Manolo Fontaner te imaginas a Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal y Djokovic en un mismo torneo o que hubieran coincidido. Sería de locos eso si a Nadal nadie le ganaría en Roland Garros
Wow. The two greatest serve and volleyers ever. I got to practice and play with Sampras two years earlier and I couldn’t believe how clean he hit every ball, never off center shots. I didn’t think he’d be the best ever though. Complete gentleman. You see what he did after every winner?! Nothing. Never showed his opponent up or complained. I love McEnroe too though, now, by not back then! Awesome match.
Yeah, I remember watching this match in my college dormitory. I remember hoping McEnroe could channel his former dominance from 1984 into this match. He still had the fast hands for his phenomenal volleys and awesomely angled shots, but he had lost maybe a half step in foot speed and a split second of perfect timing, which are vital for a serve and volleyer. Also, Pete Sampras admitted later that he simply with a hot streak during the entire fortnight, as he had beaten Lendl, McEnroe, and Agassi, in that order.
eddie calado i heard that too! that someone recorded Pete Sampras admitting that he had used performance-enhancing oxygen right before that match! the judges wanted to take back the big ceremonial beer stein they had given him for winning the tournement! that one's still hotly debated!
The technology had changed..mac part 2 was not as good of course but he was a speedy player in the wood racket ERA and struggled with the lendl Agassi Sampras power as rackets were more advanced.
@@robbie192 Complete nonsense. Compare the exact specs of the racquets all of those players have used, and then please, do stop spreading this (often repeated) misinformation.
@@argokan dude...stay in your lane...mac post 85 was no where near a top player anymore...baseliners began crushing winners and the serve and volley becamethe serve...were you even around then? Mac had no chance in this match...why was that if he was so great?
@@robbie192 I was around then, before and after that time. What you write is a summary of the usual, superficial misconceptions about whats and whys of McEnroe past 1984. He was great indeed, why he declined is a combination of a number of factors, not necessarily addressed by anything you cite as the valid reasons. FYI, anyone who has ever used the Lendl GTX pro - or any of the iterations of the Lendl's racquet can easily see the flaws in your reasoning on the issue.
Alan Chong Quite a tournament to knock off Lendl, Johnny Mac, and Agassi in succession. Notice the confidence of Sampras to close this out and then contrast with his near gagging with nervousness when he had to close out the Wilander match (his first Big WIn) which I believe was a year before.
Sampras said in his book that at the 1990 US Open, his game just suddenly clicked. Everytime in the final, when he decided to pop an ace against Andre, it would come off. That is amazing. Imagine being able to pull that off in a Slam final??!! Pete is a special player. I rate him 3rd all time greatest player. Although I am looking at Nadal carefully now. I rate Nadal 1st. But is Rafa extinguished now? He might be like a candle that has been blown out. Nothing left. We will see in the next couple of years, I guess.
Alan Chong Nadal is not the GOAT male tennis player in tennis history. Nadal is in essence a slow court player (despite his having won a number of hard court titles) as evidenced by his failure thus far to win the ATP year-end championships which is played on an indoor fast surface, the fact that he won two Wimbledon titles only after the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club slowed down the grass courts at Wimbledon in 2001, and the total lack of great serve-and-volleyers to challenge Nadal in tournaments on the men's pro tennis tour during Nadal's career. If the AELT&CC had not slowed down the grass courts at Wimbledon in 2001 and if there had been great serve-and-volleyers like Kramer, Laver, Rosewall, John McEnroe, Edberg, Becker and Sampras to challenge Nadal on the men's pro tennis tour during Nadal's career, Nadal would not have won a single Wimbledon Men's Singles title and probably not a single U.S. Open Mens Singles title in his career. Without any doubt, Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg and Sampras were all greater players than Nadal.
Well I respect that you are entitled to your opinion of course. In my opinion, a player can only play on the courts in front of him, he can only beat the players in front of him. Nadal has achieved so much in the game. Phenomenal achievements. He has annihilated many good players! It's unfair to say 'oh he would be beaten if the courts at Wimbledon were faster or if there were more serve and volleyers around.' That's hypothetical. We don't know the result of Edberg vs Nadal or Laver vs Nadal. It's guessing, c'mon! You're saying he wouldn't have won a single Wimbledon or US Open if these other greats were around? I could assert that he would have beaten them no problem!' Look at Nadal vs Federer (Head to Head). Now look me in the eye (figuratively speaking) and tell me Roger is the GOAT. How could Roger be the GOAT with a head to head that reads 10-22 against his closest rival? If Roger is not the GOAT, then I say Nadal is. Nadal (a 14 time Slam champion) gives Federer endless problems. Roger can't solve the puzzle no matter what he tries. I like Federer. I just rate Nadal higher, that's all. Tell me what you think. We are debating tennis. There's no personal attacks or anything.
Federer had a poor record against Nadal in slams,,,, maybe because he did not change his game until the Australian final 2017 when he took the ball early on his back hand,,, Edberg and Tony Pickard must have been behind that strategy
@@bigalexg Yeah, he wasn't very old, even by the standards of that era, but it was more about the big change in technology (and therefore style) that came in the middle of Mac's career. Just look at Mac's racquet. The fact that he was able to do so well at this stage, against guys playing very differently (and with different equipment) is a sign of just how good Mac was.
The difference between Mac and Jimbo was that Mac lasted 8 years on the pro tour 1977-1985 after which he became more than an average player whereas Connors was semifinalist at the US open in 1991 and played well into his 40s. Jimmy is 109 ATP tour titles and 8 grand slams .
Agreed. He sustained his excellence for a longer period of time.Mac after 84 was done. Mentally he was fried and the younger generation (Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Wilander) began to make their mark. When the 90’s (Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang) rolled around Mac should’ve retired. Really should’ve retired after this loss to Pete. The writing was on the wall.
Il PIù grande guaio di John Mcenroe è che lui giocava talmente bene a tennis da esaltare le qualità degli avversari che incontrava facendogli disputare delle prestazioni superlative ed è per questo che secondo me la sua classe divina era sprecata in un campo da tennis perchè reputo che quasi sempre quando perdeva egli fosse stato battuto ingiustamente poichè il suo tennis e la sua eleganza non erano di questo mondo.
Mac had lost just a touch of pace on his serve, so Pete was jumping all over it if it wasn't placed perfectly. Pete's playing so brilliantly here, it's no disgrace to have lost. Sometimes you just have to tip your hat and say, "good show". Just a hot player, with an extraordinary display of talent, dismantling the game of a hall of famer. Made it look effortless too, and that had to be unnerving to Mac.
Had this match been played w wood racquets, outcome might have been different. This is the beginning of the power game. Mc's game was built for wood racquets. We'd never again have a number 1 rank of his size and weight and build. Even Andre is bigger and of course more powerful
Had the McEnroe of 1984 played this match he wins. John had slowed up just enough footwork and serving wise even though he was training and did a very nice job getting to the semifinals. The McEnroe of 1984 was taking the ball so early and would have gotten just a little more pace on the ball to keep Sampras off balance. Too bad it didn't last longer but for 1 year no one man or woman ever played tennis better than John McEnroe. What he did to an in form Lendl in the US Open final was brutal and blowing out Connors at Wimbledon in under 2 hours was no mean feat either.
@@gregoryphillips3969 I wish we could see one major today where they were limited to wood racquets or something like that. They've pretty much eliminated serve-volley, approach shots, chip & charge, and so much else from the game. Nadal would still have been incredible in the wood racquet era but different, and punchers would have had a chance against him; he just couldn't have taken such huge swings all the time. Now all the players hit the same way, pretty much. A Djokovic should be matched with an opposite style player, not a mirror image. In golf they made the courses longer to push back against the better clubs. Tennis chose to do nothing. I think it is unfortunate, but few agree w me.
