How Good Was Pete Sampras Actually?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- Channel inspired by Channel inspired by TennisTV, TENNIS TALK with Cam Williams, WTA, Tennistic Productions, CULT TENNIS
Inspired by How Good Was Andre Agassi Actually?
Inspired by Tennis's Next Great: The Rise Of Carlos Alcaraz!
Inspired by WHERE ARE THEY NOW? Tennis Stars Of The 90s
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/tennisp...
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/tennisp...
For copyright matters relating to our channel please contact us directly at : luxurypluschannel@gmail.com
In this video we go over tennis,tennis plus,roland garros,wimbledon,us open,australian open,pete,sampras,pete sampras,How Good Was Pete Sampras Actually?,pete sampras serve,pete sampras highlights,pete sampras serve and volley,pete sampras backhand,how good was pete sampras,pete sampras vs andre agassi,pete sampras lifestyle,pete sampras american tennis player,sampras vs agassi,agassi vs sampras,pete sampras best shots,tennis tv
#petesampras #sampras #tennis
His movement around the court was like a ninja, so fluid and quite.
Hi Bennie
Not on clay, on which he was below average, since he had to PLAY the ball.
Pete is my all-time favorite. I liked his style of play and his demeanor. If I could meet one professional player, past or present, it would be him. I miss him on court.
Agree. Great serve and volley. Extremely versatile.
I wish you well but if you do meet and go for food/drinks then remember to bring your wallet cos you know Pete ain't paying.
you mean a personality like a piece of concrete? xD
@@scottstorchfan 😂
Idem, such an elegant player.
Greatest server of all time and 2nd serve is unbelievable!! No one still has it, one more thing is that Pete slam dunk, iconic.
His physique is impressive
Please don't forget the running cross court forehand. This is an underrated weapon and got both Agassi or Becker in troubles
Not the greatest serve of all time but maybe the greatest serve of any player who is 6'1.
@@tijgertjekonijnwordopgegetenerm you new to tennis, who's got a 2nd serve like him????? No one🤦🏽
"Greatest" is a big word. Pete is nearly a clone of the great Pancho Gonzales, who many unbiased old students of the game think had the greatest serve of HIS time. Rod Laver rated Gonzales as the best tennis player of all who came before him (and modestly puts no rating on himself), and Gonzales himself (who wasn't modest) said that in the period of his peak form (i.e. before Laver) the only player whose best game - when it was 'on' - was better than HIS best game was Lew Hoad.
His wingspan was enormous. He was 6’1” but he had the wingspan of a much taller player. That helped his serve but also his reach at net and the baseline. He loved to leave an opening on his forehand side tempting players to hit to it, he then sprinted over and rifled his forehand, usually up the line. It was one of his signature plays. He was amazing to watch.
Nice analysis!
I thought it was his ripping forehand crosscourt that was one of his signature shots.
Greek people have great wingspans
@@buridah328 yh like monkeys
Pete didn't use a continental for his groundstrokes. Eastern forehand and eastern backhand grips
Was thinking the same. He wouldn't rally from the baseline as well as he did with continental grip on both sides
@@ciaranbrady2592 Exposed
Absolutely. But given how few commenters mention it, it's clear they don't know about the basics of tennis ie grips.
true, that. an obvious error in the video. He and Roger both used Eastern grips. Almost all coaches today teach the semi-western due to the slower courts and higher bounce, and thus the popularity of baseline tennis. I still prefer the serve and volley style, so Pete #1, Roger #2 for me
@@gregroscoe4051 I love Pete & Roger too, but because they were not only serve and volley. they could beat baseliners at their own game too. Also the same sense of effortlessness
at his best he was unbeatable.
Pete said once that the only player that could beat him when he was playing at his best was Agassi.
Many top tennis player can serve aces here and there. But very few can serve aces under stress like when facing break points or match points. Pete has this mental strength when serving. He wasn't called Pistol Pete for nothing.
I'm not sure if they've got it from Pete but Kyrgios and Medvedev seem to do a similar thing.
True. I mean we don't say pistol Roger or pistol Rafa. Hmm 🤔. Now I wonder if we would still call him pistol if his 1st name wasn't Pete. I'm going to be up all night contemplating this, love Big Ben.
@AJ XOXO I agree and having played during the Sampras Era while in Juniors in the US it was a climactic time for professionalism with Pete leading. However with the strings which he didn't mention here, Pete would've been better had he had Poly.
