increased effectiveness. Pete won because the rest of his game was that good. Was he the best baseline? No. He had the best forehand, great volleys, superior athleticism, and a backhand that ranged from poor to mediocre. When his backhand was on he was the greatest sight tennis has ever seen. His clay record did stink but clay was slower then and there were many more specialists across all surfaces. Much harder to win surface to surface than today. Sergei bruguera tried to serve and volley at Wimbledon because it was his best chance at success. Can you imagine Nadal doing that today? Pete with today’s fitness regimen and technology would be far more dangerous across all surfaces than the 90s. The only attacking all courted left is Federer and he’s not half the volleyer Pete was.

He could, definitely, but his free service points made the big difference across the course of any given tournament.

Only people who never saw him play or have an agenda say he was just a serve and volleyer.

@@farid1406 He became pure S&V in his late years, after injury and other health problems.

@@agnetha7110 Exactly. He was predominantly a baseliner early on in his career and thalassemia forced him to change his style later. His heavy racquet was unfortunately a liability on clay because it was very difficult for him to time his shots well as the match progressed especially in best of 5. 1996 was an aberration because the French open played extremely quick almost like a hardcourt.

I'm sure he served and volleyed TONS in this match, it's just not highlight-worthy.

nicofleb fuck. I'm 24 but now you make me feel as if I'm 44.

I'll have you know I was 5 and very observant haha.

I wasn't even born when this match was going on. Wish I was thought, the 90s was awesome.

@@serenaistheb.o.a.tI was already 16 in 1995, the 80s and 90s was the golden age of tennis in my opinion, a tennis period with a soul.

Quite a biased view point, compared to today's big 3

Why biased? It's just somebody's opinion. Different from yours, but that doesn't mean it's biased.

That's true.

watch "Roger Federer vs Pete Sampras: Wimbledon fourth round, 2001 (Extended Highlights)" - go to 8:54 ^^

@@hstew7526 that's an aging Pete in 2001. Having said that, Pete went on that year to make the US OPEN final and then win it in 2002. 2003 till Fed arrives. If you wanted someone to serve to for your life, it's Pete.

@@mrbungle7586 and Federer in 2019 is not aging Federer?

@@thebigmonstaandy6644 and I'd still choose Pete for best serve. Cheers

Specterling he was a fantastic mover until 1997. Probably the best raw tennis athlete I've seen. The way he could explode both at net and on the offense at the baseline was something else. Having said that, he had a lot of stamina issues.

It makes me sad that only now, after watching these video clips, people belatedly recognize the genius of Sampras. OK, I get that millenials think tennis began wirh Federer, but the older generation didn't give Sampras his due. If perfection is boring, then I suppose Sampras was boring.

T H Nadal could not have played his game in the 90s. The aged racket and string technology would not have made it possible.

@@MoLetalis true, if nadal had played in the 90s he would've never won wimbledon, probably no us open title and maybe 1 or 2 AO titles. However, he would've been extremely dominant at the FO. He wouldn't have harmed Sampras as much as he's been able to harm federer partly thanks to poly strings, but I believe he still could've bothered him more than Agassi did.

***** i dnt have ne interest on ur commnt...keep it urself,..fed is mine fav too....but i m sayn about d era.....

john smith pete is king.

mrigank shekhar well Fed has 20 slams, including the French. Plus Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon. A 37 year old Fed will be the oldest number 1. Need I go on. Pete was very very good on a fast surface like this, but would be an average player in the slow court era.

Indian wells was actually a slower hardcourt, even back then, because of the humidity. Sampras didn't like playing there at all.

denis daly thats all well and good except for one thing federer doesnt play real tennis. pete is the best tennis player ever. federer is a good ping pong player if you will.

Not quite. Lifetime ELO ratings of top 10 players objectively demonstrate that most of the 90s were a weak era -- only 2 great players

For his height (6'1"). Otherwise, it's pretty much Karlovic in every category, with a little of Isner ... coz height is the main factor allowing more angles and speed. My personal fave would be Wayne Arthurs (6'3").

Beth Loggins no way it’s roger by far

cannon of a serve

agree, fluent, great coordinated move with explosion at the end...second serve also perfect

No doubt in my mind - Sampras.

I guess it depends on the surface. Pre-prime Federer defeated post-prime Sampras on a pretty fast surface in 5 sets. So that would be a tough and exciting rivalry anyways. Both are among my favorite players 🔥

Not to mention how heavy that racquet was. And he was still able to generate the top spin necessary to hit his trademark crosscourt running forehand.

he would smoke them all on fast surfaces, and the part about fear is spot on!

I am a great fan of Federer, but its hard to argue with you with Pete at his peak. Both are great players though.

Federer>Sampras

True

Towards the comment of Federer being better

it's actually hard to argue because of the racquet material and techonologies are different back then.

Marklion Janecek On a slow HC, as well. Agassi had beaten him on the slightly faster Rebound Ace at the Australian Open.

He always did!

I would have to agree with you. That is why Agassi won the French and Sampras could not win it, because his serve and volley game was not as effective on the slow red clay.

I have watch fed and Pete. Sampras had more winners better serve under pressure. A lot of players who played fed hardly volleyed and didn't have winners. Fed won a lot of points from there lack of power or a potent server. Feds opponents did a lot of errors on their inability of hitting winners. Only djoka Nadal could play fed.

Agassi managed to hit some accurate but usually not very powerful winners but after watching this for 2 minutes I was sure Agassi would be the cockroach here to be crushed

Not powerful. Lmao, I watched these guys back then live and AA was powerful.

i i captain agreed, lol 😂

That's like saying my dad was a fast runner when he was 25 but he can hardly walk now in his 80's.

pete's serve is and was top 1 not in the world at that time but top 1 in history. There's no better serve in the big points.

@@LegolasD john isners serve is better

Not particularly an Agassi fan, but do think his serve was underrated. It wasn't a showstopper, didn't win him free points, but it was very consistent, and that's a good quality to have, imo.

+YesSirPhil Well, technically, IW was the slowest on tour, even 20 years ago. Slower than the AO, where Agassi beat Pete two months earlier. Though not as slow as today, where it's like a clay court. But these guys were playing like it didn't matter, and hitting through it.

+Skeeter McTavish hahahaha

One word. Attitude

I wd say Sampras never truly believed he could play on clay. Of course he could, but if you lack that inner confidence, it's hard to overcome it.

Nadal has pulled off better shots.

Ceint Vyriak nadal is washed up

JAC died from AIDS now he is playing like shit but prime Nadal pulled off those kind of shots all the time.

Ceint Vyriak Sampras was a way better server and volleyer

JAC died from AIDS nobody is denying that.....