Pete Sampras was always pure class and such a fine gentleman! I remember being so happy for him! People used to criticise Pete's lack of public emotion but his tears after this game showed he was just a quiet, modest, superbly skilful, nice gentleman!
Federer forehand is a lot better than Nadal forehand. Way more efficient, less spin more penetration less effort spent on hitting the ball. Nadal forehand is very effective because he is a lefty. And it’s nowhere near Pete’s serve on the list.
Novak would not get away with most of his returns against a guy who could volley like Pete....but Karlovic's serve is better than Pete's...so is Isner's. @@urossubaric3938
23:35 A tale of two fathers: Sampras's father supported his son, but never pressured him to succeed. He got a son who was wildly successful, who loved him, and loved tennis. Agassi's father pressured him to succeed. He got a son who was wildly successful, but resented him, and HATED tennis.
@@XxxX-wx3er so she was winning it in 99 nah dont think so. The older sister was dominant late 90s early 00s. Serena lost to capriati in 01. Participating and being dominant are two different things pete was dominant in the 90s federer the 00s.
His second serve was regarded as the best ever before Karlovic and Isner. He hit it with more topspin than anyone, thanks to the tremendous flexibility he had.
I still have a magazine issue that was celebrating his achievements after he retired. To me, he will always be the BEST. Till date, i haven't seen a more beautiful server. My bad luck that I couldn't personally watch him play. I did see Federer at Dubai Open, a decade and half ago. Yes he is good and has broken many records. But the field doesn't have that many contenders now a days. At the time Pete played, it wasn't the era of big 3 or big 4. At least 10 to 15 were potential grandslam champions. So the competition during that era was more fierce. Apart from Pete being mostly quiet, composed and blasting down aces in second serves (which i have rarely seen these days) there is another important aspect that very FEW noticed: Pete ALWAYS took only 1 ball at a time for a serve, NEVER 2. Now that says a lot about the mental makeup. He was confident that the wouldn't need a second go. And in the event he did, he was quite capable of blasting aces. I do hope to own a copy of all his championship final matches.
Patrick Rafter retired in 2002 and is a former No.1 player in the world. The Australian’s main accomplishments were his two titles at the US Open, in 1997 and 1998. He also reached at least the semifinal round of every other major event, including two Wimbledon finals. A natural and classic serve-and-volley player, he became the first person to win Montreal, Toronto, Cincinnati and the US Open in the same year-1998. Probably his greatest regret is losing a five-set thriller to unseeded Goran Ivanisevic in the 2001 Wimbledon final.
@@suatkayatennis No brother, Rafter peaked late (after his 26 years) in his carrier. He started beating dominant Pete Sampras on hard court. But, Rafter was totally disappointed after loosing Wimbledon in 2000 against Sampras. After taking 1set, Rafter was 4-1 in 2nd set tie breaker. Since he had beaten Sampras in US open recently, He thought it was an easy win over Sampras. Rafter lost again to wild card entry Ivanisevic in 2001 Wimbledon. Rafter felt Ivanisevic would commit error as usual at critical situation. Rafter said though he had advantage of serving first in 5th set, Ivanisevic started serving big in 5th set. After 2 successive loss, Rafter could not motivate himself further and even Commentators were predicting Rafter win over Sampras in 2001 US open, Rafter did not play well and lost the match. Rafter retired not because of injury but of lack of motivation
Rackets do get better. When Sampras was playing after his retirement against Roger Federer, he used the Federer racket and was serving faster than he was in his prime.
This was the beginning of the end for Sampras, for the first time in a Wimbledon final he looked nervous, disjointed and emotional and not the machine he was in previous years.
He was injured people. This is openly discussed in "Legends of Wimbledon" series in the Sampras section. He had to get an injection before every match to numb the pain in his leg and it would wear off after about an hour. It was so bad he didn't even practice between matches...and he STILL won the title. That's how amazing this guy was on grass.
Sampras was carrying an injury into that Wimbledon, but because he was so close to getting GS no.13, he decided to play anyway. In order to save himself for matches, Pete didn't practice once during the tournament.
Mícheál indeed. Problem was that became a costume for him. From that point onwards, Pete began training less and less, and subsequently his form declined. Notice the trashing Safin gave him later that year during the US OPEN final.
@@maturanita It's not a new custom, it's the body slowing down due to injuries and lack of longevity of the time. He worked very hard all the time and between his body quitting and family, he also started to think of a life not fully dedicated to tennis. Pre-2002 also there was a lot more variety between court surfaces which took extra from the players.
