Hi Bennie

Note on clay, on which he was below average, since he had to PLAY the ball.

Agree. Great serve and volley. Extremely versatile.

I wish you well but if you do meet and go for food/drinks then remember to bring your wallet cos you know Pete ain't paying.

you mean a personality like a piece of concrete? xD

@@scottstorchfan 😂

Idem, such an elegant player.

His physique is impressive

Please don't forget the running cross court forehand. This is an underrated weapon and got both Agassi or Becker in troubles

Not the greatest serve of all time but maybe the greatest serve of any player who is 6'1.

@@tijgertjekonijnwordopgegetenerm you new to tennis, who's got a 2nd serve like him????? No one🤦🏽

"Greatest" is a big word. Pete is nearly a clone of the great Pancho Gonzales, who many unbiased old students of the game think had the greatest serve of HIS time. Rod Laver rated Gonzales as the best tennis player of all who came before him (and modestly puts no rating on himself), and Gonzales himself (who wasn't modest) said that in the period of his peak form (i.e. before Laver) the only player whose best game - when it was 'on' - was better than HIS best game was Lew Hoad.

Nice analysis!

I thought it was his ripping forehand crosscourt that was one of his signature shots.

Greek people have great wingspans

@@buridah328 yh like monkeys

I'm not sure if they've got it from Pete but Kyrgios and Medvedev seem to do a similar thing.

True. I mean we don't say pistol Roger or pistol Rafa. Hmm 🤔. Now I wonder if we would still call him pistol if his 1st name wasn't Pete. I'm going to be up all night contemplating this, love Big Ben.

@AJ XOXO I agree and having played during the Sampras Era while in Juniors in the US it was a climactic time for professionalism with Pete leading. However with the strings which he didn't mention here, Pete would've been better had he had Poly.

These players will get destroyed in slow, Slow medium and medium surfaces in big 3 era that they will never win major titles in their life In the past Grass courts are the fast courts Hard courts are medium fast to fast surfaces Clay courts are slow surfaces also in their time Now it got slowed down they will get destroyed by them Pete Sampras didn't reach finals in French open Also These players are one surface wonder only and nothing else Their strength is serve and volley only which will destroy in French open Also. Federer is time is up their fans are crying over court speed when Djokovic started dominating tennis 🤣🤣 like losers in the past it was unfair for baseline players now it is unfair for them it is balanced simple Which fool told tennis should be for big servers and volley players only Wimbledon for serve and volley players only is unjust and all also Why clay court players should adjust and playing style to win Wimbledon Those players can also adapt to slow,slow medium and medium surfaces also simple Since Tennis started it always been unfair to Baseline players only from beginning They decided to slow down surfaces fed fans are crying and feeling sick Djokovic is goat of tennis sport Not Federer at all He won most major titles when surface were quicker and faster Federer stature is extremely low also He reached finals once since 2011 In US Open also Big servers have 3 majors advantage Baseline players have 1 Major with them only since open era started in 1968. Deal with it fed fans Fed lost because he is weaker than Djokovic mentally and physically. When Djokovic and Nadal reached prime he is getting destroyed mostly Djokovic and Nadal won major titles in strong era mostly Federer is weak era champ also simple as players strong enough to defeat him on hard courts and grass courts except Nadal on Clay surface Teenager Nadal defeated Prime Federer in 2004 Miami masters also Nadal defeated Federer in Dubai open 2006 finals Nadal wasn't their winning percentage would be 99% for Federer mostly Federer was ✈ and Nadal was bringing him down to ground mostly by defeating Federer on the clay also Only Djokovic deserves to be goat of tennis sport. They faced each other 20 times on hard courts Federer leads against Nadal because of indoor hard courts only 11-9 on hard courts which was close actually 12-2 on clay with large margin The player who didn't win 1. Olympic gold medal 2. Monte Carlo masters titles 3. Rome masters titles how can he be goat of tennis sport also Djokovic won everything twice Only thing is missing Olympic gold medal but still he is better player than Nadal and Federer also As he won all masters titles twice also which no player did it since 1968. Federer biggest rivals are better and stronger than Federer mentally and physically also Big titles 64>59>54 also Hence Djokovic is goat of tennis. Nadal is goat of clay in tennis sport. Federer is one of the greatest tennis player of all time in open era also but not goat like Djokovic and Nadal.