Great match. Although Sampras came in a lot in this match. Never considered him a strictly serve and volley player like McEnroe, edberg, or Rafter. He hit his serve really hard. And hard to come in on 137 mile serve. Sampras had all Around game. One of best second serves I ever seen. Newcombe has a great one. McEnroe still with best hands I ever saw.
Pete Sampras is probably the best technical player I've ever seen in my lifetime. I like Jimmy Connors a lot, for a lot of reasons, but Sampras is probably the best technical player I've ever seen. His power game is something to behold. If I had a kid in tennis or were otherwise mentoring youth in tennis, of course, it's sometimes hard to serve and volley like Sampras, but from the serve to the groundstrokes to the volleying, I could scarcely counsel them to model themselves growing up after a better technical player.
@@lucaarrigoni5110 US is pretty slow now. Probably same speed as AO. They sped AO up in 2017, which is a big reason why Fed won, but US is not that fast. And especially not fast compared to what it used to be
Sampras started the modern era of tennis, and sent home classic style guys like McEnroe. Mc was a great player of the early and mid 80's, when tennis still was slow and no one care about strong services and parelel shots.
Just remember, in interviews and in his book, Sampras says his tennis was near perfect in the 1999 Wimbledon final, and during the entire 2 weeks of the 1990 US open.
Sampras was not a great volunteer. He just came to the net behind a much bigger shot. The two best volunteers of all time are John McEnroe and Stefan Edberg
@@MrPernell27 not a great volleyer? Edberg and McEnroe are definitely among the best volleyers of all time, but Pete was no average joe either. He didn't have to pull off tricky volleys as much because he did indeed have that huge serve, but there were plenty of moments that demonstrated he had good hands, anticipation and reflexes at the net. Not as good as Edberg & McEnroe, but still an elite volleyer.
I remember that Borg was serving at over 120mph using a wooden racquet through the 1981 (his last) US Open. He wasn't even known for his serve. He beefed it up just before he retired. What a loss.
Basically, Fed took Miroslav Mecir's game and elevated it to championship level. Mecir was just an entertainer in his era, nobody believed you could build a winning game by making an unexpected shot again and again. But Fed does it smoothly and consistently, so much so that people don't even notice his variety.
McEnroe was unique, the greatest natural talent and the best doubles player ever. But he had no answer to power tennis. After 84 (the best year of his and any player ever on the tour) he began to fall. Power tennis took over and his magical touches couldn't resist it. At least he forced young Pete to work for his money.
No point in throwing your racket, Mac. When Pete´s backhand worked - arguably the only weak spot in his game - he was undefeatable. And it did work in this match.
Actually Sampras' backhand only became a (relative) weakness late in his career. Early on it was considered his best shot from the ground, and his forehand was considered a bit suspect in it's consistency. He changed how he played it, early on it was a hard, flat shot that he directed very well. Later he started to play it as a looping, heavy top spin shot to try and push guys like Agassi and Courier back a bit on the baseline and kept the flat shot mainly for passing shots. In the last few years he lost both, the hard flat one he needed too much time to set up and couldn't control, and the top spin shot he too often smothered and it landed short and became a easy shot to attack.
ChristianPaul75 Mac's serve and shot's lacked punch / velocity here and Pete could respond with ease. I thought Mac played better in the 92 Wimbledon semi vs. Agassi, who played out of his mind.
ChristianPaul75 Sampras' backhand, although not as strong as his forehand, was nevertheless a good, solid, reliable backhand both when Sampras hit topspin and underspin on his backhand.
Thang Vuong I agree with that as well. Actually all the comments have been spot on about Sampras. Very fast, underrated actually and very explosive in his prime.
he got too big, too muscular at the end of his career, should've kept his playing weight circa '95. if you watch highlights, he was definitely quicker on his feet and changes of direction then vs later, even when he was still no.1
Gumball LastRally Nonsense...Mac faced much bigger servers than Sampras. Roscoe tanner, Steve Denton, chip hooper, Kevin Curren..even ivanicavic...even Borg was timed at 120mph at the US open.
Two things: 1) The fact that Mac was in the SF 6 years past his prime is amazing and somewhat proves players could compete cross-generationally. 2) The Air Trainer's Mac is wearing are the most comfortable shoes ever made though the toe did not last long for tennis.
Fed pioneered improvisation. Unlike Sampras, unlike Becker and many other past champions, he didn't/doesn't go in with a set plan but responds to the opponent and comes up with shots from all corners of the court. It is a strategy that has eventually shaped the games of all of other top three - Djoko/Nadal/Murray. When people say the top four of today look alike, they only mean that at no previous point in recent tennis history have the top four been so versatile, had so much variety.
Its true that his early retirement does put him behind the other greats in terms of longetivity and endurance, but lets not forget that he still won 11 majors by the time he was 25, a feat that Federer never came close to. Like I said, he domintated the two most contrasting surfaces in tennis that no other tennis player in history has ever done, and that places him as one of the greatest tennis players of all time
Many people really enjoy watching McEnroe but when I watch him he makes me crazy. The way he serves is just strange and when he hits the ball it looks like he's blocking it instead of striking it. It's like he has his own backyard style of playing instead of following normal tennis procedures.
Actually, I should say, two best all-courters of the modern era. Have to give props to Laver, who was absolutely brilliant himself, and had every shot.
Oh absolutely. I have long said ultimately, when the problem was mental, you can't pretend the career wasn't what it was supposed to be. If a guy gets injured, that's a bit different, but, for example, some people say "oh if Borg had stayed, he would have won 20 slams"...well OK...MAYBE(and I have my doubts), but in the end, Borg QUIT. He had a choice and mentally, he quit! That's his choice, and his right, but you can't REALLY say "he WOULD" have....because he could have, and didn't!
Changing of the guard: the best player of all time (imo) vanquished by an oh so young looking unknown who would dominate tennis for the next decade and win 12 major titles.
@DexterHaven49 Love this post, and its totally true. Pete was clutch, and in later matches than this, when he matured and KNEW he was the best, you could tell he thrived on the big moments. Almost EVERY big match he played against an Agassi, Courier, or the best of his generation, he won. I miss these days!
Much fun to watch tennis in old days. Today, after watching one Murray vs. Djokovic game , you are done. All others are the same. Plus, need someone like McEnroe, this guy was fun to watch.
That's why it's called "serve and volley" tennis. There and have been many great champions who have used it including Rod Laver, Arthur Ashe, John McEnroe, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Pete Sampras, Pat Rafter and many others. I appreciate all styles of tennis including power baseliners and serve and volleyers.
I too think we will see another era of net rushing and tacticians soon. The young players from the current era has been a little too relaxed in regards to net rushers. They possibly got too comfortable at the baseline, and it seems a lot of players have poor passing shots now. Even Djokovic has trouble on the passing shot occasionally. Young players on tour today have terrible passing shots and poor net skills. Some examples are Dmitrov, Kyrgios and Coric, who are often wayy out of position to hit a passing shot, too far behind the baseline. Guys from Nadal and Federer's generation chased serve and volleyers away with huge passing shots and extreme foot speed, and now the current up and coming generation ages 16-20 have never even faced a good serve and volleyer because not a single serve and volleyer exists. So what if a good net attacker and tactician showed up in the game today, now that players from Nadal and Fed's generation are old? I think that player would have an advantage over other players who don't have much experience against this tactic. There is speculation that baseline play is now the dominant force in tennis because of better rackets and strings, making baseline shots and passing shots too good. And I think this is true. But I also think that if baseliners benefit from better rackets and strings, so too should net players. I think it will be only a matter of time before someone figures out how to get to the net in today's conditions, and win matches from the fore-court. I feel like the opening is there. Someone just has to take it. Edberg style.
