To the degree a tennis player ever needs to be courageous, Sampras was courageous. This was one of the most extraordinary demonstrations of sheer will power under extreme duress by any athlete ever in any sport. Sampras was great before this, this performance is one of the many that cemented Pete Sampras as the greatest ever.
Sampras was crying because his trainer was about to or had died in cancer. It must have been very emotional to him, yet he served as the best server in history. Man, Sampras' serve was the most dominant shot in tennis for a long while.
Still the most dominant shot ever. I keep wondering if it was Sampras serving at 40-15 against Djokovic in Wimbledon like Federer did. No way Djokovic would have been ever to dig out from that hole ever!
Tim Gulllikson was his coach and best friend. Gulllikson was dying of brain cancer. A fan yelled out, "Do it for your coach". That is what made Pete break down. To serve aces through tears was unbelievable...Gullikson died in 96.
Vincent Hannah yeah it's very sad seeing Pete break down. I think he had found out that day that his coach and friend was dying of cancer and so it was on his mind. The fan calling out just let the emotions completely spill out.
Perhaps one of the greatest tennis match ever played, given the condition of the player. Equally, his US Open match with Corretja, being docked for court violation after vomiting on court due to exhaustion...
Amazing Video quality for a Video of this time! Pete of course was the god of tennis sports at that time. I miss this kind of tennis with short points!
There can be little doubt Courier had the most unorthodox strokes in tennis history. That hitch in his backhand, a forehand with no backswing but incredible pace, and a service toss that came out of nowhere. Crazy watching him play.
I couldn't stand him, was very glad to see him go. Was even happier when Federer passed him, and now ecstatic that Djokovic and Nadal have as well. Now that he's 4th on the list, i don't ever have to hear people argue that he was the best ever
Great great tennis....serve and volley at its best, all round game notwithstanding Vs a baseline great. Wish tennis could find a way to revive this diversity.
Remember watching this one. Great match and comeback from Pete. He was upset as his coach Tim Gulikson had to return home during the tournament with a serious illness.
Great highlights, but how to do you skip past Courier serving at *4-3 up 40-15 in the fourth set? Pete coming back to break Jim in that game was the turning point of the match.
Jim wasn't being sarcastic. He was being sincere. Look at Jim closely, he's crying too, knowing his mate is very upset. Jim knew what was going on with Pete's coach. The commentator read the situation partly wrong.
@@thejamesbondshowwithkrazyk4581 This is true. Sampras wrote in his autobiography that he too initially took Jim's comment as sarcasm and served the ace through anger. Then realised after (at the exchange at the net) that he was being sincere.
@@typhoon-7 Sampras didn't write that. In fact, he hinted that he still believes it was sarcastic. Which makes sense since you don't make such an offer shouting it out loud in the middle of a game. You would come to him and the referee between games and talk it over.
@@thejamesbondshowwithkrazyk4581I’ve always thought so. Courier had a reputation (not without merit of being .. salty on court). He was annoyed earlier thinking Pete was playing possum again but when he said that his voice sounded sincere. J also as friends (almost all the players were) with the jovial Tim Gullickson. He’d even gone to dinner with Sampras, gully and others before the tourney. He had some awareness of the health issue though he wouldn’t have known he magnitude - nobody did at that point. (They we’re awaiting more tests but people were worried - Pete couldn’t get the vision of Tim and Tom crying together at the hospital of his mind.). Courier certainly was capable of being a jerk out there (and if it weren’t to Tim’s situation, Sampras’ behavior would have been worthy of being mocked), but I think he as being sincere there.
Courier was underrated and perhaps underachieved. I think the only other player apart from Agassi to reach all 4 mens slam finals in his era. Like Agassi lost interest, tho unlike aforementioned e did so permanently.
I wouldn't say lost interest. More like Jim peaked early. He was not the same player after 1993, especially mentally. Besides this match, he blew another 2 set lead the next year at the AO to Agassi. And then again to Pete at the FO. And that loss, on his best surface, to Pete, ended him as a legit GS contender.
This match is on Tennis Channel nobody could volley and attack the net like Pete Sampras when he’d win Wimbledon then go play on hard courts and win on the baseline. If I could have the sports career of anyone in American history, I’d pick Pete Sampras’ life. Sampras is generation x certified.
