Just shows you how great Pete's serve was. He is completely overmatched by a much younger, Prime Federer off the ground. His serve still made this competitive and close. Not too many people could ace Fed without him reacting to it. The greatest serve of all time.
He was 5 years out of retirement when this happened, I wouldn't call 37 as a Athlete not prime anymore considering the avg number 1 Athlete for all sports combined is 35.7 vs 30 in 2008. Shows how good Sampras could have been if the exercise science was as good as it was now.
I couldn't agree with you more pete had retired 6 years prior and keeping up with the Peak Federer, just goes to show you how great Sampras was and in Petes peak 95-96 it would have been a diffrent outcome.
Federer was going easy though. Pete was double broken by Hewitt and Safin like 6-2 sets. S&V game is old, Federer's generation of players had all the answers. Blocked slice return or short return through the net then drill a top spin passing shot.
@@Anticommunism99 for me Sampras is the best in fast courts and Federer 2st... the most effective player in Grand Slam finals remains - and clearly so - Pete Sampras: 14 Grand Slam titles and only 3 finals lost, a total of 77.8% that no one even comes close to… he could easily have won at least another 2-3 gs's titles if he wanted to keep playing, Sampra was clutch, the player with prefect weapons for a fast court
Dude, I never saw this match and I identify so much with what you said.. I cant believe this was a serve of 37 year Sampras with 5 years after his retirement. WHAT A MONSTER, WHAT A SERVE AND DRIVE...and his net game... AMAZING
Yeah you just wonder how many more slams he could’ve won if he hadn’t retired, he would’ve had some competition Federer, Nadal and Djokovic but I still think you could’ve won a couple more slams.
Sampras may be the goat with all respect to the big3 baseliners and their continued morivation. He could destroy all of them because of his physical characteristics and game characteristics. Meaning in good form, which practically ended in end of 2008 or start of 1999 when he stopped training for champion ans consciously reduced training to put other stuff in his life and eventually retire . Sampras got bored after 6 years no1 , jn his good form Agassi was not really competitive on 3 out of 4 surfaces.
Watching this again a decade later - still one of the best display of high intensity tennis. Makes you wonder how a prime Sampras would have fared against Federer. Federer won Wimbledon and Australian Open when he was 36. Sampras was 36 when this match happened. Sampras retired early at age 32.
Federer was 37 and Sampras was 37 in this Match. And Nadal was 36 and Athletes are going much longer now. Shows Sampras 5 years out of the game and how good he was. As an exercise scientist Federer is not at an age I would call peak now as it's still a developing age. 30's in Tennis has been peak for awhile but it depends on the Athlete. If Sampras had everything we know now he would have won this match easily. And 10 years these days isn't much younger in sports. 20 years is and it happens all the time.
Sports science has taken a giant leap forward with age - this is evident with Messi, Ronaldo, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc... late 20s used to be the twilight years with very few exceptions at the top level. Sampras didn't really retire early, performance wise. He had become quite an easy beat on the circuit and would suddenly bloom once a year at the US open.
Both Sampras and Federer didn't retire due to outright physical problems, they retire due to the game becoming too defensive as their strategy started fading. Both would have made a comeback if their strategies are still working well. Federer did not want to play defense at age 40.
Pete's serve still a thing of beauty. What a guy to try to serve and volley against though, Pete's forehand looked better then I remember when he was world number one. Enjoyed this one.
@@romangargiulo8350 Yes - for one of the all-time greats (surely in the top 5 or 10), his (career) return of serve stats are poor. Novak, Roger, Rafa, Andy are in the top-10 depending on surface. Pete's around the 60-70 mark.
@danguee1 I don't think that's fair. The only area where he struggled slightly was on very high, heavily spun backhands. That's why his clay court record was a lot weaker. On other surfaces of course his opponents would go to the backhand consistently, but it was usually too good for them all agassi, courier, becker
Only if somehow Federer was able to teleport 10 years earlier to a prime Sampras.......we can only imagine how both of them, in their primes, would've stood against each other. When eras clash!! 😮
The sequence starting at about 6:33 was ridiculous. Pete hits a monster serve and should reasonably expect to hit an attacking volley. Instead, Fed rips a return at his feet. The greatness of Sampras shows here as he quickly adjusts and still manages to hit an attacking volley with INSIDE-OUT slice that leaves the spinning away from Federer. And Fed, who had to step to his left in the ad court to hit the return, still manages to run down that great volley in time to bend a forehand pass down the line. I saw this live and could not freaking believe that sequence. Imagine the points these 2 could have played if their primes overlapped?
what a match by sampras to come back and play against the peak fedex of 2007 hats off... i m a RF fan but wanted pete to win this he is legend great to see legends prevail... well plyd RF...
