So much brilliance on display in this match. Sampras' serve, his running forehand is sick, his play at the net. Amazing. Agassi's backhand up the line, his inside-out forehand, his underrated play at the net. Both them constructing points brilliantly, having to hit unbelievable shots to win. Maybe the height of tennis right here 1995.
For people who only saw Agassi or Sampras at the end of their careers, note: 1.how fast they both were here - watch their feet....Sampras was extremely smooth and quick - one of the fastest on tour/ever. Agassi was a couple steps slower, and much stiffer because of his back in the 2000's 2.how Sampras can play from every part of the court, and played a ton of baseline back then...in fact he was criticized back then for NOT taking advantage of his SV game enough
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.
@@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.
Sampras was just unbelievable player. His shots could really surprise. He was such a hunter. Very talented player. On one level with Fed and Rafa without no doubt.
Always bugged me that Sampras didn’t get more love for his BEAUTIFUL tennis. He combined the old with the new. Agassi and Sampras always brought out the best in each other and left you oohing and ahhing.
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....
Good God, this is the highest level of tennis I've ever scene regardless of era. I know these are just highlights, but still, this was not just a compilation of easy winners...every shot was contested fiercely and each player had to withstand and overcome an inhuman performance by his opponent just to win a point. I love Fed and have no doubt he could 'hung' with these guys anf beat them occasionally during that era but there's no way he would've dominated them the way he did to players in his era.
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.
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.
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?
Great match, this video gave me a lot more appreciaion for Agassi's talent. The points they played against each other shows what happens when 2 legends face each other when both are at their peak👍
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
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).
@@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.
@@datacipher Sampras is interesting. Level-wise, and to a degree, career-wise, he is absolutely on the same level as the big 3. In terms of his peak, I agree, he also is the highest of all them - but he only reached that 95% level maybe 20% of the time. Most of the time, say 60%, he was playing at maybe 70% and just cruising off his serve, and the rest were off days that his clutch serving and shotmaking got him out of. I think Federer in particular played at that 95% level about as much as Sampras, and while his 95% was a little lower than Pete's, he got to his 70% level more like 75-80% of the time. The advantage of having a safe, baseline oriented game in a slow-court homogenized era.
Andre was natural born killer, extremely talented, great shot making and lots of intelligence, his only problem was a guy called Sampras. He was out of this world.
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.
I was at this match. Looking to see if there was video of it and sure enough. Sat in the sun, good thing it was quick. Pretty spectacular play considering it was hotter than usual for that time of year in the desert.
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....
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!
Courts were very fast back then, grass was bullet slick and the hard courts played far quicker..i agree generally with your comments..it was very hard to move from the different specialist surfaces. Very, Federer could do have done back it back then..Nadal, no...Djoker possibly...Pete had a ruthless feel for the Jugular that Federer does not have (Here, after Roger failed to serve out Wimbledon), Pete would never have screwed up from two match points on his own serve..
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.
This was what got me into tennis growing up in the 90s with my older brother. We were both one handed back hand power tennis players, but I just eventually overcame him with practice and training. I miss those days of this rivalry when both Agassi and Sampras in their primes seemed to have an extra gear and got the best in each other to come out and play seemingly total opposite styles complemented by solid fundamentals and quick footwork.
@@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.
Now this was a style match-up. And as good as it could get. With all that technology and the composition of surfaces have changed, the weird thing is Agassi would benefit from it, but Sampras game would lose a lot and not be as effective as it was back then. Speaking greatest of all time is very tricky. But regarding imposing the type of game needed to win, I think no one was better than Sampras at that. He knew what he had to do, went out and did just that without hesitation and wasted no energy getting into the type of rallies or battles that would get him nowhere. What a beautiful rivalry and what a great era.
Pete's running forehand was so good.. so heavy.. rare to see agassi bullied around so much on the groundies but Pete was able to do it. Sampras's forehand may have even had more penetration than Federer's but he also hit it more flat.
And people think Pete was boring. He was a great shot-maker and a fairly decent mover, as evidenced in this match. He was the first of the S&V players that could consistently hang in rallies with baseliners. That's why he had winning records over Agassi, Courier and Chang.
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.
Here, after Federer Wimby 2019 final, Was Pete a far more ruthless player than Fed?..How much times did the guy produce an ace when serving for it..you could wager your house on him..Roger failed to serve out a few times and lost, Pete would never have lost this serve from 40-15...never..
@@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.