These players will get destroyed in slow, Slow medium and medium surfaces in big 3 era that they will never win major titles in their life
In the past
Grass courts are the fast courts
Hard courts are medium fast to fast surfaces
Clay courts are slow surfaces also in their time
Now it got slowed down they will get destroyed by them
Pete Sampras didn't reach finals in French open Also
These players are one surface wonder only and nothing else
Their strength is serve and volley only which will destroy in French open Also.
Federer is time is up their fans are crying over court speed when Djokovic started dominating tennis 🤣🤣 like losers in the past it was unfair for baseline players now it is unfair for them it is balanced simple
Which fool told tennis should be for big servers and volley players only
Wimbledon for serve and volley players only is unjust and all also
Why clay court players should adjust and playing style to win Wimbledon
Those players can also adapt to slow,slow medium and medium surfaces also simple
Since Tennis started it always been unfair to Baseline players only from beginning
They decided to slow down surfaces fed fans are crying and feeling sick
Djokovic is goat of tennis sport
Not Federer at all
He won most major titles when surface were quicker and faster
Federer stature is extremely low also
He reached finals once since 2011
In US Open also
Big servers have 3 majors advantage
Baseline players have 1 Major with them only since open era started in 1968.
Deal with it fed fans
Fed lost because he is weaker than Djokovic mentally and physically.
When Djokovic and Nadal reached prime he is getting destroyed mostly
Djokovic and Nadal won major titles in strong era mostly
Federer is weak era champ also simple as players strong enough to defeat him on hard courts and grass courts except Nadal on Clay surface
Teenager Nadal defeated Prime Federer in 2004 Miami masters also
Nadal defeated Federer in Dubai open 2006 finals
Nadal wasn't their winning percentage would be 99% for Federer mostly
Federer was ✈ and Nadal was bringing him down to ground mostly by defeating Federer on the clay also
Only Djokovic deserves to be goat of tennis sport.
They faced each other 20 times on hard courts
Federer leads against Nadal because of indoor hard courts only
11-9 on hard courts which was close actually
12-2 on clay with large margin
The player who didn't win
1. Olympic gold medal
2. Monte Carlo masters titles
3. Rome masters titles how can he be goat of tennis sport also
Djokovic won everything twice
Only thing is missing Olympic gold medal but still he is better player than Nadal and Federer also
As he won all masters titles twice also which no player did it since 1968.
Federer biggest rivals are better and stronger than Federer mentally and physically also
Big titles
64>59>54 also
Hence Djokovic is goat of tennis.
Nadal is goat of clay in tennis sport.
Federer is one of the greatest tennis player of all time in open era also but not goat like Djokovic and Nadal.
You guys never expected that the player from Serbia will come and rule Tennis sport 😏😏😏😏😏😏 like that defeating Federer since 2010.
He was not boring at all to watch. He was a master of his craft. Very athletic too.
Incredibly boring. I go back and watch his matches and can’t get through 10 minutes. 3 shot rallies are scarce. He was amazingly skilled at what he did but it was unwatchable. In his era, the game became unbalanced.
@@johnroush2580 agree with you, watching Sampras or McEnroe the whole match serve and volley is the most bored play in the world, I don't even waste 5 minutes on that.... .. and not even mentioning that they hit the ball horrible 😂😂😂😂
No idea how people thought he was boring...what a bunch of goofballs.
He was a towering bore,
@@toolhand30 McEnroe didnt have solid baseline shots, just a good wrist that sometimes made genius passing shots. he had to rush to the net on every point. Completely different.
Pete's game truly benefited with the faster surfaces. I believe Nadal and Djokovic would have come up short in Pete's era.
It's a real shame we have lost the fast court era
agree. considering the courts and racquets of the time, if they played their current game, it would've been quite a big gap. nadal's forehand simply wouldn't work and djokovic's defence would be less effective.
Nadal will still win the same title as Pete on Roland Garros alone.
@@lolipedofin agree 😂
@lolipedofin Yeah he'd be dominant on clay in any era.
I will never forget the 1990 US Open final. I was only 9 years old then and it was the first match I remember watching (when "a star was born"). I remember where I was, where I was sitting, and what I felt like. I guess that says something about Pete's magic!
Quite honestly, Sampras's game was very very lethal when it came to ball placements across all kinds of courts and also his serve-volley approach on the nets. If all existed at once i.e. djoker, roger, and rafa etc, Sampras would have been undefeated and maybe even unparalleled too.
