Pete Sampras' 14 Grand Slam Championship Points
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Look back over Pete Sampras's Grand Slam history after his 17th major win at the 2002 US Open.
Sampras won 64 top-level singles titles (including 14 Grand Slam titles, 11 Super 9/ATP Masters Series/ATP World Tour Masters 1000 titles and five Tennis Masters Cup titles) and two doubles titles. He was ranked the world number 1 for a total of 286 weeks (the second most of all-time after Roger Federer's 302 weeks) and was year-end no. 1 for a record six consecutive years from 1993 through 1998.
Sampras is praised by many tennis analysts as one of the greatest Male grass-court players of all time. 
Спорт
Started following Tennis cause of this man. What a player pistol Pete was. I respect his decision to retire at 31 but he definitely had at-least 2 more grand slams in him.
I also think so! It really seemed like 2002 USO might be another one of his “comebacks”, since the momentum shifted and he could ride on that wave for quite some time (maybe a couple of seasons more?), could probably add another USO next year to set new open era title record (which would likely remain unsurpassed even till day as it would seem!) and maybe one more Wimbledon! (Federer wasn’t still invincible in 2003 and i feel like Sampras could have beaten him if he was motivated enough!…)
Not really may be quarter or semis
🥵🥵🥵When Samprass retired in 2002 at 32 years old with 14 Majors if he ONLY NEW what was right in front of him with the 3 Goats starting thier unprecedented steamroll in 2003 Just 1 year later I think he would have played until 40 to maybe get another 5 or 6 majors....
From 2003 to 2022 the 3 Goats have amassed 63 singles majors...!!
It completely defies belief.
🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
@@seatime674 Not to mention, that not one but two of the matched or otherwise surpassed his Wimbledon title record, which at the time was the most for an open era in men’s tour!
Diet, training and sports medicine evolved to help players like Nadal, Fed and Novak. And that's why they lasted and are still lasting. It wasn't really around when Pete was playing. That makes a huge difference.
Sampras. The man with best second serve ace.
Ivanisevic 2.serve is like first .Ace or double faul🤣
I have seen Federer fail to serve out a 40-15 on his serve here at 2019 Wimbledon for the title..Fed was a better tennis player, but could you imagine Pete failing to serve it out from that position...no chance...he would have gone for a first serve on his second...he would go for the jugular...
@@mateglavni7446 yep but on grass you do that..its risky
@@kailashpatel1706 Only the very best take that risk
You're 37 years old, two championship points, your serve..You take the risk and go all out..don't you?
Most of the finals he won, he won handily. I always admired Pete.
GOAT with a class, style and best ever no matter how many slams he win. I am glad I watched it then
My first favorite player! Pistol Pete dominated the 90s era I miss watching him,I had the opportunity to see him play once,thanks to RUclips we can comeback to all those precious moments
I was such a huge fan of Sampras. Had to opportunity to see him play live one time.
Sampras a player who can hit ace in second serve. As though he’s got two first serves.
Wore a white shirt for all of them...
he had the most beautiful serve.
His serve is the GOAT.
And wife
And style as well. I don't understand why everyone says Roger's technique is unique. I think Sampras is the best if to talk about style
@@miked2543 oh yes. She is beauty. Roddick's wife also has typical appearqnce
@@jacklondon4753 because Federer consistently makes shots that seem impossible look easy and hits winners out of nowhere. Sampras had a very one-dimensional game and often made unbelievable unforced errors. Like, really really bad errors. Came to the net all the time, but couldn't handle volleys if the ball came back too hard
Second serve ace.....
Federer once said he is not as focused as Sampras was....
What a champion
begins and ends with agassi
And it begins and ends at the US Open. :D
He wanted it that way it seems.
Cool
Sampras with that serve on fast grass very hard to beat
Indeed. The grass was super fast back then. Today, the grass is as slow as a lot of hard courts.
Yep. It was an era when mediocre players with big serves could reach the final at Wimbledon and even win it (e.g. Krajikec, Philippoussis, Ivanisevic). Sampras had the best serve in the world. Of course, he was also a very good player, although not GOAT-tier.
Compare the WEAR AND TEAR of Centre Court at Wimbledon THEN, to NOW.
You can see how serve and volley wore out the lawn back then, in mid court.
Whereas now, there is almost no wear mid court, and lots to the baselines.
Very few players today with the pure class of Sampras.