@@AllisonRoadWest Eh, I don't know if that's reasonable. Clay back then was far, far different than today, and so was the contrast between it and the other surfaces of the time. Obviously I can't say for certain that Fed or Nadal wouldn't have won X or Y if they were of Sampras' generation, but it definitely would have been a lot more difficult for them to have as much success on all surfaces as they have, considering the homogenization of the courts in the 2000's.
Hehehehe hahahaha What? Clay was literally the one surface that WASN’T different than it is now. AO and US Open hard courts were faster back then (AO got faster again a couple years ago), and Wimbledon grass was like a skating rink back then. But Roland Garros clay was the same. A guy like Nadal was helped in winning the career grand slam by the hard/grass courts slowing down and bouncing higher. But as for Sampras, he still would have struggled at Roland Garros these days because it’s still the same old slow and high-bouncing clay. Pete is surely on the 5-man “Mount Rushmore” of men’s tennis, but I just just don’t see how he could be considered greater than Laver, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic when there was a major that he was literally a non-factor at. Not only did he never make a single Final at Roland Garros, but he only ever even made the SF once. So it wasn’t like he came close all the time, but just lost to a phenomenal clay courter every year- he wasn’t even remotely a threat there. So forget about the fact that he didn’t win as many majors as those other guys- just the fact that there was a major every year where he wasn’t even in the discussion as a favorite makes him not quite on those other guys’ levels. Those other guys were always one of the favorite to win every single tournament in their respective primes- you can’t say the same for Pete.
@@kevinmurtagh4996 You can read on the ITF website about the rule changes and the sport's homogenization since 2000, and you'll see that for slower courts the balls have been regularly sped up (Type 1 balls) while for faster courts the balls have been regularly slowed down (Type 3 balls) to make all 4 courts have less of a difference. Clay courts do play faster these days than in the 90s but I'm not saying Sampras would definitely win RG in these conditions, I'm just saying back then adapting to the differences and winning all 4 slams was much harder. With that said, statistically, I agree that you cannot call Sampras the GOAT. But considering the circumstances he played under, like voluntarily using an ancient racket or involuntarily playing with thalassemia (big factor to why he was a non-threat on clay btw) his entire career, I consider him more talented and find his achievements more impressive than any of the big 3's. But that's just my opinion.
Hehehehe hahahaha Fair enough. I think where I differ from you is that I personally don’t think he would have won Roland Garros even without those issues you mentioned, as serve and volley players have always struggled on clay. McEnroe and Edberg both came extremely close to winning RG, but ultimately fell short. Pete’s came was just not tailored to slow courts. Ultimately, I really can’t argue with you having an opinion of Sampras being the GOAT because it’s so subjective. The argument can be made that a guy like Nadal likely never could have won Wimbledon pre-2002. So it’s all subjective. I just believe that Sampras was a non-factor at RG mostly due to his game style, which is why I personally just can’t put him quite on the same level as those other guys. But we can agree to disagree.
Everyone knows his serve (exceptional) but watching this video just made me notice how AMAZINGLY well Sampras moved around the court - he finds himself (almost) every time in the best spot to hit the next shot. His ground strokes were good of course, but not close on the same level as his serve. Not quite complete as today’s big 3, or as solid as Agassi from the baseline. His backhand esp. could be vulnerable.. However he seems to offset it, by regularly creating the best possible move from shot to shot. Great dynamic playing (helped by great agility of course)! Maybe tactical intelligence or just his natural instinct, but it probably explains (aside from his serve) why he won so much.
You do chat load of shit about the game. Another pat pat hacker so called Tennis player. Pete had everything. BEST SERVE EVERRRRRR BEST VOLLEY EVERRR BEST RUNNING FOREHAND EVERRRRR
Sitting Fool Don't get me wrong I think he was an awesome player, and a great champion too, undoubtedly the greatest of the 90s. But he didn't have that phenomenal consistency that the big 3 achieved from the baseline. Sampras had great offensive weapons, maybe best serve ever, great winners firepower, good volley (though not as good as Edberg), plus tremendous athleticism and agility. But he could be vulnerable from the baseline, on long exchanges especially his backhand. The big 3 achieved an unparalleled mastery of BOTH offensive and defensive weaponry. Incredible Firepower AND Consistency!. That's why they're so complete and able to win on ALL surfaces. True Djokovic and Federer only won the French once, but no one doubts they'd win many more if they hadn't to contend with the greatest clay player of all time. Sampras never won the French, don't think he ever made it to the final- and yet the 90s was not such a difficult time to win on clay, after the 80s clay masters (Borg Lendl Wilander), and before the arrival of Nadal on the scene! That was an easier time to win on clay, you can not even begin to compare Thomas Muster or Jim Courier with Rafael Nadal!!