Sampras had lot of hugely talented players around the same time. Agassi, kuerten, ivanisevic, rafter, krajicek, henman, chang etc.
Huge respect for Sampras. Major inspiration for many players i am sure.
Ask him to win FO and come back to say this.
I spent a couple weeks with Pete in 1988 on Tour and he was a classy, fun guy, personable and professional.
If you need someone to win a point for $1,000,000, pick Rafa or Djoker. If you need someone to win a point for your life, Pete's your guy.
Just for your ignorant a*se - Pete never reached an RG final😂
A well established all-court player, but people mistake him for pure serve and volley. He gave much more to Tennis.
In my childhood, we had no cable TV. Yet I heard about him in magazines and news papers, here half a globe away in a foreign language. Never once his name was mentioned in a scandal or cheesy gossip. Whenever a Sampras picture was published, it was him holding a cup. Thus I grew up equating Sampras with victory. Nothing less.
All court player,lol😆😆 What his records on clay courts especially in French open? I get really confused when some people refered to him an all court player.
@@rajusaha855 you didn't read the comment correctly. Reference was made to baseline game vs. Serve and volley, he managed to merge both styles ( he started as an offensive baseliner early in his career) I didn't even mention the surface and you got worked up.
@@abirkalai5688 then why used the word 'all-court' into it.
@@rajusaha855 all-court is about the strategy on a given court, not the surface. An all-court player covers every angle from the baseline as well as the net. I know Pete Sampras struggles on clay as this surface recquires more stamina (look at his Davis Cup win in 1995 when he got dragged out of court for exhaustion), but he's a great player.
@@abirkalai5688 sadly we forgot him especially in the era of big 3. When 3 players got over 20 slams, a number impossible to think 20 years ago especially in men's game.
One of the most likeable guys in the sport and one with such a brutal game. To this day no one has mastered the second serve quite the way Pete did.
Totally agree. Nice guy, and second serve has never been equalled. First serve was the best, second serve also. "You're only as good as your second serve" is a tennis maxim.
The reason why I watched tennis way back in late 90’s is just coz of this Man Sampras and I totally disagree with comparing playing across different generations.. he is definitely one of the legends tennis has ever seen ..
I loved watching Pete, his flowing game, always attacking and moving forward, his explosive athleticism... so fun.
Most underrated athlete of all time…incredible jump on that overhead smash…and that running forehand 🤯💪💪💪
He actually was lightning fast when running for passing shots (which were lethal on his backhand side too), and by the sheer size of his thighs, you can clearly see how strong his legs were. This is certainly one of his strangely underrated abilities.
@@pierdomenicosommati443 agreed 👊
Underrated? He won 14 GS's. Who underrates him?
@@MichaelWalker-wu2pq athlete I said. Nobody talks about him being a great athlete. You ask people who are great athletes and hardly anyone would say him let alone any top tennis players…but they are some of the best.
@@tennisviking the average American sport fan won't mention any tennis athlete to begin with. But the longtime tennis fans will usually mention Sampras when talking about all time greats of tennis. I heard the commentators mention him a few times during Wimbledon this year and showed his photos and videos for their 100 years celebration.
I can't believe that 30++ years have passed since he first graced Wimbledon.
I, like many fans, miss his style of play.
Happy New Year all (2023).
sampras is my all time favorite player. and he was the most clutch player ive ever seen
what he done to agassi at wimbledon when he beat him 3 zip was as good as i have ever seen
He served and dashed straight in, that’s how aggressive his game was. He finished games so quickly and he made the game look dead easy. The game changed, courts were made intentionally to be slower with the game moving to a more “behind the baseline” rally game. People will like me will always miss aggressive serve and volley game and also having to not to sit and watch a tennis game drag on for hours and hours. It was a treat to watch Sampras play, a true goat, a player that changed the game forever. My Goat. Thanks to such videos the Legend lives on 🙏
It was so intriguing to watch how a good serve and volley guy went about defeating a rallyer by taking away is timing and rhythm and sense of what next was gonna happen. Serve and volley was the superior game for grass and Borg the ultimate baseliner of his day knew to adapt to serve and volley from a topspin baseliner in order to win Wimbledon 5 years in a row.