To all of you out there who keep saying that serve and volley is the worst type of tennis you can play; ever heard of Feliciano Lopez? The guys is 17th in the world, and serves and volleys the heck out of his opponents. It all comes down to how well executed the tactic is.
To understand which Power Sampras had, watch the ATP Final Sampras vs Becker 1996.This Sampras was actually unbeatable for sure and Boris played his best Hard Court Tennis in his Life.Two Master Class Player in that Match.
Both in their exhibition matches and during their 2001 Wimbledon match, Fed returned Pete’s serve better than Agassi ever could. That extra wingspan really helps. Also, Agassi did not have a good slice return like Roger. Agassi tried to bludgeon the ball on all his returns, which would often pop the ball up for Sampras to easily volley. But Roger did a great job slicing the return and keeping it low.
Federer clearly moved faster on the court than Sampras but that was expected. Sampras in his prime, was deceptively quick as well. It would have been a treat to watch both of these players in a head-to-head in their 20s.
When Pete retired at 32 he was arguably the greatest male player of all time. Then his accomplishments got steamrolled by the Big Three, leaving his reputation in an odd sort of limbo. No one now mentions him as the GOAT. At least we can say that he was the dominant player of the decade of the 1990s, worldwide, as well as probably the greatest American player ever, alongside Helen Wills Moody and Serena Williams.
Sampras was unbeaten in finals at Wimbledon, which means if his game was on then he would always win the final there. if fed, nadal, djoko, samprass were all the same age, Sampras would have the most wimbledon titles among those guys. Fed 2nd most at wimbledon. Nadal of course would dominate on clay. US open and australian, it'd be djoko and sampras with the most championships there. and if all these were playing at their prime, Fed, nadal and djoko would all have some wins on their least favorite surfaces. However, sampras wouldn't have any at the French. The reason sampras so good on grass and hardcourts is because he never tried to alter his play style or strategy to win the French. In this hypothetical scenario, the GOATs would be rated like this: 1. djoko and sampras tied for most major titles, djoko gets credit for titles on all surfaces, BUT sampras most titles at wimbledon and us open. . 2nd best is nadal, with the most wins at a single major tournament, the french. fed would have a good record at all the tournaments, but on this list of greats, he is the 4th best player.
@@johncraftenworth7847lol what a bunch of crap. If Sampras played on the current era he's winning like 2 slams due to injury to the big3.. You see how shit his backhand is? Even worse than federer. Nadal would make his backhand look like tissue paper. Same with djokovic . Also his forehand technique is pathetic . He's player of the past . He would be looked as a plumber 10 years from now
I'd mention him and Agassi as the goats because even McEnroe mentions that they slowed down the courts and balls right in this video, AND players hit much much flatter shots without top spin, Sampras forehand was 100mph.
El slice de federer ,en toda su carrera,es el mejor de la historia,lo a salvado,aveces lo usa agresivamente,y bueno sampras,una derecha fulminante,sin duda los 2 mejores de la historia del tenis universal
so what ? sampras is not ridiculous on this match, but federer's generation brought greatest athletes as nadal , djokovic, and roger himself ! they also are more complete and powerful , but sampras at his great time would have beat anyone on grass even a great federer or djokovic
Sampras got tired. But overall was pretty good for 9 years after stopping serious trainjng and 6 after retirement (he stopped trainjng 3 years before retirement with the exception of one month for his farewell tournament, he wanted a proper way to announce)
Pete's approaches to the net were on the back of some very easy shots to return. If you are coming to the net you at least need to make the approach shot a potential winner to to make the return extremely difficult and more likely to be in the sweet spot to put it away.
Io penso che Federer ha potuto raggiungere i livelli tennistici superlativi che poi ha raggiunto con la sua tecnica perchè ha studiato i movimenti e gli schemi di gioco dei giocatori come Sampras ed altri del passato ma nessuno potrà mai dire a parità di anni chi fosse veramente il più forte anche sè ritengo che qualora i due giocatori fossero stati contemporanei sarebbe stata un grandissima lotta al ultimo colpo in ogni partita perchè giocatori della generazione di Sampras Agassi... avrebbero trovato le motivazioni e gli stimoli per migliorarsi ed equipararsi come livello di gioco con metodi di allenamento differenti da quelli di allora che già erano di altissimo livello questo ovviamente tenendo conto anche di altri grandissimi campioni del epoca di Federer come Nadal Djokovic Murray... tutto questo ragionamento lo faccio perchè ritengo che da allora sia cambiata solo la violenza con cui si picchia la palla mentre il livello di tecnica penso che sia rimasto pressochè tale come spettacolarità dei colpi nelle partite.
hats off to federer too for even doing this. Great match and with the chance of making a fool out of himself- very little to gain from him other than entertaining fans.