Beat agassi so much he lost his damn hair.
Leroy Rodgers touché
Agassi always wore a wig
Adrian Troickic Hahaha! Yes! Nole has brought baldness to Nadal!
BETSELOT EYOB indeed, but Nole has his number. I am a die hard Rafa fan, but Nole is the reason why Rafa doesn’t have 21/22 Majors
BETSELOT EYOB and he is the reason why Federer, nor Nole could win the Calendar Slam as well, but of the 15 matches how many were played before 2011? That’s the key. Rafa hasn’t been able to beat Nole in Australia, while Nole is one of two players who have been able to defeat Nadal in RG. Granted, it was during that terrible period of 2015 and 2016, but he did it nonetheless.
I Will always see him as the greatest
Just to remind all the tennis fans out there, Pete Sampras was and still is Federer and Novak's idol.
Federer's was Borg
and all irrelevant
Fed and Nole eviscerate Pete
mazz baz, wrong!!!! federer’s idol is Pete Sampras...He always said that in interviews...
@@thetruthofit398 i dont know whe borg retired roger was 1 year old
I think their idols were becker edberg and sampras
mal bashir Pistal Pete in his prime would beat the Fed Express but it would be a close match
Jimmy Johnson was Sampras in his prime ??? No
He really was a class player..👏🏻
BEST SERVE & VOLLEY EVER EVERRRRRRR
True
Serve yes. Volleyer, McEnroe, Edberg and Federer, Becker then. But of course he had a better forehand. Only Federer had better.
@@denisdaly1708 Federer??? R u crazy? Nadal has more success at the net than Fed. Serve and volley goes as a pair and nobody was better than Sampras.
Edberg was better...but pete is all around
A phantastic tennis player! And you cannot compare him with the next generation (Fed, Nadal and Djokovic)! Everything changed after his era! All courts became much slower! Even grass! They use other lawn mix where the Ball jumps off differently and gets slowed down. The rackets are so different. Olso the strings and so on!
Exact. It's a fact
Yeh it gave all sorts of players a chance when the conditions changed,Djokovic would have struggled more in that era as his world class defensive skills would be less useful in that era.Also Lleyton Hewitt was the biggest victim of the new era as he thrived against serve volleyers which started disappearing at the turn of the millennium because of the conditions
Hewitt would have been as successful as Agassi if the conditions didn’t change
Live in present
It is their choice to make it slow or not simple
The tennis player should be best in everything simple
Serve serve serve serve serve serve serve 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I like modern Tennis more than Traditional tennis
Fast surfaces are boring
I like medium fast,Medium,Medium slow and slow surfaces actually
Pete sampras would not win major titles in this era for sure😒😒😒😒
The players are best in their ways stop insulting present players 😡😡
You can literally see Agassi and Sampras becoming closer friends and Sampras gaining muscles mass after raising his arms so many times over the years.
Sampras is my all time favourite,his style is incompatible classic
Thanks for sharing this video.. Being a die hard fan of Pete, its always a treat to watch him winning a grand slam..
Serve and volley rule. Times that never will come back again.
The only thing more consistent than Sampras's game is his celebration. For a lot of Gen Y & X's, this man is the Prince of Tennis.
Growing up watching him, I always did the serve and volley. With a booming serve very few people in my area knew how to handle it. Easy loopers floating high over the net like crazy. I should get out and play some tennis again.
Do it!
At the beginning of his career, his achievements below compatriot agassi, chang & courier... but in1993 he started his glory 👍👍👍
Sampras was amazing on grass
Finished career like a true champ.
GOAT
For someone who would serve volly on every point and everyone who played him knew he would do it everytime, to win so many grand slams is unbelievable.
Well not every point...just when he hit his serve right, which was...well most of them. ;)
He was not only a serve and volley player, ofc the stronger strategy of him was that amount of pressure que puts since the serve but with better accuracy than anyone in his era, his fh was flat and really consistent, his bh being his weaker shot wasnt bad at all, he used very well to open the court or aproach the net
Deniz E, you can't have watched many of Sampras's matches. He had good, solid groundstrokes and was happy to rally from the back court when necessary.
@@michelez715 I watched a lot of Sampras.
I'm talking about when he served!! He served volleyed every serve. Even 2nd serve
It's totally believable. He played in the era when the rackets and surfaces disproportionately rewarded players with good serves, and Sampras had the best serve in the world. In any other era he wouldn't have been nearly so dominant.