You guys never expected that the player from Serbia will come and rule Tennis sport 😏😏😏😏😏😏 like that defeating Federer since 2010.

Was thinking the same. He wouldn't rally from the baseline as well as he did with continental grip on both sides

@@ciaranbrady2592 Exposed

Absolutely. But given how few commenters mention it, it's clear they don't know about the basics of tennis ie grips.

true, that. an obvious error in the video. He and Roger both used Eastern grips. Almost all coaches today teach the semi-western due to the slower courts and higher bounce, and thus the popularity of baseline tennis. I still prefer the serve and volley style, so Pete #1, Roger #2 for me

It's a real shame we have lost the fast court era

agree. considering the courts and racquets of the time, if they played their current game, it would've been quite a big gap. nadal's forehand simply wouldn't work and djokovic's defence would be less effective.

Nadal will still win the same title as Pete on Roland Garros alone.

@@lolipedofin agree 😂

@lolipedofin Yeah he'd be dominant on clay in any era.

Incredibly boring. I go back and watch his matches and can’t get through 10 minutes. 3 shot rallies are scarce. He was amazingly skilled at what he did but it was unwatchable. In his era, the game became unbalanced.

@@johnroush2580 agree with you, watching Sampras or McEnroe the whole match serve and volley is the most bored play in the world, I don't even waste 5 minutes on that.... .. and not even mentioning that they hit the ball horrible 😂😂😂😂

No idea how people thought he was boring...what a bunch of goofballs.

He was a towering bore,

He STUNK on clay. Then again, Americans by and large don't know anything about clay. The attitude is jingoistic: If American players don't excel on clay then clay doesn't matter.😂

@Ashish. John McEnroe in 1984 played, in my opinion, the highest level of tennis ever seen in the graphite era with Pete Sampras' level of play a very close second! I give McEnroe of 1984 a very slight edge over the Sampras of 1993-1996/1997.

What the narrator of this examination of Pete Sampras' pro tennis career fails to mention in comparing Boris Becker to Sampras is that by the time they played against each other in the quarterfinals of the 1997 Wimbledon tournament, Becker was 29 years-old and way past his peak! Becker's best year was 1989 - 8 years earlier when he won Wimbledon over Edberg and the U.S. Open over Lendl. So Pete never faced Becker in a major when Becker was at his best in 1989!

@@michaelbarlow6610 prime Sampras, Becker, Roger all destroy McEnore 84 or any year. He just was too one dementiaonal serve and volley player

@@michaelbarlow6610 😂not even near... McEnroe could never handle the power of the young generation starting with Becker... He couldn't handle the powerfull passing shots and groundstrokes... He was simply overpowered.. That was also the reason for losing to Lendl regluary... He adapted his game to the raw power of Becker, Agassi..

@@michaelbarlow6610 that's probably right.. But Becker admited that Sampras at his prime Was never reachable for him.. And right so... Sampras was better in every aspect of the game... Like an upgradeverion of Becker...

Pete said once that the only player that could beat him when he was playing at his best was Agassi.

I really like Sampras game as well. Besides prefering is style and demeanor over Agassi. But, and if he are talking fit and healthy on all of them, he would have difficulties against the big 3. On clay i think he would have a lot of problems beating anyone of them. On grass i think Djokovic and Federer would beat him. And on hard the matches would be lovely to watch but i think he would have trouble against all three because of his backhand. But of all the players of Sampras generation he would be the one giving the big 3 most trouble. It is just that the big 3 took it up a notch above even someone as great as Sampras.

He wrote Novack🙈 what a true tennis fan

Todays players like Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev would destroy Sampras in his best times. Against Nole and Nadal it would be 61 61. Of course he was a great player but todays generation is 100 times better and mor atheltic and the intensinty of the game today is not compareable with the tennis in the 90th.

@@halitl.1734 You probably didn't watch him. He would have a lot of trouble on clay. Outside it only the very best (big 3) would beat him more often than not. One of the best first serves ever, the best second serve ever, one of the greatest ever at the net, a great forehand, great movement and a good backhand. Quality is timeless. Don't fool yourself. The very best from each era are probably on a very similar level. Their styles reflect their time but they would be excellent in every era in my opinion given time to adapt. The thing about the big 3 is their unprecedented staying power at the very top not their unprecedented quality. But i think that is also a sign of the times with the advances in tennis equipment and conditioning breakthroughs.