@@animanga9597 So many of Petes fans forgetting about clay and him being very close minded about his setup (he even admitted that he should've experimented). In the end he was the greatest of his era, but you could also argue, that Agassi was the more complete player who was just unlucky, that most of the courts favoured Petes style of play. How Federer reinvented himself at least 2 times during his career puts him above Pete, if he is above Djokovic and Nadal can (but imho shouldn't, because this is about preferences) be debated...
@@Krischan04 you make your own luck in tennis my friend. pete was just better than agassi and he proved it the hard way. you also have no argument for federer because he cant beat his 2 main rivals h2h so hes out of the discussion lol. pete is the only one to beat all his rivals in the strongest era thats why hes the best. read em n weep.
Courier was a great player. But seems he has developed a habit of late preparation where he begins his backswing only after the ball bounces, causing him to be jammed or late at contact at times. Or is it just me thinking that?
No I noticed that especially on his backhand, where he constantly looked off balance/falling backward with a bit of a jerking motion. Seemed like he was trying to just snap at contact, similarly seen for Jack Sock's forehand
As a Courier fan this was the best he played without winning a major. His level on display here was as good, if not better than his 1993 or 1992 level.
I used to a big fan of Jim following his success from 91 to 93. I always liked the way he used to play those inside out and powerful forehands. Back then I was relatively new to watching Tennis,. I had watched a bit of Edberg, Becker and Lendl but Pete, Jim, Agassi, Chang and co. was the era when I watched a lot of Tennis. For some reason I liked Pete the least of the four, never understood why though. He had an extremely efficient game I think especially for fast courts, one of the best volleyers after Pat Rafter, great serve, could consistently come up with those running forehand winners, decent backhand, always went for the kill even at half decent opportunity. As I said he had a very efficient game especially for fast courts and was also very consistent. Never saw him make too many mistakes or loose too many big points. So in general I should like him but I never did. Somehow found him to be too boring and irritating. It’s like I knew what’s going to happen in next few shots and more often than not it happened. The only thing I Iiked about him was his volleying, specially those slam dunks. Jim on the other hand was frustrating to watch, somehow many found answers to his Game A and his Game B wasn’t good enough. He tried a lot to stage a comeback but Sampras and Agassi kept blocking him and gradually others started getting better of him. 3 matches that really hurt his comeback is this one, his FO QF defeat against Pete in 96 and losing to Andre in 96 AO in QFs. In all 3 he won 2 sets, had great chances to win the match but couldn’t close it. Great matches and lost to great opponents but Jim was never coming back from here. I remember being a fan I was extremely sad after his 96 QF loss to Pete, because Pete was not as good on clay and I think that match probably broke him for good. I think he got a bit over confident in 94 and lost his way. Then he tried making comeback in 95 and 96 but couldn’t get past peak Pete and Andre. Those 2 had hit another level by then. Pete specially owned him, may be that’s why I didn’t like Pete. Who knows? But I think it’s mostly Pete’s game wasn’t appealing enough for me. It’s same like Novak is extremely effective but his game is little boring for me and I prefer to watch Roger and Rafa instead. Pete knew how to neutralize Jim’s biggest weapon, inside out powerful forehands and that was the key to Pete’s success against Jim. He just knew Jim’s game too well and Jim could never find a good Plan B. His backhand though odd looking was effective but not even 40% of his forehand. His backhands were too loopy and not powerful like his forehand. Pete would win 90% of his points if he came in the net on Jim’s backhand. I always wondered why Jim didn’t try hitting more down like line shots against Pete. Pete just waited on his backhand corner for Jim’s inside out forehand and guided those down the line. Andre was the most talented of these 4 but least in shape. IMO in terms of pure natural Talent Roger is no. 1 and Andre is no. 2 in last 3 decades. Anyways, great players all these guys. Great entertainment. 👍
"pure natural Talent" - there is no such thing in tennis. It's 110% a skill game built on repetition. Would Roger have survived unscathed? Playing in this era of Sampras & Agassi? I don't think so. The bigger question is , does the USA have what it takes to create another dominant Sampras? Agassi? I don't think so, I can't imagine these whiny kids working that hard , training to be the world's best anymore. Oh well.....