Lord Crazaak Unless the ITF establishes a rule to restrict the size, length, and width of tennis rackets to 75 square inches (maximum racket head size), 27 inches long (standard length of a tennis racket) and 18 mm. wide (maximum width of the tennis racket above the racket handle), then it is exceedingly and sadly unlikely that serve-and-volley, chip-and-charge to the net behind an approach shot or return-of-serve, and finesse styles of play will ever return to pro tennis, especially when you take into consideration that the tennis equipment manufacturers, the ATP, the WTA and most of the pro players would be vehemently opposed to such a change in the rules regarding the size of tennis rackets.
While it's true that racket sizes and slower courts, as well as heavier tennis balls makes it more difficult for net players and tacticians to win, I don't think it's the main issue. I think the main issue is no one tries. Players like Stepanek tried, and he often got far, but I couldn't consider him better than some of the legendary players. When you go into a match with the true intention of never giving the opponent rythym, you don't bother hitting a safe topspin shot on the return. You hit angled drives and biting slices. You also hit a long looping topspin shot to give yourself time to get back into position if your opponent is trying to keep you to the baseline. These shots should benefit very well from larger rackets as well. What I notice is that the players who try to approach the net these days give up very fast, and they when they move to the net they're rushing without much tactics. They're also hitting a topspin shot on approaches, which isn't the way to go about it. If you watch old matches, Edberg got burned a lot by players like Agassi, Lendl, and even fellow serve and volleyers like Sampras. What he did though was keep the pressure up, and always hit higher percentage of success shots like slice, which we never see top pros do today. He also had superior net coverage, when someone tried to pass him down the line he would anticipate it with his experience and reflexes, which no one has today because they don't train their net skills much. They probably hit 10-15 volleys during practice, all shots being hit straight to them, and that's it. There's a different mentality among players today that if they get passed, they think that if they were just at the baseline, they could have run it down and returned it. But they forget that because they were at the net, they didn't have to run it down, they spent less energy, and they can keep this up for hours while the guy at the baseline running everything down gets tired. It's a sound gameplan. So I really feel that someone will figure out how to do it again. They'll have success at the net and I think it will surprise a lot of people who thought it was impossible. It just takes someone with the will and smarts to use it.
Lord Crazaak I agree with much of what you wrote in your above comment about why current players don't serve-and-volley and go to the net behind the right type of approach shot which is a flat or underspin approach shot - rather than a topspin approach shot which is the wrong way to hit an approach shot for various reasons. However, it must be pointed out that a major factor which partially explains why current players don't serve-and-volley is because there is an understandable psychological reluctance on the part of current players to play serve-and-volley with an oversize racket because they don't feel confident that they can serve the ball with an oversize racket with the extra degree of accuracy and consistency required by the serve-and-volley style. Such confidence, accuracy and consistency in the aerve-and-volley style is generally only possible when playing with a racket that is 85 square inches or less in head size. Another major factor is that tennis camps undoubtedly don't teach the serve-and-volley style, at least not to the same extent that they did during the wood era of tennis.
I found it hard as well, back in the day. Neither man was at his best here, John too old, Pete too young, and perhaps both with a little nerves, nonetheless, we see hints of the genius of what are, in my opinion, the two best all-courters ever to play the game. Both so comfortable in every part of the court: baseline, midcourt, and at the net. Both with power, and magic touch. Improvisational brilliance. I'll take that over two power baseliners hammering out the same point every time!
I saw Sampras lose to Chang at the Canadian Open in August of 1990 - a month before he won his first USO - and I can remember just being mesmerized by his power at that time. Ten years later Safin destroyed him at the 2000 USO with power that made Sampras look weak. Now ten years later Raonic is throwing down 150 KM bombs that make Sampras's first serve look pedestrian by comparison. Incredible how the game has evolved.
The recommended string tension on a BLX ProStaff 90 is between 55-60 lbs, so if anything Federer's string tension is average to low, and while the ProStaff is a very stiff frame, it still allows for very good feel, and with a good shock absorber its like the ball never touched the strings. Fed's racket and a wooden racket are complete opposites. It doesn't matter what racket you use today, it will not prepare you for a wooden racket
McEnroe at 32 here. Adapted to the graphite racket. Crazy how he/and others from his time, were players who had to go through a “time machine” and play from the wooden era to graphite advancements era. Shows that if Mac were only 22 here he would be much better than 32, and any of the greats from back in the day could be just as successful in the present day if they had grown up training with the newer rackets. I hate when people say “players from back in the day couldn’t compete with players today”.
After watchig Mac play some matches i actually have more respect for him than what the media portrayed, its a shame he couldnt have played in my lifetime, but then again we wouldnt be seeing impressive net play like this.
Perhaps the two truly-proficient all-court players. Both could win staying back, coming in, with power, or with touch. Both had every groundie, every volley, every touch shot. Mac was much slower here than he was in his prime, and outgunned by the Sampras power, but still, a nice duel.
McEnroe playing better here than ever in his career and with a modern racket. Still his aging game handicapped him in the 90's against the more talented power hitters and big serves. Fascinated era where the old guard was being replaced simply because the playing style had changed.
I love how all the greats play the up and coming greats when they are young. Sampras would go on to play Fed at some point. They all link in somehow. Like Agassi played both Conners and Federer. That might sound weird but I kind of connects all the different generations and makes you realise their games aren't that much different, except for the death of serve volley 🙁🙁
So Mac may not have been the best player, but is there anybody in history more watchable artistically than Mac? Just the way he hits the ball is so damn interesting.
Yes, indeed. Plus, his serve is quite unorthodox, very unusual and odd. It is probably the strangest serve I have ever seen. But it is basically artistic, much like the rest of his game, in its entirety, pretty much.
Racket technology has made the game so much faster that volleying isn't effective that much anymore. I would love to see a tournament where all players had to use woodies again and play with more of an all court strategy as opposed to just hitting as hard as you can.
McEnroe's prime was actually 1981-1984 or 1985. He beat Borg twice in GS finals in 1981 and Borg was pretty much done after that year. McEnroe had one of the best seasons, if not the best season ever, in 1984, and incidentally, that was Lendl's coming out party. He won his first GS (beating McEnroe at the French, coming back from 2 sets to love down). After that McEnroe had a couple solid years, but nothing too spectacular. He was on and off, until he retired in 1992.
@ Bostero3771. I must also point out that there was yet another aspect of John McEnroe's tennis game which you don't see at all in Federer's tennis game and that is that in 1984 McEnroe frequently would block back Lendl's fastest, best FIRST serve to within 1-1 1/2 feet of Lendl's baseline and rush into the net behind return-of-serve to win a point with a first volley or overhead smash. Federer never rushes into the net behind return-of-serve after blocking back an opposing player's best, fastest first serve! McEnroe adopted that tactic after Don Budge spoke to McEnroe before McEnroe played against Lendl in the 1984 U.S. Pro Indoor tournament in Philadelphia and told McEnroe that he (McEnroe) might as well go into the net on everything (e.g., serve, return-of-serve, chip-and-charge to the net behind an approach shot, etc.) against Lendl since McEnroe had nothing to lose by trying that tactic since Lendl had been dominating McEnroe at that time in their previous matches. Regarding that 281-49 (85.5%) statistic that you erroneously cite as Federer's won-lost record and winning percentage in singles matches that have gone to a fifth set, anyone with an I.Q. above 0 would instantly recognize that it is virtually impossible for any male tennis player from either the amateur era or the Open era in tennis history to have won 281 matches that went to a fifth set! It is exceedingly unlikely that even Bill Tilden, who was known to occasionally allow some of his singles matches to extend longer than necessary in order to provide the tennis fans in the stands with more entertainment via a longer match, would have achieved 281 wins in singles matches that went to a fifth set, even when one takes into consideration that the best-of-five sets format was the standard format for men's tennis matches during Tilden's era in tennis! That 281-49 record (and hence the 85.5% winning percentage) is obviously bogus!