Wow Wee I forgot just how fast Sampras was. I encountered very few athletes in my time who were naturally gifted and athletic like Sampras. Compare the physique of Petes' with Nadal, Fed and Nole. I really would love to have seen pistol Pete up against today's best even on today's slow surfaces. The thing is that Pete payed without fear whereas Roger plays with fear.
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.
Damn, when i hear those so called experts how much slower the game was back then...these guys hammering balls, lighting couterpunches from all over the court.
This was an insanely good match from them. In a lot of their matchups, it was quick points (Sampras ace or Agassi return winner). But this had a lot of fun rallies.
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").
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.
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.
Part of the problem that Agassi had with Sampras is that his natural game tended to play right into Sampras's hands. Hard, flat consistent groundstrokes which Sampras loved. If Agassi had been able to adjust his strokes to put a lot more height and topspin on them, and get the ball up high on Sampras's backhand and pushing him back, he would have had a lot more success. For that reason, I think Rafael Nadal would have given Sampras fits in the same way he has been able to bother Federer.
@@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 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 🔥
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
In todays slower coarts agassi would be having way more GSs. And with preparation that players do today. look at him, he looks like 40 yeard old body with the most raw talented hands I have seen. Amazing.
Agassi's ability to put the ball wherever he wants is unparalleled. No matter what the angle. If an inside-out backhand is the best shot at the moment, he'll hit it, no problem. No one else can direct the ball like that. But ultimately Sampras was more athletic and had the perfect serve and could follow it in, so his best would always beat Agassi's best on a quicker court.
6:12 that passing today would be framed and adored live on tv for weeks and the shot maker the most gifted hand of God to come down on Earth and so on and so on Oo This guys were really really really skillful this video is marvelous. Why compare do nowadays?! Broadcast is so different, you can actually spot the sweat coming down their foreheads, there is so information more compressed in the same time frame you get the feeling it is way better than then, when we should admit comparable. In the end it is a game of two players, like a dance, the synchronicity of their playing styles, mental fitness and will is what enthrall us. It is a sum, bloody occidentals!
Two of the great yesteryear players. Agassi was flamboyant,but Sampras was a great serve and volley player. The matches between them were a treat always.
Pete Sampras' serve was too good. Andre had to spend more energy to hold his serve than Pete. If Andre had as good of a serve, he'd probably been unstoppable. But Andre's serve was around average for the top 100 level, while Pete's serve was top 3 in the world. Yet, Agassi's baseline game was superior to Sampras in my opinion.
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.
I m a huge roger federer fan....But in terms of power, elegancy and serve no 1 in tennis is as fast and better than Pete Sampras....Actually the G.O.A.T of tennis primarily...(Y)
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 played so well, hit some blinding shots, and still lost 3 zip, Feel sorry for the guy sometimes. When it was his time along came Sampras, then when Sampras retired before him, along came RF in his twilight years.. Still good enough to give RF fits but I would have fancied a much younger Agassi over RF
Sampras and Agassi really dominated 95. They were in the Aus and US finals, one match away from being in the Wimbledon final, Agassi lost to Becker in the semis. And they met in 3 of the Super 9 finals, Indian Wells, Miami and the Canadian Open final
Cdog810 No i don't hate federer.Federer does act pompous on the court always challenging calls against him on the court that he knows are clearly in and crying during the 2009 AO finals when he lost. Federer played in the easiest era of tennis in the open era had he played in the 90's wins 9 or 10 slams and with Nadal in the mix wins 6 slams at the most.Wiki should remove the statement saying former and current players as well as media ETC consider Federer the greatest tennis player of all time.It's simply not true
89Pleasek It wasn't a mishit.Sampras angled it their on purpose.Man,You NEVER give Sampras any credit for anything.Too bad federer could of used some of those so called shots against Nadal than maybe he would of won more RG against Nadal.
And Agassi as well. From January to August Agassi was the best player and number 1. He was unstoppable in the summer on 22 match winning streak beating Sampras Chang krajicek Edberg etc
+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.
It’s amazing how... If these 2 guys looked identical in appearance, it would still be easy to tell who’s who by the difference in their game and ball hitting style.
So much brilliance on display in this match. Sampras' serve, his running forehand is sick, his play at the net. Amazing. Agassi's backhand up the line, his inside-out forehand, his underrated play at the net. Both them constructing points brilliantly, having to hit unbelievable shots to win. Maybe the height of tennis right here 1995.