OP: Apologies.... I forgot this was an incredible match and Courier had some amazing highlights. I'm just a die hard douchey Sampras fan who decided to mislabel this post. (PS this sarcasm brought to you by.... a guy loved the shit outta both players).
Sock can't hold a candle to Courier. He finally makes a breakthrough last year winning his first Masters, and then he proceeds to follow it up with a dud this year, and can hardly win matches.
Man, ur comment.. Very creative lol.. Nice way to compliment Pete.. Pete, RF, Nadal, Kim, Maria, Steffi, Martina, Hingis n Serena..together define my love for this game 🎾 .
Couldn't he have asked for a bathroom break when he was getting emotional? Just to collect himself, and get himself back together? I would have done that.
Pete was really crying because he felt soo sorry for jim knowing he was gonna whip his ass In the end and he knew Jim couldn't handle the ballistic serves that awaited him .....lol
Pete's backhand is simple but really beautiful to see
To the degree a tennis player ever needs to be courageous, Sampras was courageous. This was one of the most extraordinary demonstrations of sheer will power under extreme duress by any athlete ever in any sport. Sampras was great before this, this performance is one of the many that cemented Pete Sampras as the greatest ever.
Sampras was crying because his trainer was about to or had died in cancer. It must have been very emotional to him, yet he served as the best server in history. Man, Sampras' serve was the most dominant shot in tennis for a long while.
He was diagnosed with cancer. He died later that year.
It still is
Still the most dominant shot ever. I keep wondering if it was Sampras serving at 40-15 against Djokovic in Wimbledon like Federer did. No way Djokovic would have been ever to dig out from that hole ever!
Tim Gulllikson was his coach and best friend. Gulllikson was dying of brain cancer. A fan yelled out, "Do it for your coach". That is what made Pete break down. To serve aces through tears was unbelievable...Gullikson died in 96.
Vincent Hannah yeah it's very sad seeing Pete break down. I think he had found out that day that his coach and friend was dying of cancer and so it was on his mind. The fan calling out just let the emotions completely spill out.
What a man is Sampras, and what a tennis player.
Please show more matches from 1995! That was a great year on the AO!
Perhaps one of the greatest tennis match ever played, given the condition of the player. Equally, his US Open match with Corretja, being docked for court violation after vomiting on court due to exhaustion...
Amazing Video quality for a Video of this time! Pete of course was the god of tennis sports at that time. I miss this kind of tennis with short points!
me too veryshort points
There can be little doubt Courier had the most unorthodox strokes in tennis history. That hitch in his backhand, a forehand with no backswing but incredible pace, and a service toss that came out of nowhere. Crazy watching him play.
I was watching this on tv. Jim was my favourite player always threw what he could on Sampras. Sampras serve was the difference maker
Pete Sampras, the legend. Enough said.
I remember watching this match....it was a great match to remember.
Sampras personified Greek values. Stoic, humble yet courageous. I salute this great champion of the game 👍
I couldn't stand him, was very glad to see him go. Was even happier when Federer passed him, and now ecstatic that Djokovic and Nadal have as well. Now that he's 4th on the list, i don't ever have to hear people argue that he was the best ever
What? I like Sampras but humble? Lmao.... Sampras had that "I'm better than all of you humans" kind of attitude.
Sampras was not humble
Federico Russo He was for almost 10 years
@@Jukka70 Why you didn't like him?
Thanks for continuing to upload these! A lot of fun to watch these epic matches
Great great tennis....serve and volley at its best, all round game notwithstanding Vs a baseline great. Wish tennis could find a way to revive this diversity.
Remember watching this one. Great match and comeback from Pete. He was upset as his coach Tim Gulikson had to return home during the tournament with a serious illness.
You can tell the friendship between Jim and Pete was a very strong one....
Love j8m
Love jim
Sampras is a elastic. It's beautiful
I need full match of this legendary game
Great highlights, but how to do you skip past Courier serving at *4-3 up 40-15 in the fourth set? Pete coming back to break Jim in that game was the turning point of the match.
The good old times. Those were better days. Miss em.