He was one week away since May of 2010 and most people, including yourself, gave him no chance of ever breaking that record. As for Borg, he was never a great hard court player and particularly disliked playing the USO with the evening sessions, the humidity and the noisy NY crowds. Again, how well you adapt to different tournament conditions is part of your greatness.
Its the same with 90s grass, you had Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, and Tim Henman. But because the courts and the balls have been slowed down, the surfaces are much more even. This means that players today are trained to be all around baseline players so that they can have success on any surface. The fact that Nadal still won at Wimbledon is amazing considering the grass there is still much faster than clay, but I wouldnt give him a chance if he had competed in the 90s at Wimbledon
Because of this: -Sampras has 7 wimbledon titles as well as 5 US open titles -He had more competition during his career than Federer, having to play Stefan Edberg , Ivan Lendl , Andre Agassi , Boris Becker , and Jim Courier , while Fed only had Nadal as a competitor during the height of his career, and unlike Sampras, Federer's only competitor has a winning record against him, while Sampras has a winning record against all those legends -Officially the most weeks at No 1 -Most year ends as No 1
Also look at this, at 31 Pete was almost retired (his swan song was the USO 2002) losing easily to guys like a young Gonzalez, Corretja on grass, Bastl at Wimledon, while Rog is #1 competing with Nadal, Murray and Djoko, winning more titles in the last 8 months than anyone, including 3 Master´s series, the Master´s Cup and Wimbledon. He competed with 3 generations, the Sampras, Agassi, the Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, and the Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, all #1 and GS champions except Murray
I am not talking about making shots under pressure. Fed breaks up the pattern with an unexpected choice of shot and suddenly changes the direction of the rally. Before Fed, we saw players doing this only occasionally. Fed made it pretty much his strategy to win rallies by changing the pace or direction.
If people complain about the dullness of today's baseline game, I can also understand the complaints of the all-serve and volley games back in the day. Watching baseline slugfest is fine, and watching net rushing contests is fine too, but when you watch too many of them, you'll get bored eventually. That's why I love watching Federer, he never makes me bored watching him. He's got the right balance of baseline and net game.
Good points. It used to be a generla agreement that the most exciting matches were the ones that pitted a baseliner against a serve and volleyer...Mac vs Borg or Connors, Sampras vs Chang or Agassi, Becker or Edberg vs Lendl or Wilander.
Fair enough. I strongly feel Mac had 2 problems: 1.as you mention his training was very inconsistent. He'd get motivated and would train hard....for a month or two...then something would come up in his personal life, he'd become unfocused and unmotivated....then be ticked off that he was....and on and on... 2.He got caught up in the power game...he admitted he was trying to hit within 105 the power of Lendl and Becker...and still have touch...not a bad goal, but he really left his unique ...
Are you kidding? Agassi started his downward spiral in 1995 and came back in 1996. Becker was only 25 when Sampras started his prime, and Edberg was still winning majors, winning his final one in 1996. And don't forget about Patrick Rafter, who was in his prime when Sampras was a little older.
Best US Open ever: 1990. Agassi and Sampras won 12 straight matches to get to the final. People forget, 6 each. They demolished big names: Lendl, Becker, McEnroe. Youngest average age for any male final ever too: 19 yrs. old!!
Totally agree. Saying "If so and so would have stayed" or "if he had not ben injured" then "he would have won" is pure speculation and wishful thinking. Reality is McEnroe got into Borg´s head and broke his biggest asset: his mental strength. No one can really say what would have happened after he lost consecutive finals at Wimby and the USO against Mac.
Watching this again, think about how good Sampras was: Even though Mac was much older he was still playing some good tennis but he never beat Sampras during their regular careers. That's saying something because you know Mac is a strong competitor who will try everything he can to win.
I see a big difference of style between Sampras and Mc Enroe. Mc Enroe uses racquet as a magic wand, it twirls in the air, all his shots are beauty. I can't say the same for Sampras, his style is very practical, he's not interested in esthetic side of tennis. Great champion no doubt. Greetings from Rome Italy
I played against McEnroe and Sampras in a training match. I was standing on one side and Sampras and Mc Enroe were playing as double on the other side and I won both sets against them 6:0 and 6:0 !
Pete Sampras beat, Muster, Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi to win the 1990 US Open Championship at 19 years of age.
Impressive stuff. His last 3 opponents had each won at least 7 majors. He played close to a perfect match in the final against Agassi.
The one and only Mcenroe the true Goat of tennis in my book..Year 84 pure genius🙌👋God bless him..
me too.. he dominated both singles and doubles... no man had ever done that..
Que extraordinario partido,da gusto ver un Sampras tan joven ,lo bien que lo hacia todo,el mejor que yo he visto en mi vida.
Manolo Fontaner te imaginas a Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal y Djokovic en un mismo torneo o que hubieran coincidido.
Sería de locos eso si a Nadal nadie le ganaría en Roland Garros
Wow. The two greatest serve and volleyers ever. I got to practice and play with Sampras two years earlier and I couldn’t believe how clean he hit every ball, never off center shots. I didn’t think he’d be the best ever though. Complete gentleman. You see what he did after every winner?! Nothing. Never showed his opponent up or complained. I love McEnroe too though, now, by not back then! Awesome match.
Pete knew his complete control of his outward emotions was more intimidating than anything...he was all BUSINESS!
Plus the 2nd serve as well.@@joemarshall4226
Yeah, I remember watching this match in my college dormitory. I remember hoping McEnroe could channel his former dominance from 1984 into this match. He still had the fast hands for his phenomenal volleys and awesomely angled shots, but he had lost maybe a half step in foot speed and a split second of perfect timing, which are vital for a serve and volleyer. Also, Pete Sampras admitted later that he simply with a hot streak during the entire fortnight, as he had beaten Lendl, McEnroe, and Agassi, in that order.
eddie calado i heard that too! that someone recorded Pete Sampras admitting that he had used performance-enhancing oxygen right before that match! the judges wanted to take back the big ceremonial beer stein they had given him for winning the tournement! that one's still hotly debated!
The technology had changed..mac part 2 was not as good of course but he was a speedy player in the wood racket ERA and struggled with the lendl Agassi Sampras power as rackets were more advanced.
@@robbie192 Complete nonsense. Compare the exact specs of the racquets all of those players have used, and then please, do stop spreading this (often repeated) misinformation.
@@argokan dude...stay in your lane...mac post 85 was no where near a top player anymore...baseliners began crushing winners and the serve and volley becamethe serve...were you even around then?
Mac had no chance in this match...why was that if he was so great?
@@robbie192 I was around then, before and after that time.
What you write is a summary of the usual, superficial misconceptions about whats and whys of McEnroe past 1984.
He was great indeed, why he declined is a combination of a number of factors, not necessarily addressed by anything you cite as the valid reasons.
FYI, anyone who has ever used the Lendl GTX pro - or any of the iterations of the Lendl's racquet can easily see the flaws in your reasoning on the issue.
Mcenroe wining a set against Sampras playing with modern racquets. Wow. Respect!
Thanks for bringing this. Mac on his way out, Pete on his way in. A very interesting time period.
Sampras was unreal at 19 years of age. His power serving and volleying at the US Open 1990 was extraordinary!
Alan Chong Quite a tournament to knock off Lendl, Johnny Mac, and Agassi in succession. Notice the confidence of Sampras to close this out and then contrast with his near gagging with nervousness when he had to close out the Wilander match (his first Big WIn) which I believe was a year before.
