Sampras serve was piece of art: beautifuly coordinated, fluent natural movement with eruption at the end, same about rest of his game, he was graceful like a black panther
Muster was such an inspiration. Wasn't it 1989 or 90 when he was hit by a reckless driver and had one side of his body shattered? I remember him training in a wheelchair after all of his surgeries. He was hitting balls with one leg propped up in a cast. He was a ferocious competitor and I was so happy to see him win the French Open in 95. Pete was SO amazing to watch in his prime. With his style, he could've played in any era and been successful.
It was mainly a knee injury. Torn crucial ligament. Arthroscopic surgeries were fairly new at the time, he opted for an old-school method. Putting the knee in a cast like that would be totally unthinkable today!
MUFC And the most boring. Tennis is harder to master. By far....but. I agree, soccer is very important sport for taking people from poverty and for young people its great way keeping them from crime etc...
@@cmarchione1 37, bought a cpl newer ones a few years back when Wilson began selling them again. For a laugh, at least...ended up using it over anything else I’ve tried. Recently demo’d a Yonex, a pure drive and a blade. Couldn’t wait to get back to using the original.
great to watch, loved the old centre court, in green and blue, for me this is the real Australian Open how it should look like, also not all the fuzz with ball kids constantly handing towels to players.... the generation of Pete didn't need that.
The main problem was with the rebound ace courts. It was a very controversial surface and many of the players really disliked it. When it got hot it could become sticky and dangerous. Gabriela Sabatini sprained her ankle on it in 1990 and had to be taken off the court in a wheelchair. It also got a lot of criticism for the slightly unusual bounce it had - pat cash went on record to say that using it widely across Australia had damaged Australian tennis because it was a "terrible surface to learn tennis on"
I agree about the courts, i think the blue ones look dreadful. About the towels, don't forget that the rallyes have also become longer with the slower balls and courts.
Coucou 👋 J’ai vu ce match en direct la nuit et je peux vous dire que je n’ai pas dormi !!!! Sampras était touché par la grâce !!! Muster n’a rien pu faire pour le contrer !! Quant on connaît cet Autrichien, quant on sait qu’il ne lâche rien , on peut imaginer le niveau de Sampras à ce match là…. 💜
Nice to see the attacking game of Sampras, and also the powerful fighter Muster. Would be nice if we have more players of the Samras Style nowadays....
Funny to see how Pete was totally destroying a great player and baseliner like Muster on his own game on that ‘’slow’’ hard,Pete’s baseline game was underrated,he had a complete game.
Muster's game was more suited to clay courts than slow hard though. Pete's baseline game was good, but the longer the match went, the more he broke down which is why Andre beat him both times they played down under. There was no way to stretch him like that on Wimbledon grass or fast, slick US Open hard courts.
@@farid1406 So your saying that Pete's Thalassemia Minor condition bothered him more in Australia than in New York or Wimbledon. He has always been very private about talking of it, but it was something he had to deal with.
@@mrbobevans Yeah, PETE came from a generation where you kept your struggles to yourself and just put your head down and dealt with it. Oh, the good ol' days
Kinda refreshing to see two TRUE sportsmen competing. You dont see them bouncing the ball 18x prior to serving, dont see them crying to ump, dont see them toweling off after every point, dont see them inspecting a dozen balls prior to picking one to play every point, no smashing racquets. No excessive show of emotions after winning (or losing) a point. Also nice to see them wearing white. They play a very enjoyable game to watch, and are good role models for youngsters.
Some people would argue that Muster wasn't a great sportsman. For example, in a match against Pat Rafter at the French Open, he openly admitted to deliberately rolling the tennis balls in the dirt to slow them down and affect Rafter's attacking game. He also spat at the umpire in that same match.
My favourite point is at 1:08:00 I have put that point on my "Pete Sampras turns defence to attack videos". Stays in the point with Muster asking questions with deep high bouncing shots, draws Muster in, opens up the court with the lob then a fantastic top spin forehand over the high part of the net. That is tennis at the highest level possible.
In response to Anthony Kernich Well I would look at these factors. First, the surface is rebound ace, very high bouncing as you can see, both players often hitting the ball back above their hip / shoulder height or above their shoulder in the rallies. Second, the semifinal is being played in baking hot sun with no protection, not like now where they play at night in cooler conditions, or indoors even if they (authorities) decide to do that. So, if you are playing tennis in the hot sun like that, you would expect the court to play faster, but it is still very high bouncing which should favour the player who hits with a lot of topspin. Interestingly, in 1997 it was considered a very slow surface. I would mention one more thing though. In 1999 when Agassi played Sampras in Los Angeles, commentator Vince Van Patten said to Brad Gilbert "its a slow chalky court, but it doesn't look that way when Pete plays because he hits the ball so hard". So when Sampras plays, he hustles his opponent, that alone quickens up proceedings and could make the court look quicker, but the ball bounces so high on every shot I would call that a slow court. On a real fast court the ball stays lower and players hit flatter as a result where they are cracking it back around or just below hip height.
Also, the fact that Pete customized his rackets by adding a lot of weight, I think many people don't realize how hard and flat many of his shots actually come off.
This was sadly the last year that PETE would play like an all court player. From '98 on, he became an all out net rushing serve and volleyer because of the coaching switch to Annacone, and we didn't get to see his beautiful all-around game afterwards.