Tennis at this time was something else
Jim's instant regret at 16:10 after Pete aces him after his 'come back tmrw' comment - priceless.
Jim wasn't being sarcastic. He was being sincere. Look at Jim closely, he's crying too, knowing his mate is very upset. Jim knew what was going on with Pete's coach. The commentator read the situation partly wrong.
@@thejamesbondshowwithkrazyk4581 This is true. Sampras wrote in his autobiography that he too initially took Jim's comment as sarcasm and served the ace through anger. Then realised after (at the exchange at the net) that he was being sincere.
@@thejamesbondshowwithkrazyk4581 Yeah, i think he was horrified that the crowd thought he was mocking Sampras.
@@typhoon-7 Sampras didn't write that. In fact, he hinted that he still believes it was sarcastic. Which makes sense since you don't make such an offer shouting it out loud in the middle of a game. You would come to him and the referee between games and talk it over.
@@thejamesbondshowwithkrazyk4581I’ve always thought so. Courier had a reputation (not without merit of being .. salty on court). He was annoyed earlier thinking Pete was playing possum again but when he said that his voice sounded sincere. J also as friends (almost all the players were) with the jovial Tim Gullickson. He’d even gone to dinner with Sampras, gully and others before the tourney. He had some awareness of the health issue though he wouldn’t have known he magnitude - nobody did at that point. (They we’re awaiting more tests but people were worried - Pete couldn’t get the vision of Tim and Tom crying together at the hospital of his mind.). Courier certainly was capable of being a jerk out there (and if it weren’t to Tim’s situation, Sampras’ behavior would have been worthy of being mocked), but I think he as being sincere there.
Courier was underrated and perhaps underachieved. I think the only other player apart from Agassi to reach all 4 mens slam finals in his era. Like Agassi lost interest, tho unlike aforementioned e did so permanently.
I wouldn't say lost interest. More like Jim peaked early. He was not the same player after 1993, especially mentally. Besides this match, he blew another 2 set lead the next year at the AO to Agassi. And then again to Pete at the FO. And that loss, on his best surface, to Pete, ended him as a legit GS contender.
People knew and caught onto his game and weaknessses
Agreed but he wasn’t the same after 95
This match is on Tennis Channel nobody could volley and attack the net like Pete Sampras when he’d win Wimbledon then go play on hard courts and win on the baseline. If I could have the sports career of anyone in American history, I’d pick Pete Sampras’ life. Sampras is generation x certified.
Edberg would disagree…..
Pete’s my favourite EVER
Magnífico partido, emociona ver a Sampras llorando al enterarse de la uerte de su entrenador.
This is the best Grand Slam QF ever played.
Sampras - Agassi US Open QF 2001 QF was better.
Rafa Vs Thiem USO 18 QF. Rafa winning in 5 Sets after losing 0-6 in 1st Set.
Delpo/nadal 2018 Wimbledon
Sampras-Coretjia 1996 UsOpen QF
@@youtubecontributions5328 I love this one so much
one of the greatest and most emotional matches in tennis history. only fitting the best player ever pete was involved.
Any player that can't win the French open can never be considered "best ever".
Pete was great. But not Nadal, raffa, or Federer great.
@@AllisonRoadWest Eh, I don't know if that's reasonable. Clay back then was far, far different than today, and so was the contrast between it and the other surfaces of the time. Obviously I can't say for certain that Fed or Nadal wouldn't have won X or Y if they were of Sampras' generation, but it definitely would have been a lot more difficult for them to have as much success on all surfaces as they have, considering the homogenization of the courts in the 2000's.
Hehehehe hahahaha What? Clay was literally the one surface that WASN’T different than it is now. AO and US Open hard courts were faster back then (AO got faster again a couple years ago), and Wimbledon grass was like a skating rink back then. But Roland Garros clay was the same. A guy like Nadal was helped in winning the career grand slam by the hard/grass courts slowing down and bouncing higher. But as for Sampras, he still would have struggled at Roland Garros these days because it’s still the same old slow and high-bouncing clay.