For people who only saw Agassi or Sampras at the end of their careers, note:
1.how fast they both were here - watch their feet....Sampras was extremely smooth and quick - one of the fastest on tour/ever. Agassi was a couple steps slower, and much stiffer because of his back in the 2000's
2.how Sampras can play from every part of the court, and played a ton of baseline back then...in fact he was criticized back then for NOT taking advantage of his SV game enough
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
@@roulettelover556 Absolutely. Pete would dominate on grass and indoors, and break even on hard. Agassi would make them work everywhere.
Still my favorite rivalry of all time. I think these two will be playing each other in Heaven on courts of gold for eternity.
That was a collection of some of the best shots I've ever seen!!!
Sampras was just unbelievable player. His shots could really surprise. He was such a hunter. Very talented player. On one level with Fed and Rafa without no doubt.
better than Rafa, a nuance better than Federer because of his agressive game...
Always bugged me that Sampras didn’t get more love for his BEAUTIFUL tennis. He combined the old with the new. Agassi and Sampras always brought out the best in each other and left you oohing and ahhing.
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....
Good God, this is the highest level of tennis I've ever scene regardless of era. I know these are just highlights, but still, this was not just a compilation of easy winners...every shot was contested fiercely and each player had to withstand and overcome an inhuman performance by his opponent just to win a point. I love Fed and have no doubt he could 'hung' with these guys anf beat them occasionally during that era but there's no way he would've dominated them the way he did to players in his era.
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?
Great match, this video gave me a lot more appreciaion for Agassi's talent. The points they played against each other shows what happens when 2 legends face each other when both are at their peak👍
6:14 passing shot. out of this world.
It's just my opinion, but damn, that's so much more exciting than the matches I've seen in the last 5-10 years....
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.
There is no doubt that the Agassi-Sampras matches are the most fun matches to watch.
GOAT tennis match ever. A true classic.
Sampras’s cross court backhands and forehand are the best that I have seen.
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.
@@datacipher Sampras is interesting. Level-wise, and to a degree, career-wise, he is absolutely on the same level as the big 3. In terms of his peak, I agree, he also is the highest of all them - but he only reached that 95% level maybe 20% of the time. Most of the time, say 60%, he was playing at maybe 70% and just cruising off his serve, and the rest were off days that his clutch serving and shotmaking got him out of. I think Federer in particular played at that 95% level about as much as Sampras, and while his 95% was a little lower than Pete's, he got to his 70% level more like 75-80% of the time. The advantage of having a safe, baseline oriented game in a slow-court homogenized era.
Andre was natural born killer, extremely talented, great shot making and lots of intelligence, his only problem was a guy called Sampras. He was out of this world.
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.
highest level of tennis ive ever seen, by far
I was at this match. Looking to see if there was video of it and sure enough. Sat in the sun, good thing it was quick. Pretty spectacular play considering it was hotter than usual for that time of year in the desert.
That Sampras running forehand was just pure venom!! One of the best of all time along with Nadal and Lendl.
Sampras is the true GOAT!!!
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🎖🏆🎗😍
some crazy points from agasi and he still lost in straight sets, thats how good you had to be to have a chance against sampras, sick :)
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.
Courts were very fast back then, grass was bullet slick and the hard courts played far quicker..i agree generally with your comments..it was very hard to move from the different specialist surfaces. Very, Federer could do have done back it back then..Nadal, no...Djoker possibly...Pete had a ruthless feel for the Jugular that Federer does not have (Here, after Roger failed to serve out Wimbledon), Pete would never have screwed up from two match points on his own serve..
Agassi is undoubtedly the best ball striker EVER
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.
This was what got me into tennis growing up in the 90s with my older brother. We were both one handed back hand power tennis players, but I just eventually overcame him with practice and training. I miss those days of this rivalry when both Agassi and Sampras in their primes seemed to have an extra gear and got the best in each other to come out and play seemingly total opposite styles complemented by solid fundamentals and quick footwork.
Fantastic game! The skill level was so high back than..
sampras could do more than serve and volley, he was sick
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.
Best match beetwen these two players. What shouts and moving. It was out of these world, it realy was.
Now this was a style match-up. And as good as it could get.
With all that technology and the composition of surfaces have changed, the weird thing is Agassi would benefit from it, but Sampras game would lose a lot and not be as effective as it was back then.
Speaking greatest of all time is very tricky. But regarding imposing the type of game needed to win, I think no one was better than Sampras at that.
He knew what he had to do, went out and did just that without hesitation and wasted no energy getting into the type of rallies or battles that would get him nowhere.
What a beautiful rivalry and what a great era.