@thebigmonstaandy6644 He still had his baseline game but in those times it was much harder to hit passing shots against a great net player like Pete because of faster conditions and different strings, so Annacone felt that if Pete constantly came into the net it would put the opponent under pressure and force them to make mistakes. It might also have been to keep points short to save energy since Pete had a stamina condition. Anyways, I preferred the more complete Pete because when people think of Pete as incomplete they're usually thinking of the post 1998 Annacone Pete and not the 1993-97 Pete who was very similar to Federer, just more aggressive.
In his later career he switched from Head Prestige to the slightly longer Kneissl frame to give him more serving power. his groundstrokes sufferred a bit though.
@@juanestebankruhsanmguel1960 Roland Garros or Rome clay was incredibly slow in the 90's. So, remember Federer luckily won the French Open the year Nadal was injured.
@@juanestebankruhsanmguel1960 rod laver never played on hard courts but won all the slams twice. Is he or is he not part of the GOAT competition? Sampras played in an era, where RG is slow and high bounce, AO is medium fast and medium bounce, US is fast and medium bounce , Wimbledon is fast and low bounce. So Sampras winning 14 slams from AO, Wimbledon and US and making it to FO semis twice is far more impressive and versatile than Rafa and Novak winning all four on similar surfaces ( slow and high bouncing) but called under different names and different court colour. Borg winning FO - Wimby double thrice when the both the courts were actually polar opposites is X times more impressive than Federer's/ Nadal's FO - Wimby double where the were homogenized. To summarise, winning all four GS is not the qualifying criteria for GOAT debate. Nonetheless , it is one of factors that can be weighed in.
Sampras was deceptively fast... was always amazing cause if you look at him after he got bigger.. and the way he played he was always kind of slower and more elaborate looking.. but when he needed to move fast it was always crazy because it was like... "I don't think he should be able to get this" and he'd just rocket a shot back and past his opponent..
@@al1976-v7m It wasn't so much that he didn't like to grind it was more so that as his age progressed it got harder to deal with the Thalassemia. in his earlier years he was no stranger to grinding out points but it definitely sapped his stamina making long matches much harder to deal with. the only real treatment is blood transfusions which I feel like would have been a publicized thing so he was essentially just out there dealing with it untreated until he retired.
Great upload! Quality's fantastic but most of all the aspect ratio is right. Thankful for all but so many I see on YT have incorrect aspect ratios. Usually older vids that should be in 3/4 that are too wide. Thanks.
ok, c'mon thats a stretch :-) Im a fan of Novak and never been a fan on Roger - but even my biased eye can see that Federer is just poetry in motion. Sampras's appears somewhat jerky, and yes I watched several years of Sampras' matches and was even his fan back then.
Alex Shah you should be joking. Roger Federer at motion is like a ballet dancer. SAMPRAS game depended on his serve and volley which restricted body movement so where was the fluidity dude.
That wasn’t the killer. It’s the light rackets and the polyester strings. The strings keep everything in play and you can swing hard on return. Also the lighter frames make it easier to return big serves as well. Agassi said that the polyester strings changed everything. These guys can take big cuts at the ball and it always stays in. Wimbledon is grass and always will be, the new strings and frames will have the upper hand against serve and volleyers.
@@RossBayCult Thanks for your comment! Yes thats true what you did write. The rackets and strings developed very much the last 10 or 15 years and that changed everything. But it was a combination. The courts courts olso got slower. Even grass. They used a new lawn mixture since about 2003. The balls jump up differently and get slowed down.
Peter Löffler imagine Djokovic returning serves with full gut setup like he does today? No way! Most returns would fly out. Rafa with the Babolat with a full gut setup? Impossible. I love Rafa and even I admit that.
It is a combination of everything including the ball. This speed of this game compared to now is much faster. Sampras in his prime is the finest execution shot maker of the ball. It is boring tennis today. Boring. In favour of defensive tennis.
well, the courts had gotten so fast, that it wasn't serve and volley, it was just serve. it made the game so much more boring, because there was no need to build points. sampras got away with a lot of holes in his game because he could just bomb his way outta trouble...
Pete and Federer. The 2 greatest super players ever. Pete was the first of the new gen of super players. Greatest serve ever bar none. A great net game on top
"Pistol" Pete Sampras wiped the floor with Muster here who wasn't playing badly. On grass nobody on planet Earth could of beaten Sampras in his prime. Absolutely nobody (Federer included) a dominant serve, world class volleying and an accomplished baseline game. On the hardcourt he was also world class.
Krajicek dominated him in 1996 at Wimbledon and Federer beat him in 2001....in both losses, Pete was the reigning champion...so yes, he could certainly be beaten
In the first part at least of 1996, Pete was a bit of an emotional wreck, due to the death of Tim Gullikson. He credits Gullikson with making him feel comfortable on grass, and I'm sure not having him there at Wimbledon, contributed to his loss. 2001 was when Pete was having a bit of burn out, or lack of motivation, having achieved his goal of beating Emerson's GS record. No doubt Krajicek and Federer played well, but in neither instance was Sampras at his best, and Jake Ramzy does say "Sampras in his prime" was unbeatable on grass.