Sampras was , like many great players - a fantastic front runner - once in front he usually pulls out all the stops ..... Great close match in the first sets Rafter one of the few who could volley as well as Sampras
Sampras was solid as a rock when it came to the Wimbledon Final. 7 out of 7 and he only needed five sets on one occasion (1998). Even if Rafter had capitalised on the 4-1 lead in the 2nd set tiebreak and taken it, I'd still have backed Sampras to win the match in five. It's easy to forget how great Sampras was at his very best.
Yesss i always think the same about how easy we forget how good was Pete, he was and is my hero (now shared with Roger), even me i sometimes forget the brutal terrific talented and powerfull he was but i watch 3 mins in youtube some of him and feel instantly that Pete is the best of all!!
@@nacofichetti-dibujante Roger Federer might have won more than him. But the influence of Pete Sampras is beyond our era even in year 2023. He changed Tennis Completely in the 1990s.
Pete Sampras. The cyborg. Quality, power, accuracy, consistency. I wish he had won a French Open. Mens finals were the day after the semis too. He'd probably have more longevity.
Those back-to-back days, I don't remember it happened. Such a long time ago.😃He probably would have won more Slams if he had an extra day off for rest.
23:15 "He has rewritten the record books as arguably the greatest champion of all time" Funny how times change, I'm sure when he said that he never imagined that ~15 years later there would be two guys with more grand slams than Sampras and a third closing in. Obviously Sampras will always be a legend, the only difference now being he's one of the greatest.
@ZhEdW200 Pete won this Wimbledon with a leg injury and no practice between matches, against one of the finest volleyers of the past few decades. That's how good he was at Wimbledon.
@@graysonsu7262 To suggest that Sampras played in a more competitive era is a bold statement, mate. The depth in men's tennis today is far greater than it was then.
I watched both live. If I remember correctly, Andre was up a break in the fifth both times, and Pat came from behind by staying back and rallying! Against Andre! But Pat's grounds were effective on grass....
It's already uploaded. Rafter' s dramatic win against aggassi. Aggassi was serving for his match. Rafter broke his match point and turned tables around aggassi and finally rafter wins it I Still cannot forget. Then in finals the most pathetic unpleasant moment of ma life goran pulled a tricky win against rafter. Memories deep down the lane!
@@rishbahpandey8697 I take your point. I think I overreacted here. I think clay court should mainly be defensive baseline play. Although I still believe the primary play style on grass should be serve and volley, I think it’s ultimately better when it’s used against a baseline player.
Part of my childhood this mans hold on wimbledon along with the emergence of tiger woods and a fear of mike tyson even if he was shot in the 90s . Remember thinking how that weakling tiger tim was going to go all the way now the impending semi with sampras was no more in 01.
@@bensmithkent22 The problem is that Sampras was boring to watch. No personality. Also people complained a lot about the Ace game. Sampras, Ivanisevic acing their way to finals and semi final encounters.
14 Slams in 18 finals,not bad for someone who had thalassemia,would have won 3-4 Slams if he hadn’t missed 1999 AO,US and retired quite early,plus,I have never seen him loosing a match point on a Grand Slam,Pete was the man.
Yeah, Pete was unique. He could be cool, and cold, when playing at the highest levels. Clinical. People said he was boring but these people didn't appreciate what they were looking at...
@@kieranflood9343 He was beyond unique. Honestly one of the most disciplined and ruthless competitors I have ever seen in any sport. It was scary to watch him at his best. Much more so than a Fed or Nadal. Pete was just incredible.
That's right. He had an extra level where he'd just shut the opponent down, go about his business of hitting the lines and constructing points flawlessly, and never seeming to disturbed by it. He obviously was intense in his play - but he just didn't look it. And what I especially liked about Pete was how he raised his game the higher the stakes were. He seemed more at home in the cauldron of big matches than anyone else...
I do not agree. Sampras did not hold the same passion and stroke play which Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have. He knew his limits that's why he retired early.
Today's baseline game, attacking the net only when the opportunity presents itself makes for longer rallies, more exciting points. The players now being more athletic and more consistent on all strokes. Not taking anything away from the greats, but this final had points rarely going past 3 or 4 strokes.
Need variation. Can’t be all short points or all long points. There’s a reason the French was the most unpopular to watch for its history due to the long rallies. Rafa n Roger changed the perception of the slam due to their rivalry.
This match had short rallies on purpose. Pete had to keep the rallies super short because he was injured and didn't want to make it worse. Watch his other finals and the points are better, especially 1999 and 1995.
@@ciprianghenghea7779 Yes, but as strings got better returns got better, so even with fast grass would have been a tall task against the top returners, but would have been fun to watch.
In my view Patrick Rafter could have won the match. He was in good shape but Pete Sampras was one hell a champion. The scores show how close the match was 76 67 76 87.