Pete is surely on the 5-man “Mount Rushmore” of men’s tennis, but I just just don’t see how he could be considered greater than Laver, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic when there was a major that he was literally a non-factor at. Not only did he never make a single Final at Roland Garros, but he only ever even made the SF once. So it wasn’t like he came close all the time, but just lost to a phenomenal clay courter every year- he wasn’t even remotely a threat there. So forget about the fact that he didn’t win as many majors as those other guys- just the fact that there was a major every year where he wasn’t even in the discussion as a favorite makes him not quite on those other guys’ levels. Those other guys were always one of the favorite to win every single tournament in their respective primes- you can’t say the same for Pete.
@@kevinmurtagh4996 You can read on the ITF website about the rule changes and the sport's homogenization since 2000, and you'll see that for slower courts the balls have been regularly sped up (Type 1 balls) while for faster courts the balls have been regularly slowed down (Type 3 balls) to make all 4 courts have less of a difference. Clay courts do play faster these days than in the 90s but I'm not saying Sampras would definitely win RG in these conditions, I'm just saying back then adapting to the differences and winning all 4 slams was much harder.
With that said, statistically, I agree that you cannot call Sampras the GOAT. But considering the circumstances he played under, like voluntarily using an ancient racket or involuntarily playing with thalassemia (big factor to why he was a non-threat on clay btw) his entire career, I consider him more talented and find his achievements more impressive than any of the big 3's. But that's just my opinion.
Hehehehe hahahaha Fair enough. I think where I differ from you is that I personally don’t think he would have won Roland Garros even without those issues you mentioned, as serve and volley players have always struggled on clay. McEnroe and Edberg both came extremely close to winning RG, but ultimately fell short. Pete’s came was just not tailored to slow courts. Ultimately, I really can’t argue with you having an opinion of Sampras being the GOAT because it’s so subjective. The argument can be made that a guy like Nadal likely never could have won Wimbledon pre-2002. So it’s all subjective. I just believe that Sampras was a non-factor at RG mostly due to his game style, which is why I personally just can’t put him quite on the same level as those other guys. But we can agree to disagree.
Funny listening to the commentators as they trying to figure out why Sampras was crying...lol
but in those years they didnt have social media, not everybody knew that Sampras coach had unoperable brain cancer
The tears overshadow the fact that Sampras came back after two sets down
❤️🔥❤️🔥⭐️👍THE GOAT SAMPRAS WITH TEARS TO VICTORY👍💪💪❤️❤️🥺🥺🥺😢😢😢😢
10:11 What a great point
Love the baseball tennis style of Jim ⚾
It was hard time for Pete. Rest in peace Tim.
Don't needle Pete unless you want the wrath of a GOAT
Pistol was the greatest of all servers.
It’s crazy how much faster the courts were back then. I wish they’d speed up one of the slams like Us open like it used to be.
Sampras is amazing,although he was crying and feeling bad about his trainer Tim,he was hitting aces and winners .
Everyone knows his serve (exceptional) but watching this video just made me notice how AMAZINGLY well Sampras moved around the court - he finds himself (almost) every time in the best spot to hit the next shot.
His ground strokes were good of course, but not close on the same level as his serve. Not quite complete as today’s big 3, or as solid as Agassi from the baseline. His backhand esp. could be vulnerable..
However he seems to offset it, by regularly creating the best possible move from shot to shot. Great dynamic playing (helped by great agility of course)! Maybe tactical intelligence or just his natural instinct, but it probably explains (aside from his serve) why he won so much.
yes a great mover and a great athlete!
Paolo Antunes: Today players are not as good as Pete!!
You do chat load of shit about the game. Another pat pat hacker so called Tennis player. Pete had everything. BEST SERVE EVERRRRRR BEST VOLLEY EVERRR BEST RUNNING FOREHAND EVERRRRR
not as complete as big 3? higly doubt that. What is is that he didnt have?
Sitting Fool Don't get me wrong I think he was an awesome player, and a great champion too, undoubtedly the greatest of the 90s.
But he didn't have that phenomenal consistency that the big 3 achieved from the baseline. Sampras had great offensive weapons, maybe best serve ever, great winners firepower, good volley (though not as good as Edberg), plus tremendous athleticism and agility. But he could be vulnerable from the baseline, on long exchanges especially his backhand.
The big 3 achieved an unparalleled mastery of BOTH offensive and defensive weaponry. Incredible Firepower AND Consistency!. That's why they're so complete and able to win on ALL surfaces.
True Djokovic and Federer only won the French once, but no one doubts they'd win many more if they hadn't to contend with the greatest clay player of all time.