@@aca2077 Not fair. You know what he means.

Totally agree. Nice guy, and second serve has never been equalled. First serve was the best, second serve also. "You're only as good as your second serve" is a tennis maxim.

All court player,lol😆😆 What his records on clay courts especially in French open? I get really confused when some people refered to him an all court player.

@@rajusaha855 you didn't read the comment correctly. Reference was made to baseline game vs. Serve and volley, he managed to merge both styles ( he started as an offensive baseliner early in his career) I didn't even mention the surface and you got worked up.

@@abirkalai5688 then why used the word 'all-court' into it.

@@rajusaha855 all-court is about the strategy on a given court, not the surface. An all-court player covers every angle from the baseline as well as the net. I know Pete Sampras struggles on clay as this surface recquires more stamina (look at his Davis Cup win in 1995 when he got dragged out of court for exhaustion), but he's a great player.

@@abirkalai5688 sadly we forgot him especially in the era of big 3. When 3 players got over 20 slams, a number impossible to think 20 years ago especially in men's game.

He actually was lightning fast when running for passing shots (which were lethal on his backhand side too), and by the sheer size of his thighs, you can clearly see how strong his legs were. This is certainly one of his strangely underrated abilities.

@@pierdomenicosommati443 agreed 👊

Underrated? He won 14 GS's. Who underrates him?

@@MichaelWalker-wu2pq athlete I said. Nobody talks about him being a great athlete. You ask people who are great athletes and hardly anyone would say him let alone any top tennis players…but they are some of the best.

@@tennisviking the average American sport fan won't mention any tennis athlete to begin with. But the longtime tennis fans will usually mention Sampras when talking about all time greats of tennis. I heard the commentators mention him a few times during Wimbledon this year and showed his photos and videos for their 100 years celebration.

Ya, I don't know why the commentator says Pete played continental all strokes. That's more mcenroe, laver, nastase.

@@alberts2208 I know why: because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

And his topspin backhand was also full eastern. You don't need explanations about inside-out forehands etc you just need to look at some of the stills in the video: obviously eastern on both sides when playing topspin drives.

My pleasure 😊

Their indoor matches were epic, but on hard courts Sampras/Agassi were unmatched.

Exactly dude. Guys like Novak and Rafa have massively benefited on the homogenization of all the courts. Wimbledon is so slow it mine as well should green clay

Sampras doesn’t hold a candle to the big three of today

Saying it was; “much more diverse” doesn’t really make a lot of sense. If todays game is technically more balanced due to court regulations, that would mean everyone is on a more even playing field. You grew up with the guy, that’s the difference.

@@bullymaquire8797 i think Herbaty has possitive score with big 3 .... So he the GOAT then

@@bullymaquire8797 ok just let me explain to you...if all courts in 90s were at speed as wimbledon or us open Sampras would have 90% win score... I am not sure Nadal or Djokovic would win either turnament in the 90s since their main weapon(running around) would be kinda irrelevant...serve and volley was king back then and they are kinda awfull in that regard...also Nadal was owned twice by Brown who is kinda a serve and volley player

Before Federer came around Pete was the idea of a complete player. The tennis world was so specialized that Pete's all-aroundness is unthinkable but to some they find it 'boring' (especially with his calm demeanor).

@@areezzy not complete as he never won any clay tournament

@@kartheep that's why I said before Federer. Agassi did win all 4 slams but Sampras in his heyday was considered to be the most complete player since Rod Laver. Meanwhile Roland Garros is reserved to clay court specialists (Costa, Berasategui, Kuerten, Moya etc)

@@kartheep tennis in the 90s had a lot of specialization compared to today. Edberg had amazing volley but no forehand. Becker had serve and forehand but no backhand. Courier had the forehand but no serve. Agassi had the return but no volley. Chang had speed but no power. So in comparison, you have Sampras who had the serve, volley, forehand and a decent backhand (still his weakness that prevents him to win on clay). He was complete by that day's standard. Then came Federer, Nadal, Djokovic who had much more complete game than Sampras (albeit not as good a touch at net)

It was so intriguing to watch how a good serve and volley guy went about defeating a rallyer by taking away is timing and rhythm and sense of what next was gonna happen. Serve and volley was the superior game for grass and Borg the ultimate baseliner of his day knew to adapt to serve and volley from a topspin baseliner in order to win Wimbledon 5 years in a row.

