I am wondering with all this talents why he NEVER won French ??? I mean he looks soooooo good here . that forehand was smoking here ...very flat and deep .
People see ‘96 as Pete’s lost chance at an RG title, but without that stomach bug I really wonder how far he might’ve gone in ‘97. He looked great in his first two matches.
That's an interesting point. If he'd got past Norman, he would have had Rosset in the next round whom he'd already had two wins over on clay, then it would have been Guga. That would have been an interesting match up - the clay definitely favouring Guga, but him not having won a slam yet. If Sampras had got through that match it would have been Brugera in the final. He'd of course beaten Bruguera the year before at the French Open when Bruguera was on his way back from a torn ligament injury, but Bruguera had a 3-2 head to head record against Sampras including a win at the French Open in 1993 and another against Sampras earlier in 1997 in Miami.
Incroyable la différence entre le Pete Sampras de Roland Garros et celui d'ailleurs. A Roland il était franchement pathétique, malgré une demi- finale, comme paralysé.
Dans un bon jour, Petros pouvait battre n'importe qui sur terre battue. Il a battu sept anciens et futurs vainqueurs de Roland Garros sur la terre ocre.
Pete stopped caring about clay after '96 lol, that's when all his greatest victories occurred - making quarters twice, beating Courier, Bruguera, making semis, etc
@@farid1406 I used to do that as a kid playing players I knew would beat me: I'd pretend not to care ("I'd have beaten him easy - but I can't be bothered"). Pete played Monte Carlo and Fabrice annihilated him 6-1, 6-1. So, how do you explain Pete could be bothered to win his first two rounds and then suddenly 'stopped caring'?
Though Pete won this without too much problem, it's interesting that of the next 8 sets these two played over 3 matches - they were 4 apiece. Fabrice annihilated Pete at Monte Carlo and Pete won the next two matches in 3 sets. So they were pretty evenly matched hereafter.
Toujours surprenant et agréable, le Fabrice. Pauvre Pete, cette année-là encore il aurait pu prétendre au titre (technique bien en place et conditions propices) mais il était diminué à l'abord du troisième tour par des problèmes digestifs. Rageant...
magic fab, un ovni. peut être le seul (avec jan michael gambill plus tard je crois) a faire le forehand de deux mains. il variait les effets comme personne. il a rendu fou plusieurs fois safin. un jeu si atypique!! après le pete sur clay c'était vraiment pas ça, comme la grande majorité des grands attaquants d'ailleurs.
il en parle dans sa biographie. il a regretté de pas avoir pris une raquette avec un tamis un poil plus grand 🙂 il jouait en 580cm2 et une tension de 33kg. c'est pas les raquettes autoguidées d'aujourd'hui lol
Sampras was the best tennis player of all the times, his biggest problem is that he was very lazy, he didn't like big effort, that means, that sampras could had won too much more Grand Slams incluiding Roland Garros.
Tennis players are athletes, not TV personalities. The fact that Pete refused to get entangled with the media hype celebrity culture shows how much deeper he is than the true cardboard cutouts so many people worship.
Bullshit,he has all court game-fast,strong and athletic,could outplay baseliners on their own game,champions mind as well-rarely losing a final,plus,he wasn’t ‘’lucky’’-it’s talent and work ethic,not to mention the thalassemia,which preventing him to do more on clay.
@@aleksthegreat4130 he indeed had an all court game but he was only the best at serving. Take away that serve and would he had won all those slams? Highly unlikely. Watching him on grass was incredibly boring, ace after unreturnable serve after ace after unreturnable serve, well you get the picture.
Review how many N° 1 he beat. Such a lack ot respect. Ivanišević. Sampras. Agassi. Stitch, Becker, Djokovic, Muster, Rios, Bruguera, Hewitt, Safin, Federer, Roddick. Do I need to go on ?
@@0innerself0 Fabrice beat 18 players who were number one at some point.....tied with Agassi for the most ever. He beat Jimmy Connors when he was 17, and he beat Novak Djokovic when he was 33. he also beat Federer (twice), Sampras (3 times), Agassi (3 times), Safin (nine times) and Roddick Ferrero Rafter Courier Wilander Becker Edberg Rios Kuerten Muster Moya and Hewitt. He was 0-1 against Lendl, and 0-6 against Kafelnikov, who had his number. He never played McEnroe. He also lost ot Nadal twice.
@@joemarshall4226 you got a few facts wrong. Santoro bt Safin 7 times, not 9. He only faced Nadal once, which was in January 2009, who demolished him, the same Nadal who was #1 and went on to win the AO 3 weeks later. Fabrice lost to Murray twice but could've won the Wimbledon match.
I love the way pete hits his forehand .... nothing like todays game ...very deeeep and very flat . A beauty to watch...
Eastern FH modelled after Lendl's. Graf also. These are the best FHs of the pre Poly era. With poly...best of all time probably.
Sampras as his best on the red clay!
I am wondering with all this talents why he NEVER won French ??? I mean he looks soooooo good here . that forehand was smoking here ...very flat and deep .
People see ‘96 as Pete’s lost chance at an RG title, but without that stomach bug I really wonder how far he might’ve gone in ‘97. He looked great in his first two matches.