Greatest Serve, greatest forehand and greatest smash imo. With his serve it wasn't just his speed but placement, the kick on his second serve, the efficiency/accuracy of it, especially with the game on the line. So many times he'd be down 15-40 and hit 4 aces in a row and you could see it demoralised opponents. I've never seen another player pull out so many aces in the clutch like he could. He's the reason I have a powerful serve. I copied him as much as I could.
Another underrated aspect was his speed and footwork. I think because his footwork was so good it made his speed look effortless.
He was also nicknamed Pistol Pete. His vision and footwork were just outstanding. The real deal. A fit, healthy Pete would do absolutely good against Novack, Federer and Nadal. No doubt in my mind.
I really like Sampras game as well. Besides prefering is style and demeanor over Agassi. But, and if he are talking fit and healthy on all of them, he would have difficulties against the big 3. On clay i think he would have a lot of problems beating anyone of them. On grass i think Djokovic and Federer would beat him. And on hard the matches would be lovely to watch but i think he would have trouble against all three because of his backhand. But of all the players of Sampras generation he would be the one giving the big 3 most trouble. It is just that the big 3 took it up a notch above even someone as great as Sampras.
He wrote Novack🙈 what a true tennis fan
Todays players like Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev would destroy Sampras in his best times. Against Nole and Nadal it would be 61 61. Of course he was a great player but todays generation is 100 times better and mor atheltic and the intensinty of the game today is not compareable with the tennis in the 90th.
@@halitl.1734 You probably didn't watch him. He would have a lot of trouble on clay. Outside it only the very best (big 3) would beat him more often than not. One of the best first serves ever, the best second serve ever, one of the greatest ever at the net, a great forehand, great movement and a good backhand. Quality is timeless. Don't fool yourself. The very best from each era are probably on a very similar level. Their styles reflect their time but they would be excellent in every era in my opinion given time to adapt. The thing about the big 3 is their unprecedented staying power at the very top not their unprecedented quality. But i think that is also a sign of the times with the advances in tennis equipment and conditioning breakthroughs.
@@aca2077 Not fair. You know what he means.
Federer fan here. From watching some of his games and looking at some of his achievements and stats (his wimbledon record is insane!), my conclusion is: he must have been as good a tennis player as anyone's ever been.
He STUNK on clay. Then again, Americans by and large don't know anything about clay. The attitude is jingoistic: If American players don't excel on clay then clay doesn't matter.😂
@@danbotez1307 All surfaces, especially grass have been slow so the clay court players can play their baseline game.
@@billsze3947 That may indeed be the case in recent years, but it does not explain why Sampras made only one time the semifinals of Roland Garros, out of 13 entries; and won only one clay Masters out of 20 entries.
@@danbotez1307 Not saying Sampras is an expert on clay court, but he at least competed on clay while clay court specialists don't play grass court tournaments until grass courts were altered. Keep in mind, once upon a time 3 out of 4 grand slams were played on grass. By and large they don't know anything about grass. The attitude is jingoistic: If they don't excel on grass then grass doesn't matter.
@@billsze3947 "clay court specialists don't play grass court tournaments until grass courts were altered.,,,"
How did you get that idea ? Santana, clay-court legend, won the 1966 Wimbledon. Nastase beat Arthur Ashe in 1972 on the USO Forest Hills' grass. Borg won 5 Wimbledons and 6 Roland Garros. Throughout the '80s and '90s Spaniards played Wimbledon, even though the stiff-upper-lip Brits selected seeds only according to past Wimbledon performance.
Speaking of jingoism, the American attitude is whatever sport they don't excel at, it is not worth pursuing: The disgusting almost only-American-athletes NBC coverage is a case in point. Sampras had a chance in 1997 to change racquets to play better on clay, but chose home adulation over worldwide recognition. That's why he was not considered GOAT with the exception of the jiingoistic rag Sport Illustrated is.
Not one other player had this combination of power and elegance in the serve movements!
Best ever on faster courts. His speed power precision was just too much. Only Federer can match it. No one else
@Ashish. John McEnroe in 1984 played, in my opinion, the highest level of tennis ever seen in the graphite era with Pete Sampras' level of play a very close second! I give McEnroe of 1984 a very slight edge over the Sampras of 1993-1996/1997.
What the narrator of this examination of Pete Sampras' pro tennis career fails to mention in comparing Boris Becker to Sampras is that by the time they played against each other in the quarterfinals of the 1997 Wimbledon tournament, Becker was 29 years-old and way past his peak! Becker's best year was 1989 - 8 years earlier when he won Wimbledon over Edberg and the U.S. Open over Lendl. So Pete never faced Becker in a major when Becker was at his best in 1989!