Yes fully agree - he faced names like Agassi / Becker / Lendl / Mac / Edberg/ Rafter / Kuertin / Safin / Stitch etc etc ; these were all exceptionally good tennis players - VS the era of the big three - just didnt have that depth in my book To prove this - just look at the ten best young gun up n coming male players of the last 8 to 10 yrs - and how many times did any of them defeat the big three in GS finals ???? Sampras ' era had more greats that he competed against in my opinion

Debatable, since he was pretty average on clay and was beatable at AO as well. GOAT on grass definitely. If he would have wanted he would have played for at least 2 more years or more and won another one or 2 Wimbledons, but his records seemed pretty untouchable at the time and he felt no need or desire to prolong his career. Pretty much same for Fed, if not for Rafa or Novak Fed wud have hung up his boots for good 5 years back.

@@rishabhaniket1952 For me it is the time he goes number 1. No matter the surface of the court. The thing is the competition as well. You have the three but back then you had more. Some aging stars, a lot of them relatively in their prime and other young guns of that time. It was just better competitively as well compared with today. Also, Sampras might be the greatest server of all time as well and for sure greatest second server.

my goat as well

@@Kalmar917 The reality is the big three are just insanely great. The ground strokes are much harder. They are extremely fit. The rest of the field are also much, much better than the people in the 90:s. There are just so much more opportunities now all around the world. More people are able to play. The competition has made it very hard for americans to compete and Sweden isn't even on the map anymore (having been great in the 70:s, 80:s and half parts of the 90:s ). The average professional player is just that good! Since it was only Sampras that was on a level on his own and not three players, it seemed like the competition for him was harder, since he was the one that everyone else met in a final. Lots of different people in a final. For the big three it often involved two of the big three (because they were that good), ie it made it artificially look like the competition was bad which it wasn't! It wasn't that Sampras was bad, he just was almost as good as the big three. Almost since he was mainly the goat on grass, very good on hard court but not so good on clay.

Are you seriously watching todays tennis ?how can you say that the mens tennis is thin. And Sampras was already not the nbr 1 in the world when he retired and Federer was a better player than he already with 20 age. Today the best Sampras would be not in the top 20 for sure. His serve & volley would not work today and he will get 100 times passed at the net like Roddick has suffered against Nadal in the US Open 🤣. Sampras back hand was too worse for todays power tennis. Of course it would be interesting what sampras would be able to make with a RF 97 racket because with his 85 inch stupied racket even Djokovic would not win any match on the tour.

@@halitl.1734 I say the tour is thin because only the Big 3 win majors. Everyone else chokes in the big moments. Sampras has proven he doesn't need to serve and volley to win majors.

@@halitl.1734 By my count the Big 3 (Roger, Novak and Rafa) have won 72 of the last 85 grand slam tournaments. Imagine if only 3 NFL teams won 84.7% of the Super Bowls? You'd say the rest of the NFL was complete garbage.

@@halitl.1734 Cressy is Top 30 today with a worse S&V style. He'd definitely still be competitive, although I think Big 3 would lead him in the h2h if they were to play in primes

nadal had Mueller-Weiss syndrome from age 16 and won 22 majors.Lol Pete is talented but not as incredibly talented for the likes of federer Novak and nadal.He would have probably 4 or 5 majors in the modern era.His serve and volley would have been easily broken by the big 3 especially nadal and djokovics return.

@@kartheep Maybe... But you can inject it and then play ... And then even win a major... Can one only measure how good a player is/was because he has 6 or 7 more majors than another which has 14? I guess no! Of course it shows that Nadal is a wonderful player, but there are other factors playing a role. LeBron scored more points than Jordan... does this make him the GOAT? Was Pele so much better than Messi because of his world cup titles?... Pete was an artist on the court and had (at least for me) the most beautiful game of all and won his majors in times where we had huge competition with many very strong players playing at the same time... And the surfaces changed so much that it makes it so difficult to compare. Would Sampras have won his titles playing now with his old racket? we will never know! :-)

@@kartheep He was smart and skilled enough to have recognized it and would have come up with another trick from his illustrious hat to outsmart the greats. Such was he as a player

@@kartheep ahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahha

​@@kartheep Sampras was not a serve and volleyer, except on grass. He was an all-court player. Possibly the best serve ever, one of the best forehands, and an excellent volleyer.