I always got the feeling watching this that Federer was a little annoyed Sampras would not put on a show for the crowd - Sampras really wanted to win. This made it tough for Federer as if he got too serious and embarrassed Pete, he gets a bad press for it. In the 2nd set Federer was setting up the ball often for a nice exhibition rally but no, Sampras was having none of it. This is actually not a criticism of Sampras, it shows he has a winner's mentality. Just that I really do not think Federer was there for a re-run of their Wimbledon match.
Sampras 5-2 up in the third set & 5-3 up in the tie break & loses.Two of the greats of the game showing just why.Enjoyed watching this clash of the titans exhibition match.👍
i agree fed wasn't playing his best and just playing around with some points. when pete was at net and federer would try to play a curvy slice low to him. that's like weekend warrior stuff. you never see him playing that like in majors. it wasn't his best consistently, but at times, especially with some of those backhand passing shots, it approached his best. the two are still insanely well matched.
It feels like a 36-year-old Sampras was a bigger challenge on hard court for Federer than even Nadal or Djokovic was! Based on his multiple 2007-2008 exhibitions against Roger I could confidently say that he was still top 10 material. Just imagine him playing against all each top 10 member in 2005, he would beat more than half of them for sure!
Damn having only started watching tennis in 2019 it's hard to appreciate how good young Roger was, he was insanely good, and that backhand was a thing of beauty
Federer was trying hard because Sampras wanted to beat Federer. Sampras made a lot of irrational placements but compensated with greater play than that of Federer.
I'm sure you realize that Federer was not playing this match with 100% effort. Sure he wanted to win, but he likely would've dropped just 2 or 3 games if he really wanted to crush Pete. Sampras is currently 45 years old, he wouldn't even make the top 100 on today's tour.
Gibillan Atotputernicul Lol if you say so. If you think Pete Sampras could still be a top 5 contender on today's tour you're dreaming that's all there is to it.
I agree with that. How old was Pete here, 38? Fed won a slam at 35. The fact Sampras took a set off Fed when Fed was undisputed no.1 says a helluva lot about how good Sampras was. Neither players were taking the match seriously but I highly doubt Federer was giving Sampras a chance. Sampras is still the greatest server of all time.
@@williansantos1919 just type Sampras v Federer - Macao 2007, its six parts.....this match here where Federer won was just before it, the date is wrong
@@uncletony6210memory serves you wrong; they played three matches, each time on a faster surface. If you watch the third match Federer was outplayed. He couldn't get close to Samprases serve.
@@mtklaric 3 times, 6 times, 36 times...I'm pretty sure the win was a gift. Rog was 7 yrs better than when he beat Pete in 2001 and Pete was 7 yrs the worse.
This match right here is why Sampras is the goat. Sampras retires in 02 and 6 yrs later he pushed the world number one and almost beats him. Makes ya think how many more Sampras could have won. Also Topspin 2k5 you taking notes on Sampras? Pete forehand was a weapon and he was a monster on fast courts.
People saying Sampras made this close - respectfully this is an exhibition against Prime Federer, if they contested a proper tournament in 2008 Federer comfortably takes him - look at Sampras Hewitt 2000 @ Us Open
6 years retired and gave Prime Feds an amazing game, dont care if it was exhibition, feds ran for balls that he could not of bothered with, he was playing freely with no pressure. No doubt Prime Sampras can beat roger in a GS final on either Grass or Hard court. Honestly if they payed like 8 finals i wouldnt be surprised if it was like 4 each.
Prime Fed would still have had an edge over prime Sampras. Fed's return and passing shots would have been too accurate and consistent even for Sampras's masterful serves and volleys. Fed's movement and footwork were more efficient and superior. Fed's groundies were also superior. Sure, Sampras had a big forehand from time to time, but it came and went. Fed's groundies were big AND steady. His backhand near the end of his career was remarkably better. His groundies allowed him to punish any and every shot that was too slow, too high, too short, and /or not well placed. As good as Sampras was, he would not have had the consistency to maintain such high standards of play while relying on his first serve and first volley
This was the most competitive exo between these two. You can tell Sampras wanted to win. I really think Fed let him have the second set. I really think he tanked that set. I was lucky to be there that night on Madison Square Garden. I know Sampras is old and Fed still young. The match was in 2008, not 2007 as the title suggests. Fed had mono around that time. And I doubt he would give 100% in these exos. Why win 60 60? It would be a bad exo. Fed knows how to put on a good show.