Despite the disease,called thalassemia Pete was able to win long matches,always showings character in crucial moments.
P.S.Would have probably won the 1999 US Open,he was in fantastic form that summer.
Never realised until now that Pete always celebrated the exact same way by throwing his arms in the air. Every time
Grande campione, fonte di ispirazione di tanti altri mostri sacri del tennis, Federer in particolare.
certo, le due ma grandissimo
I never get tired of that yeah scream against Agassi @Wimbledon 1999
me neither.
In Agassi's book Sampras told him he had never seen Agassi play that well on grass which made him lift his game. I know they don't really like each other but they played some epic matches!
@@Blinkncali21 thanks for sharing this
and with an ace with the second serve, Pistol is my hero, now sharing with Roger!!
He is the only player who won his last grand slam before retirement
Talk about a great way to exit the game!
Sampras was destroying his competition in these Finals. Everyone says how exciting all these 5-setters are nowadays, but there's something to be said for a player being locked in and in the zone and there to give his opposition no hope. You'd never see a player like Sampras mentally fold after a 2-set lead. He even hated giving up a set to be up 2-1 and would show no mercy in the 4th set. His game was powerful and hard to beat, but there's also the mental aspect, which he cornered the market on during his era.
True he was so dominant you would know who will win. I use to ask myself why those people even play with him
Pete.the Best¡ ever and ever and evers¡
Not even close.
Err no ! great player, but a level down from dvokovic, Federer and Nadal.
Sampras' had an impressive record against all of these opponents.
And on all surfaces, even clay, I believe.
The best he achieved at Roland Garros was one semi-final. On clay, he was nowhere near his level on hard and grass.
Radu Cora True, but he beat Courier at the French and I believe Agassi on the red clay as well. Courier and Agassi have no wins against him in grass. The point is that Federer who is no doubt the GOAT has a losing record against Djokovic, Nadal, and at one time Murray. Most admirable aspect of Sampras's is his quiet humility in winning these championships.
...on grass...
I think he beat Agassi,Courier,Muster,Brugeirra and Kafelnikov on clay
Pete won 7 Wimbledon titles and 5 US open titles. Only Federer has done that. ( 8 Wimbledon titles) 6 straight year end finishes. Thats never been done by anyone other then Pete! People look at the "Big 3" now and nothing more. The big 3 are amazing and top 5-7 of all time. Its just sad that Pete, Borg and Laver at times get lost in the shuffle! Pete is my all time favorite!!
Ro Sm, totally agree with you. Only saw Laver from 1968 on, but his record speaks for itself. Borg won some of his French and Wimbledon titles back to back, and that was when there were only 2 weeks between the tournaments. And Sampras never lost in a Wimbledon final, unlike Fed. He made 8 US Open finals, and won 5 of them. With all due respect to today's Big 3, there were superlative players before them, but people have short memories.
@@michelez715 Borg's achievement was greater than Sampras's. Remember also that Borg only played in the Australian Open once, aged 17. Lots of players skipped it at the time; it wasn't until the 80s that it started being treated as a must-play tournament for pros.
He’s was the greatest player ever before Roger, Rafa and Novak arrived
He can’t be in the conversation if he never won career grand slam,plus you can’t compare players from the 90’s and earlier game was so different
@@mattyarwood4318 When Sampras retired in 2003 he was considered by almost everyone as THE greatest tennis player ever and he still is among the top 5 ever after the big 3 and before Borg.
He never won Roland Garros yet his great rival Agassi did
@@mattyarwood4318 I know, but you need to remember that the 1990s was the era of surface specialists and the feild was MUCH deeper than its been since the turn of the century. Plus the court's back then were incredibly different from each other. Winning all four back then was virtually impossible, it's why I personally think Agassi's career slam is the most impressive.
@@serenaistheb.o.a.t I really don't under stand why some people love to consider Agassi career grandslam to be bigger than Sampras 6times years end world number one and 14 grandslams.
Before Rafa, I’m a Sampras fan..😊
Me too Man . I was a huge Sampras fan . I did not like Federer first bcoz he was a biggest threat to Sampras record . Then I became Nadal’s fan because tennis was so boring because of Federer’s dominance and then came Nadal who was the only ONE who could beat Federer at that time .
