Pete and agassi are barely ever mentioned. Agassi won all four slams when all surfaces were indeed very different. Winning fast Wimbledon as a baseliner is a hell of an accomplishment. In my view, agassi was 95% of the player Novak is today. Had he developed with the modern baseline game, he'd be an even greater champion.

@@prkrmc6457 that's recency bias..we tend to overstate achievements of current players.

In my view, Agassi was 95% of the player Federer was. Had he developed with the modern technology, he would be even better!!

PrkrMc because majority of fans currently look like they started watching Tennis after 2011. The way they discredit Agassi against Novak is horrible.

@@jameswalker6864 Agassi and Federer are very different players. Agassi's modern counterpart is definitely Novak.

Mine too. I hope I join the club your Sampras fans. Regards

Mine too.

Cool: So do I!

There's no one today to come up like his second serve aces on break point.

Pete's 2nd serve is basically his 1st serve which is one of the reasons as why he dominated...amazing...

Agassi still hasn't forgiven him!

Biggest let down of any match I sat down to watch. Andre was playing lights out, too, and Pete never gave him a chance.

Cuz we live in the "OMG BIG 3!" era

Exactly - bunch of douchebag millennials who can’t survive without social media

Because Wimbledon never likes Sampras remember 2002 they put it on court 17! something would never happend to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic

@@edwinivanrodriguez3769 what happened ? in 2002

Patrick Rafter

So true man.

true, very heavy racket though, held it once years ago

Agreed. He was a strong man who punched above his weight.

Macho without trying

@@jazz2020 ??

14-0 Rafa (in finals) at Roland Garros. 2008 Rafa would beat prime sampras in Wimbledon irrespective of a slow/fast grass court. Pete could never change his game and adapt to win a Roland Garros whereas Rafa and Novak did it to excel across all the surfaces.

@@ruckfules9441 2008 Rafa barely beat a prime Federer in the slowest grass court ever. To think he would beat prime Pete on a fast true Wimby court...wow...!!!! Nice.

@@jenni431 leave him dude he is just a delusional rafa fan

@@ruckfules9441 Everything is possible in the world of fantasies! There is no point in comparing legends from different generations.

It was his signature "Slam Dunk" smash 😎

Sampras also is quite a story, coming from nowhere to win US Open, facing tragedy to his coach, breaking down in tears on court, bouts with mononucleoensis, rivalry with Agassi, being counted out and then had that last Us Open amazing run. Its interesting he was first dubbed as boring but his career was so interesting

@@areezzy yeah for sure! Even this small clip with all the legends who played Pete was epic!

Yes please dude - this would be amazing.

AW Same story with Fed the best his coach died in car accident and after that eh the rest is history

Right !!

Unless it was clay or Davis cup

In his prime vs Djokovic or Federer in their primer he would have been toast;)

@HODL On the fast surfaces like pre-1999, they wouldn’t be able to face Pete’s serve and net play

@@iggypopisgod9 Check his Davis Cup finals win against Kafelnikov, on clay, in Moscow

@@cryptokid1021 he would have destroyed them in the fast courts . And of course the year he played fed he was in terrible condition he had stopped training 2 years

The ATP logo in 2001 was developed based on his service !

That’s why he has the greatest serve of all time

Lol !!

His serving motion is the most beautiful tennis shot I have ever seen! Absolutely georgious

Agree. And his forehand was beautiful too. It always gave me goosebumps watching him live back in the 90s.

Wimbledon with Peter Sampras is so so...... borring !

this is what i think every year when the tournament comes up. Id give all i have to switch back to 90s and re-live his game. Never saw him live on grass.

😢

I stopped watching when he came along except for Henman (Murray later) match jitters on the semi final 5 setters.

Well he always had great recognition and the majority generally used to pick him as the greatest(despite lack of French Open)..It's only with the whole big 3 and social media that past players seem to get overlooked and inflated records seem to be the norm and GOAT debates more vicious

True that...I think he deserves more.>>>>>

He had plenty of recognition. He just got surpassed for the next generation,

Would love to see this in a full documentary narrated by Andy of course

@@SARYM911 big 3 r different as well. next level of athletism is there. even difference of rackets i guess.

Federer and Djokovic laugh at the "Sampras Era" 🤣

@@capitanfuturo594 I think they both looked up to him and his game and also have a lot of respect for him as a player, as a person and specially for his legacy.

@@capitanfuturo594 Why would they? Unlike him, they play(ed) in the weakest era professional tennis has ever seen.

@@fundhund62 weak what ? In this era tennis is much more competitive than in the time of Sampras and Agassi. Stop writing crap.

​@@capitanfuturo594 typical illiterate groupie bs

Yeah how he did it i will.neve know.