Sampras never won the French, don't think he ever made it to the final- and yet the 90s was not such a difficult time to win on clay, after the 80s clay masters (Borg Lendl Wilander), and before the arrival of Nadal on the scene!
That was an easier time to win on clay, you can not even begin to compare Thomas Muster or Jim Courier with Rafael Nadal!!
am I the only man in this world who belives Sampras was better than Roger?
DMS no, you are not
No, you're not. But you're still wrong.
@@papigringo5692 no hes for sure right pete at his peak is the greatest federer is just his clone.
@@animanga9597 So many of Petes fans forgetting about clay and him being very close minded about his setup (he even admitted that he should've experimented). In the end he was the greatest of his era, but you could also argue, that Agassi was the more complete player who was just unlucky, that most of the courts favoured Petes style of play. How Federer reinvented himself at least 2 times during his career puts him above Pete, if he is above Djokovic and Nadal can (but imho shouldn't, because this is about preferences) be debated...
@@Krischan04 you make your own luck in tennis my friend. pete was just better than agassi and he proved it the hard way. you also have no argument for federer because he cant beat his 2 main rivals h2h so hes out of the discussion lol. pete is the only one to beat all his rivals in the strongest era thats why hes the best. read em n weep.
Courier was a great player. But seems he has developed a habit of late preparation where he begins his backswing only after the ball bounces, causing him to be jammed or late at contact at times. Or is it just me thinking that?
No I noticed that especially on his backhand, where he constantly looked off balance/falling backward with a bit of a jerking motion. Seemed like he was trying to just snap at contact, similarly seen for Jack Sock's forehand
On the forehand too I noticed
That’s how his power. God knows how????
As a Courier fan this was the best he played without winning a major. His level on display here was as good, if not better than his 1993 or 1992 level.
I remember being 13 years old staying up all night watching this match.
Just Sampras beating Courier’s tail again. This time through tears.
MyKittyPercy lol he owned Courier. I don’t get how Courier got to #1 his strokes were so odd looking
5 sets is hardly getting their tail beat
RIP Tim.
Love Jimmy C
Please upload Nalbandian vs Baghdatis SF 2006
I used to a big fan of Jim following his success from 91 to 93. I always liked the way he used to play those inside out and powerful forehands. Back then I was relatively new to watching Tennis,. I had watched a bit of Edberg, Becker and Lendl but Pete, Jim, Agassi, Chang and co. was the era when I watched a lot of Tennis. For some reason I liked Pete the least of the four, never understood why though. He had an extremely efficient game I think especially for fast courts, one of the best volleyers after Pat Rafter, great serve, could consistently come up with those running forehand winners, decent backhand, always went for the kill even at half decent opportunity. As I said he had a very efficient game especially for fast courts and was also very consistent. Never saw him make too many mistakes or loose too many big points. So in general I should like him but I never did. Somehow found him to be too boring and irritating. It’s like I knew what’s going to happen in next few shots and more often than not it happened. The only thing I Iiked about him was his volleying, specially those slam dunks. Jim on the other hand was frustrating to watch, somehow many found answers to his Game A and his Game B wasn’t good enough. He tried a lot to stage a comeback but Sampras and Agassi kept blocking him and gradually others started getting better of him. 3 matches that really hurt his comeback is this one, his FO QF defeat against Pete in 96 and losing to Andre in 96 AO in QFs. In all 3 he won 2 sets, had great chances to win the match but couldn’t close it. Great matches and lost to great opponents but Jim was never coming back from here. I remember being a fan I was extremely sad after his 96 QF loss to Pete, because Pete was not as good on clay and I think that match probably broke him for good. I think he got a bit over confident in 94 and lost his way. Then he tried making comeback in 95 and 96 but couldn’t get past peak Pete and Andre. Those 2 had hit another level by then. Pete specially owned him, may be that’s why I didn’t like Pete. Who knows? But I think it’s mostly Pete’s game wasn’t appealing enough for me. It’s same like Novak is extremely effective but his game is little boring for me and I prefer to watch Roger and Rafa instead. Pete knew how to neutralize Jim’s biggest weapon, inside out powerful forehands and that was the key to Pete’s success against Jim. He just knew Jim’s game too well and Jim could never find a good Plan B. His backhand though odd looking was effective but not even 40% of his forehand. His backhands were too loopy and not powerful like his forehand. Pete would win 90% of his points if he came in the net on Jim’s backhand. I always wondered why Jim didn’t try hitting more down like line shots against Pete. Pete just waited on his backhand corner for Jim’s inside out forehand and guided those down the line. Andre was the most talented of these 4 but least in shape. IMO in terms of pure natural Talent Roger is no. 1 and Andre is no. 2 in last 3 decades. Anyways, great players all these guys. Great entertainment. 👍
"pure natural Talent" - there is no such thing in tennis. It's 110% a skill game built on repetition.