Just shows you how great Pete's serve was. He is completely overmatched by a much younger, Prime Federer off the ground. His serve still made this competitive and close. Not too many people could ace Fed without him reacting to it. The greatest serve of all time.
He was 5 years out of retirement when this happened, I wouldn't call 37 as a Athlete not prime anymore considering the avg number 1 Athlete for all sports combined is 35.7 vs 30 in 2008. Shows how good Sampras could have been if the exercise science was as good as it was now.
I couldn't agree with you more pete had retired 6 years prior and keeping up with the Peak Federer, just goes to show you how great Sampras was and in Petes peak 95-96 it would have been a diffrent outcome.
2nd
Pistol Pete was a monster.
Federer was going easy though. Pete was double broken by Hewitt and Safin like 6-2 sets. S&V game is old, Federer's generation of players had all the answers. Blocked slice return or short return through the net then drill a top spin passing shot.
That Pete even played him that tough is amazing.
Leave alone the best ever debate... these two are the most gracefull players ever by a country mile!!!
That's right. But Federer is better...
Sampras is better than weak slow court era king on PEDs Roger Doperer
@@darkdoctor417 why you say that ?
@@darkdoctor417😂😂😂
Facts!!
@@darkdoctor417yep, Sampras forehand was flat and 90-100mph
If only tennis was still played like this. 2 of the most entertaining and ferocious players who electrified the game.
@jamesnm21 did you see Djokovic vs Alcaraz final at the Cincinnati Masters? Instant classic.
@@steve8803did you see Fed vs Djokovic Cincinatti 2012....sheer classic
@@Joe-rk9uy yes
@@steve8803 back when fed was still young enough to give djoker a whooping
@@Joe-rk9uy Djoker don't use age as an excuse, he still got it!
I have never said more Wows than I did during the 9 and a half minutes right here. Epic Match! Two of the best champions ever to play tennis!
Yeah the 3rd best and 4th best of history, how fast history Changes
@@Anticommunism99 for me Sampras is the best in fast courts and Federer 2st... the most effective player in Grand Slam finals remains - and clearly so - Pete Sampras: 14 Grand Slam titles and only 3 finals lost, a total of 77.8% that no one even comes close to… he could easily have won at least another 2-3 gs's titles if he wanted to keep playing, Sampra was clutch, the player with prefect weapons for a fast court
@@Anticommunism99 statistics don't say everything.
Dude, I never saw this match and I identify so much with what you said.. I cant believe this was a serve of 37 year Sampras with 5 years after his retirement. WHAT A MONSTER, WHAT A SERVE AND DRIVE...and his net game... AMAZING
Everyone knew that Pete had more years in him when he retired... But it was classic Pete to retire at the end of his prime and on top.
Sampras did this well against arguably a PRIME Federer!!! Sampras was a natural beast of a tennis legend
@MUFC Nice to see you are not bugging only boxing fans
He did, but if you rewatch the game at 6-3, 5-4 15-30, Federer could probably have broken Sampras and ended the match there. But it was an exhibition.
Yeah you just wonder how many more slams he could’ve won if he hadn’t retired, he would’ve had some competition Federer, Nadal and Djokovic but I still think you could’ve won a couple more slams.
Sampras may be the goat with all respect to the big3 baseliners and their continued morivation. He could destroy all of them because of his physical characteristics and game characteristics. Meaning in good form, which practically ended in end of 2008 or start of 1999 when he stopped training for champion ans consciously reduced training to put other stuff in his life and eventually retire .
Sampras got bored after 6 years no1 , jn his good form Agassi was not really competitive on 3 out of 4 surfaces.
@@innosantoFederer would beat him for sure. Because he has great game and fast court player.
Watching this again a decade later - still one of the best display of high intensity tennis. Makes you wonder how a prime Sampras would have fared against Federer. Federer won Wimbledon and Australian Open when he was 36. Sampras was 36 when this match happened. Sampras retired early at age 32.
Federer was 37 and Sampras was 37 in this Match. And Nadal was 36 and Athletes are going much longer now. Shows Sampras 5 years out of the game and how good he was. As an exercise scientist Federer is not at an age I would call peak now as it's still a developing age. 30's in Tennis has been peak for awhile but it depends on the Athlete. If Sampras had everything we know now he would have won this match easily. And 10 years these days isn't much younger in sports. 20 years is and it happens all the time.
Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. But I guess that's not really "prime" Sampras
Sports science has taken a giant leap forward with age - this is evident with Messi, Ronaldo, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc... late 20s used to be the twilight years with very few exceptions at the top level. Sampras didn't really retire early, performance wise. He had become quite an easy beat on the circuit and would suddenly bloom once a year at the US open.