I would say he was actually better on hard court, it suited his movement and was the surface he was brought up on. It's simply that grass courts are rare and the season is short, so nobody could really hurt him there. But his game and technique is certainly more suited to a slightly higher bounce than grass. He doesn't really knife the slice like Federer or Krajcek and his forehand grip and swing path is more suited to a higher bounce.
As good as Muster was, and make no mistake he was a very good player, for someone like Sampras, his game was just tailor made. He didn't have anything to hurt Sampras.
@@MrPernell27 Muster might have won, but he has lost to big servers on clay e.g. Becker, Krajicek, Stich and none of these guys had the overall game that Sampras had. Still, we'll never know now
@capricornmagic63 You are right in general, BUT Muster was still good enough to shine on hard courts and even fast indoor carpets on the right days. He once beat Sampras pretty easily on Indoor Carpet in his super year 1995. This year was what made Muster number 1 in early 1996. It was just 6 weeks and he never got back to number 1, but he managed to at one point hold the top spot, which is very respectable. Muster also won Indian Wells in 1997 if I am not mistaken.
Just about every ball Muster hit set up nice and perfect for Sampras in no-man's-land. Sampras, being as tall as he is, didn't have any problem with how heavy Muster was hitting and just took it early. And when Muster did have an opportunity, he tried to do too much. Every aspect of Sampras' game is just a bad match up all around for Muster.
This is why Edberg screwed up Muster timing and never lost to him in 10 matches, with Muster retrieving two or three meters behind the baseline, Edberg was able stepped in and mixed up the angle, slice, top spin, depth to jerk him around the court, plus Muster did not return and pass consistently well enough to make him a difficult opponent against a serve and volley masters on fast court.
True, but Muster still managed to beat Pete on fast Indoor Carpet in his stellar year of 1995. Becoming world number 1 with the limitations Muster had always made me respect him a lot. His career was golden given the few tools he had to work with. A true warrior on the court.
Remember watching this match live. Pistol Pete had not had a good last few months, and Muster had been bragging abt how he was going to win, so I was nervous watching this. Should have had more faith in the GOAT!
@@uncletony6210 Muster certainly never bragged about how he was going to win. At the start of 1997, I recall that he and his coach, the late Ronnie Leitgeb, were talking about tracking players' tendencies on a computer. Muster may have referenced it in relation to Sampras, but he never said that he was going to beat him.
If Sampras had not suffered from Thalassemia, which is a blood disorder that prevents your body from producing enough hemoglobin, he would have won more slams and tournaments.
Muster really struggled against the best attacking players. He could be rushed and his high topspin shots picked off at the net. He had an appalling head to head against Edberg, for example, and lost to Stitch and Sampras at the French Open
I agree but we can't help that racket & string technology simply sped up the game too much and they had to counter that with slower courts. That being said i also miss the variety. It's weird to see baseline tennis in Wimby.
Every club level player should try to use slightly more classic rackets and go to the net. It just feels too good and in many cases it's not an outdated tactic at all up to a certain level of play.
@@valsammajoseph421 What's your point? That was never in question. Sampras was the better player by far. But the OP statet, that Muster has never beaten Pete on that surface, which is wrong.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 Not saying he had the fastest serve. But a better 2nd serve. He had amazing placement, and the confidence to go for big second serves on big points. Watch his match against Agassi in the 2002 us open final. Agassi was one of the best returners in the game, and Sampras hit about as many second serve aces as first serve aces. He was in the zone.
@@SquidDesign here in this video i cant see any great 2 services.Pete started to serve that fast(like 105 mph) with second serve only in second half of 1998.he had the best serve for his time.But now players like Karlovic,Isner,Kyrgius,Raonic are serving better.Dont forget,that in 2002 there were much faster courts.at australian open he had crazy second serve 2. And he made a lot of double faults in this match. Of course i saw this match many times.in general was tennis much more exciting. i recorded this match and saw only at next day.and i dont allow my friend to say the result of match. i wanted that Aggassi win. :) Now he have may be 2 or 3 exciting matches every year.
Muster had a great forehand and an effective one handed backhand. Kingdom of a yesteryear Nadal Sampras made him look ordinary though. Outrallied him and had the first option if coming in and volleying.
Muster couldnt flatten his ground strokes when needed....he hardly hit an ace...his game was made for clay courts....he could have won many points in this match if he had the ability to hit the ball on the rise ala agassi..
Both have contributed equally. Also, coaches teach kids how to hit extreme grips with massive raqcuets, so no-one serves & volleys anymore. Look at Thiem and A. Zverev - they never serve volley.
Don't know why he did not win more. He should have beaten Agassi in the 2000 semi. He blew that 4 set tie breaker. If he beats Agassi in that match, he plays Kafelnikov who he owned on hard.
@@mrbobevans didn't care about the AO as much as Wimbledon or the USO I think. Pete's game became pretty formulaic after the 1997 season save for a brief period in the second half of 1999. To me, this is down to physical decline but more so Annacones net rushing philosophy. I often wonder how much more Pete would have won if Gullikson was around.
The one he probably would have won or should have,was the 1999 Us Open,he was playing incredibly that summer,just super,to bad he got injured right before the tournament.
Pete’s yearly schedule always finished very late in the season towards the tail of the year when he was playing in every masters and winning most of them . So the AO being played in January wasn’t easy for him when you ad the travel , the extreme heat and short breaks he would have had to prepare . He mentions somewhere in a interview on UA-cam that he always found the AO a grind and a bit uncomfortable. The plan with Pete was to always make sure he was at a peak and fresh for Wimbledon and The U.S Open .
