Pete Sampras' Fairytale Run to the Title | 2002 US Open
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Take a look back at Pete Sampras' fairytale run to his fifth US Open title in his final professional tournament at the 2002 US Open.
Click here to subscribe: / usta
Twitter: / usta
Facebook: / usta
Instagram: / usta
Website: www.usta.com
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
LOVED watching Pete achieve this and will never forget it for life.
I love him. Really miss him
I remember watching the Rusedski match on the edge of my seat, thinking "If he can just find a way through this, It just might be the boost that he needs." It ended up being true! Those forehands in that final game were epic. I think those classless comments from Rusedski only fired him up!
Looking back, this was a truly magical run that we were so spoiled to witness. Can't think of a better way he could have ended his career.
this was magical indeed
he lost the previous 2 years in the finals, this was indeed a fairytale. cannot imagine he would have bowed out losing 3 in a row.
Thanke you USTA . More Pete Sampras please❤
Impossible really to compare players from different eras, so much has changed. If Pete were playing his career during the Fed, Nadal, Novak era, his game would have developed completely differently. No one knows or will ever know how the greats would fare in different eras. I suspect though that all of them share/shared a great drive to excel and would have found ways to be competitive.
Indeed. There’s no way he gives up his two-handed backhand or sticks to a small racket head if he’s learning the game a generation later.
Federer would have 8 slams max.
In Sampras' era, decidedly more difficult due to the ultra-fast courts and more competitive due to the number of champions at the same time, Roger would have won perhaps a dozen slams. Rafa and Nole many less since they only played on the new, very slow and uniform surfaces. If the question was what would have happened if they had played in that era, Pete would have simply massacred them, except on clay of course...
I know but modern fans are insane they don't listen to that kind of rationale.
@@atarumoroboshi75 And, it's not just the surfaces, the balls, the racquet heads, etc...
The ease of the strongest player ever... ❤
One of my favorite memories! Seeing him lift that trophy was a gift to all tennis lovers. Greatest player ever!
Pete Sampras definitely is a unique talent. So many good players with big games in the field and he just whacked them.
He had a dignified finale, which apparently none of the big three managed to
Dude, two of the big three are still on tour. Anything can happen still.
Speak for Roger “8-7 40-15” Federer, not for the Big 2.
Well you can’t really compare this. Pete was already by far and away the best player on tour (stats wise) and the next closes person was Andre who had half the numbers of Pete. He already held the big records and was setting out to prove that he could still win.
The Big 3 still want to play and most likely will only stop when their bodies give in.
the real GOAT
Ultimate Serving Machine.
Simplest service action, deadliest first and second serves.
Minimum motion, maximum action.
Pistol Pete ia always the greatest, above Fedddy, Nadal, Jokovik
14-4 record in major finals. The Mental Giant.
The greatest server of all time. After winning the USO, Sampras was the all-time slam leader (14 wins) until it was surpassed by Federer at Wimbledon 2009 (watched by Sampras).
Pete is still the leader, the others have won on identical and ridiculously slow fields which have made the "herbivores" disappear. Instead of fighting against 10/15 other specialist champions (as has always been) Roger, Rafa and Nole were competing for the slams among the 3 of them...this is because their "Nemeses" of Serve & Volley were simply missing. A bit like the Mastercard advert...
@@atarumoroboshi75 true
Albert Portas actually won a Masters Series event the previous year. Hamburg Masters!
This moment made me emotional. I am a huge fan of Sampras and Steffi. Sampras is such a unique talent. His athleticism is beyond, coupled with his superb service game. Steffi being herself, humble. The best female tennis ever. Huge respect to Agassi.
*
He acted like he was so old
He didn't, everyone else did.
Yes exactly. Pete made 30 seem and feel old.
31 was older in the 90s. He also had Thalassemia, and was emotionally exhausted from breaking all the records.
Early 30s was a normal time to retire then. Agassi was treated like an ageless wonder for lasting until 36.
5:57 into this clip, anyone equipped with a brain and/or watched it live knows it's faked.
Zero desire to watch something faked.
An honest editting mistake, a deliberate one?
Those concepts are no longer - probably never were - there, now, existed, an useful tool (if so, for what purpose?)
The editing can be rectified. The purpose - if any - can be eliminated.
It's not that much work is it?
It can't possibly be more than the work required to misrepresent reality, any other imaginable thing withstanding.
Nadal has as many French open titles (14) as Sampras total slams titles. Lol😂😂😂 At that time biased USA media said that Sampras slam record might remain unbroken in near future. Horrible prediction. 😉😉
The record Sampras broke had stood for decades.
Nobody could predict an era so weak where only 4 men would win all the slams.
Djokovic is far superior to Nadal btw.
@@TheAndrewMeyerwell I didn't count Murray into big 3 league. BTW big 3 are very versatile (unlike Sampras who was basically nothing on clay 😂😂) & way more consistent than Sampras ever was. In fact not big 3 but it's Sampras era which was weak. Lendl, Edberg, McEnroe were past prime when he began his domination in 1993, Becker remain a factor only on indoors (he also lack consistency), Agassi faded away quickly after 1995 (then he played in Challenger circuit lol😂😂). Sampras main rival were Muster, Rafter, Rios, Krajecik, Todd Muster, Kafelnikov lol😂😂. Frankly many of those will have zero slam in big 3 era. Facts of the matter is big 3 thrashed Pete records despite playing against each other & is way more dominate than Sampras ever was.
@@TheAndrewMeyer BTW even Murray have more masters titles (14) than Pete (11).😂😂 Infact Murray had 21 slams SF vs Pete 23, Murray had more (30) slams QF vs Pete 29. Imagine what could Murray achieved in the 90's weak field?? 😉😉
Sampras le ganaria con facilidad a Nadal 😂 ponlo a los dos en su prime y sampras le ganaria tanto en pista dura y wimbledon a nadal 🤣
@@5epulvedas nope, Nadal won 6 slams on hardcourt (1 less than Sampras) despite playing against two of the greatest hard court players of all time (Federer & Novak). Especially in today's slow hard court I prefer Nadal over Sampras since Nadal baseline game is far superior than Sampras & I don't see Pete outgrind either member of big 3. On grass yeah Sampras have the edge but Nadal can beat him once or twice, remember he beat peak Federer in 2008 Wimbledon. On clay Nadal would Pete beat 10 out of 10 times without even losing a set & might bageled couple of set.😂😂
Won first major as a teenager, never changed racquets, left on his own terms, enjoying quiet family life.
You have to live the British misfire “gracious in defeat as ever” about pseudo Englishman RuPEDski. 😂 we all know how he acted after the match.
Greg knows whiny, Greg knows how to turn his back on his county, Greg knows how to weasel out of steroid positive tests, Greg knows how to put on a bad English accent that Agassi said all the players were laughing about in 95.
Not winning a tournament in 2 years and he seeded?
EVERYONE knows Agassi let Sampras win. They were buds.
They were not buds. Read the terrible things Agassi wrote about Pete in his book.
@@farid1406 Despite all the things he wrote about him in his book, he also acknowledged him as the better player. Which he was.
Sampras achieved more in 14 years career than agassi did in 2p years career
@@ירוןארדYet Agassi achieved the career super slam, the only player ever to do so.
@@farid1406the only "terrible" thing Agassi wrote about him is that he's cheap. Which he is.
@@SonateSonate you know this how?