@@coolyoutuber6237 haha. I remember that time when tennis was really boring cause of Roger. Sounds funny))
@@coolyoutuber6237 I was too young to follow tennis back in the Federer dominance, but whenever I read articles from 2003-06 about tennis they all talk about how boring tennis was because of Federer. Nadal showed up at the right time. As Aggasi retired Nadal showned up and when it was looking like Nadal would dominate with no opposition Djoker showed up and Stan and Murray.
Such a shame that Pete Sampras never won the French Open.
He never had the all-court game to achieve it. He could only play on fast courts. His serve murdered people during an era when the technology facilitated it.
Couldn't handle the length of the rallys.Its really tough to win at Roland garros
If your a serve volley specialist. .....Look at John Mcenroe. Though he was two sets up against lendl in the 84 final .But lost
His best result there was a semifinal appearance. Not sure of the year, though.
@@jonrobles1468 1996
@@AdamDawson3thanks!
You're making me totally into him.
I hope you don't start to fantasize now.
A little history is in order, up until Pete Sampras hit his stride, most people assumed Roy Emerson's record of 12 major singles titles would not be broken in the Open era. The game had changed too much, they thought. The depth in the ATP was too great. Nobody was even bothering to play the Australian Open, where Emerson had collected six of his singles titles.
But two critical things were also happening: the rehabilitation of the Australian Open (a tournament that icons Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe had played a combined total of just eight times in a total of 49 years of Grand Slam play) and the homogenization of the Grand Slam surfaces.
By the time Sampras emerged, it was no longer a three-Slam game. The opportunity to win a major every year increased by 25 percent. Just as important, over time, the hard courts at the US Open and Australia became medium-to-fast-paced (depending on the year), the fast grass at Wimbledon was slowed to hard-court-like speed, and the changes in equipment and court maintenance helped eliminate the dreaded clay-court specialists who once terrorized seeds at the French Open
The speed at which these three titans eclipsed Sampras' record, after Emerson's had stood for so long, means a basic haul of major titles is just the entry fee into the GOAT debate. Other aspects of the record then become much more important. Those include head-to-head records, success in other first-rate events (like Masters 1000s) and overall winning percentage.
Let's not forget that because he spanned the amateur and Open eras, Rod Laver was denied the opportunity to play majors for six years starting at age 24, the year after he completed a calendar-year Grand Slam. Laver returned in the Open era and then accomplished another sweep of the majors in 1969. He remains the only Open era player with two calendar Grand Slams.
Federer spent 5 years without winning a Grand Slam between 2012 and 2017. Subsequently, he is not the most consistent.
Djokovic spent more than 2 years without winning a Grand Slam between Roland Garros 2016 and Wimbledon 2018. Also, Djokovic only won 1 Grand Slam in six years between 2005 and 2010 . One GS in 6 years!! It can be argued that Djokovic had not peaked, but that is not an excuse. The ability to peak soon is also an indicative of early consistency. We can't just ignore all the years 2005 - 2010 acting like Djokovic didn't play.
Nadal spent 3 years without winning a Grand Slam between Roland Garros 2014 and 2017. But Nadal is the only man in the history of tennis to win at least one Grand Slam 10 consecutive years. So he may be the most consistent overall.
Of the big three my vote goes to Federer but that can of course change in the future.
Suat Kaya, very good analysis, covering all the relevant points. I agree with you on all you say, except yr vote for Federer!
@@michelez715 Thanks alot for your kind words.
Also, Nadal and Federer had the door opened for them somewhat in 2017 and 2018 due to injuries to Djokovic and Murray, who had been dominating fast court tournaments for the preceding two years.
@@KaitainCPS Thank you very much for your comment
Excellent analysis. Another interesting thing I heard was that Sampras was forced to play more matches the last year he was #1 because he was fighting off Marcelo Rios for the year-end #1 spot. He was going for 6 straight years in a row, which he was able to get and which is still a record. As a result, his body started breaking down after that. So in a sense, he traded getting a higher total of slams for the sixth year at #1.
My all time favorite. Did the talking with his racquet.
What a player he was, absolute greatness.
Had his pet style of celebration in winning all the Championship points. Both arms up in the air.. and u know he has won.
Great Player.
I will never forgive Sampras for bullying Agassi in the 99 Wimbledon final. As an Agassi fan he made me cry so much that day. What a rivalry they had.
Pete was an incredible player. As an Agassi fan you had to bow to the man. It was a tough pill to swallow.
