Wilander avait gagné en 1985 en étant beaucoup plus offensif...il change de tactique a 3ieme et passe pas loin de renverser le match...mais Lendl réagit en immense champion et fait un tie break exceptionnel. Une finale inoubliable comme une tragédie !
Très belle finale entre deux joueurs de fond de court qui ont su varier leur jeu avec intelligence pour nous offrir un magnifique spectacle qui est allé crescendo au fil du match. Victoire méritée pour Lendl, plus offensif et plus agréable à voir de façon générale, mais bravo aussi à Wilander pour sa ténacité et sa capacité à rebondir moralement après le deuxième set...
Lendl's backhand was solid but not beautiful. It was mechanically correct making it consistent. In contrast Federer's & Wawrinka's backhands are far more lethal & artistic. Both produce great backhands with far less effort & can hit winners from anywhere. No so with Lendl who banked on his forehand as the killer shot.
@@davidschick4729 Both Wawrinka & Federer would dominate Lendl in any generation using the same racket technology. They are better movers, have better hands & reflexes. They serve bigger & return more consistently. Lendl had stone hands & had a mediocre volley. Just what weapon did Lendl have which could defeat either? If you say forehand, Federer's & Wawrinka have far more pace. It's not even close. Put Lendl's Addidas racket in Stan or Fed's hand & they would produce much more pace than Lendl did because their timing is better.
@@qgodofgodsrulerofall1341the equipment is very different as too are the surfaces I believe, but spoken like a true American wearing your ignorance on your sleeve like some badge of honor or knowledge, which it is not. Your argument, which boils down to, because I said so carries no weight, and though it is true any great game will evolve and the athletes will/can become faster/stronger, if u showed Lendl the racquets that Fed, Joke, Nadal would use today, he would laugh hysterically and asked what they called such a silly game. Also with equal equipment, Lendl was, in his prime, as good if not obviously better than anyone whose ever played, there is no doubt.
@@GodfrayShmikel Plus consider the evolvement of sport medicine. In the old times players had a 10-year prime time AT BEST, they faded quickly when hit 30; nowadays due to better training methods, nutrition, medical procedures and equipment they can play almost 20 years on their highest level. So comparing 80s tennis to nowadays tennis is more like comparing horse races to formula one grand prix.
Sports racket technology is the reason they could not hit it consistently with power or accuracy in those days. Games revolved around the equipment of the day. Alcaraz or Nadal would not be hitting back then like they can today. Indeed even Agassi wasn't hitting it as hard early in his career to the later half. These were the two best tennis players on the planet at the time, what they were able to achieve was pretty awe-inspiring. To say otherwise, trying to compare it to the speed and control of today, is just stupid.
Je note le comportement exemplaire de ces deux joueurs. Concentration et application,, sans cinéma... c'est plaisant. Juste un bémol pour Lendl qui n'arrête pas de cracher... c'est dégoûtant.
Mats is my favorite player of all time and I have only seen this match MAYBE once all the way through. It's the most painful Mats loss evar!!!!! He won everything leading up to this final and was way too defensive. In the 85 final he came to the net 10 million times!!!
True, he was too defensive. He changed gears played attacking tennis midway of the 3rd set and took the initiative. Lendl was tiring out during the 4th set , fortunately rains interrupted and gave a break to lendl. Mentally and stamina wise, mats was better in wearing opponents down. Wilander never lost a five setter to lendl ever...
Il est curieux de voir comment Wilander qui n'avait aucun "grand coup" parvient à résister à Lendl beaucoup plus puissant. La ténacité, l'obstination et un calme à la Borg sont ses principales armes.
ses lifts lui permettent de commettre moins de faute, tandis que lendl est un puncheur, et a un revers à une main beaucoup moins sur...Meme si pour un revers à une main, ce qu'en fait lendl est exceptionnel
Wilander made a tactical mistake in the first sets by being not offensiv enough. When he changed his game plan it was late and Lendl played à terrific tie break. Epic match with the best clay players of the 80's
1:55:40 - Sometimes you have to wonder if the chair ump is even paying attention. The ball was completely past Lendl before the call was even made. Absolutely should not have been a point replay -- the call obviously happened _after_ Lendl missed the ball.
Lendl was often far too passive when playing Wilander. There seems to have been something about Wilander's game that sort of hypnotised him, especially on slower courts. Ivan was probably at his best indoors.