That was the 1993 US Open quarterfinal. USTA put highlights on Yourtube last year.

Nope he wouldn't...but he would be more succesful than any other player in the field today...he would beat them more often, but he wouldn't dominate i can guarantee you that!

No he couldn't the big three especially Federer & Djokovic had superior all round game than Sampras. They are more durable & consistent performer than Sampras. I remember Ivan ljubicic (coach of Federer) said in an interview that big 3 want to win every matches even on their weaker surface but Sampras or Agassi never played all the matches with same intensity.

@@rajusaha855 Only Federer has all round game like Sampras. Djokovic is a baseliner. All of his records were broken by these two because they and Nadal have much longer career than him and push each other. So they are only more durable and consistent performer than Sampras because they are on the tour much longer than him, not because they are better than him. Sampras had no one pushing him and chasing him for the records so he thought and actually everyone thought his records would never been broken. Also, none of the weaker surfaces Ljubicic mentioned is as fast as the court surfaces in the 80s and 90s.

@@typ6669 now forget the big 3 for a moment, they are undisputed GOAT. Sampras is a legend, no doubt about it but how come despite being an all court player he fail to win a French open (in fact his clay court records was very poor) while in the same era a less dedicated player like Agassi won a career super slam in 90's? In fact Agassi or even Murray (shocking) had more masters titles than Sampras ? Why player like Lendl, McEnroe, Borg & Connors have better career winning % than Sampras? His winning % is only 77 (almost same as Murray lol 😆😆) Unlike Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Connors he never won 90% matches in a single season why just explain? I guess Sampras had enough rivals to push him.

I disagree - the big 3 play the tennis the way they do because the courts are the way they are. If the courts were different they would adapt If Pete were around today he would have to adapt too... Federer was a serve volley player when he beat Sampras in 2001 He adapted because that's what it took for him to win...

Just for your ignorant a*se - Pete never reached an RG final😂

I’d say he’s in the conversation along with: Bill Tilden Ellsworth Vines Don Budge Jack Kramer Pancho Gonzales I’d put Sampras either 1 or 2, but a case can be made for any of the six. I trained with Pete and hung out with him while he was a rookie pro in 1988. Great guy.

@@swalterstennis Open era numbers don't lie. Pete has most of the American records I believe.

Greek American

Nadal would have still dominated on clay, but hardcourts? Not win as much. As for grass, well he still struggles a lot even on the slower, higher bouncing modern grass so he wouldn’t have won Wimbledon in Petes era.

Totally agree with you, Top Turf.

Well stated... agree!

Auf den Punkt gebracht❤

He doesn't have the numbers to be grass GOAT. Pete won 7 Wimbledon titles and 8 grass titles overall. Roger won 8 Wimbledon's and 19 grass titles overall. He also defeated Pete at Wimbledon in their only official meeting. So there's no way to put Pete over Fed as grass GOAT. He's not even close to Roger's numbers.

Yes, the greatest make everything look so easy, and they did it in men's tennis.

Yes, I remember that 2000 W final, and the second serve aces. Best player I've seen, along with Laver, and a really nice guy, as well.

Didn’t Thiem also switch about 14 years old?

One of Sampras' childhood coaches, Pete Fischer, thought that the transition to a one-hander would be beneficial to his winning Wimbledon, which during his formative years was one of the biggest goals between the two.

For sure, he started developing the one-hander well before 14. That's the age he officially took the final decision over the switch, beginning to play it in tournament matches. His ability with the two hands was not enough to produce such a heavy shot as he style of play needed. Instead, he felt more ease with one hand, being able to fully use his insane arm speed on the ball... the second hand was just slowing his shots. That's a problem that several high level tennis player clearly have (Roddick, Tsonga, Berrettini,.Stosur, Ivanovic, just to name a few), and not finding the courage to abandon the 2nd hand can impair a whole career. Not everyone is able to effectively play the two-handed backhand, it can't be the right choice for every player. Despite his one-hander was not the most aesthetically perfect with that "strange" high elbow, on good days he was perfectly able to disrupt rallies with its sheer power, even against Agassi. That says a lot.