Sampras said in his book that at the 1990 US Open, his game just suddenly clicked. Everytime in the final, when he decided to pop an ace against Andre, it would come off. That is amazing. Imagine being able to pull that off in a Slam final??!! Pete is a special player. I rate him 3rd all time greatest player. Although I am looking at Nadal carefully now. I rate Nadal 1st. But is Rafa extinguished now? He might be like a candle that has been blown out. Nothing left. We will see in the next couple of years, I guess.
Alan Chong Nadal is not the GOAT male tennis player in tennis history. Nadal is in essence a slow court player (despite his having won a number of hard court titles) as evidenced by his failure thus far to win the ATP year-end championships which is played on an indoor fast surface, the fact that he won two Wimbledon titles only after the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club slowed down the grass courts at Wimbledon in 2001, and the total lack of great serve-and-volleyers to challenge Nadal in tournaments on the men's pro tennis tour during Nadal's career. If the AELT&CC had not slowed down the grass courts at Wimbledon in 2001 and if there had been great serve-and-volleyers like Kramer, Laver, Rosewall, John McEnroe, Edberg, Becker and Sampras to challenge Nadal on the men's pro tennis tour during Nadal's career, Nadal would not have won a single Wimbledon Men's Singles title and probably not a single U.S. Open Mens Singles title in his career. Without any doubt, Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg and Sampras were all greater players than Nadal.
Well I respect that you are entitled to your opinion of course. In my opinion, a player can only play on the courts in front of him, he can only beat the players in front of him. Nadal has achieved so much in the game. Phenomenal achievements. He has annihilated many good players! It's unfair to say 'oh he would be beaten if the courts at Wimbledon were faster or if there were more serve and volleyers around.' That's hypothetical. We don't know the result of Edberg vs Nadal or Laver vs Nadal. It's guessing, c'mon! You're saying he wouldn't have won a single Wimbledon or US Open if these other greats were around? I could assert that he would have beaten them no problem!' Look at Nadal vs Federer (Head to Head). Now look me in the eye (figuratively speaking) and tell me Roger is the GOAT. How could Roger be the GOAT with a head to head that reads 10-22 against his closest rival? If Roger is not the GOAT, then I say Nadal is. Nadal (a 14 time Slam champion) gives Federer endless problems. Roger can't solve the puzzle no matter what he tries. I like Federer. I just rate Nadal higher, that's all. Tell me what you think. We are debating tennis. There's no personal attacks or anything.
Federer had a poor record against Nadal in slams,,,, maybe because he did not change his game until the Australian final 2017 when he took the ball early on his back hand,,, Edberg and Tony Pickard must have been behind that strategy
I knew the outcome before I watched but I still wanted McEnroe to come back and win.
You can actually see how McEnroe changes his tactics throughout the match. He was a very smart player.🤔😒
even with the age you can see the genius
Mac was just 31 in 1990. Just a hair off his prime form but very far from 'age'. In 2016 Mac is still showing genius despite age.
I never understood how touch and soft hands at net equates to genius.
McEnroe was (is) so creative. Had to be frustrating when you give your best but it just isn’t good enough.
@@uncletony6210 it does when you watch espn all day
@@bigalexg Yeah, he wasn't very old, even by the standards of that era, but it was more about the big change in technology (and therefore style) that came in the middle of Mac's career. Just look at Mac's racquet. The fact that he was able to do so well at this stage, against guys playing very differently (and with different equipment) is a sign of just how good Mac was.
Even when he was being outplayed, McEnroe always made me feel as though he would find a way to win.
thank you for posting this. i have to admit i came here to see McEnroe put young Petey to shame, but Sampras is quite the volleymeister!
Fantastic tennis from Pete... hearbreaking to see how the ravages of time erodes the reflexes of the very best... in this case, Johnny Mac....
It is a miracle that McEnroe was able to win the third set
The difference between Mac and Jimbo was that Mac lasted 8 years on the pro tour 1977-1985 after which he became more than an average player whereas Connors was semifinalist at the US open in 1991 and played well into his 40s.
Jimmy is 109 ATP tour titles and 8 grand slams .
Agreed. He sustained his excellence for a longer period of time.Mac after 84 was done. Mentally he was fried and the younger generation (Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Wilander) began to make their mark.
When the 90’s (Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang) rolled around Mac should’ve retired. Really should’ve retired after this loss to Pete. The writing was on the wall.
Il PIù grande guaio di John Mcenroe è che lui giocava talmente bene a tennis da esaltare le qualità degli avversari che incontrava facendogli disputare delle prestazioni superlative ed è per questo che secondo me la sua classe divina era sprecata in un campo da tennis perchè reputo che quasi sempre quando perdeva egli fosse stato battuto ingiustamente poichè il suo tennis e la sua eleganza non erano di questo mondo.
Mac had lost just a touch of pace on his serve, so Pete was jumping all over it if it wasn't placed perfectly. Pete's playing so brilliantly here, it's no disgrace to have lost. Sometimes you just have to tip your hat and say, "good show". Just a hot player, with an extraordinary display of talent, dismantling the game of a hall of famer. Made it look effortless too, and that had to be unnerving to Mac.
Actually Macs serve had about 20mph more than when he was in his prime because of the rackets. Late 80s, early 90s was a his hardest serves.
Sorry 20mph less in his prime
Johnny Mac, true genius of the game. Best ever with Rod Laver.
??
Had this match been played w wood racquets, outcome might have been different. This is the beginning of the power game. Mc's game was built for wood racquets. We'd never again have a number 1 rank of his size and weight and build. Even Andre is bigger and of course more powerful
Had the McEnroe of 1984 played this match he wins. John had slowed up just enough footwork and serving wise even though he was training and did a very nice job getting to the semifinals. The McEnroe of 1984 was taking the ball so early and would have gotten just a little more pace on the ball to keep Sampras off balance. Too bad it didn't last longer but for 1 year no one man or woman ever played tennis better than John McEnroe. What he did to an in form Lendl in the US Open final was brutal and blowing out Connors at Wimbledon in under 2 hours was no mean feat either.
@@gregoryphillips3969 I wish we could see one major today where they were limited to wood racquets or something like that. They've pretty much eliminated serve-volley, approach shots, chip & charge, and so much else from the game. Nadal would still have been incredible in the wood racquet era but different, and punchers would have had a chance against him; he just couldn't have taken such huge swings all the time. Now all the players hit the same way, pretty much. A Djokovic should be matched with an opposite style player, not a mirror image. In golf they made the courses longer to push back against the better clubs. Tennis chose to do nothing. I think it is unfortunate, but few agree w me.
Sampras inspired me into tennis, my memory is still fresh from those Aces at the T He did in the 93 wimbledon, Amazing!
And very funny... Ace, ace, ace, ace. 1-0
Wasn't it in 94 against Ivanisevic ? I reckon that's why they started slowing down the grass.
Great match. Although Sampras came in a lot in this match. Never considered him a strictly serve and volley player like McEnroe, edberg, or Rafter. He hit his serve really hard. And hard to come in on 137 mile serve. Sampras had all
Around game. One of best second serves I ever seen. Newcombe has a great one. McEnroe still with best hands I ever saw.
Absolutely amazing performance by John.
Pete Sampras is probably the best technical player I've ever seen in my lifetime. I like Jimmy Connors a lot, for a lot of reasons, but Sampras is probably the best technical player I've ever seen. His power game is something to behold. If I had a kid in tennis or were otherwise mentoring youth in tennis, of course, it's sometimes hard to serve and volley like Sampras, but from the serve to the groundstrokes to the volleying, I could scarcely counsel them to model themselves growing up after a better technical player.
(Sampras's sportsmanship was quite good as well, I should comment, for the youngsters coming up the ranks)
Back when the courts were fast. The nostalgia.