@@soundar4270 go live like old days OK this is modern times and modern tennis sport 1. Slow surfaces 2. Medium slow 3. Medium surface 4. Medium fast courts are best to watch Traditional tennis sport is best in those days Now it is modern tennis which is physical and mental sport not Serve and volley playing style OK
Sampras was a great athlete back then, that too on fast surface. He would have played very well on today's slow surface where the recovery of shots is much easier today when compared to fast surface back then
Yep, because today's grass plays like clay to appease baseline players and the racket technology has changed. Sampras would probably get passed a lot because of that. Fed would have at least 12 titles if they had not screwed with the grass, and it would really be interesting to see if both Rafa and Nole would have won had the surface not been compromised to help them, along with the racket technology. Note that none of the clay court surfaces were made faster, but all of the really fast courts (grass, carpet, indoors) have been either eliminated or slowed to a crawl. Killed variety in the game, for the most part.
Serve and Volley vs Baseline bashing . Lightning exchanges - first touch decisive. The close quarter gunfight - the one cut samurai showdown vs slow beat down with armor and clubs.
Remember watching this great match. Sampras was the more talented player, but Rafter was the better volleyer, and troubled Sampras at his best. This match was a classic example of how a match is decided on but a few points (i.e. in the 2nd set tie-break).
@ashwinpinto3590 Pete was injured, so maybe. On the other hand, Pete's parents were in the crowd for the first time ever and he was going for history so he might have done anything for the win.
@@ashwinpinto3590 I believe it would have gone to the fifth set and with momentum on his side, Sampras would have prevailed. Rafter would have made it tough for Pete.
@@blake7871 Tennis courts are too fast. Everyone just hits the ball really hard from 3 feet behind the baseline trying to draw an error. The young players do this all the time.
Just to think, that back then his 7th Wimbledon was thought as something, that can never be matched let alone broken...12 years later there we go... Overall 14 grand slam titles seemed impossible to win as well! Now in 2019 we have 3 people playing and competing in the same era, who surpassed that mark! Crazy! LOL
Summon256 The main reason is because all the courts are homogenized.It was extremely difficult for serve&volley player to succeed on clay and even more difficult for a baseliner to succeed on that very fast Wimbledon grass.
The Sampras backhand is a deceptive side. It may not do much nor win many outright points during stroke play but many had approached, hitting to that side, only to see a screaming passing shot passed by. It had the same utility as Steffi Graf's backhand.
@@alexmeechan15 and Sampras wasn't in his peak either. He was declining and retired the next year in 2002. Plus that match was close and it was only one match. Not a large sample size here. Remember that Sampras had a breathing problem that was genetic. That's why he looked tired at times.
@@aleksthegreat4130 present players would be all court players OK if surfaces are not slowed down like that same thing about Big 3 players OK it is not so tough and hard for them Everything is possible with training and will power OK
@@Romans8-9 Players that faced both Agassi and Sampras back to back in majors: Ivanisevic (Wimbledon '92) Courier (US Open '92) Martin (Wimbledon '94 but not back to back) Becker (Wimbledon '95) Chang (US Open '96) Kucera (US Open '98) Rafter (Wimbledon '00)... Ivanisevic was the closest to victory.
I remember watching this match with my dad, who is in heaven now. Thanks for uploading this.
Pete Sampras was always pure class and such a fine gentleman! I remember being so happy for him! People used to criticise Pete's lack of public emotion but his tears after this game showed he was just a quiet, modest, superbly skilful, nice gentleman!
Yes, he was a humble champion.
Daniel Howe yes, he was. Federer on the other hand......
@@maturanita Roger has become a nice gentleman as well over the years, something he wasn't as much back then on court (Off court he was always nice).
@@Vaisin all part of an act, just as Boris Becker has said
Yes pistol pete is my all time favourite
The greatest tennis shot of all time: The Pete Sampras Serve
Nadal's forehand and Djokovic's return are much greater than Pete's serve
@@urossubaric3938 try again
@@urossubaric3938 wroooong.
Federer forehand is a lot better than Nadal forehand. Way more efficient, less spin more penetration less effort spent on hitting the ball. Nadal forehand is very effective because he is a lefty. And it’s nowhere near Pete’s serve on the list.
Novak would not get away with most of his returns against a guy who could volley like Pete....but Karlovic's serve is better than Pete's...so is Isner's.
@@urossubaric3938
23:35 A tale of two fathers: Sampras's father supported his son, but never pressured him to succeed. He got a son who was wildly successful, who loved him, and loved tennis. Agassi's father pressured him to succeed. He got a son who was wildly successful, but resented him, and HATED tennis.