@@pierdomenicosommati443 Very true, however I'm sure we all appreciate someone with a great one-handed backhand. Just looks special and devestating!

@@pollutionhead if you look at old Justine Henin's video, it's amazing to see the sheer fire power she had on backhand wing, despite her small, thin frame😱😍 And she was also able to play topspin shots in almost every possible situation, thanks to her great timing and to the fact that she played one-handed from very early age

Pete was great but geez he didn't make them believe or something , if so they would have had 15/16 and not 20/20 plus

@@YTviewer2099 of course he did. One more thing Roger made a mistake playing Pete in those three exhibitions and losing one when Pete hadn’t played in years and came back to play. In losing Roger’s competition believed he was beatable, prior to that he was invincible. They all acquired a different mental attitude when playing him.

@@Boukephalos1 haha lol okay , if you take exhibition matches seriously then I have nothing more to say , thank you

@@YTviewer2099 I was hoping you’d write back. None other then John McEnroe agrees with me on this subject. It seems you’re not his equal, mine and history. The next year Federer started getting beaten by top players and also rams. As to Sampras being the Roger Bannister of tennis. He was remember but they had to get to that level then they advanced past a number they never believed they could unless Pete had done what he accomplished first. As soon as Bannister broke the 4:00 mile others did it also but they were close in times. I had a friend who could bench press 390:10 times but not 400. As soon as he did it he went up to 430 max. But see he was there. Sampras beat Federer in exhibitions where as others didn’t even in exhibitions.

@@Boukephalos1 Each of the big 3 almost broke Borg's total slam record in a single slam dude , Rafa has as many RGs as Pete has in total . I get it , you like Pete but the Big 3 are simply another level . Sampras' records have absolutely nothing to do with their achievements .

That is such a 'Leslie' comment! If you want boring old person attitude go to a retirement village. Mac was a genius player and a pleasure to watch!

@@stephenkukec9784 Mac was great to watch! Always entertaining, always gave 100%...passionate!!

I think Pete won US Open in 1990, before Agassi had won a GS title, so I'm not sure what you mean.

he did not dismatled Safin and Hewitt.it is more like Hewitt dismatled him

He was a tonsil jockey

I believe (we may never know) that the Sampras before the back injury would have been too much for the big three. The big three all thrive on long points; Sampras had the tools to keep points short and when he was at his best, there was simply no answer for him!

Nope. Less slams for Fed in the 90s.

@@Marko777ify nope. Probably more. No one to stop him

Showing my age, but all the Aussie players - Laver, Newcombe, Roche, Emerson and Stolle were wonderful serve and volleyers, too.

Nadal yes but novaks return is sublime! Noone in 90’s a return like his, agassi came close and even he beat sampras many times on hard!

He won a slam every year on an average. He couldn't crush his average contemporaries let alone the big 3. Talk some sense

Sampras was a purist, he said himself poly strings were akin to cheating. Consider putting his racket in the hands of Nadal and Djokovic, they would not stand a chance against the best players of the 90's.

@@lanapearce9968 That reinforces my point. Sampras' stubbornness regarding equipment left him standing in place while everyone else on tour was moving forward. There was no legitimacy to the criticism of progress in player equipment. No one makes a stink about technology gains in Golf. BTW, Federer spent the first part of his pro career using the same racquet as Sampras. He switched to a 90 sq. in. version in 2002. It wasn't until 2014 that Roger fully committed to a racquet change. His acceptance that a modern racquet was his best chance to prolong his career gave him a second act. I'll say it again, had Sampras converted to the modern Wilson Pro Staff line (ex. Pro Staff RF 97) with a hybrid string setup, he would have contended for SW19, Melbourne, and Flushing Meadows for at least another 4 - 5 years. I'd even say that it would have positively impacted his ability to contend at Roland Garros.

I believe Sampras himself said in his autobiography that he regretted not changing his racket, or that it had been a mistake not to, words to that effect.