Us Open court is fast compared with other tournaments... Like AO for example
@@lucaarrigoni5110 US is pretty slow now. Probably same speed as AO. They sped AO up in 2017, which is a big reason why Fed won, but US is not that fast. And especially not fast compared to what it used to be
A new king is born. You can see it in the Billy Squier's bewildered eyes.
john is just awesome. awesome!
It would have been great to see Sampras against a McEnroe in his prime.
Sampras started the modern era of tennis, and sent home classic style guys like McEnroe. Mc was a great player of the early and mid 80's, when tennis still was slow and no one care about strong services and parelel shots.
Aguz25, Lendl started the modern era of tennis, he is the godfather of power tennis...
Passing of the torch....
The torch was passed to Becker/Edberg/Agassi years before.
@@HankFinkle11 id say it was the previous round v Lendl
Just remember, in interviews and in his book, Sampras says his tennis was near perfect in the 1999 Wimbledon final, and during the entire 2 weeks of the 1990 US open.
Wonderful Pete,classy,talented, gentleman.Thanks Pete.
A changing of the guard match...mc made one more semifinal and Pete was just beginning his dominance
Arguably the two best volleyers of all time. Only one has much more power.
Sampras was not a great volunteer. He just came to the net behind a much bigger shot. The two best volunteers of all time are John McEnroe and Stefan Edberg
@@MrPernell27 not a great volleyer? Edberg and McEnroe are definitely among the best volleyers of all time, but Pete was no average joe either. He didn't have to pull off tricky volleys as much because he did indeed have that huge serve, but there were plenty of moments that demonstrated he had good hands, anticipation and reflexes at the net. Not as good as Edberg & McEnroe, but still an elite volleyer.
@@MrPernell27 Volunteer? I think the word you are looking for is volleyer. But yes I agree McEnroe then Edberg the best ever.
@@MrPernell27 don't forget Becker.
@@MrPernell27 even in this match Sampras had better volleys.in 98 he impoved his volleys and started to play serve and volley after every serve.
This was a serve and volley clinic from 2 of the all time greatest serve and volleyers of all time. You don't see tennis like this much anymore.
I remember that Borg was serving at over 120mph using a wooden racquet through the 1981 (his last) US Open. He wasn't even known for his serve. He beefed it up just before he retired. What a loss.
Actually, he had big move forward in his serve at the age of 20, just before his five Wimbledons run.
Arthur Ashe was clocking 120 mph serves with a wooden racquet well before Borg.
Sampras was very mature for 19.
Basically, Fed took Miroslav Mecir's game and elevated it to championship level. Mecir was just an entertainer in his era, nobody believed you could build a winning game by making an unexpected shot again and again. But Fed does it smoothly and consistently, so much so that people don't even notice his variety.
McEnroe was unique, the greatest natural talent and the best doubles player ever. But he had no answer to power tennis. After 84 (the best year of his and any player ever on the tour) he began to fall. Power tennis took over and his magical touches couldn't resist it. At least he forced young Pete to work for his money.
No point in throwing your racket, Mac. When Pete´s backhand worked - arguably the only weak spot in his game - he was undefeatable. And it did work in this match.
Actually Sampras' backhand only became a (relative) weakness late in his career. Early on it was considered his best shot from the ground, and his forehand was considered a bit suspect in it's consistency. He changed how he played it, early on it was a hard, flat shot that he directed very well. Later he started to play it as a looping, heavy top spin shot to try and push guys like Agassi and Courier back a bit on the baseline and kept the flat shot mainly for passing shots. In the last few years he lost both, the hard flat one he needed too much time to set up and couldn't control, and the top spin shot he too often smothered and it landed short and became a easy shot to attack.
ChristianPaul75 Mac's serve and shot's lacked punch / velocity here and Pete could respond with ease. I thought Mac played better in the 92 Wimbledon semi vs. Agassi, who played out of his mind.
ChristianPaul75 Sampras' backhand, although not as strong as his forehand, was nevertheless a good, solid, reliable backhand both when Sampras hit topspin and underspin on his backhand.
Sampras movement is underrated, he was a fantastic mover, like a cat at his best
Yeah... fast as a cat at getting to the drop volleys
Gábor Héber Actually probably the most explosive mover of his generation, especially to the forehand side.
I agree and I don’t like Sampras
Thang Vuong I agree with that as well. Actually all the comments have been spot on about Sampras. Very fast, underrated actually and very explosive in his prime.
he got too big, too muscular at the end of his career, should've kept his playing weight circa '95. if you watch highlights, he was definitely quicker on his feet and changes of direction then vs later, even when he was still no.1
Mac wasn't used to the huge Sampras serves. With few exceptions, most players Mac faced in the 70s and 80s didn't have a cannon like Sampras.
Gumball LastRally
Nonsense...Mac faced much bigger servers than Sampras. Roscoe tanner, Steve Denton, chip hooper, Kevin Curren..even ivanicavic...even Borg was timed at 120mph at the US open.
Big difference Pete not only had a big serve he had great accuracy with it and a great 1st volley off the serve
Two different sports. With wooden rackets McEnroe was the best player. He forced Borg to retirement.....
Becker?
@@ericwest5757 Also, great disguise. like Mac and Roger he was very difficult to read. And Pete had the best second serve ever.
At the net , John was classical . Power , movement deserted him
Two things: 1) The fact that Mac was in the SF 6 years past his prime is amazing and somewhat proves players could compete cross-generationally. 2) The Air Trainer's Mac is wearing are the most comfortable shoes ever made though the toe did not last long for tennis.
Fed pioneered improvisation. Unlike Sampras, unlike Becker and many other past champions, he didn't/doesn't go in with a set plan but responds to the opponent and comes up with shots from all corners of the court. It is a strategy that has eventually shaped the games of all of other top three - Djoko/Nadal/Murray. When people say the top four of today look alike, they only mean that at no previous point in recent tennis history have the top four been so versatile, had so much variety.
Its true that his early retirement does put him behind the other greats in terms of longetivity and endurance, but lets not forget that he still won 11 majors by the time he was 25, a feat that Federer never came close to. Like I said, he domintated the two most contrasting surfaces in tennis that no other tennis player in history has ever done, and that places him as one of the greatest tennis players of all time
Fascinating to see two generations at work. McEnroe technique on groundstrokes looks so outdated, but he still gives Sampras good run for his money.
Many people really enjoy watching McEnroe but when I watch him he makes me crazy. The way he serves is just strange and when he hits the ball it looks like he's blocking it instead of striking it. It's like he has his own backyard style of playing instead of following normal tennis procedures.
Actually, I should say, two best all-courters of the modern era. Have to give props to Laver, who was absolutely brilliant himself, and had every shot.
Oh absolutely. I have long said ultimately, when the problem was mental, you can't pretend the career wasn't what it was supposed to be. If a guy gets injured, that's a bit different, but, for example, some people say "oh if Borg had stayed, he would have won 20 slams"...well OK...MAYBE(and I have my doubts), but in the end, Borg QUIT. He had a choice and mentally, he quit! That's his choice, and his right, but you can't REALLY say "he WOULD" have....because he could have, and didn't!
Changing of the guard: the best player of all time (imo) vanquished by an oh so young looking unknown who would dominate tennis for the next decade and win 12 major titles.
@DexterHaven49
Love this post, and its totally true. Pete was clutch, and in later matches than this, when he matured and KNEW he was the best, you could tell he thrived on the big moments. Almost EVERY big match he played against an Agassi, Courier, or the best of his generation, he won.
I miss these days!
7.29 one of the most amazing shot I've ever seen
Much fun to watch tennis in old days. Today, after watching one Murray vs. Djokovic game , you are done. All others are the same. Plus, need someone like McEnroe, this guy was fun to watch.
That's why it's called "serve and volley" tennis. There and have been many great champions who have used it including Rod Laver, Arthur Ashe, John McEnroe, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Pete Sampras, Pat Rafter and many others. I appreciate all styles of tennis including power baseliners and serve and volleyers.