Very good fact and this is true in the first half of their rivalry, where Wilander found a way and was mentally tougher than lendl especially in Grandslams. The second half of their rivalry was more of lendl domination until Wilander wore him down in the 1988 US open final. This match Wilander could have won, had he been more aggressive early on, he had a break ahead and lendl was uptight.
people dont remeber and americans glorify him but willander was not very good rated back at the time. "chess player" doesnt really fit. He was and is a jerk and played like one. he just perfectionated that style. his tactic was simple, make it so slow that noone (at the time and materials) can make easy winnsers against you and try to use an easy enough opportunity to attack if you find one. if not just keep the ball in play, as slow as possible. thats why his matches often lastes forever against so many other players too. he could not make points byhimself very often but he knew how to prevent his opponents to make them themself. and he was really lucky that he played exactly at the time where this was possible. just a few years later the material got good enough that this would be impossible against any halfway competent player.
L année suivante le suédois gagne trois tournois du grand chelem et il est logiquement champion du monde ,reste quelque semaines à la première place après l us open 88 ensuite hélas ce sera compliqué pour lui ...
Skipping the 90 French was a big tactical and stupid mistake for Lendl.His only rival the past 5 years at the French was Wilander (forget about the 89 French fiasco versus Chang). He could have easily captured a fourth French that year. He was to obsessed with Wimbledon. Winning the 90 French would have given him a boost for the rest of his career and perhaps even pushed him to win one other slam.
I still find it so amusing when players tap their shoes with their rackets when playing tennis on a clay court, which is silly since as soon as they put their foot back down on the court, clay particles enter the grooves on the soles of their shoes.
If you play on clay, it gets the the point when you can feel there's too much clay stuck to your shoes because you start to slip about. Every so often, you need to do it. For some players though it becomes a kind of nervous "tick"
@ T H. When I used to play tennis, I would occasionally play on a clay court and I rarely, if ever, tapped my shoes with my tennis racket to get the clay particles out of the grooves on the bottom of my shoes because I knew it was a wasted effort since as soon as a player puts his or her foot back down on the court, clay particles reenter the grooves on the bottom of the shoes and also because I rarely, if ever, felt that my feet were slipping on that surface because of too many clay particles in the grooves on the bottom of my tennis shoes.
@ fundhund62. Pointless comment!? Really! What an idiotic comment on your part to think that the pro tennis players wouldn't tap their tennis shoes to knock the granules of clay (which is actually pulverized red brick in terms of red "clay" courts and crushed slate in terms of Har-Tru courts) out of their shoes when playing a match on clay if it didn't actually help. Did the thought ever cross that obviously dense mind of your's that the pro players do that only because they erroneously BELIEVE that it helps? Obviously not!
@@michaelbarlow6610 its a pointless comment and utterly incompetent. the reason to tap the shoes is to get the compressed clay out trhat froms by sliding to the point where your shoes surface becomes flat. it not only helps but is essential for the first few fast steps you need todo after serve or for the return. and even it rebuilds a lot after just one point you really need todo that after every point. it still keeps the buildup a lot lower than doing nothing. and it does make a huge difference on higher levels, where you actually have to move your body. ofc for a hobbiest that get his balls from his trainer right to his foot might not be relevant
Wilander, 82 stroke rally , finished with an exceptional down the line by Wilander in the first set. He followed with an ace..I am Wilander fan always for eternity
Wilander en 1987 était plus solide et percutant que l'année suivante,quand il a faillit se faire sortir par zivozinovic au troisième tour, puis galérer face à Emilio Sanchez et au jeune Agassi en demi...
@@stephanegrandel5392 oh oui surtout sur ciment, devenu sa meilleure surface en 1988...mis à part sa victoire un peu miraculeuse à Roland Garros cette année là, il ne fit rien de bon sur la surface ocre.....
By today's standards the level these 2 played at are mediocre. The players of today hit with far more pace & are fitter with more stamina. Also, Todays top guys have greater variety of shots off both wings & volley better. Serve & return are levels higher too. The movement is superior as well. I can't find a single area Lendl/Wilander play better than today's top 10 players. Both would be ousted in the 1st round at Roland Garros in straight sets playing the way they did in that boring final. Some might say they played red clay like a chess match. So do today's players but they do it much better. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that. Anyone who does is probably living in the past, old, & not at all objective.
hahaha you are a fool! lendl played with a 85sqin racket ...hahaha those guys today play with 100sqin rackets...no discussion necessary! BTW lendl was far fitter than most on ATP today, so STFU!