I was there watching this on the Centre court back as a teenager - amazing match! 🎾🏆🏆
Had rafter won the second set would he have won the match?
@@ashwinpinto3590 what a stupid comment!
Two decades
Two centuries
Two MILLENNIA
Such was the duration of Sampras's dominance over Wimbledon.
Serena did 4 decades
@@XxxX-wx3er 40 decades u are hilarious.
@@XxxX-wx3er so she was winning it in 99 nah dont think so. The older sister was dominant late 90s early 00s. Serena lost to capriati in 01. Participating and being dominant are two different things pete was dominant in the 90s federer the 00s.
Precision tennis. What most young fans of the game don't get while watching. Sampras had the best service placement on first and second serves.
Haha i read ur comment as soon as pete made a double fault
His second serve was regarded as the best ever before Karlovic and Isner. He hit it with more topspin than anyone, thanks to the tremendous flexibility he had.
@@joemarshall4226 Sampras didn't have much of a kick serve.
I have to appreciate his service motion more. It's a thing of beauty.
It's a good thing to because his ground strokes were trash
I still have a magazine issue that was celebrating his achievements after he retired.
To me, he will always be the BEST. Till date, i haven't seen a more beautiful server. My bad luck that I couldn't personally watch him play. I did see Federer at Dubai Open, a decade and half ago. Yes he is good and has broken many records. But the field doesn't have that many contenders now a days. At the time Pete played, it wasn't the era of big 3 or big 4. At least 10 to 15 were potential grandslam champions. So the competition during that era was more fierce.
Apart from Pete being mostly quiet, composed and blasting down aces in second serves (which i have rarely seen these days) there is another important aspect that very FEW noticed:
Pete ALWAYS took only 1 ball at a time for a serve, NEVER 2. Now that says a lot about the mental makeup. He was confident that the wouldn't need a second go. And in the event he did, he was quite capable of blasting aces.
I do hope to own a copy of all his championship final matches.
very good match between two of the greatest serve and volley players. now a days courts are slow and boring.
Nobody ask your opinion OK watch the game without insulting others and surface speed😒😒😒
@@kikaa1884what a stupid comment!
The things Pete did with that racquet and strings is mind boggling. Anyone who tried to play with that racquet will totally understand what I mean.
I totally understand.
Enlighten us please dear sir!
Bold Avenger try to play with it
I am still playing with it. I have two.
@@WestCoastOutdoors I also have two of midsize prostaff 85.... The holy grail!
Rafter was such a powerful player. Two of the last era of serve & volley.
Live in present and future not past
Surfaces got slowed down for baseline players for sure
Big servers and volleyers are finished.
@@TheGreatPerahia this is modern tennis dominated by baseline and All court players not Serve and volley players
Stephan Edberg and John McEnroe are laughing at your comment on corner 😂😂😂😂 While drinking 🍻
Just 2 major titles he able to win it.
Patrick Rafter retired in 2002 and is a former No.1 player in the world.
The Australian’s main accomplishments were his two titles at the US Open, in 1997 and 1998. He also reached at least the semifinal round of every other major event, including two Wimbledon finals.
A natural and classic serve-and-volley player, he became the first person to win Montreal, Toronto, Cincinnati and the US Open in the same year-1998.
Probably his greatest regret is losing a five-set thriller to unseeded Goran Ivanisevic in the 2001 Wimbledon final.
Well, i would say his greatest regret is this one.
He was a set up, 41 double minibreak up in a 2nd set tiebreak and lost the match.
@@jonbonesmahomes7472 i agree
Goran Ivanisevic was due in Wimbledon for so many years.
Pat should have continued playing competitive tennis. His retirement was un expected
@@soundar4270 Wasnt Rafter injured alot thru his carrier? Maybe that why he retired.
@@suatkayatennis No brother, Rafter peaked late (after his 26 years) in his carrier. He started beating dominant Pete Sampras on hard court.
But, Rafter was totally disappointed after loosing Wimbledon in 2000 against Sampras. After taking 1set, Rafter was 4-1 in 2nd set tie breaker. Since he had beaten Sampras in US open recently, He thought it was an easy win over Sampras.
Rafter lost again to wild card entry Ivanisevic in 2001 Wimbledon.
Rafter felt Ivanisevic would commit error as usual at critical situation.
Rafter said though he had advantage of serving first in 5th set, Ivanisevic started serving big in 5th set.
After 2 successive loss, Rafter could not motivate himself further and even Commentators were predicting Rafter win over Sampras in 2001 US open, Rafter did not play well and lost the match.
Rafter retired not because of injury but of lack of motivation
Winning all those 14 grand slams using an unforgiving Wilson 85 pro staff,
is just mind boggling! Truly the G.O.A.T.