@@stealthcat100 Every player did that after late 80s travelling to Australia to play Australian Open. It has been a fully fielded slam since the late 80s.
Aglo commenting like that,about a great player of all time like Sampras,is how much the game is under the snobish arrogant aglo influence.If it was a guy of their own, even a fugget or criple or ugly ,it will be God.
Sampras certainly better and stronger tennis player than Muster, but not on clay... Sampras was an explosive player, but he needed to close the point quickly. In long rallies, he generally lost the point.
Yes... Pistol Pete brought him to grave like a Gentleman... allways as he would have a Chance. But Thomas not really was an opponent to him . Just another sparring partner. ⁸
Federer beat Sampras towards the end of Sampras's career. Young Nadal, not yet 19, beat Federer at their first meeting, when Federer was at the peak of his powers. And why do you feel the need to call someone moron, because you don't like their opinion? Grow up!
Big 3 are way superior than Sampras ever was. Winning all 4 slams , winning way more slams despite playing against each other. Sampras era was weak especially after Lendl, Edberg & Courier declined in 1993, Agassi lacks consistency outside of 1993/94. Big 3 at their peak were literally won 90% of their matches something Sampras never achieved in his whole career.
Sampras serve was piece of art: beautifuly coordinated, fluent natural movement with eruption at the end, same about rest of his game, he was graceful like a black panther
Perfect perfect description of Sampras . Exactly like a black panther , power grace , fluidity .
Muster was such an inspiration. Wasn't it 1989 or 90 when he was hit by a reckless driver and had one side of his body shattered? I remember him training in a wheelchair after all of his surgeries. He was hitting balls with one leg propped up in a cast. He was a ferocious competitor and I was so happy to see him win the French Open in 95. Pete was SO amazing to watch in his prime. With his style, he could've played in any era and been successful.
It was mainly a knee injury. Torn crucial ligament. Arthroscopic surgeries were fairly new at the time, he opted for an old-school method. Putting the knee in a cast like that would be totally unthinkable today!
Ahh Pistol Pete!..I miss him. And wonderful popp from every shot from his ProStaff. What a racket!
MUFC And the most boring. Tennis is harder to master. By far....but. I agree, soccer is very important sport for taking people from poverty and for young people its great way keeping them from crime etc...
I played with a Prostaff 6.0 in high school. I'm 38 now and it still plays better than the newer rackets I've tried.
mainly the operator
@@cmarchione1 37, bought a cpl newer ones a few years back when Wilson began selling them again. For a laugh, at least...ended up using it over anything else I’ve tried. Recently demo’d a Yonex, a pure drive and a blade. Couldn’t wait to get back to using the original.
I hope you're being sarcastic. That racket was already way outdated in the early 90's.
Sampras was incredible.
great to watch, loved the old centre court, in green and blue, for me this is the real Australian Open how it should look like, also not all the fuzz with ball kids constantly handing towels to players.... the generation of Pete didn't need that.
@MUFC cool beans dude
The main problem was with the rebound ace courts. It was a very controversial surface and many of the players really disliked it. When it got hot it could become sticky and dangerous. Gabriela Sabatini sprained her ankle on it in 1990 and had to be taken off the court in a wheelchair. It also got a lot of criticism for the slightly unusual bounce it had - pat cash went on record to say that using it widely across Australia had damaged Australian tennis because it was a "terrible surface to learn tennis on"
@@zeddeka agreed it was a bad surface. Rubbery. It was a very slow surface though providing more variety to the 4 majors
I agree about the courts, i think the blue ones look dreadful. About the towels, don't forget that the rallyes have also become longer with the slower balls and courts.
Coucou 👋
J’ai vu ce match en direct la nuit et je peux vous dire que je n’ai pas dormi !!!!
Sampras était touché par la grâce !!! Muster n’a rien pu faire pour le contrer !! Quant on connaît cet Autrichien, quant on sait qu’il ne lâche rien , on peut imaginer le niveau de Sampras à ce match là…. 💜
Nice to see the attacking game of Sampras, and also the powerful fighter Muster. Would be nice if we have more players of the Samras Style nowadays....
Funny to see how Pete was totally destroying a great player and baseliner like Muster on his own game on that ‘’slow’’ hard,Pete’s baseline game was underrated,he had a complete game.
Muster's game was more suited to clay courts than slow hard though. Pete's baseline game was good, but the longer the match went, the more he broke down which is why Andre beat him both times they played down under. There was no way to stretch him like that on Wimbledon grass or fast, slick US Open hard courts.
@@farid1406 The AO 2000 SF was very close,Pete was 2 points away from the win
@@aleksthegreat4130 But he completely collapsed in the fifth. 6-1 or 6-2 if I remember right.
@@farid1406 So your saying that Pete's Thalassemia Minor condition bothered him more in Australia than in New York or Wimbledon. He has always been very private about talking of it, but it was something he had to deal with.
@@mrbobevans Yeah, PETE came from a generation where you kept your struggles to yourself and just put your head down and dealt with it. Oh, the good ol' days
I was in grade school, rooting for Sampras! 2 decades later, nostalgia!