Kinda wished Fed came into their era or these 2 guys come into this era! Agassi’s timing is the best in any era, and Sampras power is uncanny.
Such a high quality tennis. Todays tennis is not even close
Pete's running forehand was so good.. so heavy.. rare to see agassi bullied around so much on the groundies but Pete was able to do it. Sampras's forehand may have even had more penetration than Federer's but he also hit it more flat.
1:31 that Backhand down the line
Wow. Incredible shot making here! Match of the 90s!
the two best and two prettiest of all time.
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.
Thanks for sharing! Great!!!
And people think Pete was boring. He was a great shot-maker and a fairly decent mover, as evidenced in this match. He was the first of the S&V players that could consistently hang in rallies with baseliners. That's why he had winning records over Agassi, Courier and Chang.
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.
I love watching these 2 tennis greats go up against each other
Fantastic game,i dint think today game is better, i like Sampras's hard court game even more than a grass one.
Here, after Federer Wimby 2019 final, Was Pete a far more ruthless player than Fed?..How much times did the guy produce an ace when serving for it..you could wager your house on him..Roger failed to serve out a few times and lost, Pete would never have lost this serve from 40-15...never..
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
Screw 2020 tennis. I want this back!
Man I miss those days! Glory days of tennis.
Not quite. Lifetime ELO ratings of top 10 players objectively demonstrate that most of the 90s were a weak era -- only 2 great players
Wow Wee I forgot just how fast Sampras was. I encountered very few athletes in my time who were naturally gifted and athletic like Sampras. Compare the physique of Petes' with Nadal, Fed and Nole. I really would love to have seen pistol Pete up against today's best even on today's slow surfaces. The thing is that Pete payed without fear whereas Roger plays with fear.
he would smoke them all on fast surfaces, and the part about fear is spot on!
Can't believe this was 20 years ago.
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.
wow amazing match... and to think it was only three sets. HUGE display of Sampras baseline game
Agassi just has the best double-handed backhand of all time. This is the best match I've watched that has been played in Indian Wells.
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.
Damn, when i hear those so called experts how much slower the game was back then...these guys hammering balls, lighting couterpunches from all over the court.
This was an insanely good match from them. In a lot of their matchups, it was quick points (Sampras ace or Agassi return winner). But this had a lot of fun rallies.
Sampras best serve in the history of the game.
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
Scary how good these guys where. So fun to watch..
Sampras would dominate this era as well.
Agassi has to be one of the greatest ball strikers. I don't remember him ever shanking a shot.
I love that Sampras didn't need to switch over to hit a forehand instead of a backhand.
pete's foot speed here is unreal, like there's no mass to his body at all. this was probably the best agassi ever was and pete blew him off the court.
Ooo la la!, superb!!, formidabil!!!, fabulo!!!!
sampras-->undoubtedly the best ever....
***** 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.
GREAT highlights! Thanks!
High level match!
Part of the problem that Agassi had with Sampras is that his natural game tended to play right into Sampras's hands. Hard, flat consistent groundstrokes which Sampras loved. If Agassi had been able to adjust his strokes to put a lot more height and topspin on them, and get the ball up high on Sampras's backhand and pushing him back, he would have had a lot more success. For that reason, I think Rafael Nadal would have given Sampras fits in the same way he has been able to bother Federer.
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.
Seeing Sampras play after a long time and now wondering ...Sampras vs Federer....I say Sampras!
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 🔥
They were BOTH hitting FRIGGIN BOMBS!!!
What a backhand from Sampras OMG
I dont know but this stuff looks better then nowadays finals between for example Nadal and Djokovic
LOL, Agassi looked like one of the Backstreet Boys.
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.
Agassi was/is an amazing ball striker. Just ask Michael Stich.
In todays slower coarts agassi would be having way more GSs. And with preparation that players do today. look at him, he looks like 40 yeard old body with the most raw talented hands I have seen. Amazing.
sampras number 1 of all time
Wow, Pistol Pete played actually really good from baseline...
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!
Agassi's ability to put the ball wherever he wants is unparalleled. No matter what the angle. If an inside-out backhand is the best shot at the moment, he'll hit it, no problem. No one else can direct the ball like that. But ultimately Sampras was more athletic and had the perfect serve and could follow it in, so his best would always beat Agassi's best on a quicker court.
Great Tennis. Sampras is amazing!
superb classic even today the 90s tennis is faster and better
Some great tennis right there. Love these two.
