Just went to an ATP 250 and while we were all excited to attend, matches were quickly tedious, about four exciting points and a grand total of two or three volleys per match. I’d rather watch this
I know that Sampras was the better player overall but every time l watch one of these matches from the past where l don't recall who won it's Edberg who came out on top. Edberg was a fantastic athlete and a class act.
@@AA-le9ls Tennis is a tough sport you have to allow for a little bit of emotion. Edberg never went over the line. Sampras was almost robotic. The people who should never win a sportsmanship award would be players like, Nastase, Kygrios, Connors, and McEnroe who all were at one time or another bad actors.
Watching this match , two things came to light - Edberg was at his all round best from the early to mid nineties ; and Sampras had the best serve , near best volleys & fiercest forhand / single handed back hand of any player during his era Both would have kicked ass against ANY current player
Watching these two play tennis is like watching a ballet performance. They are so fluid in their movement and game. Unlike today's tennis it gets pretty boring very quickly.
Furthermore tennis has been RIGGED to slooooooow every surface down for her. She could NEVER win on this FAST NORMAL hardcourt your watching Pete & Stefan on right here. Sampras at 50 , right now could beat Novack in Newport at the HOF tourney in RI , Right now, as its the ONLY venue that has NOT slooooowed down one bit. on REAL GRASS i dont think he could make the 2nd week ever
@@johnbisazza7970that’s a myth on not even true. Tennis abstract has done some fantastic articles on the subject. If Agassi could win a Wimbledon and consistently go deep, Novak would have absolutely no problems. Hes won a combined 24 titles at ATP finals, Shanghai, Miami and Paris indoors. The 2023 atp finals were CPI rated 45+, which officially classes as “fast courts.” The slowing the courts argument isn’t even supported by any data. Wimbledon slowed down in 2001 when they changed the surface to 100% rye, but that’s it. Nadal (who has won 0 tournaments in those mentioned above where Novak has 24) is the one who struggles on fast courts, not Novak. Players just weren’t as skilled back then which is why you could be one dimensional and win Wimbledon. The serve and volley as a main tactic would not be effective today because the return of serve and passing shots are far too powerful.
@@johnbisazza7970 Djoko would beat prime Pete on any hard court or any grass court regardless of speed. Serve and volley would never work against a returner like Djoko with modern racquets. His baseline game would send Sampras to the shadow realm. If Pete was losing to Hewitt how do you think he could fair against Nole.. Even this Newport you speak of, who won the last tournament there? Mannarino lol. Serve and volley is dead. They could bring back carpet and it still wouldn’t be the main tactic
For those who like serve and volley, go watch Jl struff, only player on the tour who still does it. Almost beat alcaraz at Madrid, and is pretty fun, although not on the level of those guys
Check out the 1:44:15 mark when he got broken in the second. Literally no warning from the ump. I'm surprised he didn't hit someone. Slammed it right in Edberg's walking path too.
It's funny reading all these comments about todays tennis being boring and only baseline play. Many people seem to forget that 30 years ago there was a lot of debate about there being no longer rallies and it was all about hitting service-aces. That's why they changed the courts and the tennisballs, remember? I do agree. Tennis back then was more varied ,and exciting, compared to today.
I used to play with a pinoy guy who modeled his game like Edberg. He's probably a 4.0 player. And one of my close friend model his game like Becker. He's pretty good. He's probably playing like a 5.0. I just play with heavy topspin off both wings. My backhand is probably stronger because I practiced with a lot of lefthanders. I probably played a 5.5 or a bit higher. I love tennis until age and injuries creep in and couldn't play anymore. I can probably play old man tennis but I just didn't enjoy the slow pace and lost interest all together. I golf nowadays.
Edberg's serve and volley game was very effective at that time. But it all changed as guys like Agassi and Courier came with their excellent returns and baseline play. Sampras had an excellent serve in addition to good baseline play. Today, Edberg's style is almost non-existent. An excellent return almost always nullifies serve and volley game.