Sampras steht in niemandes Schatten,vor allem nicht bei jenen,die die 90er jahre mitverfolgt haben!Das heutige Tennis ist Mist,jeder hat den gleichen Stil,es geht nur mehr darum,wer die Filzkugel am öfteren übers Netz drischt!Schönes und ökonomisches Angriffstennis ist völlig von derBildfläche verschwunden,grauslich zum anschauen,was ich schon lange nicht mehr tue!

laver was my hero but sampras comes close

All due respect to Sampras, but surely Federer is the grass-court GOAT. He has the most Wimbledons after all.

@@tanyag2499 Yet Federer has a 1-3 losing record at Wimbledon against Novak, who for many is the GOAT

@@fabiennefertiti3017 While I do believe that Novak is well on his way to finishing his career as the GOAT (although this is a subjective term because fairly comparing players from different eras of tennis is impossible), I must give Federer credit here. Despite being past his prime, 30-year-old Federer beat prime 25-year-old Djokovic in the 2012 Wimbledon semifinal. Their other 3 matches, which Djokovic won, are not an accurate representation of Federer's full grass-court abilities because they came when he was well into his 30s and therefore already long past his prime, which was approximately from age 22 until age 27. By the time of their next meeting after 2012 (2014 final), Federer was 32. In 2015, he was 33. And in 2019 he was 37.

@@fabiennefertiti3017 that's the thing about federer. He is goat but somehow fellow players do better than him in head to heads. For example nadal. Novak should equal slams today and rightfully claim the goat.

That was it mainly just a serve or 3 wacks at best. He bored me beyond belief.

"played the game the way it should be played" ... It's actually more likely that he played it the way it WASN'T meant to be played when serve and volley started becoming dominant in the 50s, tournament organizers actually tried to kill it by changing rules... they just failed if anything, the true old school tennis players actually prefer baseline players over net players

@@lotus630 Old school tennis players prefer attacking tennis and trying to win the point, especially on grass. Not just rallying to try to wait for the other guy to miss.

1-2 punch rallies and one minute service games is definitely not the way tennis was meant to be played. Racquet technology in late 80s-early 90s made tennis too serve-oriented. Slowing down surfaces was a good decision, but a bit late

@@lotus630 I think He meant Pete played the game the way it should be as a champion and a gentleman! We can discuss styles of play and Eras later. But Pete was a professional on and off the court. Hard work, dedication and he let his tennis racket do all of the talking! Pete is a true legend have the game of tennis!

That title belongs to Djokovic. (Despite when he gets angry at himself sometimes.) Novak needed to go to Pete for overhead lessons tho, and Pete to him to learn to return at the highest level instead of being overreliant on serve and fast courts.

People today are saying Federer is the greatest grass court player ever, but let’s be real. Sampras wouldn’t lose to pure baseliners like Djokovic and Nadal so many times. He absolutely domolished all baseliners at Wimbledon.

@@worawatsr9803 Let's be clear as well grass is significantly SLOWER than in Pete's era. So it definitely gives baseliners a good chance.

@King Wiwuz IV it is intentional federer said it 3 weeks go but he dodnt say why. Hypothesis, more tv time?

@King Wiwuz IV Because people were tired of watching 3-4 shot rallies for 5 hours. Boring tennis.

@@worawatsr9803 Djokovic is not a pure baseliner, he is literally an all court counter puncher. Nadal is a baseliner, but he literally made grinding viable because of his unique style and execution. This is a BS statement.

legendary player.. truly

Yep. He struggled at Wimbledon in his first few years because, funny enough, he couldn't handle the fast speed of grass with his strokes. He had to work with his coach to shorten up his backswing on his strokes so he could time the ball better. And once he figured that out, he became almost unbeatable at Wimbledon.

He would be toast with his serve and volley game. Djokovic would destroy him I'm pretty sure.

@@cryptokid1021 impossible to tell i think .. so many factors.. i dont think Sampras would adopt a pure serve and volley game if he was the same generation as djoker.. racquets are bigger strings give more spin courts are slower .. serve and volley wouldn't be best option so i doubt Sampras wouldn't figure that out

@@cryptokid1021 Sampras was all-round class player, but serve-volley approach worked the best in the era of fast grass courts. He often dominated opposition players from the baseline when they were serving, and usually used more patient approach on his serve when playing on slower surfaces, although he was a player favoring shorter rallies with going for the winners when a decent opportunity arose, taking risks. That era knew players who were successful playing more aggressively, going for winners, on all courts except clay. And so, Sampras could be in trouble playing Djokovic. However, at least from the last US Open that Sampras won in his 30s, I remember that he could stand his ground in rallies.