Unforgiving?! It´s a Rolls Royce compared to a wooden racket.
And without PEDs!!
Rackets do get better. When Sampras was playing after his retirement against Roger Federer, he used the Federer racket and was serving faster than he was in his prime.
Alex Shah who’s on peds?
oh Yess, true GOAT ever
sampras is the best attacking player of all time .
Pat was such a cool nice guy and awsome player, still sad that he didn't at least won 1 Wimby
He at least made US open. Other grand slams he end in runner up. Truly unlucky he. Still rafter became ATP ranking number 1. He became world number 1
Pat never posessed enough skill to win Wimbledon... He would’ve been annihilated playing with the current generations..
@@kelvintan6161 He was good enough to beat Agassi, so he could beat anyone of the current generation as well...
Krischan04 The facts speak for themselves... that Pat Rafter wins 0 wimbledon title. End of story
Patrick Rafter was also a 2 time Grand Slam Champion from the US Open Championships in 1997 and 1998.
RIP fast grass & serve&volley
Boring tennis haha
How I miss this tennis! Thank God for Federer. Djokovic vs Murray ugh!
People should never forget that Patrick Rafter was also a champion on his own right.
US Open Champion in 1997 and also 1998.
This was the beginning of the end for Sampras, for the first time in a Wimbledon final he looked nervous, disjointed and emotional and not the machine he was in previous years.
Swear coathanger flat stanley no legs henman took a set from him in the semis this year.
Safin and Hewitt was the beginning of the end for Sampras.He was not able to win vs both in row
He was injured people. This is openly discussed in "Legends of Wimbledon" series in the Sampras section. He had to get an injection before every match to numb the pain in his leg and it would wear off after about an hour. It was so bad he didn't even practice between matches...and he STILL won the title. That's how amazing this guy was on grass.
Sampras was carrying an injury into that Wimbledon, but because he was so close to getting GS no.13, he decided to play anyway.
In order to save himself for matches, Pete didn't practice once during the tournament.
legend
He was the MJ of that era
Mícheál indeed. Problem was that became a costume for him. From that point onwards, Pete began training less and less, and subsequently his form declined. Notice the trashing Safin gave him later that year during the US OPEN final.
@@maturanita It's not a new custom, it's the body slowing down due to injuries and lack of longevity of the time. He worked very hard all the time and between his body quitting and family, he also started to think of a life not fully dedicated to tennis. Pre-2002 also there was a lot more variety between court surfaces which took extra from the players.
@@aligboyakasha well said pete dominated tennis like no other when it was still actual tennis haha.
Sampras was , like many great players - a fantastic front runner - once in front he usually pulls out all the stops .....
Great close match in the first sets
Rafter one of the few who could volley as well as Sampras
gosh 2000 looks so old now
Pete Sampras' playing style is very masculine💪🎾🏆
Sampras did not mess about when it came to serving it out..
Sampras was solid as a rock when it came to the Wimbledon Final. 7 out of 7 and he only needed five sets on one occasion (1998). Even if Rafter had capitalised on the 4-1 lead in the 2nd set tiebreak and taken it, I'd still have backed Sampras to win the match in five. It's easy to forget how great Sampras was at his very best.
Yesss i always think the same about how easy we forget how good was Pete, he was and is my hero (now shared with Roger), even me i sometimes forget the brutal terrific talented and powerfull he was but i watch 3 mins in youtube some of him and feel instantly that Pete is the best of all!!
@@nacofichetti-dibujante Roger Federer might have won more than him.
But the influence of Pete Sampras is beyond our era even in year 2023.
He changed Tennis Completely in the 1990s.
The style of the game was so different from now.. feels like watching a different sport.
Two elite serve and volley legends just wanted to show the world that they are the best at what they do.
Footage from 2000 looks so old... it's amazing how quickly technology advanced.
Crash Bandicoot doesnt look that bad
Keep in mind this footage is digitalized. Wouldn't even look that good
Pete Sampras. The cyborg. Quality, power, accuracy, consistency. I wish he had won a French Open. Mens finals were the day after the semis too. He'd probably have more longevity.
Those back-to-back days, I don't remember it happened. Such a long time ago.😃He probably would have won more Slams if he had an extra day off for rest.
For those who have Thallasemia Pete Sampras is an example of someone with the condition who succeeded.
Best serve & volley player everrrrr
23:15 "He has rewritten the record books as arguably the greatest champion of all time"
Funny how times change, I'm sure when he said that he never imagined that ~15 years later there would be two guys with more grand slams than Sampras and a third closing in.
Obviously Sampras will always be a legend, the only difference now being he's one of the greatest.