Kinda refreshing to see two TRUE sportsmen competing. You dont see them bouncing the ball 18x prior to serving, dont see them crying to ump, dont see them toweling off after every point, dont see them inspecting a dozen balls prior to picking one to play every point, no smashing racquets. No excessive show of emotions after winning (or losing) a point. Also nice to see them wearing white. They play a very enjoyable game to watch, and are good role models for youngsters.
Some people would argue that Muster wasn't a great sportsman. For example, in a match against Pat Rafter at the French Open, he openly admitted to deliberately rolling the tennis balls in the dirt to slow them down and affect Rafter's attacking game. He also spat at the umpire in that same match.
Amen, brother. So true all of your points.
He may have lost his temper a few times, but in terms of work ethic, he's up there with Rafa etc. @@zeddeka
Well said.
Muster was not a great sportsman. He was a competitor. And he showed tons of emotion. And what’s with the wearing white? 😂😂
My favourite point is at 1:08:00 I have put that point on my "Pete Sampras turns defence to attack videos". Stays in the point with Muster asking questions with deep high bouncing shots, draws Muster in, opens up the court with the lob then a fantastic top spin forehand over the high part of the net. That is tennis at the highest level possible.
Wish there was this amount of Volleying into today's game
Perfect quality video, thanks so much from Rome Italy. january 1 - 2021
In response to Anthony Kernich
Well I would look at these factors. First, the surface is rebound ace, very high bouncing as you can see, both players often hitting the ball back above their hip / shoulder height or above their shoulder in the rallies. Second, the semifinal is being played in baking hot sun with no protection, not like now where they play at night in cooler conditions, or indoors even if they (authorities) decide to do that. So, if you are playing tennis in the hot sun like that, you would expect the court to play faster, but it is still very high bouncing which should favour the player who hits with a lot of topspin.
Interestingly, in 1997 it was considered a very slow surface. I would mention one more thing though. In 1999 when Agassi played Sampras in Los Angeles, commentator Vince Van Patten said to Brad Gilbert "its a slow chalky court, but it doesn't look that way when Pete plays because he hits the ball so hard". So when Sampras plays, he hustles his opponent, that alone quickens up proceedings and could make the court look quicker, but the ball bounces so high on every shot I would call that a slow court. On a real fast court the ball stays lower and players hit flatter as a result where they are cracking it back around or just below hip height.
Also, the fact that Pete customized his rackets by adding a lot of weight, I think many people don't realize how hard and flat many of his shots actually come off.
Burns Tennis I played on that court in UCLA as it’s open to public. It’s very slow and hi bouncing
modern courts are too slow
Wow,you really nailed it,thanks for this amazing comment.
Such a comforting match to watch. Thank you for the upload🙏🙏
Thank you for this, Sampras fan here😊
This was sadly the last year that PETE would play like an all court player. From '98 on, he became an all out net rushing serve and volleyer because of the coaching switch to Annacone, and we didn't get to see his beautiful all-around game afterwards.
yes. and lost his domination. why he changed his game?
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 Annacone believed Pete needed to intimidate opponents more than he was doing.
@@farid1406 it is very strange for me. how can you intimidate opponents , wenn you lose baseline game?
@thebigmonstaandy6644 He still had his baseline game but in those times it was much harder to hit passing shots against a great net player like Pete because of faster conditions and different strings, so Annacone felt that if Pete constantly came into the net it would put the opponent under pressure and force them to make mistakes. It might also have been to keep points short to save energy since Pete had a stamina condition. Anyways, I preferred the more complete Pete because when people think of Pete as incomplete they're usually thinking of the post 1998 Annacone Pete and not the 1993-97 Pete who was very similar to Federer, just more aggressive.
@@farid1406 97 was petes trainer in 97. was it not Annacone?
Flawless upload =) Didn't realize Muster ever played with Kneissl stick. Interesting.
@szs voc what a stupid comment.
@szs voc calling someone a Nazi isn't only rude, you are a despicable abortion
In his later career he switched from Head Prestige to the slightly longer Kneissl frame to give him more serving power. his groundstrokes sufferred a bit though.
This was what I called tennis.
Sampras = efficiency. He has to be in the conversation of the greatest of all time.
a player that has never won all the slams cant be in the conversation or at least reaching multiple finals on all the surfaces
@@juanestebankruhsanmguel1960 Roland Garros or Rome clay was incredibly slow in the 90's. So, remember Federer luckily won the French Open the year Nadal was injured.
@@juanestebankruhsanmguel1960 rod laver never played on hard courts but won all the slams twice. Is he or is he not part of the GOAT competition? Sampras played in an era, where RG is slow and high bounce, AO is medium fast and medium bounce, US is fast and medium bounce , Wimbledon is fast and low bounce. So Sampras winning 14 slams from AO, Wimbledon and US and making it to FO semis twice is far more impressive and versatile than Rafa and Novak winning all four on similar surfaces ( slow and high bouncing) but called under different names and different court colour.
Borg winning FO - Wimby double thrice when the both the courts were actually polar opposites is X times more impressive than Federer's/ Nadal's FO - Wimby double where the were homogenized.
To summarise, winning all four GS is not the qualifying criteria for GOAT debate. Nonetheless , it is one of factors that can be weighed in.
@@juanestebankruhsanmguel1960 You demonstrate little knowledge of tennis courts.