@@cleawox Agassi at his best would beat Pete at his best. When Agassi was on fire those ground strokes were on a whole different level
Pete you're the best!
Crazy, I remember when we thought Pete's record of 14 slams would stand forever...then, not even 1 year later, along comes Federer...
Sampras = the real GOAT!
Former goat
Agree so polite and no drama
Big 3 is GOAT
He wouldn’t win a slam in this era, serve and volley is dead
Rob Wouters Agreed. Sampras is the real GOAT. The surfaces are homogenized now. All slow courts to protect the top players Federer even admitted this. The big 3 dominate the weak slow court era of ping pong tennis.
Uno de los mejores de la historia del Tenis, perfil bajo, no tribuneaba, no se tomaba demas tiempo para servir, talento y tenis puro
14-4 in slam finals. An absolute monster.
For me the greatest tennis 🎾 player SLAM 🇺🇸👑🏆🥇PETE SAMPRAS 👏❤️
LMAOOOO
Sampras king of tennis in 1900-2002
Don't you mean 1990?? Not even the great Sampras could reign for 102 years!
Sampras won his first grand slam at Us open and also won his Last at Us open.
Misma celebración en todos, madre mía....
Wow amazing
Don't tell me that you just know something about Sampras now. Sampras was a force to be reckoned with in the world of tennis back in the 90's. It's all because of watching Sampras back then that help motivated me to continue to play the game of tennis up til this point in my life.
I never really warmed to Sampras. He was too like a machine. He hammered Andre Agassi in that 99 Wimbledon final and from the back of the court as much as the net.A I have to admit he was an incredible player though.
It's so strange to think how much the game have changed... grew up in the 90s you'd watch Sampras and think wow he's good, no one can beat his 14 slams... and now you look at Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, and think wow they're so much better than Sampras!
den525 not really Pete can beat all of em on 90’s courts
Probably occasionally... Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would comfortably still beat Sampras even on the faster courts.
den525 lol ur probably a younger fan. We can all agree Sampras in his prime would beat all three in straight sets on fast courts. Lmao
unfortunately i disagree. Sampras might still win alot of his serves, but with his groundstroke game, it won't compete against the others. Take Federer on grass against Sampras.. sampras' game won't be able to break Federer's serve, yet Federer have more of a chance to break Sampras' serve
@@deand.l.2049 LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO THE BIG 3 EVISCERATE PETE HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA FED AT 19 BEAT 28 YEAR OLD SAMPRAS FFS
ALL IN THEIR PRIME PETE IS CLOSER TO STAN AND ANDY THAN THE BIG THREE WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
No win at Rolland Garros (French Open) exactly like Jimmy Connors.
but Jimmy missed 5 or 6 RG during his prime.
@@ais6863 still played many
Same as Edberg and Becker
@Daniel Jr Rafa was the 4 time defending RG Champion the year Roger won.
But Jimbo made it to four semifinals atleast.
In my book Pistol Pete Sampras the best ever..
The best tennis player before the Big3 arrival. Even a referencie both for Djokovic and. Federer.
Not even close.
You could argue that Lleyton Hewitt is better than Pete Sampras.
One of the best!
If Sampras played up to 35 he would have won more than 20 gs titles
He'll win a couple of more for sure, but not sure if he'll win 20+. Federer was rising when Sampras retired.
#BBCSPORTS SAMPRAS NEW MILLENNIUM 🇺🇸
SONIC BOOM SAMPRAS !!!!!!!! MY FAVOURITE TENNIS PLAYER
#BBCSPORTS SAMPRAS "WIN'S BIG" 🇺🇸
#BBCSPORTS SAMPRAS IS BACK 🇺🇸
THE SAMPRAS IS HELLENE TO ORIGIN .
CALOS ANTHROPE THE AGGASI
What a champion
He ending his slam winning career in 2002 the same way he started it 12 years earlier. By beating Agassi in the US Open final.
So we can make conclusion. It took 12 years for Sampras to win 14 slams. And 20 years for Roger to win 20 slams. So how much slams have Roger during his first 12years?)))
@@jacklondon4753 what? It took Federer less than 15 years to win 20 slams. He started in 2003 and won AO in 2018
@@owenbenjaminshapiro6285 his professional career started in 1998 or 99. Do you remember his match against Agassi in Basel? So, that was his big start. So, that is 20 years. But, no doubt he is the greatest of all time. Just was wondering what if Pete prolonged his career
@@jacklondon4753 You can't compare in that way. At least Federer had a gut to play competitively for very long time while having had to face Nadal and Djokovic at such an old age. . I would like to point out Borg has taken 8 years to win 11 grand slams before retiring at the age of 26. So what do you think of him? So , every body has his strength and weaknesses.