The evolution of tennis is so interesting; seems to change about every 10 years. Makes you wonder what comes after Djoker.
I too think we will see another era of net rushing and tacticians soon. The young players from the current era has been a little too relaxed in regards to net rushers. They possibly got too comfortable at the baseline, and it seems a lot of players have poor passing shots now. Even Djokovic has trouble on the passing shot occasionally. Young players on tour today have terrible passing shots and poor net skills. Some examples are Dmitrov, Kyrgios and Coric, who are often wayy out of position to hit a passing shot, too far behind the baseline.
Guys from Nadal and Federer's generation chased serve and volleyers away with huge passing shots and extreme foot speed, and now the current up and coming generation ages 16-20 have never even faced a good serve and volleyer because not a single serve and volleyer exists. So what if a good net attacker and tactician showed up in the game today, now that players from Nadal and Fed's generation are old? I think that player would have an advantage over other players who don't have much experience against this tactic.
There is speculation that baseline play is now the dominant force in tennis because of better rackets and strings, making baseline shots and passing shots too good. And I think this is true. But I also think that if baseliners benefit from better rackets and strings, so too should net players. I think it will be only a matter of time before someone figures out how to get to the net in today's conditions, and win matches from the fore-court. I feel like the opening is there. Someone just has to take it. Edberg style.
Lord Crazaak Unless the ITF establishes a rule to restrict the size, length, and width of tennis rackets to 75 square inches (maximum racket head size), 27 inches long (standard length of a tennis racket) and 18 mm. wide (maximum width of the tennis racket above the racket handle), then it is exceedingly and sadly unlikely that serve-and-volley, chip-and-charge to the net behind an approach shot or return-of-serve, and finesse styles of play will ever return to pro tennis, especially when you take into consideration that the tennis equipment manufacturers, the ATP, the WTA and most of the pro players would be vehemently opposed to such a change in the rules regarding the size of tennis rackets.
While it's true that racket sizes and slower courts, as well as heavier tennis balls makes it more difficult for net players and tacticians to win, I don't think it's the main issue. I think the main issue is no one tries. Players like Stepanek tried, and he often got far, but I couldn't consider him better than some of the legendary players.
When you go into a match with the true intention of never giving the opponent rythym, you don't bother hitting a safe topspin shot on the return. You hit angled drives and biting slices. You also hit a long looping topspin shot to give yourself time to get back into position if your opponent is trying to keep you to the baseline. These shots should benefit very well from larger rackets as well. What I notice is that the players who try to approach the net these days give up very fast, and they when they move to the net they're rushing without much tactics. They're also hitting a topspin shot on approaches, which isn't the way to go about it.
If you watch old matches, Edberg got burned a lot by players like Agassi, Lendl, and even fellow serve and volleyers like Sampras. What he did though was keep the pressure up, and always hit higher percentage of success shots like slice, which we never see top pros do today. He also had superior net coverage, when someone tried to pass him down the line he would anticipate it with his experience and reflexes, which no one has today because they don't train their net skills much. They probably hit 10-15 volleys during practice, all shots being hit straight to them, and that's it.
There's a different mentality among players today that if they get passed, they think that if they were just at the baseline, they could have run it down and returned it. But they forget that because they were at the net, they didn't have to run it down, they spent less energy, and they can keep this up for hours while the guy at the baseline running everything down gets tired. It's a sound gameplan.
So I really feel that someone will figure out how to do it again. They'll have success at the net and I think it will surprise a lot of people who thought it was impossible. It just takes someone with the will and smarts to use it.
Lord Crazaak I agree with much of what you wrote in your above comment about why current players don't serve-and-volley and go to the net behind the right type of approach shot which is a flat or underspin approach shot - rather than a topspin approach shot which is the wrong way to hit an approach shot for various reasons. However, it must be pointed out that a major factor which partially explains why current players don't serve-and-volley is because there is an understandable psychological reluctance on the part of current players to play serve-and-volley with an oversize racket because they don't feel confident that they can serve the ball with an oversize racket with the extra degree of accuracy and consistency required by the serve-and-volley style. Such confidence, accuracy and consistency in the aerve-and-volley style is generally only possible when playing with a racket that is 85 square inches or less in head size. Another major factor is that tennis camps undoubtedly don't teach the serve-and-volley style, at least not to the same extent that they did during the wood era of tennis.
7Lukibi99Tore7 I misspelled the word ''serve'' once as ''aerve'' in an earlier comment.
I found it hard as well, back in the day. Neither man was at his best here, John too old, Pete too young, and perhaps both with a little nerves, nonetheless, we see hints of the genius of what are, in my opinion, the two best all-courters ever to play the game. Both so comfortable in every part of the court: baseline, midcourt, and at the net. Both with power, and magic touch. Improvisational brilliance. I'll take that over two power baseliners hammering out the same point every time!
Arguably the best serve in tennis history. Certainly the second serve! He could hit a dime!
Sampras had already champion’s attitude at that age,only 19 but very calm and concentrated.
An old champion against a future champion, the result is logical, but Mac Enroe had kept nice technical gestures
Two of the best volleyers of all time...😌
I saw Sampras lose to Chang at the Canadian Open in August of 1990 - a month before he won his first USO - and I can remember just being mesmerized by his power at that time. Ten years later Safin destroyed him at the 2000 USO with power that made Sampras look weak. Now ten years later Raonic is throwing down 150 KM bombs that make Sampras's first serve look pedestrian by comparison. Incredible how the game has evolved.
I was there for this match...33 years ago !
The recommended string tension on a BLX ProStaff 90 is between 55-60 lbs, so if anything Federer's string tension is average to low, and while the ProStaff is a very stiff frame, it still allows for very good feel, and with a good shock absorber its like the ball never touched the strings. Fed's racket and a wooden racket are complete opposites. It doesn't matter what racket you use today, it will not prepare you for a wooden racket
McEnroe at 32 here. Adapted to the graphite racket. Crazy how he/and others from his time, were players who had to go through a “time machine” and play from the wooden era to graphite advancements era. Shows that if Mac were only 22 here he would be much better than 32, and any of the greats from back in the day could be just as successful in the present day if they had grown up training with the newer rackets. I hate when people say “players from back in the day couldn’t compete with players today”.
These two played doubles together for the US davis cup team. What a dream team it was.
After watchig Mac play some matches i actually have more respect for him than what the media portrayed, its a shame he couldnt have played in my lifetime, but then again we wouldnt be seeing impressive net play like this.
2004 Wimbledon Final: He used to break Federer serves over and over again and he has in the serve and forehand his best allies.
At this stage Mcenroe just didn't move like he used to or have the zip in his strokes. Still, this was a good effort.
Two of the greatest shotmakers of all-time.
Perhaps the two truly-proficient all-court players. Both could win staying back, coming in, with power, or with touch. Both had every groundie, every volley, every touch shot. Mac was much slower here than he was in his prime, and outgunned by the Sampras power, but still, a nice duel.
McEnroe playing better here than ever in his career and with a modern racket. Still his aging game handicapped him in the 90's against the more talented power hitters and big serves. Fascinated era where the old guard was being replaced simply because the playing style had changed.
I love how all the greats play the up and coming greats when they are young. Sampras would go on to play Fed at some point. They all link in somehow. Like Agassi played both Conners and Federer. That might sound weird but I kind of connects all the different generations and makes you realise their games aren't that much different, except for the death of serve volley 🙁🙁
So Mac may not have been the best player, but is there anybody in history more watchable artistically than Mac? Just the way he hits the ball is so damn interesting.
tod dubow Mac and Fed, the best hands to have ever played the game 🎾
Yes, indeed. Plus, his serve is quite unorthodox, very unusual and odd. It is probably the strangest serve I have ever seen. But it is basically artistic, much like the rest of his game, in its entirety, pretty much.