Well, if you only watch the first set, I would agree. But the match got better and better later on, as both started to play more aggressively. It was quite similar to their US Open final match 1987, when they "moon-balled" and played defensively for about two sets and it changed later in the match, too. Problem was that most people had already fallen asleep at that point of the match, so they will always say, it were such poor matches...
With the equipment available then this was how claycourt tennis had to be played.. with todays raquets the ball is hit much harder and game has become faster. Promise you nadal with those smaller less powerful frames would have lost to either of these two
@@sanjayhariparsad4083 totally agree i played with both racquet used here.the adidas gtx pro t and the rossignol f200 noway you can swing around your head like nadal does
Your full of crap milinial, todays raquets, strings and strategy makes for better play. Lendl is considered the founder of 'modern play' for 1 handers, witness exibit 'A-Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, and Stan Wawrinka. Bob at 64.
@@bobmalack481 You are a moron. Sure Lendl could beat Rafael Nadal at the French Open or Roger at Wimbledon using racket technology of today. Exactly what weapon does Lendl possess which Rafa and Roger don't to defeat them?? Lendl used a push back hand most of the time and a wristy forehand. His serve is mediocre by today's standards. His return of serve and movement are mediocre. Even little Jimmy Connors defeated Lendl in 2 consecutive US Open finals (82-83). Tennis stunk in the mid 80s allowing for Lendl to be #1. You live in the past and are a relic. Your knowledge of tennis is very limited.
@@muzzupappa70 I see where you are coming from, but for me, it got really bad with the generation after them. Agassi, Courier, even Sampras! That's when I gradually lost interest in the game. There still was the occasional great match thanks to Becker, Edberg or maybe Kafelnikov.. but on the whole, tennis became more and more one-dimensional throughout the 90's. Take the 1991 French Open final as an example. I wouldn't rewatch that match even if you paid me for it! As for Lendl and Wilander, they had at least SOME variety. And unlike today's players, they had a profound tactical grasp of the game. If plan A wouldn't work, they came up with plans B, C, D and E.
@@muzzupappa70 In the grand scheme of things, both weren't too great at the net. Sampras was essentially a great server who knew how to volley. I usually found his matches pretty boring to watch, especially on faster surfaces.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Wilander avait gagné en 1985 en étant beaucoup plus offensif...il change de tactique a 3ieme et passe pas loin de renverser le match...mais Lendl réagit en immense champion et fait un tie break exceptionnel. Une finale inoubliable comme une tragédie !
Lendl is still my all-time fave.
2 great players playing Awesome on clay
I loved tennis because of these two players❤
Great match of Lendl here, one of his best.
SuperHammaren YOU are so right, thank’s for your comment !!!
Yes, it was.
Très belle finale entre deux joueurs de fond de court qui ont su varier leur jeu avec intelligence pour nous offrir un magnifique spectacle qui est allé crescendo au fil du match. Victoire méritée pour Lendl, plus offensif et plus agréable à voir de façon générale, mais bravo aussi à Wilander pour sa ténacité et sa capacité à rebondir moralement après le deuxième set...
I had forgotten this match just because '88 was an amazing year for Mats
Loved watching these two play. Chess match when the clay was slow
Lendl has one of the most beautiful backhands ever!
Lendl's backhand was solid but not beautiful. It was mechanically correct making it consistent. In contrast Federer's & Wawrinka's backhands are far more lethal & artistic. Both produce great backhands with far less effort & can hit winners from anywhere. No so with Lendl who banked on his forehand as the killer shot.
@@davidschick4729 Both Wawrinka & Federer would dominate Lendl in any generation using the same racket technology.
They are better movers, have better hands & reflexes. They serve bigger & return more consistently. Lendl had stone hands & had a mediocre volley. Just what weapon did Lendl have which could defeat either? If you say forehand, Federer's & Wawrinka have far more pace. It's not even close. Put Lendl's Addidas racket in Stan or Fed's hand & they would produce much more pace than Lendl did because their timing is better.
@@qgodofgodsrulerofall1341 I call it the eye test? Especially when it's so obvious. The game of tennis has evolved a lot from the 80's.