@@sterlingyapsoonaik7097 And Borg still has the all-time highest winning percentage in the open era.
#BBCSPORTS NEW SAMPRAS SLAM 🇺🇸
These two warriors would kick Djokovich's ass like a country bumpkin with ease.
jajajajjaajjajajaja🤣🤣🤣, Djokovic destroy easy sampras in this era
@@marioserrano5758 IN his dreams.
8-7 40-15
Top American players, male: 1-Sampras, 2-Agassi, 3-Connors, 4-J.McEnroe, 5- Courier, 6-Ashe, 7-StanSmith, 8-Chang, 9-Roddick & 10- Gerulatis.
Agassi was a greater talent than Sampras, but lacked a big serve in an era where the combination of rackets and surfaces allowed the men's game to be dominated by big servers. Agassi is a far more influential player than Sampras. Most of the top players now play like Agassi; hardly anybody plays like Sampras.
@@KaitainCPS Nah it wasn't. Agassi was weak in the net, weak serve, and he wasn't a great defender too.
Nowadays nobody play like Sampras because court conditions changed a lot.
Djokovic has Agassi skills but better serve and a way better defence.
I really did feel for Agassi every time he got hammered by Sampras
Sampras: I slouch pretty badly.
Kyrgios: Hold my beer bro.
hilarious
Everybody thought Sampras was the best ever, perhaps including himself, till the big 3 came along.
By 2005, Federer was obviously better.
Hardly. Most always knew Laver was better. Gonzales probably too. There was false hype of him being GOAT to promote the game, but real tennis insiders never believed it.
Now with 3 guys easily passing his mark though he just looks weaker. Many would now have him as low as 7th or 8th, defintiely behind Laver, Gonzales, and maybe behind Borg or Rosewall too.
@Leroy Rodgers
No it isn't because he obviously felt he couldn't do it anymore.
When you look at the fact that the big 3 of today have all won the French Open and Sampras never got to a final, you know those 3 are better....also longevity counts for something. Having a body and fitness capable of continuing for as long as possible is all part of it.
The number of years of Sampras's whole career will probably be a lesser number of French Open's Nadal wins!
Those 3 are clearly better....and even if they're not it makes Sampras an idiot for thinking "No one would win 14 slams again"...ever?? lol
Also Novak had 15 slams before he turned 32.
@@leroyrodgers6089 16 or more.
Novak 16
Rafa 18
Roger 20
Roger is in front but is quite a bit older than the other 2 and may finish on no more than what he has or maybe 1 more max.
Rafa 1 year older than Novak will continue winning the French Open until he retires but Novak has best chance of winning the most being the youngest but fit enough to last until at least the age Roger does but would likely win slams more consistently in his older ages than Roger has. Also Novak has won 15 of his 16 slams on hard court or grass which Nadal will not stop him too much in. As only a 3rd of Rafa's slams haven't been the French Open.
@@leroyrodgers6089 No it says you wrote it a month ago...Novak won his 15th slam in January when he was still 31
The 12 GS record of Roy Emerson stayed decades until unbelievably surpassed by Pete.
And more unbelievable, new 14 GS record again far behind vs Big 3.
People thought his record14 would last forever. Then came Roger, Rafa and Nole 😂
Best serve ever
Best second serve ever, too.
Almost every final he faced a new player while today every final is a 3 player pool... Kinda gives you a picture how tough his 14 were...
Kinda like WTA tour right?