He is Greek descendant he will definitely like Greek culture and tradition for sure. I think he is bisexual person

@@kikaa1884 ???

@@kikaa1884 god i love the internet! so many absolute nutters out there! haha

My hero. Still trying to get the slam dunk smash each game :-)

@@tom4trimble Me too, but every time I try the 'slam dunk' I hurt my back!

Nobody can perform the slam dunk smash like Pete Sampras. The height that he gets off the ground is inhuman. I saw Federer attempted it a few times, but it was not as great as Sampras dunk smash.

Shapovalov's jumping backhand shots (?

It's not really a smart shot, It relies on pure arm strength

It’s like he was using a wooden stick to fight against a real sword, and still win using just a wooden stick.

NO! Pete used the 98 Staff Pro. It's Ivan Lendl who used the dinky 85 (perhaps even less wide) tennis racket.

Sean N Pete Sampras used Wilson Pro Staff 85. It’s literally his signature racquet of choice.

Amazing, pure talent. My hero too!!

@@worawatsr9803 Sort of like a real-world Cyrio Forel who beats Merryn Trant, the Kingsguard, and the Hound with his wood sword.

Contrary to the Big 3 today, Sampras has always been extremely private and low-key especially since his retirement at the end of 2002. But, then again, in the 1990's there wasn't any social media to contend with.

Pete was very popular during the 90’s,all my family and friends were supporting him,still half of today’s top-players having him as an Idol(Nole,Roger,Raonic,Del Potro,Tsitsipas)

Shame lendl never won it

how do u mean he "didn't get credit"?

Like Lendl? Que nada! Admiringly, Ivan was an EXCEPTIONAL overachiever by total dedication, hard work, and personal discipline; whereas Pete definitely was (and will certainly remain) the MOST INNATELY COMPLETE tennis player of the modern era. Only Roger Federer (gracefulness) and Novak Djokovic (skills and mind power) come close (speaking of completeness vs. mere games or trophies winning).

Djokovic would narrate it about Federer 😅😁😁

Roddick is a Great guy. He would narrate it - if he could get The 2009 title in return😅

@@jayzemmour8431 He should he wants to be him so bad.😂😂😂😂

@@FavrboBirk 1. Really appreciate your humor, 2. He would happily do it either ways

but ARod would be proud of his last match of his career vs Roger with a victory, so who knows, eh?

And above everything a contented human being

Valsamma Joseph Yep, that’s why he retired so early. Unlike certain players today who’s still playing into their 40s..

An incredible running forehand!!!!

best volley are McEnroe and Edberg

Best serve ever.

Sampras was never given the credit for his sheer dominance at Wimbledon. Seven titles in eight years and the unexpected loss in 1996 to Richard Krajicek stopped his unbeaten run. I am not the one to take anything away from Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, but if the surface and balls were of same quality, I fear Federer would have found it difficult to win eight. If Sampras had played for 20 years at Wimbledon, he would have collected at least 15 trophies.

@@pareshmokani I also doubt that Nadal or Djokovic would have done that well at Wimbledon at all.

Paresh Mokani Unfortunately, the era that followed Pete arrived early and he was essentially eclipsed in history by the big 3: Fed, Novak, Nadal. Compound that with style that didn’t exude a lot of personality, or endorsements, Pete’s star has dimmed somewhat over the years.

I think the unfortunate truth is that the Sampras era featured a lot of boring grass court matches. It was dominated by big serves.

Have they not posted Sampras and Federer’s historic meeting in 2001?

Of all time? Not really.

Seriously Tragic. If ever Sampras lost at Wimbledon....It borders on Tragic. Seriously who can beat him? huhh? Krajicek and Federer....Not Goran though :) after 92 :) lolol....Agassi won then and escaped. Goran got screwed until Federer helped him in 2001 :) oh my God. What a Heart Breaker is Sampras. Goran's got no chance :) lololol

@@dynamicnag Only krajicek beat him in his prime.

Very true...

When he was on his game, he was not beatable on grass. Straight sets

It is because of Sampras that is why I've been playing tennis for two decades.

Sampras lost to young Federer.

@@ms-jl6dl But he was like 10 years older than Federer and no longer in his prime. And it was only 1 match and it went the full distance.

@@ms-jl6dl not in his prime

And funny enough, he actually struggled there his first few years because he couldn't adjust to the speed of the grass. It wasn't until he worked with his coach to help shorten up his backswing on his strokes to time the ball better, that he finally figured out the key to winning there.

Well, old Wimbledon, not the medium-slow hard court grindfest it is now.

Dr. Mr. Person Guy actually all the courts have been slowed to mimic the clay courts. Hence Rafa was able to be so competitive on it.