Would Roger have survived unscathed? Playing in this era of Sampras & Agassi? I don't think so.
The bigger question is , does the USA have what it takes to create another dominant Sampras? Agassi?
I don't think so, I can't imagine these whiny kids working that hard , training to be the world's best anymore.
Oh well.....
GOAT !!!
awesome!
OP: Apologies.... I forgot this was an incredible match and Courier had some amazing highlights. I'm just a die hard douchey Sampras fan who decided to mislabel this post. (PS this sarcasm brought to you by.... a guy loved the shit outta both players).
Sampras was better than courier except on clay
What kind of highlight is this where you skip 2 entire sets?
🙏 Tim Gullickson
If you didnt know...Courier retired from tennis to be lead singer in Queens of the stone age
😝😂😂😂
Both goalkeepers impress as the points are shared at Turf Moor 🤝
I can't see the ball. The video is too low def.
10:08 that was ball was so out
no it wasn't. right on the line. pause it and push period button for frame by frame playback
twain27 what drugs you on? that ball wasn’t even close to being out
@@golfmaniac007 ah yes indeed lol
That’s what Serena said.
ジムはなんて優しいんだ！
I never understood why Courier peaked 3 years or so and then never won any majors again
Most of the time sampras was on his way.. us open 92, Wimbledon 93, ao 94 , ao 95, us open 95, fo 96
Roland Garros 96 as well
I feel like jack sock is the Jim courier of the 2010s, without the conditioning or mental toughness.
won 4 majors though
Sock can't hold a candle to Courier. He finally makes a breakthrough last year winning his first Masters, and then he proceeds to follow it up with a dud this year, and can hardly win matches.
Also shitter
Sock did win 2 slams in doubles though but flopped in singles
Courier was number one and won slams not the same.
what a bad end for courier
Man ! That Sampras serve should be illegal. It's too much of an advantage to have for anybody !!
Man, ur comment.. Very creative lol.. Nice way to compliment Pete..
Pete, RF, Nadal, Kim, Maria, Steffi, Martina, Hingis n Serena..together define my love for this game 🎾 .
I feel for Jim in this match, even though I'm a huge Sampras fan
サンプラスのコーチが脳腫瘍で亡くなったときの試合だよね。
ゾーンにはいってますね。
He loved Tom a lot..
Tim actually.
@@pomerlain8924 Tim Gullikson
9:49 does anyone else find it mildly funny how they put deuce next to this woman who looks like she is ......
Couldn't he have asked for a bathroom break when he was getting emotional? Just to collect himself, and get himself back together? I would have done that.
Shut up
Man u have brains.. Genius.. 😂
Have some sense of propriety man..
Sampras = Federer
Why Pete cry ?
His coach Tim Gulickson was dying of cancer.
哎，美國後繼無人，在當今網壇
He had so many foot faults.
Época previa a la dictadura que vendría de Sampras
Pete was really crying because he felt soo sorry for jim knowing he was gonna whip his ass In the end and he knew Jim couldn't handle the ballistic serves that awaited him .....lol
Courier was a punk here
typical sampras always crying when he's losing
the girl is Bridgette Wilson right, his wife I mean?
No!
first comment!
Man, Pete's ex girlfriend was smokin!
Looks old enough to be his mother.
@@SonateSonateDon't be rude.
Sampras retired at just 32 years old...he just didn't has the desire for tennis like others...
Great highlights, except for the shots of the ex gold digger girlfriend.
Sampras had the most boring personality in sports.
says Nobody
@@sittingfool2727 I guess you base your opinion on what others think.
In what way does that matter?
He's not supposed to be your friend, he was just one of the greatest tennis players of all time.
@@evangelicae_rationis he was. Still boring though.
World's most boring tennis highlights
Australian Open TV: Thanks for watching