6:12 that passing today would be framed and adored live on tv for weeks and the shot maker the most gifted hand of God to come down on Earth and so on and so on Oo This guys were really really really skillful this video is marvelous. Why compare do nowadays?! Broadcast is so different, you can actually spot the sweat coming down their foreheads, there is so information more compressed in the same time frame you get the feeling it is way better than then, when we should admit comparable. In the end it is a game of two players, like a dance, the synchronicity of their playing styles, mental fitness and will is what enthrall us. It is a sum, bloody occidentals!
still wish Andre would've added the eye patch to complete the look...
i i captain agreed, lol 😂
match was clash of titans but l just love the serve and volley by sampras
Two of the great yesteryear players. Agassi was flamboyant,but Sampras was a great serve and volley player. The matches between them were a treat always.
Is it me, but Agassi seems like a better volleyer at this stage of his career as compared to the end of his career.
That's like saying my dad was a fast runner when he was 25 but he can hardly walk now in his 80's.
Sampras the GOAT
Stuning point at 8:05 !
Pete Sampras' serve was too good. Andre had to spend more energy to hold his serve than Pete. If Andre had as good of a serve, he'd probably been unstoppable. But Andre's serve was around average for the top 100 level, while Pete's serve was top 3 in the world. Yet, Agassi's baseline game was superior to Sampras in my opinion.
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.
I m a huge roger federer fan....But in terms of power, elegancy and serve no 1 in tennis is as fast and better than Pete Sampras....Actually the G.O.A.T of tennis primarily...(Y)
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.
Wow, very high level.
6:11 Agassi and the rest of the crowd were like “...well shit.”
Oops Sorry I meant " Roger Would have some problems with Pete in 95 ' !!!
Agassi played so well, hit some blinding shots, and still lost 3 zip, Feel sorry for the guy sometimes. When it was his time along came Sampras, then when Sampras retired before him, along came RF in his twilight years.. Still good enough to give RF fits but I would have fancied a much younger Agassi over RF
Sampras and Agassi really dominated 95. They were in the Aus and US finals, one match away from being in the Wimbledon final, Agassi lost to Becker in the semis. And they met in 3 of the Super 9 finals, Indian Wells, Miami and the Canadian Open final
Great Tennis. Agassi is terrific, Sampras amazing!
Agassi's down the line backhand was money
Andre gave Pete hell and still lost in straight sets. *shakes head*
Real hard court (fast) tennis.
The Best Tennis Ever, much better, than tennis in 2021 !!!!
This is what I call tennis.
At 6:14 one of the best shots ever Federer dreamed he could do that
Federer does have that shot haha, what he doesn't have is the serve or running forehand that Sampras had.
that was a total mishit
btw there are way more shots that Federer can hit that Sampras could never dream of hitting
89Pleasek I totally agree, this guy just doesn't like Federer for some reason.
Cdog810 No i don't hate federer.Federer does act pompous on the court always challenging calls against him on the court that he knows are clearly in and crying during the 2009 AO finals when he lost.
Federer played in the easiest era of tennis in the open era had he played in the 90's wins 9 or 10 slams and with Nadal in the mix wins 6 slams at the most.Wiki should remove the statement saying former and current players as well as media ETC consider Federer the greatest tennis player of all time.It's simply not true
89Pleasek It wasn't a mishit.Sampras angled it their on purpose.Man,You NEVER give Sampras any credit for anything.Too bad federer could of used some of those so called shots against Nadal than maybe he would of won more RG against Nadal.
How quickly we forget the real goats and these guys are playing best of 5 here
Yes Roger would problems against Pete in 95'
And Agassi as well. From January to August Agassi was the best player and number 1. He was unstoppable in the summer on 22 match winning streak beating Sampras Chang krajicek Edberg etc
haha 3:13 pretty sure that's a "fuck me" from Agassi
+Skeeter McTavish hahahaha
Sampras was a paradox. Why he never did much on clay is puzzling
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.
Ahh, the good old pirate days. I remember them just like it was yesterday, wearing a red head scarf in remembrance of this battle.
Fast court!!! Even with this camera angle.
+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.
It’s amazing how... If these 2 guys looked identical in appearance, it would still be easy to tell who’s who by the difference in their game and ball hitting style.
These rallies are out of this world.
Sampras is genious . Agassi is superb
This is a bittersweet win for Pete over Andre. Months earlier he lost the Australian Open final against Andre.
For the love of all that is holy, stop stretching SD footage to fit 16:9 aspect ratio! It’s distorted. Why do that?
sampras in his prime has been the best player of all time period
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.