Jolly Roger Pete Sampras is still the greatest since he played a much more competitive career with different style of players in real different courts
In 2015, Nadal hadn't overcome 14 Grand Slams; he'd tied it. Check it.
@@davidmarcanosalcedo6158 Nadal have 17, Djokovic have14
@ZhEdW200 Pete won this Wimbledon with a leg injury and no practice between matches, against one of the finest volleyers of the past few decades. That's how good he was at Wimbledon.
@@graysonsu7262 To suggest that Sampras played in a more competitive era is a bold statement, mate. The depth in men's tennis today is far greater than it was then.
Can Wimbledon please put Agassi v Rafter semi highlights? They faced each other in two classic semis that both went 5 sets and Rafter’s way.
I watched both live. If I remember correctly, Andre was up a break in the fifth both times, and Pat came from behind by staying back and rallying! Against Andre! But Pat's grounds were effective on grass....
It's already uploaded. Rafter' s dramatic win against aggassi. Aggassi was serving for his match. Rafter broke his match point and turned tables around aggassi and finally rafter wins it I Still cannot forget. Then in finals the most pathetic unpleasant moment of ma life goran pulled a tricky win against rafter. Memories deep down the lane!
he is still the greatest champion of all time in Wimbledon 23:18
Like Federer, Sampras was/is really a master of every shot..!
Sampras was born to win on the grass
He's a great player and a great gentleman. Love him from India
Serve and Volley was the classic way to win at Wimbledon...
This is how tennis should be played.
What about clay court tennis??
@@rishbahpandey8697 I take your point. I think I overreacted here. I think clay court should mainly be defensive baseline play. Although I still believe the primary play style on grass should be serve and volley, I think it’s ultimately better when it’s used against a baseline player.
Had rafter won the second set would he have won the match?
I can't believe I'm totally into Sampras after watching his matches.
Oh yeah
@@claussteiner5857 Had rafter won the second set would he have won the match?
Part of my childhood this mans hold on wimbledon along with the emergence of tiger woods and a fear of mike tyson even if he was shot in the 90s . Remember thinking how that weakling tiger tim was going to go all the way now the impending semi with sampras was no more in 01.
@@bensmithkent22 The problem is that Sampras was boring to watch. No personality. Also people complained a lot about the Ace game. Sampras, Ivanisevic acing their way to finals and semi final encounters.
14 Slams in 18 finals,not bad for someone who had thalassemia,would have won 3-4 Slams if he hadn’t missed 1999 AO,US and retired quite early,plus,I have never seen him loosing a match point on a Grand Slam,Pete was the man.
J Smith Yes,thalassemia B,I recall Pete kept it secret till the day this particularl game had ended,as he explained he didn't want any excuses
Yeah, Pete was unique. He could be cool, and cold, when playing at the highest levels. Clinical. People said he was boring but these people didn't appreciate what they were looking at...
@@kieranflood9343 He was beyond unique. Honestly one of the most disciplined and ruthless competitors I have ever seen in any sport. It was scary to watch him at his best. Much more so than a Fed or Nadal. Pete was just incredible.
That's right. He had an extra level where he'd just shut the opponent down, go about his business of hitting the lines and constructing points flawlessly, and never seeming to disturbed by it. He obviously was intense in his play - but he just didn't look it. And what I especially liked about Pete was how he raised his game the higher the stakes were. He seemed more at home in the cauldron of big matches than anyone else...
I do not agree. Sampras did not hold the same passion and stroke play which Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have. He knew his limits that's why he retired early.
Pete Sampras=G.O.A.T. ✌🏻👏🏻👍🏻
rafter blew it on the 2nd tie break
I'm still in total awe when I watch this, even after all these years.
I miss Sampras style tennis.
Peeeeete!! 130 mph serve - Ace : so sweet, he cries, runs up to dad n mom: what a gentleman
That was the only time they ever watched him play a grand slam final. And they came only on the condition that they wouldn't sit in the players' box.
THE TRUE GOAT
Today's baseline game, attacking the net only when the opportunity presents itself makes for longer rallies, more exciting points. The players now being more athletic and more consistent on all strokes. Not taking anything away from the greats, but this final had points rarely going past 3 or 4 strokes.
Need variation. Can’t be all short points or all long points. There’s a reason the French was the most unpopular to watch for its history due to the long rallies. Rafa n Roger changed the perception of the slam due to their rivalry.
This match had short rallies on purpose. Pete had to keep the rallies super short because he was injured and didn't want to make it worse. Watch his other finals and the points are better, especially 1999 and 1995.
Great match from Sampras!
Bring back fast grass !
LOL
From 2000 they slowed down the greass. Get some knwoledge xD
@@ciprianghenghea7779 yeah, I have read them too. By the way, why during 2001 serve and volley player still dominated?