@@dariopavlic6125 a gle ne znam na što ciljaš točno ali činjenica da su dns sve podloge iste nema specijalista za podloge nema brzih dvoranskih podloga itd..tenis je postao jedna podloga isti igraci, svi igraju s osnovne i stvarno je dosadna igra mecevi traju dugo i onak totalno su bland...prije recimo sampras je bio all around ali isao je na mrezu, edberg apsolutni bog mreže imao si agassia koji je bio sjajan all around i recimo on bi dns isto bio jeben jer njegova igra je kao po mjeri radjena za danasnji tenis.. ali kuzis Bourgera nije dolazio do finala Wimbledona niti je Sampras dolazio do finala Roland Garossa... Meni su 90. najjace ikad po pitanju talenta i nikad vise nece biti tolika koncentracija velikana u istom periodu...Federer se šetao do naslova, dns jedina prava konkurencija Nadalu je Djokovic i obrnuto...mislim u biti tužno je to sve skupa...pazi pocetkom 90tih si imao Lendla, Mcenroa na zalascima karijere ali jos opasni Beckera Edberga Mustera u primeu Samprasa Agassija Changa Couriera Raftera StichA Burgeru Krajiceka Ivanisevica na pocetku karijera...usporedimo li to s danasnjim tenisom di imas 3 vrhunska igraca i ove mlade koji samo lupaju bezveze i trce ko konji bez imalo inteligencije tesko je uopce usporediti ...tenis je jedini sport koji se srozao u zadnjih 20-30 godina po pitanju kvalitete...svaka cas ovoj trojci ali meni ce Sampras uvijek biti GOAT jer je u najjacoj eri bio daleko najbolji...
2:03 interesting how back then, Becker was allowed to wear so much blue on his shirt at Wimbledon
all time great
Amazing how there was not one really good point in all of them.
Because Sampras dominant game usually demoralized his opponents. In all these Finals, almost none of them even went to 5 sets because Sampras was almost unbeatable by that point. He was like Michael Jordan in that he would close out his opponent before Game 7.
Draga Mihai, era bine sa devii un jucator de tenis !Aveai fizicul filiform !!!CE
Great tennis
!THE SERVICE!
Agassi's nemesis
#BBCSPORTS SAMPRAS AGAIN 🇺🇸
Not showing the handshake every time was a mistake.
#BBCSPORTS SECOND TIME SAMPRAS 🇺🇸
Fast courts really suited Sampras. Agassi was in the wrong era. The courts are different now. Their totals would be reversed at least. Oh how Roger wishes that courts remained that fast. Easily over 30 slams. Great serve Sampras, and a really great athlete. His weakness was that he was unwilling to learn and change. He is deeply conservative, and so the games of Hewitt and Saffin were too much and caused too many problems for his game. The result was that he was ostensibly finished at 28, except for one last great run at the fast US open. Agassi despite being older would go on to improve and evolve, regaining number one in 2003, and being g close to number one in 2005, where he gave Federer a great game in the final of the US open. His back problems were too much however.
I think if Sampras was playing today, he would be a better player. His backhand would be better, and he would have to work his way to come into the net. He would not win as much.
However, if the big 3 went back in time to Sampras's era, then only Federer would be up their and a bit more with Sampras. Rafa and Novak would not even be top tenerrs.
And if Nadal n djokovic had been during the peak of Federer ,Federer would have win 4_5 max slams
Ur comparison n deduction of Federer winning 30 slam is piece of shit n imaginery
It's beyond idiotic to say that Djokovic and Nadal won't be top tenners
I don't care how good Federer is or how fast the courts stayed. There's no way he'd have 30 slams.
@@rohitkaushik9885 Yeah if everything had been different, things would have been different.
lmfao, where's his French open title??
The first and the last were US Open against Agassi. A legend of the game.
Consider this: Agassi's final Grand Slam final was the 2005 U.S. Open against Federer, 15 years after his first U.S. Open final.
Very fitting that the 1st and last were against Agassi
Pete sampras... The legend who didn't won French open
Great player but Never won the French open, in my opinion the toughest physically to win .Because of the length of the rallys .
He has never won Rolland Garros (French Open)... 🤷♂️
Never even reached the final.
I wonder what Andre said to him in the first one? Pete didn’t seem to reply at all at the net. Maybe he was stunned by the moment.
GOAT
Hahaha. Not.
Are you serious?!
He nearly killed tennis ! The most boring No.1 ever with the most unattractive game. All he did was go boom-boom with his serves. He's a goat alright - the real one with the fur.
Yes real GOAT! Not ping pong tennis GOAT like today!
"Yes real GOAT!"
@Peter Löffler, I was only kidding. He's not a real goat. He's not that hairy and he doesn't have horns. Besides, goats can't hold a tennis racket which Sampras does.
@@jshanker2005 that's called being so dominant you change the game. No one beats Pete on those courts with those strings more often than not. Not Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, etc. He dictates play more than any player in history. He also retired on top. I have a feeling if he had someone to chase he would've played longer and finished with at least 2-3 more slams.