May not have been the best player? He’s probably the 10th-12th best of all time.
Level of volleying has come down drastically.
Racket technology has made the game so much faster that volleying isn't effective that much anymore. I would love to see a tournament where all players had to use woodies again and play with more of an all court strategy as opposed to just hitting as hard as you can.
That is why we must never compare players from different eras
McEnroe's prime was actually 1981-1984 or 1985. He beat Borg twice in GS finals in 1981 and Borg was pretty much done after that year. McEnroe had one of the best seasons, if not the best season ever, in 1984, and incidentally, that was Lendl's coming out party. He won his first GS (beating McEnroe at the French, coming back from 2 sets to love down). After that McEnroe had a couple solid years, but nothing too spectacular. He was on and off, until he retired in 1992.
@ Bostero3771. I must also point out that there was yet another aspect of John McEnroe's tennis game which you don't see at all in Federer's tennis game and that is that in 1984 McEnroe frequently would block back Lendl's fastest, best FIRST serve to within 1-1 1/2 feet of Lendl's baseline and rush into the net behind return-of-serve to win a point with a first volley or overhead smash. Federer never rushes into the net behind return-of-serve after blocking back an opposing player's best, fastest first serve! McEnroe adopted that tactic after Don Budge spoke to McEnroe before McEnroe played against Lendl in the 1984 U.S. Pro Indoor tournament in Philadelphia and told McEnroe that he (McEnroe) might as well go into the net on everything (e.g., serve, return-of-serve, chip-and-charge to the net behind an approach shot, etc.) against Lendl since McEnroe had nothing to lose by trying that tactic since Lendl had been dominating McEnroe at that time in their previous matches. Regarding that 281-49 (85.5%) statistic that you erroneously cite as Federer's won-lost record and winning percentage in singles matches that have gone to a fifth set, anyone with an I.Q. above 0 would instantly recognize that it is virtually impossible for any male tennis player from either the amateur era or the Open era in tennis history to have won 281 matches that went to a fifth set! It is exceedingly unlikely that even Bill Tilden, who was known to occasionally allow some of his singles matches to extend longer than necessary in order to provide the tennis fans in the stands with more entertainment via a longer match, would have achieved 281 wins in singles matches that went to a fifth set, even when one takes into consideration that the best-of-five sets format was the standard format for men's tennis matches during Tilden's era in tennis! That 281-49 record (and hence the 85.5% winning percentage) is obviously bogus!
He was one week away since May of 2010 and most people, including yourself, gave him no chance of ever breaking that record. As for Borg, he was never a great hard court player and particularly disliked playing the USO with the evening sessions, the humidity and the noisy NY crowds. Again, how well you adapt to different tournament conditions is part of your greatness.
Who else apart mc enroe has been world number 1 in single and in double at the same time. This is more awarding.
Edberg.
And a few women. Off the top of my head, Hingis, Sanchez Vicario, Davenport? , Navratilova.
los medios puntos geniales estos dos jugadorazos
Its the same with 90s grass, you had Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, and Tim Henman. But because the courts and the balls have been slowed down, the surfaces are much more even. This means that players today are trained to be all around baseline players so that they can have success on any surface. The fact that Nadal still won at Wimbledon is amazing considering the grass there is still much faster than clay, but I wouldnt give him a chance if he had competed in the 90s at Wimbledon
Because of this:
-Sampras has 7 wimbledon titles as well as 5 US open titles
-He had more competition during his career than Federer, having to play Stefan Edberg , Ivan Lendl , Andre Agassi , Boris Becker , and Jim Courier , while Fed only had Nadal as a competitor during the height of his career, and unlike Sampras, Federer's only competitor has a winning record against him, while Sampras has a winning record against all those legends
-Officially the most weeks at No 1
-Most year ends as No 1
Also look at this, at 31 Pete was almost retired (his swan song was the USO 2002) losing easily to guys like a young Gonzalez, Corretja on grass, Bastl at Wimledon, while Rog is #1 competing with Nadal, Murray and Djoko, winning more titles in the last 8 months than anyone, including 3 Master´s series, the Master´s Cup and Wimbledon. He competed with 3 generations, the Sampras, Agassi, the Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, and the Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, all #1 and GS champions except Murray
I am not talking about making shots under pressure. Fed breaks up the pattern with an unexpected choice of shot and suddenly changes the direction of the rally. Before Fed, we saw players doing this only occasionally. Fed made it pretty much his strategy to win rallies by changing the pace or direction.
If people complain about the dullness of today's baseline game, I can also understand the complaints of the all-serve and volley games back in the day. Watching baseline slugfest is fine, and watching net rushing contests is fine too, but when you watch too many of them, you'll get bored eventually.
That's why I love watching Federer, he never makes me bored watching him. He's got the right balance of baseline and net game.
Good points. It used to be a generla agreement that the most exciting matches were the ones that pitted a baseliner against a serve and volleyer...Mac vs Borg or Connors, Sampras vs Chang or Agassi, Becker or Edberg vs Lendl or Wilander.
Both Agassi and Sampras defeated McEnroe in the semifinal of the first slam they won.
3:28 Chair umpire: Please not again Mac’.
Mc: Can you se I’ll be his Davis cup captain?
Fair enough.
I strongly feel Mac had 2 problems:
1.as you mention his training was very inconsistent. He'd get motivated and would train hard....for a month or two...then something would come up in his personal life, he'd become unfocused and unmotivated....then be ticked off that he was....and on and on...
2.He got caught up in the power game...he admitted he was trying to hit within 105 the power of Lendl and Becker...and still have touch...not a bad goal, but he really left his unique ...
Epic lol the way the score is written. That were the good times of tennis.
Johnny Mac is my second favorite tennis player of all time.
Are you kidding? Agassi started his downward spiral in 1995 and came back in 1996. Becker was only 25 when Sampras started his prime, and Edberg was still winning majors, winning his final one in 1996. And don't forget about Patrick Rafter, who was in his prime when Sampras was a little older.
Not sure if it was this match or the final against Agassi but Sampras at one point was serving up aces on his second serve.
Best US Open ever: 1990. Agassi and Sampras won 12 straight matches to get to the final. People forget, 6 each. They demolished big names: Lendl, Becker, McEnroe. Youngest average age for any male final ever too: 19 yrs. old!!
Roddick was nowhere near an average player. In fact, he used to have the best forehand in 2003-2006.
You think Roddick had a better forehand than Federer did in his absolute prime?
The backhand has definitely improved among today's players.
Totally agree. Saying "If so and so would have stayed" or "if he had not ben injured" then "he would have won" is pure speculation and wishful thinking. Reality is McEnroe got into Borg´s head and broke his biggest asset: his mental strength. No one can really say what would have happened after he lost consecutive finals at Wimby and the USO against Mac.
I am surprised at how little definitive Mac´s Volleys were. They allowed Pete to play many balls to try to hit passings
FANTASTIC !!!
Watching this again, think about how good Sampras was:
Even though Mac was much older he was still playing some good tennis but he never beat Sampras during their regular careers. That's saying something because you know Mac is a strong competitor who will try everything he can to win.
I see a big difference of style between Sampras and Mc Enroe. Mc Enroe uses racquet as a magic wand, it twirls in the air,
all his shots are beauty. I can't say the same for Sampras, his style is very practical, he's not interested in esthetic side of tennis. Great champion no doubt. Greetings from Rome Italy
Both great players in their different ways, but both attacking players, not baseline grinders.
I played against McEnroe and Sampras in a training match.
I was standing on one side and Sampras and Mc Enroe were playing as double on the other side and I won both sets against them 6:0 and 6:0 !