Edberg did not develop his forehand and serve. otherwise he would not fade in 93. After 1st serve you can play serve and volley even now: see Djokovic and Alcaraz. if they play serve and volley after 1st serve, they win almost all points.
...this tennisgods are too perfekt in their 1st&2nd aktions, that this game, is one of the most skilled, but also most boring matchups ever...sry 2 point out...;/
It wasn’t a stunning loss in the 1992 U.S. Open final. EdBerg was the number one seed and defending champion. And up to that point he had a very good record against Sampras.
Phenomenal tennis. Just pure skills, finesse and experience. No endless pointless rallies and neverending towel and toilet breaks.
These guys play beautiful tennis. Thanks for sharing this with the fans!
No crying or yelling around like in todays tennis... pure Serve and volley
Baseline is more entertaining to me honestly but yeah this was great
Just went to an ATP 250 and while we were all excited to attend, matches were quickly tedious, about four exciting points and a grand total of two or three volleys per match. I’d rather watch this
No commentators, no skip overs, so nice!
Thank you so much!
THIS Is THE TENNIS
Thank you very much.
The true Tennis, fast and with S&V 😍❤ Not the one today played on same and ridiculous slow courts...
Sampras: best service ever; Edberg: best player at the net ever.
I'm afraid we'll never see tennis like this anymore
that's the sad truth
PISTOL PETE had the BEST SECOND SERVE in tennis history!
Who had the best for you
I know that Sampras was the better player overall but every time l watch one of these matches from the past where l don't recall who won it's Edberg who came out on top.
Edberg was a fantastic athlete and a class act.
Sampras seems more like a class act since he screams less after winning points.
@@AA-le9ls What's interesting is that Edberg won alot of the sportsmanship awards.
@@gregoryphillips3969 Another Swedish player, Borg, should have won those awards instead since he never screamed or even clenched his fist.
@@AA-le9ls Tennis is a tough sport you have to allow for a little bit of emotion. Edberg never went over the line. Sampras was almost robotic. The people who should never win a sportsmanship award would be players like, Nastase, Kygrios, Connors, and McEnroe who all were at one time or another bad actors.
Serena was also often a poor sport. Her accomplishments speak for themselves but her sportsmanship was often bad.
I played Stefan Edberg in 2017, and he is still a very good player. I won the game 6-4, 6-4, but I was top 500 player that year and only 19 years old
Yes,
I liked the third set tiebreak.
Edberg’s career was fading, but I got to enjoy some cliches, like this.
il grande tennis di una volta che non esiste più...!
Watching this match , two things came to light - Edberg was at his all round best from the early to mid nineties ; and Sampras had the best serve , near best volleys & fiercest forhand / single handed back hand of any player during his era
Both would have kicked ass against ANY current player
Edberg's backhand and his backhand volley were the best of that era.
Terrific stuff!
Watching these two play tennis is like watching a ballet performance. They are so fluid in their movement and game. Unlike today's tennis it gets pretty boring very quickly.
Tennis was sooooo much better to watch back then …. Now days is just so boring….!!! Bring back serve and volley please….!!!!
So clearly true. Watching Miss Djokivic hold a 4 hour backhand drill is TORTURE. I respect his DEFENSIVE abilitys but dont tell me its entertainment
Furthermore tennis has been RIGGED to slooooooow every surface down for her. She could NEVER win on this FAST NORMAL hardcourt your watching Pete & Stefan on right here. Sampras at 50 , right now could beat Novack in Newport at the HOF tourney in RI , Right now, as its the ONLY venue that has NOT slooooowed down one bit. on REAL GRASS i dont think he could make the 2nd week ever
@@johnbisazza7970that’s a myth on not even true. Tennis abstract has done some fantastic articles on the subject. If Agassi could win a Wimbledon and consistently go deep, Novak would have absolutely no problems. Hes won a combined 24 titles at ATP finals, Shanghai, Miami and Paris indoors. The 2023 atp finals were CPI rated 45+, which officially classes as “fast courts.” The slowing the courts argument isn’t even supported by any data. Wimbledon slowed down in 2001 when they changed the surface to 100% rye, but that’s it. Nadal (who has won 0 tournaments in those mentioned above where Novak has 24) is the one who struggles on fast courts, not Novak.