@@achuthanachilles Sampras never made the FO semis twice
Pete had popeye forearms. he was a hell of an athlete
59:52 That's the Sampras backhand I've seen so many times
Remember when Thomas Muster had the loudest grunt?
Sampras was deceptively fast... was always amazing cause if you look at him after he got bigger.. and the way he played he was always kind of slower and more elaborate looking.. but when he needed to move fast it was always crazy because it was like... "I don't think he should be able to get this" and he'd just rocket a shot back and past his opponent..
You mean deceptively slow i.e. he appears slow (the deception), but is actually fast.
Sampras had great agility and fast twitch acceleration but he didn't like grinding. He would have made a great basketball player also
@@al1976-v7m It wasn't so much that he didn't like to grind it was more so that as his age progressed it got harder to deal with the Thalassemia. in his earlier years he was no stranger to grinding out points but it definitely sapped his stamina making long matches much harder to deal with. the only real treatment is blood transfusions which I feel like would have been a publicized thing so he was essentially just out there dealing with it untreated until he retired.
@@Eliath1984 Blood transfusions would also be considered (blood) doping
Best tennis player of all time.
Great upload! Quality's fantastic but most of all the aspect ratio is right. Thankful for all but so many I see on YT have incorrect aspect ratios. Usually older vids that should be in 3/4 that are too wide. Thanks.
i see 90 min long video, instantly know sampras won.
if msuter wins on hartcourt it would have been 4-99hours
Pete is even more fluid than Roger. His game just flows.
ok, c'mon thats a stretch :-) Im a fan of Novak and never been a fan on Roger - but even my biased eye can see that Federer is just poetry in motion. Sampras's appears somewhat jerky, and yes I watched several years of Sampras' matches and was even his fan back then.
Alex Shah you should be joking. Roger Federer at motion is like a ballet dancer. SAMPRAS game depended on his serve and volley which restricted body movement so where was the fluidity dude.
@@anandparmeswaran6681 then he should be a ballet joker Federer is overhyped joker
@Vallasama Joseph Roger = GOAT.
@@anandparmeswaran6681 still think Fed is Goat?
Why Pete was king of the 90s
The best Serve and volley player of all times. But Serve Volley died out beacause the courts are so slow that you have no chance with that today!
That wasn’t the killer. It’s the light rackets and the polyester strings. The strings keep everything in play and you can swing hard on return. Also the lighter frames make it easier to return big serves as well. Agassi said that the polyester strings changed everything. These guys can take big cuts at the ball and it always stays in. Wimbledon is grass and always will be, the new strings and frames will have the upper hand against serve and volleyers.
@@RossBayCult Thanks for your comment! Yes thats true what you did write. The rackets and strings developed very much the last 10 or 15 years and that changed everything.
But it was a combination. The courts courts olso got slower. Even grass. They used a new lawn mixture since about 2003. The balls jump up differently and get slowed down.
Peter Löffler imagine Djokovic returning serves with full gut setup like he does today? No way! Most returns would fly out. Rafa with the Babolat with a full gut setup? Impossible. I love Rafa and even I admit that.
It is a combination of everything including the ball. This speed of this game compared to now is much faster. Sampras in his prime is the finest execution shot maker of the ball. It is boring tennis today. Boring. In favour of defensive tennis.
well, the courts had gotten so fast, that it wasn't serve and volley, it was just serve. it made the game so much more boring, because there was no need to build points. sampras got away with a lot of holes in his game because he could just bomb his way outta trouble...
Pete and Federer. The 2 greatest super players ever. Pete was the first of the new gen of super players. Greatest serve ever bar none. A great net game on top
The sound of ball hitting was much better during Ford AO era
56:24 what a rally!
Thanks for the tip; I forwarded it to 56:24 and got to enjoy that terrific rally! (not that the match isn't worth watching in its entirety!)
Pete’s baseline game got so much better over the years. He really developed a bomb on his forehand.
that cross court fh from muster was in, had there been hawk-eye in those days it would have been in
"Pistol" Pete Sampras wiped the floor with Muster here who wasn't playing badly. On grass nobody on planet Earth could of beaten Sampras in his prime. Absolutely nobody (Federer included) a dominant serve, world class volleying and an accomplished baseline game. On the hardcourt he was also world class.
Krajicek dominated him in 1996 at Wimbledon and Federer beat him in 2001....in both losses, Pete was the reigning champion...so yes, he could certainly be beaten
In the first part at least of 1996, Pete was a bit of an emotional wreck, due to the death of Tim Gullikson. He credits Gullikson with making him feel comfortable on grass, and I'm sure not having him there at Wimbledon, contributed to his loss. 2001 was when Pete was having a bit of burn out, or lack of motivation, having achieved his goal of beating Emerson's GS record. No doubt Krajicek and Federer played well, but in neither instance was Sampras at his best, and Jake Ramzy does say "Sampras in his prime" was unbeatable on grass.
I would say he was actually better on hard court, it suited his movement and was the surface he was brought up on. It's simply that grass courts are rare and the season is short, so nobody could really hurt him there. But his game and technique is certainly more suited to a slightly higher bounce than grass. He doesn't really knife the slice like Federer or Krajcek and his forehand grip and swing path is more suited to a higher bounce.
As good as Muster was, and make no mistake he was a very good player, for someone like Sampras, his game was just tailor made. He didn't have anything to hurt Sampras.