Both Sampras and Federer didn't retire due to outright physical problems, they retire due to the game becoming too defensive as their strategy started fading. Both would have made a comeback if their strategies are still working well. Federer did not want to play defense at age 40.
@@markfish1113pretty sure federer’s knee is what ended his career
He was doing great in final vs djoko 2019 and nearly won
Pete's serve still a thing of beauty. What a guy to try to serve and volley against though, Pete's forehand looked better then I remember when he was world number one. Enjoyed this one.
Yeah Fed's ability to take it on the rise makes Serve and volley a nightmare
Champions never retire.
Guys are u out of ur mind..how come a prime federer found it so hard to beat out of touch sampras..was federer downplaying sampras?
I would have loved to see more highlights of the shots Pete hit to go up 5-2 in the third against Roger.
Pete had the best running cross-court forehand ever!!!!!!!
Not to mention a great serve, volley, and backhand.
not the backhand, it was quite poor compared to others. And his return of serve was also not the best. He always struggled with big servers
Not the backhand. Strange enough, his running, go-for-it backhand was pretty good. But the bread-and-butter one was ugly and awkward
@@romangargiulo8350 Yes - for one of the all-time greats (surely in the top 5 or 10), his (career) return of serve stats are poor. Novak, Roger, Rafa, Andy are in the top-10 depending on surface. Pete's around the 60-70 mark.
@danguee1 I don't think that's fair. The only area where he struggled slightly was on very high, heavily spun backhands. That's why his clay court record was a lot weaker. On other surfaces of course his opponents would go to the backhand consistently, but it was usually too good for them all agassi, courier, becker
2 phenomenal players in an exhibition match. What’s not to like?
Sampras touch at the net is very unique and amazing. even beats the spinning and fast balls from federer.
He may be the goat with all reapect to the big 3 baseliners.
"Very" unique!
@@innosanto But struggled to break serve. So - way behind the Big 3.
Only if somehow Federer was able to teleport 10 years earlier to a prime Sampras.......we can only imagine how both of them, in their primes, would've stood against each other.
When eras clash!! 😮
The sequence starting at about 6:33 was ridiculous. Pete hits a monster serve and should reasonably expect to hit an attacking volley. Instead, Fed rips a return at his feet. The greatness of Sampras shows here as he quickly adjusts and still manages to hit an attacking volley with INSIDE-OUT slice that leaves the spinning away from Federer. And Fed, who had to step to his left in the ad court to hit the return, still manages to run down that great volley in time to bend a forehand pass down the line. I saw this live and could not freaking believe that sequence. Imagine the points these 2 could have played if their primes overlapped?
You just described exactly what Nadal and Djoker era tennis have been missing, that and it sounds like a torture chamber with all that noise.
The best tennis players, playing the best tennis level i ever seen
Sampras running forehand at 3:40 - absolutely no chance for Fed. That running forehand was one of the great all-time shots of the game.
what a match by sampras to come back and play against the peak fedex of 2007 hats off... i m a RF fan but wanted pete to win this he is legend great to see legends prevail... well plyd RF...
To all of you out there who keep saying that serve and volley is the worst type of tennis you can play; ever heard of Feliciano Lopez? The guys is 17th in the world, and serves and volleys the heck out of his opponents. It all comes down to how well executed the tactic is.
Nadal is better than Feliciano Lopez.
Has he won a slam? No
Serve and volley doesn't work in the weak slow court woman era of Nadal and Federer
Love these two guys to bits. Legends
To understand which Power Sampras had, watch the ATP Final Sampras vs Becker 1996.This Sampras was actually unbeatable for sure and Boris played his best Hard Court Tennis in his Life.Two Master Class Player in that Match.
I know exactly which one u talking about. That was the time boris had to retire from tennis
Both in their exhibition matches and during their 2001 Wimbledon match, Fed returned Pete’s serve better than Agassi ever could. That extra wingspan really helps. Also, Agassi did not have a good slice return like Roger. Agassi tried to bludgeon the ball on all his returns, which would often pop the ball up for Sampras to easily volley. But Roger did a great job slicing the return and keeping it low.
Two super clever players, and lovely to see so much volleying - and very fine serving from both. Very interesting. Thank you.
Pete's serve and forehand were still explisive; he managed to out-hit Fed there...just wow!
Federer was playing 2-3 notches down ..after all it was an exhibition match..
Federer clearly moved faster on the court than Sampras but that was expected. Sampras in his prime, was deceptively quick as well. It would have been a treat to watch both of these players in a head-to-head in their 20s.