Players just weren’t as skilled back then which is why you could be one dimensional and win Wimbledon. The serve and volley as a main tactic would not be effective today because the return of serve and passing shots are far too powerful.
@@johnbisazza7970
Djoko would beat prime Pete on any hard court or any grass court regardless of speed. Serve and volley would never work against a returner like Djoko with modern racquets. His baseline game would send Sampras to the shadow realm. If Pete was losing to Hewitt how do you think he could fair against Nole.. Even this Newport you speak of, who won the last tournament there? Mannarino lol. Serve and volley is dead. They could bring back carpet and it still wouldn’t be the main tactic
For those who like serve and volley, go watch Jl struff, only player on the tour who still does it. Almost beat alcaraz at Madrid, and is pretty fun, although not on the level of those guys
The late great Rudi Berger umpiring.
Check out the 1:44:15 mark when he got broken in the second. Literally no warning from the ump. I'm surprised he didn't hit someone. Slammed it right in Edberg's walking path too.
the most unprofessional thing I have seen sampras do. I suppose we can say that he has enough control that it did not draw any concern
You dont see much of this type of net play in todays tennis. Mostly just serve and base line play until someone is out of position.
Alcaraz and Djokovic have very solid volleys : this players won 7 Grand Slams in last 2.5 years
Surprised to hear foot fault called on Edberg’s first service game. Line call judges were on their game!
It's funny reading all these comments about todays tennis being boring and only baseline play.
Many people seem to forget that 30 years ago there was a lot of debate about there being no longer rallies and it was all about hitting service-aces.
That's why they changed the courts and the tennisballs, remember?
I do agree. Tennis back then was more varied ,and exciting, compared to today.
Awesome! Best backhand volley ever (Edberg). Sampras best server ever.
19:05 insane 2nd serve
This tennis blows away modern tennis.
I think it's rare to see Sampras' 1st serve % going in 30s for more than 1 set, no?
What a dream.
I used to play with a pinoy guy who modeled his game like Edberg. He's probably a 4.0 player. And one of my close friend model his game like Becker. He's pretty good. He's probably playing like a 5.0. I just play with heavy topspin off both wings. My backhand is probably stronger because I practiced with a lot of lefthanders. I probably played a 5.5 or a bit higher. I love tennis until age and injuries creep in and couldn't play anymore. I can probably play old man tennis but I just didn't enjoy the slow pace and lost interest all together. I golf nowadays.
The era of fast reflexes and precision!
Old tennis quite boring only serve and volley 😂, this era is much better than previous
Great tennis without any superstitious constant wedgie pulling.
Serve and volley....you hardly see that any more.
Видно было с самого начала, что это договорной
Man, whomever was working the camera was God awful.....
Edberg's serve and volley game was very effective at that time. But it all changed as guys like Agassi and Courier came with their excellent returns and baseline play. Sampras had an excellent serve in addition to good baseline play. Today, Edberg's style is almost non-existent. An excellent return almost always nullifies serve and volley game.
Edberg did not develop his forehand and serve. otherwise he would not fade in 93. After 1st serve you can play serve and volley even now: see Djokovic and Alcaraz. if they play serve and volley after 1st serve, they win almost all points.
Pistol Pete!!!!!!
...this tennisgods are too perfekt in their 1st&2nd aktions, that this game, is one of the most skilled, but also most boring matchups ever...sry 2 point out...;/
Who won 7 wimbledon
Novak
There's your answer
Sampras revenge after his stunning loss in d final of 1992 Open.
How is this a revenge when he lost again?
@@SonateSonateDoh
Infact revenge wud hav been a after this match...this match happened in 1993..and us open 1992 infact Edberg had defeated Sampras 😊
It wasn’t a stunning loss in the 1992 U.S. Open final. EdBerg was the number one seed and defending champion. And up to that point he had a very good record against Sampras.
???? He lost this very close match , and another at the US open to Edberg