@@ciprianghenghea7779 Yes, but as strings got better returns got better, so even with fast grass would have been a tall task against the top returners, but would have been fun to watch.
@@mikekathary843 But Sampras is nailing 135 mph aces with a ping pong paddle compared to todays rackets
No way, this match was so boring
What a great legend.
Pete was supreme at Wimbledon. Never lost a Wimbledon final.
Sampras my favorite..the best serve in the world...federrer is just my second...third is agassi....
Pistol Pit!! Magnificent player!
Why did they always adjust the strings of the racket back then, was the material different?
La leggenda sampras 🏸
In my view Patrick Rafter could have won the match.
He was in good shape but Pete Sampras was one hell a champion.
The scores show how close the match was 76 67 76 87.
Pete was a legend on grass. Pat Cash’s shambolic commentary during the match couldn’t have been more bias.
I just posted a comment and thought I was the only one that was annoyed by it - totally agree.
When Tennis was Great...when Wimbledon was Legend!
I was a huge fan of Pete, my uncle's name also!! 🙂
Last 1990s classics
Last time Wimbledon was played on fast grass. They slowed it down in 2001.
The commentator gave an imprecise fact; Rafter beat Sampras at the ‘98 US OPEN, not in ‘97
Slowing down tennis really opened up the field to more players.
Not only does it open for more players, Players in 30s are dominating due to slow surface now. We need 1990s surface
@@soundar4270 no Baseline players are best better than Serve and volley players actually in 21st century AD.
@@soundar4270 go live like old days OK this is modern times and modern tennis sport
1. Slow surfaces
2. Medium slow
3. Medium surface
4. Medium fast courts are best to watch
Traditional tennis sport is best in those days Now it is modern tennis which is physical and mental sport not Serve and volley playing style OK
Will we ever see Serve and V VS Serve and V ever again in our lives?
I wonder how John Isner would do in the Sampras era.
He would surely make deeper runs
Such a cheerful and tearful Guy...
Two devastating serve and volleyers. Sampras the best ever
I was born 4 days after this
Pony tail Patrick Rafter was so much cooler than buzz cut Patrick Rafter.
This grass is unbelievably fast-looking
Sampras was a great athlete back then, that too on fast surface. He would have played very well on today's slow surface where the recovery of shots is much easier today when compared to fast surface back then
Yep, because today's grass plays like clay to appease baseline players and the racket technology has changed. Sampras would probably get passed a lot because of that. Fed would have at least 12 titles if they had not screwed with the grass, and it would really be interesting to see if both Rafa and Nole would have won had the surface not been compromised to help them, along with the racket technology. Note that none of the clay court surfaces were made faster, but all of the really fast courts (grass, carpet, indoors) have been either eliminated or slowed to a crawl. Killed variety in the game, for the most part.
James Harris Don’t forget the hybrid strings, which may be even a bigger factor than racket technology.
@@blake7871 Yep. The strings might be the biggest factor in today's tennis.
False. Just a tenth faster than nowedays. Quality grass has improved being the bounce higher and more predictable. Nothing else.
Serve and Volley vs Baseline bashing . Lightning exchanges - first touch decisive. The close quarter gunfight - the one cut samurai showdown vs slow beat down with armor and clubs.
Sunday 9th July 2000
Bitter-sweet story for Pete. His record was broken only 9 years later and 19 years later he is 4th in the all time list.
He made peace with that a long time ago though. Remember he came to watch Fed break his record? That takes maturity right there.
pistol pete sampras . the best !!!
It’s insane.. even when there’s US Open, all Americans wanna win Wimbledon way more. Even Kyrgios & Hewitt wants it more than AO
It's WIMBLEDON!
All other tournaments pale into insignificance.
Please upload full match..!
Remember watching this great match. Sampras was the more talented player, but Rafter was the better volleyer, and troubled Sampras at his best. This match was a classic example of how a match is decided on but a few points (i.e. in the 2nd set tie-break).
Had rafter won the second set would he have won the match?
@ashwinpinto3590 Pete was injured, so maybe. On the other hand, Pete's parents were in the crowd for the first time ever and he was going for history so he might have done anything for the win.
@@ashwinpinto3590who cares? He didn’t. Sampras found the shots when he needed them.
rafter from 🦘？
mitico pistol pete. 7 wimbledon in 8 anni. eh sì lo possiamo dire non si trovava tanto male a church road
My Boy! Pistol Pete! The BEST ever!
not only to that time, he still is. Playing way less than Federer, his win/loss specially at Wimbledon is the greatest of all time. Fact
Had rafter won the second set would he have won the match?
