Pete Sampras vs Sergi Bruguera 1996 Roland Garros R2 Highlights
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Pete Sampras vs Sergi Bruguera 1996 Roland Garros 2nd round Highlights. If u like my HL's please consider making a donation to my paypal www.paypal.me/... really grateful for whatever you can give during these covid hit times.
Sampras best player to watch. Pure class. No bully, simply tennis. No screaming and acting.
I prefer Roger. But yes, what you say is true for both.
he always does WTA handshakes
Pete had the most beautiful yet the most aggresive and attacking game ever.❤️❤️❤️
1st & 2nd set = 1 hour of pure Aussie 60's style from Sampras vs a double FO champion
So classic technic, 2 strokes max to finish the point, most of the time to the net or with his 100 % flat forehand, a true dream style of play
Sampras's best run at the French open by far. Beating the likes of Courier and Bruguera on clay in other years might have given him the title, but it left him exhausted. I'm not sure many people expected him to beat Bruguera here on clay - Bruguera also being one of the players who had a winning head to head against him.
Yes that was one brutal draw. He might have won it otherwise. Won the Italian that year too
He was not exhausted Kafelnikov was superior on clay that's it
Best result at the French open getting bagelled by Kafelnikov in the semi ...
@@edwinivanrodriguez3769oh for god's sake grow up. Sampras best Kafelnikov twice on clay. Sampras's stamina was always slightly questionable because of the anaemia he suffered from, and his lack of energy was much commented on in the semi final. He had nothing left in the tank. Kafelnikov may well have won easily or not. That doesn't change the fact that Sampras had run out of energy.
@@zeddekaIf he was exhausted, it was his fault. Sampras knows it best, you need to be exceptionally fit to win a Slam. Especially on clay. Being exhausted is not an excuse for anything.
Sampras, quel beau champion!
his volley was so beautiful！ even on clay court
What a forehand
Pete has never won the french open, but he beat both Bruguera & Courier (double champion each) in 5 sets. In these conditions, dry & very sunny, he could beat anybody by serving and volleying this way. At his best, his game was a delight to watch. We would need more Pete on the 2022 ATP tour...
His poor conditioning and archaic overly-serve reliant style of play was forced into extinction by the very next generation who immediately eclipsed him and completley erased him from any GOAT conversation.
He would have lost to Rafa in 3 sets
@@niceguy1774 It was forced into extinction by the slowing of the courts and balls, not to mention the advanced technology of the rackets and especially strings. Forget to mention that?
@@blake7871 I guess "advanced racket and strung tech" don't help the serve.
@@niceguy1774 Serves got faster, but with slower balls and surfaces, it became less of a weapon. Did you really not know any of this?
Sampras in 96 was virtually unbeatable. This is a moral victory for the grasscourt stud. The dirt was never in the cards for him.
Richard Krijack beat in Sampras in Wimbleon 1996
Funny thing to say he was unbeatable about exactly that one year he didnt win wimbledon*lol
Pete sampras, asi como era invencible cuando realmente se lo proponia, de igual manera regalaba los partidos y no luchaba, cuando su mente se negaba, esa es la verdad, no es justificacion para sampras, lo que se ve no se juzga ni se niega
Sampras very impressive here on clay..Not winning RG that year only proves how difficult opposition was in those years and how great he was winning other slams!
it was a very dry dry year , that year in Paris, which favored petes attacking game , still, after 26 years, hard to believe he beat a 2 time champ there.
A packed stadium for a 2nd round is impressive...people probably knew Pete could go out at any point at RG.
Not just that..Bruguera vs Sampras is a must to be seen on clay in any round
21:25 Pete Sampras at his best here. You can see why Roger Federer looked up to Pete growing up.
The crosscourt backhand pass the highlighted point before it was a thing of beauty
But still he played well on clay courts !!!
The fact that Pete Sampras - a serve-&-volley specialist who had a clay-court record of 90-54 (62.5%) and significantly his weakest surface - was abe to beat a two-time Roland Garros champion Brugeura in *_five sets_* (e.g. to eliminate the possibility that Bruguera had an off-day and lost in straight-sets) really shows you how good Sampras and how strong that era was.
Weather conditions helped him A LOT that year. And 1996 was Brugera's worst season in years.