When Pete retired at 32 he was arguably the greatest male player of all time. Then his accomplishments got steamrolled by the Big Three, leaving his reputation in an odd sort of limbo. No one now mentions him as the GOAT. At least we can say that he was the dominant player of the decade of the 1990s, worldwide, as well as probably the greatest American player ever, alongside Helen Wills Moody and Serena Williams.
Sampras was unbeaten in finals at Wimbledon, which means if his game was on then he would always win the final there.
if fed, nadal, djoko, samprass were all the same age, Sampras would have the most wimbledon titles among those guys. Fed 2nd most at wimbledon. Nadal of course would dominate on clay. US open and australian, it'd be djoko and sampras with the most championships there. and if all these were playing at their prime, Fed, nadal and djoko would all have some wins on their least favorite surfaces. However, sampras wouldn't have any at the French. The reason sampras so good on grass and hardcourts is because he never tried to alter his play style or strategy to win the French. In this hypothetical scenario, the GOATs would be rated like this:
1. djoko and sampras tied for most major titles, djoko gets credit for titles on all surfaces, BUT sampras most titles at wimbledon and us open. . 2nd best is nadal, with the most wins at a single major tournament, the french. fed would have a good record at all the tournaments, but on this list of greats, he is the 4th best player.
@@johncraftenworth7847lol what a bunch of crap. If Sampras played on the current era he's winning like 2 slams due to injury to the big3..
You see how shit his backhand is? Even worse than federer. Nadal would make his backhand look like tissue paper. Same with djokovic .
Also his forehand technique is pathetic .
He's player of the past . He would be looked as a plumber 10 years from now
I'd mention him and Agassi as the goats because even McEnroe mentions that they slowed down the courts and balls right in this video, AND players hit much much flatter shots without top spin, Sampras forehand was 100mph.
He's the 'goat of classic tennis', Djoker of 'modern tennis', Nadal the goat of clay, and Federer the all-around goat.
It s a pity that Pete just retired at age 31...
Leaving this comment on the day Rog announced his retirement - 15th September 2022. 😭😭😭😭😭
Tennis is gonna miss it's G.O.A.T. forever. 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
El slice de federer ,en toda su carrera,es el mejor de la historia,lo a salvado,aveces lo usa agresivamente,y bueno sampras,una derecha fulminante,sin duda los 2 mejores de la historia del tenis universal
Buff este comentario no ha envejecido bien
Both guys are legends .
The high zenith of volley battles and of the whole sport!
I really love that Roger’s outfit
sampras here was the same age as federer now when he won the Australian open 2017
Modern sport science
Federer takes PEDs.
Only 6 years retired
@@darkdoctor417 according to who?
@@ml_gamer8344 according to this bullshit idiotic fan..
i just hate the debates. styles change, equipment changes, rules changes, training evolves....
so what ? sampras is not ridiculous on this match, but federer's generation brought greatest athletes as nadal , djokovic, and roger himself !
they also are more complete and powerful , but sampras at his great time would have beat anyone on grass even a great federer or djokovic
Sampras got tired. But overall was pretty good for 9 years after stopping serious trainjng and 6 after retirement (he stopped trainjng 3 years before retirement with the exception of one month for his farewell tournament, he wanted a proper way to announce)
Pete's approaches to the net were on the back of some very easy shots to return. If you are coming to the net you at least need to make the approach shot a potential winner to to make the return extremely difficult and more likely to be in the sweet spot to put it away.
Seeing the last tie-break, this match could easily go to either side, what is amazing to a retired Sampras.
Oh what I wouldn’t give to have been able to see this in person.
Honestly feels like either didnt't wanna beat the other at times, what a display!
Io penso che Federer ha potuto raggiungere i livelli tennistici superlativi che poi ha raggiunto con la sua tecnica perchè ha studiato i movimenti e gli schemi di gioco dei giocatori come Sampras ed altri del passato ma nessuno potrà mai dire a parità di anni chi fosse veramente il più forte anche sè ritengo che qualora i due giocatori fossero stati contemporanei sarebbe stata un grandissima lotta al ultimo colpo in ogni partita perchè giocatori della generazione di Sampras Agassi... avrebbero trovato le motivazioni e gli stimoli per migliorarsi ed equipararsi come livello di gioco con metodi di allenamento differenti da quelli di allora che già erano di altissimo livello questo ovviamente tenendo conto anche di altri grandissimi campioni del epoca di Federer come Nadal Djokovic Murray... tutto questo ragionamento lo faccio perchè ritengo che da allora sia cambiata solo la violenza con cui si picchia la palla mentre il livello di tecnica penso che sia rimasto pressochè tale come spettacolarità dei colpi nelle partite.
hats off to federer too for even doing this. Great match and with the chance of making a fool out of himself- very little to gain from him other than entertaining fans.