@@michaelbarlow6610 prime Sampras, Becker, Roger all destroy McEnore 84 or any year. He just was too one dementiaonal serve and volley player
@@michaelbarlow6610 😂not even near... McEnroe could never handle the power of the young generation starting with Becker... He couldn't handle the powerfull passing shots and groundstrokes... He was simply overpowered.. That was also the reason for losing to Lendl regluary... He adapted his game to the raw power of Becker, Agassi..
@@michaelbarlow6610 that's probably right.. But Becker admited that Sampras at his prime Was never reachable for him.. And right so... Sampras was better in every aspect of the game... Like an upgradeverion of Becker...
I’ve always said Sampras didn’t get the recognition he deserved, he’s probably the number 1 ever.
If you ask me he is the GOAT...tennis was much more diverse in 90s as far as court speed...now every tournament is roland garros
Exactly dude. Guys like Novak and Rafa have massively benefited on the homogenization of all the courts. Wimbledon is so slow it mine as well should green clay
Sampras doesn’t hold a candle to the big three of today
Saying it was; “much more diverse” doesn’t really make a lot of sense. If todays game is technically more balanced due to court regulations, that would mean everyone is on a more even playing field.
You grew up with the guy, that’s the difference.
@@bullymaquire8797 i think Herbaty has possitive score with big 3 .... So he the GOAT then
@@bullymaquire8797 ok just let me explain to you...if all courts in 90s were at speed as wimbledon or us open Sampras would have 90% win score... I am not sure Nadal or Djokovic would win either turnament in the 90s since their main weapon(running around) would be kinda irrelevant...serve and volley was king back then and they are kinda awfull in that regard...also Nadal was owned twice by Brown who is kinda a serve and volley player
A true ninja on the court. Hard for me not to place him in the GOAT conversation, as he had no one immediately before him that he was chasing.
Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic had the advantage of pushing each other, with Rafa having the advantage of going immediately after Fed, and Nole having the advantage of going immediately after Fed and Rafa.
With the fast surface in the 80s and 90s, he would dominate the current big threes: Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.
Nope he wouldn't...but he would be more succesful than any other player in the field today...he would beat them more often, but he wouldn't dominate i can guarantee you that!
No he couldn't the big three especially Federer & Djokovic had superior all round game than Sampras. They are more durable & consistent performer than Sampras. I remember Ivan ljubicic (coach of Federer) said in an interview that big 3 want to win every matches even on their weaker surface but Sampras or Agassi never played all the matches with same intensity.
@@rajusaha855 Only Federer has all round game like Sampras. Djokovic is a baseliner. All of his records were broken by these two because they and Nadal have much longer career than him and push each other. So they are only more durable and consistent performer than Sampras because they are on the tour much longer than him, not because they are better than him. Sampras had no one pushing him and chasing him for the records so he thought and actually everyone thought his records would never been broken.
Also, none of the weaker surfaces Ljubicic mentioned is as fast as the court surfaces in the 80s and 90s.
@@typ6669 now forget the big 3 for a moment, they are undisputed GOAT.
Sampras is a legend, no doubt about it but how come despite being an all court player he fail to win a French open (in fact his clay court records was very poor) while in the same era a less dedicated player like Agassi won a career super slam in 90's? In fact Agassi or even Murray (shocking) had more masters titles than Sampras ? Why player like Lendl, McEnroe, Borg & Connors have better career winning % than Sampras? His winning % is only 77 (almost same as Murray lol 😆😆) Unlike Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Connors he never won 90% matches in a single season why just explain? I guess Sampras had enough rivals to push him.
I disagree - the big 3 play the tennis the way they do because the courts are the way they are.
If the courts were different they would adapt
If Pete were around today he would have to adapt too...
Federer was a serve volley player when he beat Sampras in 2001
He adapted because that's what it took for him to win...
My favorite. GOAT of tennis! Respect
He was a treat to watch.
Wish he was playing at the present era with the present big three and that long!
Who knows what the scene would be ❤️❤️
All time favorite player. This guy changed the game, and will always be the best to ever do it!!!
Greatest big pressure player ever/ could hit the switch and he played through various eras of players before and after his generation
Just to alert you Sampras used an eastern forehand grip. Which I can assure you is totally different from a continental grip. To hit inside out forehands, etc etc, a continental grip wont cut it.