@@qgodofgodsrulerofall1341 you right 👍
@@qgodofgodsrulerofall1341 are you fond of joking
These two were playing at such a high level at this time. The US Open Final, as well.
That proves how low level top men's tennis was in the 80s. You thought that was great. Compared to now , it's the minor leagues.
@@qgodofgodsrulerofall1341 What kind of idiot are you!!! What a moronic comment from someone who doesnt know much about tennis!!!!!!!
@@qgodofgodsrulerofall1341the equipment is very different as too are the surfaces I believe, but spoken like a true American wearing your ignorance on your sleeve like some badge of honor or knowledge, which it is not. Your argument, which boils down to, because I said so carries no weight, and though it is true any great game will evolve and the athletes will/can become faster/stronger, if u showed Lendl the racquets that Fed, Joke, Nadal would use today, he would laugh hysterically and asked what they called such a silly game. Also with equal equipment, Lendl was, in his prime, as good if not obviously better than anyone whose ever played, there is no doubt.
@@GodfrayShmikel Plus consider the evolvement of sport medicine. In the old times players had a 10-year prime time AT BEST, they faded quickly when hit 30; nowadays due to better training methods, nutrition, medical procedures and equipment they can play almost 20 years on their highest level. So comparing 80s tennis to nowadays tennis is more like comparing horse races to formula one grand prix.
Sports racket technology is the reason they could not hit it consistently with power or accuracy in those days. Games revolved around the equipment of the day. Alcaraz or Nadal would not be hitting back then like they can today. Indeed even Agassi wasn't hitting it as hard early in his career to the later half. These were the two best tennis players on the planet at the time, what they were able to achieve was pretty awe-inspiring. To say otherwise, trying to compare it to the speed and control of today, is just stupid.
Great final. Great players! 👍🏻
This was Wilander's 4th french final and he was only 22.
Lendl el pulpo del tenis mundial Gran clase y súper elegante the best. Por dolfi.
Je note le comportement exemplaire de ces deux joueurs. Concentration et application,, sans cinéma... c'est plaisant.
Juste un bémol pour Lendl qui n'arrête pas de cracher... c'est dégoûtant.
Oh men... I still love that Adidas shirt
Mats is my favorite player of all time and I have only seen this match MAYBE once all the way through. It's the most painful Mats loss evar!!!!! He won everything leading up to this final and was way too defensive. In the 85 final he came to the net 10 million times!!!
True, he was too defensive. He changed gears played attacking tennis midway of the 3rd set and took the initiative. Lendl was tiring out during the 4th set , fortunately rains interrupted and gave a break to lendl. Mentally and stamina wise, mats was better in wearing opponents down. Wilander never lost a five setter to lendl ever...
Tenis histórico. 🇪🇸
Il est curieux de voir comment Wilander qui n'avait aucun "grand coup" parvient à résister à Lendl beaucoup plus puissant. La ténacité, l'obstination et un calme à la Borg sont ses principales armes.
ses lifts lui permettent de commettre moins de faute, tandis que lendl est un puncheur, et a un revers à une main beaucoup moins sur...Meme si pour un revers à une main, ce qu'en fait lendl est exceptionnel
Sans oublier son intelligence tactique...
Tennis just ain't the same now...especially with Federer retired
Matts was also the lead singer of James
Mats
Wilander made a tactical mistake in the first sets by being not offensiv enough. When he changed his game plan it was late and Lendl played à terrific tie break. Epic match with the best clay players of the 80's
Le mental de ces joueurs...wouah!!!...Mené 2 sets 0...O/30 sur son service..Wilander...revient quand meme..
1:55:40 - Sometimes you have to wonder if the chair ump is even paying attention. The ball was completely past Lendl before the call was even made. Absolutely should not have been a point replay -- the call obviously happened _after_ Lendl missed the ball.
Lendl was often far too passive when playing Wilander. There seems to have been something about Wilander's game that sort of hypnotised him, especially on slower courts. Ivan was probably at his best indoors.
Very good fact and this is true in the first half of their rivalry, where Wilander found a way and was mentally tougher than lendl especially in Grandslams. The second half of their rivalry was more of lendl domination until Wilander wore him down in the 1988 US open final. This match Wilander could have won, had he been more aggressive early on, he had a break ahead and lendl was uptight.
