In the history of sports there really aren't many more magical endings than this one. Sampras did not win a tournament since Wimbledon 2000, let alone a Grand Slam; he came in ranked 17th, by his standards an appallingly low ranking, steadily dropping down over the year. He lost at Wimbledon that year in the 2nd round. Everyone wrote him off by this point. During the tournament itself, because of rain delays, he had to play 5 matches across 7 days--a real challenge considering his stamina by that point was (fairly) in question. But he overcame all of these obstacles--although admittedly his draw became somewhat favorable in the QF (a not-quite-ready Roddick) and SF (Schalken, who never was a grand slam threat), and Agassi himself the day before had to play his guts out against Hewitt in four grueling sets. Nevertheless, Sampras was the one there in the end, playing the same rival he played in his first grand slam final in 1990. The last two tournaments he won in his career were Wimbledon 2000, which broke the all-time grand slam record, and the US Open 2002, which extended it, to 14. He then retired, never to play another pro match. Unbelievable.
Are you joking ? Most of this game is based on Serve and Volleys, unless highlights, watching a whole Match is boring as hell compared to the tennis that is played today by the "big three"
the greatness of sampras was that he didn't let you play, he decided when you had to play the ball, like in a lottery, so you were always under his dominion
@@cloudman8911 yes, in fact even Raonic, Isner, Karlovic should have won 14 slams... they make more Aces than Sampras... you can see that you didn't understand my point regarding game tactics and how to interpret individual points during the match , sometimes it's better for your opponent not to touch the ball. Then he played the finals against someone with a perfect forehand and backhand called Andre Agassi. have you ever heard from Agassi who is the best ever? Sampras says all the time and he played against Roger and Rafa at the best of his technique
Having watched the entirety of Sampras' career, never did I think that after he retired he would be bumped down to 4th best of all time. I always assumed he'd be the best, but then the big 3 happened.
The quality of tennis in this final was poor in general compared to their blockbuster QF the year before. Agassi didn't really turn up, but then that might have been due to his insane semi win against Hewitt 24 hours before, which would leave any athlete knackered.
Yeah, their QF in 2001 was the best match in terms of standard that I have ever seen. Having watched that match again few years later, it even felt boaring, becsuse the level of play eas so high that it was like two robots playing and not humans
If Agassi was just a little bit more athletic, how many more slams would he have won? His ball striking was peerless at times. Got to hand it to Pete. Last match, his home Slam, against his greatest foe Andre, record Slams at the time. Not going to happen again.
I'm don't know what the USTA intentions were with this so called "extended highlights" video. We don't get to see Sampras getting in the zone and playing lights out tennis. We get a glimpse of him getting tired and Agassi loosening up after his hard match against Hewitt the day before. The edge of your seat, tightrope Sampras walked on for most of the fourth set? It didn't exist according to this video. Neither Sampras stepping up his return game to break Agassi in order to serve for the championship. At least, this video showed very tense moments, where the crowd go crazy over a 2 stroke point, a missed first serve, a double fault, a return that clips the line, or one being out not by much. Pros and cons. No need for 20 strokes rallies to get people in their seats, and keep them glued.
I am not sure whether the man/woman who did the video dislikes Agassi, but 90%+ of this video contains Sampras serving and volleying. That is simply biased. You did not show a single of serve of Agassi for the first two sets. You did not show the crucial moment in the 4th set where Pete saved break points and then broke Andre in the next game. And you call this "extended highlights". Seriously?!
@@cloudman8911Agassi also had a very good second serve, and Sampras covered the baseline and had a huge forehand. These guys were more balanced than you might think.
@@AbeedHossain I saw them when they player. Sampras forehand was very erratic. He covered the court well if you don t use angles. Agassi second serve was trash.
@@turdferguson2 I am critical because it is the USTA that made these highlights. I am subscribed to several channels who create MUCH better highlights. If the USTA does not bother to create quality highlights for native American players, world number ones and all time greats at that, who the hell would they be creating them for?
i don't really get highlights like these and the ones the AO do where they skip out large portions of the match and focus on a bunch of points in a few games, most of which aren't even good
![[60fps] Sampras v. Agassi - US Open 2002 Final Highlights](/img/1.gif)
In the history of sports there really aren't many more magical endings than this one.
Sampras did not win a tournament since Wimbledon 2000, let alone a Grand Slam; he came in ranked 17th, by his standards an appallingly low ranking, steadily dropping down over the year. He lost at Wimbledon that year in the 2nd round. Everyone wrote him off by this point. During the tournament itself, because of rain delays, he had to play 5 matches across 7 days--a real challenge considering his stamina by that point was (fairly) in question. But he overcame all of these obstacles--although admittedly his draw became somewhat favorable in the QF (a not-quite-ready Roddick) and SF (Schalken, who never was a grand slam threat), and Agassi himself the day before had to play his guts out against Hewitt in four grueling sets. Nevertheless, Sampras was the one there in the end, playing the same rival he played in his first grand slam final in 1990.