Pete had a great tournament but he arrived in the semifinals absolutely exhausted and against Kafelnikov he only lasted one set competitively. By the way, this was a great match between two of my favorite players with totally opposite styles.❤️
2:10 wow
Sampras was a true gentleman on court. See his shorts here. He would not even bother the other player's momentum by taking a bathroom break. He just goes on court not worrying how it looked with his shorts and all.
I think Sampras was the best ever. Unfashionable, I know.
That is not only unfashionable, its 100% completely unreasonable to say. It makes no sense.
You can see the exhaustion on Pete's face here. Wonder how much thalassemia kept him from winning the french vs his style of play
If Pete Sampras would serve 1st Service close to 70% , he would give only 1 break point (worst case 2 break point) in the entire match.
Pete Sampras service was accurate in later part of set.
Prime Sampras would have stopped Federer, Djokovic & Nadal to less than 8 Grand slams like he did to Courier, Agassi, Becker etc.
True for 90s conditions. In any other nearby decade before or since, he'd have struggled to dominate those 3
I tell people this all the time and they think I'm crazy. Pete could play at a level that was incomprehensible to most people today. No doubt Pete would blow away most of today's players on the faster surfaces. He was also one of the great movers on the court and doesn't get much credit for that because of how dominating his serve and forehand was.
Samprass best player ever. So simlple and attac tennis. Serv and volley.
The funny thing is that If Roger had Pete's serve, he probably doesn't become such a pigeon to Nadal. Federer had better ground game than Pete but he didn't have a serve ( his serve was still great) that could give him automatic free points.
It wasn't just Sampras' serve. In my opinion one of the reasons he never beat Nadal at Roland Garros was that he tried to beat Nadal from the baseline especially reloading from the left side, he rarely served and volleyed (probably because he never developed that skill to the level of Sampras himself) and when he did so he expected the worst possible result, i.e. a winning pass shot from Nadal. Besides he didn't have that sense of anticipation the return of the serve with the so-called chip and charge like a Rafter and Edberg.
Why didn't he play like this against Kafelnikov ?
He was spent physically by then .
Totally agree. He was exhausted by his French open marathon : Bruguera (2 times RG champion), Martin, Draper, Courier (another 2 times RG champ), all in the row, most of them in 5 sets battles. Great champ here, one of the best... and a moral victory for him that year
Unfortunately pete couldnt win french open 🤔
It was more difficult to win all 4 GS then..fast courts were even faster and slow even slower..it was difficult to make transition so easily with a bunch of players specialized for certain courts..Agassi was bit lucky to win that one RG in 99.
@@dinomijatovic3921 Agassi should have lost FO in 99. He dropped the first 2 sets in the final, and then his opponet choked. Agassi lost 2 other titles were he was heavily favored. Pete was simply not a natural clay court player. In his era, the most effective players were clay court "specialists". European players who grew up on the surface. In that regard, the game hasnt changed much. The courts appeared "faster "back in the day due to the era of big servers ( goran, sampras, becker, etc) , and appear "slower" due to the modern baseline game.
@@dinomijatovic3921 However, give Agassi credit: he defeated 98 champ Moya en route
@@iggypopisgod9 True..I know he had tough draw and serious opponents, I ment he was only a bit lucky overall in that tournament, I didnt mean to offend anyone nor diminish his success..
Huge win for pistol pete
21:25 :-)
He could’ve won this tournament with a different racquet
10年以上前のラケットを使わずに最新の使えよ おそらく フレンチオープン 取れてる
Pete’s craziness on clay means he could never be in GOAT debate. He was too impatient and didn’t adapt his game. But nice to see he could occasionally pull off an upset.
He was actually the 4th best clay courter during the majority of the 90s , he had also beaten every single FO open champion at the time on clay . His clay court overall record was impressive . His trouble was RG
@@stealthcat100 how did you arrive at this "4th best" number, and which years are you counting as "majority of the 90's"?
Don't let me find more than 3 guys with multiple titles on clay that he doesn't have during that span...
@@niceguy1774
It's his clay court record of win losses , think it spans from 90 - 98 you'll see it in a big thread about Sampras on a big tennis forum discussion from "tennis wharehouse forum"
Thread is called "a quick look at Sampras clay court record " . It comes up in Google if you type that . I'll paste an extract from it with numbers
Quote
"I did a quick search on the web for some tennis stats, and I found something surprising. Between 1990-1998, Sampras had a "fairly" strong clay-court record. His clay-court record, (62-24), during that period was the 4th best.