Wilander was like a chess player. He created doubts in anyone’s mind.
people dont remeber and americans glorify him but willander was not very good rated back at the time.
"chess player" doesnt really fit. He was and is a jerk and played like one. he just perfectionated that style.
his tactic was simple, make it so slow that noone (at the time and materials) can make easy winnsers against you and try to use an easy enough opportunity to attack if you find one. if not just keep the ball in play, as slow as possible.
thats why his matches often lastes forever against so many other players too. he could not make points byhimself very often but he knew how to prevent his opponents to make them themself.
and he was really lucky that he played exactly at the time where this was possible. just a few years later the material got good enough that this would be impossible against any halfway competent player.
@@luvdasitar Everybody creates doubts, when he is running every ball down.
Then, you try to play with more power and more accuracy.
@@woswasdenni1914 Yes, I agree. I would try this style of play too, if I had his body weight.
Lendl was a cool customer
L année suivante le suédois gagne trois tournois du grand chelem et il est logiquement champion du monde ,reste quelque semaines à la première place après l us open 88 ensuite hélas ce sera compliqué pour lui ...
Lendl is no.1
Yes, that’s right!!!
Lendl could play !!!!!!!!!!!!
LENDL 🖒
IVAN LENDL EL MEJOR TENISTA DE LA HISTORIA
No hombre
That’s a negative ghost rider
Skipping the 90 French was a big tactical and stupid mistake for Lendl.His only rival the past 5 years at the French was Wilander (forget about the 89 French fiasco versus Chang). He could have easily captured a fourth French that year. He was to obsessed with Wimbledon. Winning the 90 French would have given him a boost for the rest of his career and perhaps even pushed him to win one other slam.
I still find it so amusing when players tap their shoes with their rackets when playing tennis on a clay court, which is silly since as soon as they put their foot back down on the court, clay particles enter the grooves on the soles of their shoes.
If you play on clay, it gets the the point when you can feel there's too much clay stuck to your shoes because you start to slip about. Every so often, you need to do it. For some players though it becomes a kind of nervous "tick"
@ T H. When I used to play tennis, I would occasionally play on a clay court and I rarely, if ever, tapped my shoes with my tennis racket to get the clay particles out of the grooves on the bottom of my shoes because I knew it was a wasted effort since as soon as a player puts his or her foot back down on the court, clay particles reenter the grooves on the bottom of the shoes and also because I rarely, if ever, felt that my feet were slipping on that surface because of too many clay particles in the grooves on the bottom of my tennis shoes.
What a pointless comment. If it wouldn't help the players, they wouldn't do it.
@ fundhund62. Pointless comment!? Really! What an idiotic comment on your part to think that the pro tennis players wouldn't tap their tennis shoes to knock the granules of clay (which is actually pulverized red brick in terms of red "clay" courts and crushed slate in terms of Har-Tru courts) out of their shoes when playing a match on clay if it didn't actually help. Did the thought ever cross that obviously dense mind of your's that the pro players do that only because they erroneously BELIEVE that it helps? Obviously not!
@@michaelbarlow6610 its a pointless comment and utterly incompetent.
the reason to tap the shoes is to get the compressed clay out trhat froms by sliding to the point where your shoes surface becomes flat.
it not only helps but is essential for the first few fast steps you need todo after serve or for the return.
and even it rebuilds a lot after just one point you really need todo that after every point. it still keeps the buildup a lot lower than doing nothing.
and it does make a huge difference on higher levels, where you actually have to move your body.
ofc for a hobbiest that get his balls from his trainer right to his foot might not be relevant
Who won the longest rally of this match
Wilander, 82 stroke rally , finished with an exceptional down the line by Wilander in the first set. He followed with an ace..I am Wilander fan always for eternity
Il y a Jean-Paul Loth, et l'autre commentateur c'est qui ?
Herve Duthu
@@stephaneamady1745 un mot toutes les 10 minutes.. le niveau de l'époque
@@philippestoffels8150 nul ce commentaire
21minutes 27...le revers de lendl n'est pas loin d'etre celui de mc enroe...il en délivrera quelques uns comme ça, c'est très étonnant.