Amazingly close considering Sampras was 37 years old & 6 years into his retirement here.
9 years away from his training days. He stopped training or mpre sccurately reduced significantly training at 28 y old.
Simply masterclass 👌
although it seems like federer was cruising along, it was actually very tight match! wonderful to watch!
Sampras is only 37 years old here! Same age as Djokovic.
I always got the feeling watching this that Federer was a little annoyed Sampras would not put on a show for the crowd - Sampras really wanted to win. This made it tough for Federer as if he got too serious and embarrassed Pete, he gets a bad press for it.
In the 2nd set Federer was setting up the ball often for a nice exhibition rally but no, Sampras was having none of it.
This is actually not a criticism of Sampras, it shows he has a winner's mentality. Just that I really do not think Federer was there for a re-run of their Wimbledon match.
ya no hay exhibiciones asi.. este juego parecia final de grand slam
Can watch Sampras serve all day, smoothest serve in history.
some players feared his 2nd serve MORE than his first... That was the difference
SAMPRAS GOAT. NOT EVEN ON TOUR. IMAGINE HIM ACTIVE THEN.
So many beautiful points, and back when players came to net and showed their volleying prowess. ;)
fed didnt do that, extremely boring baseline tennis
Sampras 5-2 up in the third set & 5-3 up in the tie break & loses.Two of the greats of the game showing just why.Enjoyed watching this clash of the titans exhibition match.👍
サンプラス大好きだから見ていて辛い、、
今後、AIが発達して「本当の全盛期同士の2人の試合」を再現してくれる事を祈る
10試合くらいケーススタディ的にあると良いかな
Federer Back hand is fast, hard to read , so perfect
i agree fed wasn't playing his best and just playing around with some points. when pete was at net and federer would try to play a curvy slice low to him. that's like weekend warrior stuff. you never see him playing that like in majors.
it wasn't his best consistently, but at times, especially with some of those backhand passing shots, it approached his best. the two are still insanely well matched.
excuses
Imagine mid-90s peak Sampras against Federer. Would be quite the battle
It's so sad when you see a legend fallen.
It feels like a 36-year-old Sampras was a bigger challenge on hard court for Federer than even Nadal or Djokovic was! Based on his multiple 2007-2008 exhibitions against Roger I could confidently say that he was still top 10 material.
Just imagine him playing against all each top 10 member in 2005, he would beat more than half of them for sure!
Pete had no chance vs Hewitt
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 H2H was quiet equal
@@Miracle-1965 than you should see their match matches
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 H2H: 4-5 in favour of Hewitt
@@Miracle-1965 di you see their last matches?Sampras won only close matches, Hewitt traschend Sampras in last 3 matches
Damn having only started watching tennis in 2019 it's hard to appreciate how good young Roger was, he was insanely good, and that backhand was a thing of beauty
Pete Sampras, legend!
I would love to see an exhibition with Roger and carlos alcaraz
Federer was trying hard because Sampras wanted to beat Federer. Sampras made a lot of irrational placements but compensated with greater play than that of Federer.
i would love to see the whole match! :)
6:37 is Boris Beckers so called curve ball. If i remember correctly he did it the first time in a match back in 1989.
Banana shot is what we call it nowadays
Best 2nd serve of all time. Pete
Very gentlemanly of Roger to allow this to go to a third so the audience get their money's worth. Could have very easily been a double bagel
even today if sampras comes back he will be top 10 if not top 5
I'm sure you realize that Federer was not playing this match with 100% effort. Sure he wanted to win, but he likely would've dropped just 2 or 3 games if he really wanted to crush Pete. Sampras is currently 45 years old, he wouldn't even make the top 100 on today's tour.
+Crosby4hyg pete was not playing seriously either, it was an exhibition match. on fast surfaces he's still a nemesis
Gibillan Atotputernicul
Lol if you say so. If you think Pete Sampras could still be a top 5 contender on today's tour you're dreaming that's all there is to it.
back in 2007 he could of been top 25
I agree with that. How old was Pete here, 38? Fed won a slam at 35. The fact Sampras took a set off Fed when Fed was undisputed no.1 says a helluva lot about how good Sampras was. Neither players were taking the match seriously but I highly doubt Federer was giving Sampras a chance. Sampras is still the greatest server of all time.
Sampras proved that it is still possible to play serve and volley.
i was there - incredible night
Great placement! Very exciting
Incredible.
It's extraordinary what Sampras have done at his age;it was another era.Federer is a champion but with an old player even Sampras you should win easy
Just for the record, in their next match, Sampras demolished federer 76 64
Do you have the vídeo from this another match?