The last two tournaments he won in his career were Wimbledon 2000, which broke the all-time grand slam record, and the US Open 2002, which extended it, to 14. He then retired, never to play another pro match. Unbelievable.
If he could have take two days rest the previous year final he would have won hewitt, without Amy doubt
And that’s what we call going out with a bang😉
Nope@@francuadrado7515
Check out Muttiah Muralitharan's Test retirement. It's perfect with exactly 800 wickets. An almost unbeatable world record.
True story. When Sampras won this tournament, I remember feeling overwhelmed.
Why these “old” footages look and sound better than most tennis footages from today??
love to see Sampras, Becker, Edberg and other S&V players. The current big three don't generate too much excitement for me
Are you joking ? Most of this game is based on Serve and Volleys, unless highlights, watching a whole Match is boring as hell compared to the tennis that is played today by the "big three"
A lost art...
the greatness of sampras was that he didn't let you play, he decided when you had to play the ball, like in a lottery, so you were always under his dominion
At least when he was serving
Like on clay or in the australian Open, right? Aceampras without his serve was garbage.
@@cloudman8911 yes, in fact even Raonic, Isner, Karlovic should have won 14 slams... they make more Aces than Sampras... you can see that you didn't understand my point regarding game tactics and how to interpret individual points during the match , sometimes it's better for your opponent not to touch the ball. Then he played the finals against someone with a perfect forehand and backhand called Andre Agassi. have you ever heard from Agassi who is the best ever? Sampras says all the time and he played against Roger and Rafa at the best of his technique
Sampras was a champion's mind no matter how the audiences support on the other side.
Pet Sampras will be for ever the best tennis player that i will see in my life
Having watched the entirety of Sampras' career, never did I think that after he retired he would be bumped down to 4th best of all time. I always assumed he'd be the best, but then the big 3 happened.
The quality of tennis in this final was poor in general compared to their blockbuster QF the year before. Agassi didn't really turn up, but then that might have been due to his insane semi win against Hewitt 24 hours before, which would leave any athlete knackered.
Yeah, their QF in 2001 was the best match in terms of standard that I have ever seen. Having watched that match again few years later, it even felt boaring, becsuse the level of play eas so high that it was like two robots playing and not humans
If Agassi was just a little bit more athletic, how many more slams would he have won? His ball striking was peerless at times.
Got to hand it to Pete. Last match, his home Slam, against his greatest foe Andre, record Slams at the time. Not going to happen again.
I'm don't know what the USTA intentions were with this so called "extended highlights" video.
We don't get to see Sampras getting in the zone and playing lights out tennis.
We get a glimpse of him getting tired and Agassi loosening up after his hard match against Hewitt the day before.
The edge of your seat, tightrope Sampras walked on for most of the fourth set?
It didn't exist according to this video.
Neither Sampras stepping up his return game to break Agassi in order to serve for the championship.
At least, this video showed very tense moments, where the crowd go crazy over a 2 stroke point, a missed first serve, a double fault, a return that clips the line, or one being out not by much.
Pros and cons.
No need for 20 strokes rallies to get people in their seats, and keep them glued.
I am not sure whether the man/woman who did the video dislikes Agassi, but 90%+ of this video contains Sampras serving and volleying. That is simply biased. You did not show a single of serve of Agassi for the first two sets. You did not show the crucial moment in the 4th set where Pete saved break points and then broke Andre in the next game. And you call this "extended highlights". Seriously?!
Exactly. Agassi Lost this match because te didn t play well. Aceampras without his serve was garbage.
@@cloudman8911Agassi also had a very good second serve, and Sampras covered the baseline and had a huge forehand. These guys were more balanced than you might think.
@@AbeedHossain I saw them when they player. Sampras forehand was very erratic. He covered the court well if you don t use angles. Agassi second serve was trash.
How about just chill and enjoy the free clips or search for the full match, not hard to find
@@turdferguson2 I am critical because it is the USTA that made these highlights. I am subscribed to several channels who create MUCH better highlights. If the USTA does not bother to create quality highlights for native American players, world number ones and all time greats at that, who the hell would they be creating them for?
Not Highlights :/
i don't really get highlights like these and the ones the AO do where they skip out large portions of the match and focus on a bunch of points in a few games, most of which aren't even good
No highlights and just sampras serving??
Pete Sampras second best to ever play the game
The Hector to Novak's Achilles
Commentators musta been on vacation...
Sampras attacker ....Agassi baseliner
Aceampras without tons of aces was garbage.
🤦♂️
@@mariuszneugebauer8801trying to be clever but failing badly, lol
The most bull$hit highlight video I have ever watched. Thank goodness only 1:53 of my lifetime was robbed.