Wilander en 1987 était plus solide et percutant que l'année suivante,quand il a faillit se faire sortir par zivozinovic au troisième tour, puis galérer face à Emilio Sanchez et au jeune Agassi en demi...
et pourtant Mats fait une année incroyable en 1988
@@stephanegrandel5392 oh oui surtout sur ciment, devenu sa meilleure surface en 1988...mis à part sa victoire un peu miraculeuse à Roland Garros cette année là, il ne fit rien de bon sur la surface ocre.....
2:01:36 Sweeeeeet!
Lendl is a shark
"
By today's standards the level these 2 played at are mediocre.
The players of today hit with far more pace & are fitter with more stamina. Also, Todays top guys have greater variety of shots off both wings & volley better. Serve & return are levels higher too. The movement is superior as well. I can't find a single area Lendl/Wilander play better than today's top 10 players. Both would be ousted in the 1st round at Roland Garros in straight sets playing the way they did in that boring final.
Some might say they played red clay like a chess match. So do today's players but they do it much better.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that. Anyone who does is probably living in the past, old, & not at all objective.
hahaha you are a fool! lendl played with a 85sqin racket ...hahaha those guys today play with 100sqin rackets...no discussion necessary! BTW lendl was far fitter than most on ATP today, so STFU!
You are simply a idiot!!! What a BS you wrote, unbeliable!!!!
Goffin and Agut would have won GS back then, if Wilander can so many!!! Gilles Simon plays exactly like Wilander.
One of the most boring grand slam finals ever. An automotion v a robot.
Well, if you only watch the first set, I would agree. But the match got better and better later on, as both started to play more aggressively. It was quite similar to their US Open final match 1987, when they "moon-balled" and played defensively for about two sets and it changed later in the match, too. Problem was that most people had already fallen asleep at that point of the match, so they will always say, it were such poor matches...
One of the best finals on RG
Exactly Jason Brooks
With the equipment available then this was how claycourt tennis had to be played.. with todays raquets the ball is hit much harder and game has become faster. Promise you nadal with those smaller less powerful frames would have lost to either of these two
@@sanjayhariparsad4083 totally agree i played with both racquet used here.the adidas gtx pro t and the rossignol f200 noway you can swing around your head like nadal does
The level of play is so inferior compared to today. Lendl would not be a top 10 player. Wilander would barely crack the top 40.
I think it is very high standards on clay 30 years ago ...2 masters of clay, we can't compare to todays knockout play..
Et ta connerie tu la classes ou ?
Your full of crap milinial, todays raquets, strings and strategy makes for better play. Lendl is considered the founder of 'modern play' for 1 handers, witness exibit 'A-Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, and Stan Wawrinka. Bob at 64.
@@bobmalack481 You are a moron. Sure Lendl could beat Rafael Nadal at the French Open or Roger at Wimbledon using racket technology of today. Exactly what weapon does Lendl possess which Rafa and Roger don't to defeat them?? Lendl used a push back hand most of the time and a wristy forehand. His serve is mediocre by today's standards. His return of serve and movement are mediocre. Even little Jimmy Connors defeated Lendl in 2 consecutive US Open finals (82-83). Tennis stunk in the mid 80s allowing for Lendl to be #1. You live in the past and are a relic. Your knowledge of tennis is very limited.
@@qgodofgodsrulerofall1341 you are a fcking idiot.
2 boring players
They were boring in the 1980´s, but today they would be considered the most exciting players ever to have picked up a racket!
@@fundhund62 They are responsible of the current situation. Now we have many vitaminized Borg, Lendl, Wilander...Please, God...Gimme back John McEnroe
@@muzzupappa70 I see where you are coming from, but for me, it got really bad with the generation after them. Agassi, Courier, even Sampras! That's when I gradually lost interest in the game. There still was the occasional great match thanks to Becker, Edberg or maybe Kafelnikov.. but on the whole, tennis became more and more one-dimensional throughout the 90's. Take the 1991 French Open final as an example. I wouldn't rewatch that match even if you paid me for it!
As for Lendl and Wilander, they had at least SOME variety. And unlike today's players, they had a profound tactical grasp of the game. If plan A wouldn't work, they came up with plans B, C, D and E.
@@fundhund62 Sampras was talented and great for me. Much better than Federer on the net.
@@muzzupappa70 In the grand scheme of things, both weren't too great at the net. Sampras was essentially a great server who knew how to volley. I usually found his matches pretty boring to watch, especially on faster surfaces.