Remember he never lost a Wimbledon final, while Djokovic and Federer have lost a few. That era was so competitive.
@@ashwinpinto3590 I believe it would have gone to the fifth set and with momentum on his side, Sampras would have prevailed. Rafter would have made it tough for Pete.
@@pareshmokani yes.But he played vs Ivanisevic and Rafter , who have no return
Pete Sampras is 4th best player of all time in open era that is a fact actually
I dont know what is so great about serve & volley tennis? Can anybody explain? No sarcasm here just asking..
Rafter was unlucky he remained runner up In most grand slams. Yet rafter remains favourite to me. Sampras no doubt the legend.
Too good at tiebreak usually rafter
Come on Sampars👏❤️
this was the time where serve and volley was starting to come to an end
Thank god
Charlotte's Head The game has sucked since then.
@@blake7871 Tennis courts are too fast. Everyone just hits the ball really hard from 3 feet behind the baseline trying to draw an error. The young players do this all the time.
5:09 that serve by Rafter was just pathetic. He tried to play it safe on set point and got immediately punished for it.
that was good serve : Sampras played weak return. if Rafter would not play serve and volley , he would win this point
Bring back the fast grass!
After big 3 retires
Rafter: best player to never win Wimbledon?
Quite a few ahead of Rafter on that list. Lendl, Wilander, and Courier come to mind.
@@meshalsinnen5917 Lendl by far. 8-11 in major finals, 0-2 at Wimbledon.
@@Atombender I agree.
@@meshalsinnen5917 Lendl is a good shout
Lendl of course,Roswell and Wilander folow,Vilas,Pat,Courier come after.
Just to think, that back then his 7th Wimbledon was thought as something, that can never be matched let alone broken...12 years later there we go...
Overall 14 grand slam titles seemed impossible to win as well! Now in 2019 we have 3 people playing and competing in the same era, who surpassed that mark! Crazy! LOL
Summon256 The main reason is because all the courts are homogenized.It was extremely difficult for serve&volley player to succeed on clay and even more difficult for a baseliner to succeed on that very fast Wimbledon grass.
Technology
@@aleksthegreat4130 Had rafter won the second set would he have won the match?
@@ashwinpinto3590 Yes.
@@ashwinpinto3590 coulda woulda shoulda ...a bit like the losers excuses
He was chasing a record and today there are 3 other guys with 13 or more grand slam titles
Your point? Nobody beats prime Pete on grass, its arguable that pete beats federer on us open hard courts as well. Pete is the goat
The Sampras backhand is a deceptive side. It may not do much nor win many outright points during stroke play but many had approached, hitting to that side, only to see a screaming passing shot passed by. It had the same utility as Steffi Graf's backhand.
Fed and Sampras - my favourites
Sampras on this fast grass would tear anyone (including big 3).
Literally lost to BabyFed, nowhere near his peak, on fast grass. Sampras is nothing compared to the Big Three
@@alexmeechan15 and Sampras wasn't in his peak either. He was declining and retired the next year in 2002. Plus that match was close and it was only one match. Not a large sample size here. Remember that Sampras had a breathing problem that was genetic. That's why he looked tired at times.
@@alexmeechan15 the grass was slowed down in autumn 2000 already
In slow surfaces big 3 players tear him apart also
They are all great in their ways so be silent and watch the game
@@alexmeechan15 Nonsense.
Head to head Patrick Rafter 2 Roger Federer 0
It was 3-0...once on each surface! www.atptour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/patrick-rafter-vs-roger-federer/r255/f324
its not sampras fault even today's players if given such court will become serve and volley player
Sandip Malik Sampras could play all court tennis,baseline also.
@@aleksthegreat4130 present players would be all court players OK if surfaces are not slowed down like that same thing about Big 3 players OK it is not so tough and hard for them
Everything is possible with training and will power OK
Wimbledon 2021
Watching this couldn't be further from the game played today. So bizarre to watch this
DOS SEÑORES DEL TENIS MUNDIAL!!!!!!!.
It was darn near impossible to beat Pete & Andre back - to- back in a best of 5 grand slam.
I am curious, has any player done it?
@@Romans8-9Chang (1990) and Kuerten (2000) did it but not in slams.
@@SonateSonate I mean to win a grand slam. Chang never won in 1990.
@@Romans8-9 Players that faced both Agassi and Sampras back to back in majors: Ivanisevic (Wimbledon '92) Courier (US Open '92) Martin (Wimbledon '94 but not back to back) Becker (Wimbledon '95) Chang (US Open '96) Kucera (US Open '98) Rafter (Wimbledon '00)... Ivanisevic was the closest to victory.
@@SonateSonate Yeah I meant in slams.