Only Muster (277-69), Bruguera (205-65), and Courier (74-25) managed to do better. You will notice that Pete's record on clay is overall superior to Agassi!!"
Gotta understand , he has beaten every French Open winner on clay barring I think Moya I think . And that was a period where real specialist clay courters played . He has wins over pretty much all . Has an Italian open win and the record speaks for itself frankly . Now , the paradox here is the French Open , he beat brugera at the French , he beat courier at the French , but he couldn't put two weeks together .
People need to seperate his clay court ability which the numbers and wins show , to how he failed to win a french . A two week 5 set tournament on clay which had more go do with fitness and Ramona than his actual ability , not an excuse but he suffered from a blood condition and if you watch all his deep french open runs , you'll see he was cooked at the end , especially semi against Kafelnikov . He was cooked even in the win against courier prior to that . So there's more to it than meats the eye with the clay thing with Pete
His greatest clay court win was probably on the slowest court ever in Russia against Kafelnikov in the Davis cup .
@@stealthcat100 Ah, now I see how someone arrived at that statement.
I'll try to see how many years his clay court record was top 6 from 90-98.
@@stealthcat100He never even reached a single FO Final in his entire career, your statement is beyond ridiculous.
Sampras was one of the most skilled, but poorly conditioned Champions in all of sport.
in this video he beat a 2 time RG champion in a five set claycourt match. and he won another 2 5-seters in this RG.
@@holymackenaw Yes?
All 3 things can be true.
@@niceguy1774 surely more than 1 thing can be true. and there are middleground and not only extremes. i disagree with your wording. Pete wasnt poorly conditioned. he wasnt a freak like Nadal or Muster but he was well prepared and fit. i give you he wasnt on the same level conditioningwise as talentwise, but for sure not poorly conditioned.
Sampras style is not suitable for the slow court so he couldn't get the title at RG.
yes.and if you cant play great on slow courts,you cant be GOAT
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 but he is say hello to sampras 6 straight years as year end #1 and the only man who has a winning h2h against all his rivals.
Wasn’t his style , people don’t know this but Sampras was actually the 4th best clay courter for the majority of the 90s on clay . Only Brugera , Muster and Courier had more wins on clay . Two of these players were specialised clay courters and only clay courters .
He had also beaten every French open champion at the time on clay . So , not his style that was the issue if your record is that good on a surface . Issue with RG was more a physical stamina thing for him . 2 weeks , best of 5 , just couldn’t put together physically . You watch him against kavelnikov after playing 5 sets twice , you can see his a wreck , a shadow of himself .
@@stealthcat100 4th best clay courter?
@@lorenzomarchi6635
? Yes , he had 4th most wins on clay in that era. 90-98 . 62-24 win loss, in 3rd was courier 75 wins , then big gaps to brugera and muster . Italian open winner in 94, and had beaten every single french open winner on clay too apart from Moya I believe . So a lot of people don't know this but he was a good clay courter, as you can see the numbers don't lie and are on record . He struggled in the 5 set format FO , but overall he was a good clay courter.
That back hand of samras was super weak on clay ... even i could beat him on that day
Sure .. as well as your grandmother. Don't be that silly. you are just a guy in your couch...
watch your mouth
@@ampiciline You too... Sampras has nothing to prove.. what is the big thing that you did in life apart from posting a silly comment on youtube ?
His backhand was better then what l thought it was
Unfortunately Sampras' one-handed backhand was not as consistent on clay as it was clearly very solid and lethal on fast surfaces such as hard court, grass court and carpet court.
Para mim foi uma delícia ver Pete Sampras jogar. Puro talento e classe. Juntamente com Stefan Edberg e Roger Federer, foram os jogadores mais talentosos e que melhor jogaram num court de tênis. É claro que depois vêem os resultadistas a dizer que o melhor é o que tem mais grand slams e isto e mais aquilo. Mas eu prefiro ver um grande jogador e que tenha classe pura a um que jogue com potência e físico. Hoje em dia os jogadores á parte de 2 ou 3 não têm jogo de rede e passam a vida a correr de um lado para o outro no court. Não há criatividade. Essa é que é a verdade. Jogam com o fisico e pouco mais.