@@williansantos1919 just type Sampras v Federer - Macao 2007, its six parts.....this match here where Federer won was just before it, the date is wrong
so if memory serves they played six matches, with Roger winning the first five. I'm guessing the sixth was Rog's "gift" to Pete.
@@uncletony6210memory serves you wrong; they played three matches, each time on a faster surface. If you watch the third match Federer was outplayed. He couldn't get close to Samprases serve.
@@mtklaric 3 times, 6 times, 36 times...I'm pretty sure the win was a gift. Rog was 7 yrs better than when he beat Pete in 2001 and Pete was 7 yrs the worse.
Prime Sampras has the goat level
Yo 1:44 LOOK AT THE CURVE OF THAT SERVE
really insane kick serve...
Estando los dos en su mejor momento gana Sampras
En rápidas si en semi rápidas Federer gana
The clash of the titans.
This match right here is why Sampras is the goat. Sampras retires in 02 and 6 yrs later he pushed the world number one and almost beats him. Makes ya think how many more Sampras could have won. Also Topspin 2k5 you taking notes on Sampras? Pete forehand was a weapon and he was a monster on fast courts.
I don’t think anyone’s game has looked as beautiful as Rogers
El de Sampras sí
People saying Sampras made this close - respectfully this is an exhibition against Prime Federer, if they contested a proper tournament in 2008 Federer comfortably takes him - look at Sampras Hewitt 2000 @ Us Open
They should play more tennis at MSG
6 years retired and gave Prime Feds an amazing game, dont care if it was exhibition, feds ran for balls that he could not of bothered with, he was playing freely with no pressure.
No doubt Prime Sampras can beat roger in a GS final on either Grass or Hard court. Honestly if they payed like 8 finals i wouldnt be surprised if it was like 4 each.
I m fan of Sampras..Federer.
1 saw Federer sportsmanship.
No one has ever made tennis look more graceful than Fed
Sampras fue más estético, Volea impecable y servicio excelente
@@Roberto-j5b1b
Nope. Tennis players, old and new, has mentioned that Federer's game is pure beauty. Federer's game is the nost aesthetic.
@@Riri-oj1zs Sampras game is so beautiful and sampras had the Slam Dunk!! Federer no!
@@Riri-oj1zs ua-cam.com/video/x-0a3aHvhQY/v-deo.html
@@Riri-oj1zs Pete Sampras is the GOAT! 🇺🇸🐐🎾🇺🇸
Eterno Super Sampras
What about this match? did Roger play seriously? or they had some kind of arrangement?
I think Federer didn’t play 100% for a kind of respect towards Sampras much older.
Obvious
@@dniendkdksmd27839Chi
Sampras serve and forehand the best of all time
It's already been decided that Federer's forehand is the best ever.
Thank you. I'll correct it
9.20 we can tell Woods would have rather been elsewhere...
This is wht best vs the best looks like.
If I was Pete Sampras' coach, I would have told him to serve and volley more. I don't think he does it often enough.
Sampras is so underrated in the Mount Olympus of tennis discussions.
He's the clear #4 of all time.
He's not underrated by anyone who actually watched tennis in the 90's.
Wasn't it evident that Roger was just letting the senior win some points
So weird watching serve and volley again. Lol
انس جابر محمد انظار تقودها مؤهلة للعبوريات عملاقة والانسجام مطلوب ستعود لتحقيق النتائج العملاقة دون شك
Federer could have won by 6-0 ,6-1 but its his respect to his idol
Prime Fed would still have had an edge over prime Sampras.
Fed's return and passing shots would have been too accurate and consistent even for Sampras's masterful serves and volleys.
Fed's movement and footwork were more efficient and superior.
Fed's groundies were also superior. Sure, Sampras had a big forehand from time to time, but it came and went. Fed's groundies were big AND steady. His backhand near the end of his career was remarkably better. His groundies allowed him to punish any and every shot that was too slow, too high, too short, and /or not well placed. As good as Sampras was, he would not have had the consistency to maintain such high standards of play while relying on his first serve and first volley
This was the most competitive exo between these two. You can tell Sampras wanted to win. I really think Fed let him have the second set. I really think he tanked that set. I was lucky to be there that night on Madison Square Garden. I know Sampras is old and Fed still young. The match was in 2008, not 2007 as the title suggests. Fed had mono around that time. And I doubt he would give 100% in these exos. Why win 60 60? It would be a bad exo. Fed knows how to put on a good show.
Nobody is ever going to 6-0 6-0 Sampras, probably until the guy is 60 years old. You can't break every service game of a guy like that.