That's an interesting point. If he'd got past Norman, he would have had Rosset in the next round whom he'd already had two wins over on clay, then it would have been Guga. That would have been an interesting match up - the clay definitely favouring Guga, but him not having won a slam yet. If Sampras had got through that match it would have been Brugera in the final. He'd of course beaten Bruguera the year before at the French Open when Bruguera was on his way back from a torn ligament injury, but Bruguera had a 3-2 head to head record against Sampras including a win at the French Open in 1993 and another against Sampras earlier in 1997 in Miami.
Incroyable la différence entre le Pete Sampras de Roland Garros et celui d'ailleurs.
A Roland il était franchement pathétique, malgré une demi- finale, comme paralysé.
Dans un bon jour, Petros pouvait battre n'importe qui sur terre battue. Il a battu sept anciens et futurs vainqueurs de Roland Garros sur la terre ocre.
Nice match from Pete
Santoro outplayed in this match but already next year in Monte Carlo, he was toying with Sampras.
There are really people that knows that Kind of fact. ..🤣
Pete stopped caring about clay after '96 lol, that's when all his greatest victories occurred - making quarters twice, beating Courier, Bruguera, making semis, etc
I was in Monaco this year I was 13 🤣
Sampras was toying with Agassi the day before.
@@farid1406 I used to do that as a kid playing players I knew would beat me: I'd pretend not to care ("I'd have beaten him easy - but I can't be bothered"). Pete played Monte Carlo and Fabrice annihilated him 6-1, 6-1. So, how do you explain Pete could be bothered to win his first two rounds and then suddenly 'stopped caring'?
The next three times they met on clay, Fabrice won!
Though Pete won this without too much problem, it's interesting that of the next 8 sets these two played over 3 matches - they were 4 apiece. Fabrice annihilated Pete at Monte Carlo and Pete won the next two matches in 3 sets. So they were pretty evenly matched hereafter.
Fabrice Santoro is wearing the Nike Air Mas Spa; my fav tennis shoe of the 90's
Important that we know that.
Thanks so much for informing us. I can sleep better knowing this.
4:15 what a volley from Fabrice! :)
Magnifique!
What the score?! Dificult to see the hightlights when you don´t know the score?!
Toujours surprenant et agréable, le Fabrice. Pauvre Pete, cette année-là encore il aurait pu prétendre au titre (technique bien en place et conditions propices) mais il était diminué à l'abord du troisième tour par des problèmes digestifs. Rageant...
magic fab, un ovni. peut être le seul (avec jan michael gambill plus tard je crois) a faire le forehand de deux mains. il variait les effets comme personne. il a rendu fou plusieurs fois safin. un jeu si atypique!! après le pete sur clay c'était vraiment pas ça, comme la grande majorité des grands attaquants d'ailleurs.
@@guimov1984 Il ne se dopait pas...
il en parle dans sa biographie. il a regretté de pas avoir pris une raquette avec un tamis un poil plus grand 🙂 il jouait en 580cm2 et une tension de 33kg. c'est pas les raquettes autoguidées d'aujourd'hui lol
@@guimov1984 Pete jouait en 548 cm2, oui
He never liked playing there I believe
A knockout blow come the end. Sampras simply was better in all key areas.
Sampras was the best tennis player of all the times, his biggest problem is that he was very lazy, he didn't like big effort, that means, that sampras could had won too much more Grand Slams incluiding Roland Garros.
Il était fatigué
Sampras had as much charisma as a piece of cardboard, lucky for him he had a huge serve and great running forehand.
Tennis players are athletes, not TV personalities. The fact that Pete refused to get entangled with the media hype celebrity culture shows how much deeper he is than the true cardboard cutouts so many people worship.
Farid Damasio good stuff my thoughts exactly.
Bullshit,he has all court game-fast,strong and athletic,could outplay baseliners on their own game,champions mind as well-rarely losing a final,plus,he wasn’t ‘’lucky’’-it’s talent and work ethic,not to mention the thalassemia,which preventing him to do more on clay.
@@aleksthegreat4130 he indeed had an all court game but he was only the best at serving. Take away that serve and would he had won all those slams? Highly unlikely. Watching him on grass was incredibly boring, ace after unreturnable serve after ace after unreturnable serve, well you get the picture.
There is no such luck to have a beautiful game as Pete possessed. And you don't take away someone's weapon to handicap to make easy for other.
Highlights tous pourris, on ne voit pas l'évolution du score
Were I Santoro, I would see if I could get my amateur status back and go to a quality school.
Pete Chumpras vs Frog Santoro
Review how many N° 1 he beat. Such a lack ot respect.
Ivanišević. Sampras. Agassi. Stitch, Becker, Djokovic, Muster, Rios, Bruguera, Hewitt, Safin, Federer, Roddick.
Do I need to go on ?
@@0innerself0 Fabrice beat 18 players who were number one at some point.....tied with Agassi for the most ever. He beat Jimmy Connors when he was 17, and he beat Novak Djokovic when he was 33. he also beat Federer (twice), Sampras (3 times), Agassi (3 times), Safin (nine times) and Roddick Ferrero Rafter Courier Wilander Becker Edberg Rios Kuerten Muster Moya and Hewitt. He was 0-1 against Lendl, and 0-6 against Kafelnikov, who had his number. He never played McEnroe. He also lost ot Nadal twice.
@@joemarshall4226 you got a few facts wrong. Santoro bt Safin 7 times, not 9. He only faced Nadal once, which was in January 2009, who demolished him, the same Nadal who was #1 and went on to win the AO 3 weeks later. Fabrice lost to Murray twice but could've won the Wimbledon match.
Que jouer terrible. il n’a pas droit