Not on this surface. Sampras absolutely does not want to see Muster on a clay court!
@@MrPernell27 Muster might have won, but he has lost to big servers on clay e.g. Becker, Krajicek, Stich and none of these guys had the overall game that Sampras had. Still, we'll never know now
he had a couple of good wins against him.
@@MrPernell27 sampras beat muster on clay ...... But lost to him on an indoor Carpet in Essen
@capricornmagic63 You are right in general, BUT Muster was still good enough to shine on hard courts and even fast indoor carpets on the right days. He once beat Sampras pretty easily on Indoor Carpet in his super year 1995. This year was what made Muster number 1 in early 1996. It was just 6 weeks and he never got back to number 1, but he managed to at one point hold the top spot, which is very respectable.
Muster also won Indian Wells in 1997 if I am not mistaken.
Great update!
90s best tennis times
Just about every ball Muster hit set up nice and perfect for Sampras in no-man's-land. Sampras, being as tall as he is, didn't have any problem with how heavy Muster was hitting and just took it early. And when Muster did have an opportunity, he tried to do too much. Every aspect of Sampras' game is just a bad match up all around for Muster.
Jordan Dunseth so true!! 8 out of 10 points, it was all about what Pete felt like doing. Dictated the whole thing end to end.
This is why Edberg screwed up Muster timing and never lost to him in 10 matches, with Muster retrieving two or three meters behind the baseline, Edberg was able stepped in and mixed up the angle, slice, top spin, depth to jerk him around the court, plus Muster did not return and pass consistently well enough to make him a difficult opponent against a serve and volley masters on fast court.
True, but Muster still managed to beat Pete on fast Indoor Carpet in his stellar year of 1995. Becoming world number 1 with the limitations Muster had always made me respect him a lot. His career was golden given the few tools he had to work with. A true warrior on the court.
Top upload, thanks!
Loved Sampras shoes.
1997: Pretty tough opening point!
2024: And that was the shortest point of the match!
Remember watching this match live. Pistol Pete had not had a good last few months, and Muster had been bragging abt how he was going to win, so I was nervous watching this. Should have had more faith in the GOAT!
I don't remember Thomas saying that at all.
@@uncletony6210 Muster certainly never bragged about how he was going to win. At the start of 1997, I recall that he and his coach, the late Ronnie Leitgeb, were talking about tracking players' tendencies on a computer. Muster may have referenced it in relation to Sampras, but he never said that he was going to beat him.
@@tkramer62283 Yeah, I didn't think he did. I didn't know about Leitgeb.
Sampras ended ‘96 by winning three titles, including the USO and World Tour Finals. I’d like to know what a “good” few months is if it isn’t that.
If Sampras had not suffered from Thalassemia, which is a blood disorder that prevents your body from producing enough hemoglobin, he would have won more slams and tournaments.
Strong era tennis
Tennis now completely stuffed up by more powerful rackets and faster balls ... big serves, big grunts and baseline boredom.
Muster really struggled against the best attacking players. He could be rushed and his high topspin shots picked off at the net. He had an appalling head to head against Edberg, for example, and lost to Stitch and Sampras at the French Open
because he hit more looping shots that cleared the net an inch or two higher than say Agassi's or Courier's, which made volleys that much easier.
@@uncletony6210 that's just what I said. "His high topspin shots could be picked off at the net"
@@zeddeka you didn't say that. oh wait, yeah you did. My bad.
Rafter as well. At the French Open no less. A very tough loss for Muster.
A good win for Pete but from 5-0 down in the first Muster played some pretty good Tennis.
Pete was toying with Muster.
I prefer the style of the old games, fast and furious. The games speed nowadays is too slow.
I agree but we can't help that racket & string technology simply sped up the game too much and they had to counter that with slower courts. That being said i also miss the variety. It's weird to see baseline tennis in Wimby.
Met muster looking for practice partners at inverrary...all he had was a giant black racquet bag and BIG DREAMS
Sampras doesn't waste time in Doing SERVES, unlike Nadal and Djokovic...
Every club level player should try to use slightly more classic rackets and go to the net. It just feels too good and in many cases it's not an outdated tactic at all up to a certain level of play.
There was no chance Muster would beat Pete on that surface. Clay, yes.
Pete Sampras has beaten Muster on clay
@@valsammajoseph421 Muster won on carpet against Sampras 95
@@robertbarkovicz800 He has beaten Muster in FO 91
@@valsammajoseph421 What's your point? That was never in question. Sampras was the better player by far. But the OP statet, that Muster has never beaten Pete on that surface, which is wrong.
You keep posting this same stupid comment.
The best voley
is there video of this in HD ?
Yes they still serve and Volley look at Australian Open Federer vs Nadal 2017
So hot, all Sampras thought about was cold Coca Cola.
Sampras... still the best serve!
his second serve at this video was like 140-150.and Isner has 180
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 Not saying he had the fastest serve. But a better 2nd serve. He had amazing placement, and the confidence to go for big second serves on big points. Watch his match against Agassi in the 2002 us open final. Agassi was one of the best returners in the game, and Sampras hit about as many second serve aces as first serve aces. He was in the zone.