@@DrMrPersonGuy I dont think the court is slower. The ball bounces higher than in Sampras' era which is a good thing. Before the ball was often below the waist.

@@jeffreykaufmann2867 The courts are slower. And the bounce should not be higher, this is grass, not clay. Tennis has been slowed and homogenized for baseliners.

"men tennis"

Sam Allardyce so serena is WAMEN?

@@samallardyce2522 "entertaining tennis"

It was not the end. Agassi achieved some major titles In Melbourne after Sampras resign and Roddick won New York and both of them became Nr. One. Soon there will be another US American number one. I am pretty sure. Greetings from Berlin.

@@LinusFeynstein america also had jack sock and the other the very tall guy with great serve, but both were not workers, they dont work to play better.

Andy is to Roger.....what Goran is to Sampras. if only Andy waited a little.....Nadal or Djoker wud have defeated Roger at wimbledon and Andy could have gotten one :) like Goran got in 2001 when Federer helped. :)

most elegant were Edberg and McEnroe. He's third

What's the difference now? I've heard that the grass is different

@@stevencoardvenice they changed the grass in 2002. huge mistake, in my opinion.

@@victorabrams637 The grass is somehow slower now, isn't it?

@@stevencoardvenice yep. longer points, less advantage for big servers.

It's getting boring..

The fire power of Steffi and still graceful!👏👏 a treat to watch the game, esp her straight down the line.

@@vidyasonavane9602 well Steffi got "luck" to "eliminate" biggest rival and much better and tougher player than she was in Monika

💯 agree

Facts

I think as well, players of his generation still were brought up much more to have a specialism (e.g. clay courts, faster courts). Much more difficult to translate that across surfaces in those days.

That worked as an advantage for him.

🤣🤣🤣

He has one in Paris

Lol a statue for him in the one city he never won a grand slam. That’s mocking it😂

Begs the question who will carry the sport when the big 3 are gone?

In a relatively weak era though. It's ludicrous to think Federer, Nadal and Djokovic posting those numbers during the deepest Era which was Pete's.

Rohan I must respectfully disagree. Sampras is the only player from the 90s that had the athletic gifts of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and others. There were many FIT players, but the only one blessed athletically like today’s players was Sampras. Nadal and Djokovics talent is rivaled by some in the 90s, but not their athleticism. Federer of course is another level in all ways. Not to mention this era had genetic freaks like we’ve never seen, eg Del Potro, Isner, Tsonga, Monfils. The athleticism of Kafelnikov, Muster, Korda, Stich is almost laughable by comparison to the big 3, as is their talent.

Aaron Mychal Ruiz today’s players benefit from the modern technology of racquet strings, training, nutrition, and recovery. it’s a no contest for sure. but if the 90s players had the same technology, i think they will be on par.. the downside in today’s players are there are so many distractions (phones, social media, internet etc). that’s why they can’t reach their true potential. i think this is the reason why the big 3 have been dominating for so long because they know how to manage their distractions.

@@YolandaSaldivar4eva "Sampras is the only player from the 90s that had the athletic gifts of" I would throw in Agassi, sure Sampras was overall more athletic than him, but Agassi was the more complete player and had the endurance to succeed at RG in contrast to Pete.

Indeed - I don't want to take anything away but 1996 was difficult for Pete without the guidance of his shining star who taught him to believe and 'put his blue collar on' that Wimbledon is his kingdom.

@Kevin Smith Krajicek had an insane 14-12 in the 5th loss to Ivanisevic in the '98 semi's... pretty sure Rich would have taken care of business against Sampras in that final and beaten him again. He had a very good record against Sampras (but an awful one against Ivanisevic).

@@willritter4076 15-13.

@Kevin Smith don't think Krajicek had it mentally, imo. Whether it was lack of concentration, or nerves, or fighting spirit, it was a mental issue, and I think the fact he never even got to another GS final, letting alone winning another one, shows there was a problem somewhere.

Krajicek was great but he had a lot of injuries. Sampras did beat him at the U.S. Open

Truth. It's like some magic has happened

Nope. Nobody excepted that. I thought Sampras's 14 was a record that was going to last for a while

@@Aman-nk5uq I think it's possible that performance enhancing drugs are at play

@@stevencoardvenice it's called proper diet, training, and conditioning. The big 3 have a whole team of people to take care of them and keep them in shape.

Not forgotten by me, after him I stopped watching tennis.

Pete is up there

Has to be talked about

Rafa 12/12 finals at Roland Garros

@@ReiRei86 Weak clay era tho.

Djokovic 8/8 in Australia

@@ReiRei86 Rafa 13/13*

Is 7-0 better than 8-4? I’m not sure