@@SquidDesign here in this video i cant see any great 2 services.Pete started to serve that fast(like 105 mph) with second serve only in second half of 1998.he had the best serve for his time.But now players like Karlovic,Isner,Kyrgius,Raonic are serving better.Dont forget,that in 2002 there were much faster courts.at australian open he had crazy second serve 2.
And he made a lot of double faults in this match.
Of course i saw this match many times.in general was tennis much more exciting.
i recorded this match and saw only at next day.and i dont allow my friend to say the result of match.
i wanted that Aggassi win. :)
Now he have may be 2 or 3 exciting matches every year.
🏸🔥💪PETE SAMPRAS THE GREATEST SERVER OF ALL TIME🥇⭐️🎾
Muster had a great forehand and an effective one handed backhand. Kingdom of a yesteryear Nadal Sampras made him look ordinary though. Outrallied him and had the first option if coming in and volleying.
Sponser was Ford..! I am Kia generation :)
Ça claque bien la balle...
Muster couldnt flatten his ground strokes when needed....he hardly hit an ace...his game was made for clay courts....he could have won many points in this match if he had the ability to hit the ball on the rise ala agassi..
Hi are you able to upload the Hopman cup 2018 fed vs Japan 1st round please
Don't have it sorry!
do you happen to have nbc coverage of either petes Wimbledon final with goran in 98 or with rafter in 00?
Yeah, Natf, that`s the problem if you do such a great upload: People think you can upload everything...
that courst is so fast
Both have contributed equally. Also, coaches teach kids how to hit extreme grips with massive raqcuets, so no-one serves & volleys anymore. Look at Thiem and A. Zverev - they never serve volley.
the way the players strike the balls (different technique).
Hi, see my reply at top.
@@AlonsoRules but sometimes you can play serve and volley as surprise.
so like 5,6 times every set
Sampras forever
peak Pete
Sampras great champion but i dont miss his style, i didn't like it. I miss Becker, Edberg, Mc Enroe, and also Muster. Greetings from Rome Italy
Pete should have won 2 more AOs. Just underperformed.
Don't know why he did not win more. He should have beaten Agassi in the 2000 semi. He blew that 4 set tie breaker. If he beats Agassi in that match, he plays Kafelnikov who he owned on hard.
@@mrbobevans didn't care about the AO as much as Wimbledon or the USO I think. Pete's game became pretty formulaic after the 1997 season save for a brief period in the second half of 1999. To me, this is down to physical decline but more so Annacones net rushing philosophy. I often wonder how much more Pete would have won if Gullikson was around.
The one he probably would have won or should have,was the 1999 Us Open,he was playing incredibly that summer,just super,to bad he got injured right before the tournament.
Pete’s yearly schedule always finished very late in the season towards the tail of the year when he was playing in every masters and winning most of them . So the AO being played in January wasn’t easy for him when you ad the travel , the extreme heat and short breaks he would have had to prepare .
He mentions somewhere in a interview on UA-cam that he always found the AO a grind and a bit uncomfortable.
The plan with Pete was to always make sure he was at a peak and fresh for Wimbledon and The U.S Open .
@@stealthcat100 Every player did that after late 80s travelling to Australia to play Australian Open. It has been a fully fielded slam since the late 80s.
Aglo commenting like that,about a great player of all time like Sampras,is how much the game is under the snobish arrogant aglo influence.If it was a guy of their own, even a fugget or criple or ugly ,it will be God.
Sampras certainly better and stronger tennis player than Muster, but not on clay... Sampras was an explosive player, but he needed to close the point quickly. In long rallies, he generally lost the point.
It would've been a different story if they were playing on clay
Not really , Sampras had beaten him on clay . Actually beat every single French open winner on clay at some point
@@stealthcat100 if it were mid 90s FO final my money would be on Muster
So what? How about grass?
3＋(e)！
(＝Sampras is so cool！)
👍️👍️👍️👍️👍️👍️👍️ 😊
Yes... Pistol Pete brought him to grave like a Gentleman... allways as he would have a Chance.
But Thomas not really was an opponent to him .
Just another sparring partner. ⁸
Different story on clay tho.
Sampras would have whitewashed Joker Federer
Valsamma Joseph how can you say that when 19 year old Federer beat him Moron
Federer beat Sampras towards the end of Sampras's career. Young Nadal, not yet 19, beat Federer at their first meeting, when Federer was at the peak of his powers. And why do you feel the need to call someone moron, because you don't like their opinion? Grow up!
@@michelez715 Sampras was recovering from surgery, and not fully fit.
Lucky day for Federer.
Big 3 are way superior than Sampras ever was. Winning all 4 slams , winning way more slams despite playing against each other. Sampras era was weak especially after Lendl, Edberg & Courier declined in 1993, Agassi lacks consistency outside of 1993/94. Big 3 at their peak were literally won 90% of their matches something Sampras never achieved in his whole career.
СЛАВА РОССИИ1 И ПИТ САМПРАСУ2
Watching this makes me think nadal would have easily defeated Sampras in a singles match.Its just muster was not as effective as nadal is.
No way. Not on a hard court with Sampras using today's equipment.
Crosscourt loopy forehand against Pete single handed backhand all day long. Ugly but very effective.
… as he would’ve beaten every player from that era or earlier. It’s not just Sampras. Nadal was a major evolution in athleticism.
If he worked on his fitness like Agassi, Pete could have won in Paris.