Ya, I don't know why the commentator says Pete played continental all strokes. That's more mcenroe, laver, nastase.
@@alberts2208 I know why: because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
And his topspin backhand was also full eastern. You don't need explanations about inside-out forehands etc you just need to look at some of the stills in the video: obviously eastern on both sides when playing topspin drives.
On anything other than a slow court, there was really no way to beat Pete. His legendary serve was un-readable because he had a quick toss. He would bait guys and leave space to his forehand only to hit his running forehand a metric ton. Pete was even able to consistently out-rally Agassi on hard courts. Once he began serve and volleying, he became invincible on grass. Pete wold probably still be world's #1 today, especially considering how thin the men's tour is.
Are you seriously watching todays tennis ?how can you say that the mens tennis is thin. And Sampras was already not the nbr 1 in the world when he retired and Federer was a better player than he already with 20 age. Today the best Sampras would be not in the top 20 for sure. His serve & volley would not work today and he will get 100 times passed at the net like Roddick has suffered against Nadal in the US Open 🤣. Sampras back hand was too worse for todays power tennis. Of course it would be interesting what sampras would be able to make with a RF 97 racket because with his 85 inch stupied racket even Djokovic would not win any match on the tour.
@@halitl.1734 I say the tour is thin because only the Big 3 win majors. Everyone else chokes in the big moments. Sampras has proven he doesn't need to serve and volley to win majors.
@@halitl.1734 By my count the Big 3 (Roger, Novak and Rafa) have won 72 of the last 85 grand slam tournaments. Imagine if only 3 NFL teams won 84.7% of the Super Bowls? You'd say the rest of the NFL was complete garbage.
@@halitl.1734 Cressy is Top 30 today with a worse S&V style. He'd definitely still be competitive, although I think Big 3 would lead him in the h2h if they were to play in primes
Pete evolved into a dominant all court player in the middle of his career. I always thought Federer is an evolved and more refined version of Pete. I think prime Pete would still win a good number of slams during the big 3 era.
Sampras was pure GOLD!! I have seen Sampras play tennis many times and thought 'it is absolutely impossible to play any better than that!' He kept the points short which made little room for error, unlike the big three. Sampras was a million times better than Agassi! And a billion times better than anyone else around at the time. Possibly the GOAT!!
I'm so glad you brought up the Becker and Sampras rivalry. That's a lot more exciting to watch than the Sampras Agassi rivalry 👍
Their indoor matches were epic, but on hard courts Sampras/Agassi were unmatched.
The greatest American tennis player of all time; that's how good he was.
I’d say he’s in the conversation along with:
Bill Tilden
Ellsworth Vines
Don Budge
Jack Kramer
Pancho Gonzales
I’d put Sampras either 1 or 2, but a case can be made for any of the six. I trained with Pete and hung out with him while he was a rookie pro in 1988. Great guy.
@@swalterstennis Open era numbers don't lie. Pete has most of the American records I believe.
Greek American
Sampras was the real all around player. I think Sampras’s would of beat the top three on his surfaces. The courts today play way slower now then in the 90s
Sampras was king in an era when there were 10-15 geniuses who could win at Grand Slams and threaten the number one position. And surfaces were distinctly different. Today's tennis is boring, not only because it has been dominated by only three players, but because playing styles and surfaces don't offer too much versatility. The 80s and 90s were the Golden Era of tennis.
They say that those who make it look easy are truly the great ones.
He made it look really easy and fun !!
Thank you for this insghtful video !
My pleasure 😊
And there is one more thing... Pete had (has) Thalassemia and could still compete at highest level for 14 years! This shows how much talent he had! Incredible athlete. I miss him
nadal had Mueller-Weiss syndrome from age 16 and won 22 majors.Lol Pete is talented but not as incredibly talented for the likes of federer Novak and nadal.He would have probably 4 or 5 majors in the modern era.His serve and volley would have been easily broken by the big 3 especially nadal and djokovics return.
@@kartheep Maybe... But you can inject it and then play ... And then even win a major... Can one only measure how good a player is/was because he has 6 or 7 more majors than another which has 14? I guess no! Of course it shows that Nadal is a wonderful player, but there are other factors playing a role. LeBron scored more points than Jordan... does this make him the GOAT? Was Pele so much better than Messi because of his world cup titles?... Pete was an artist on the court and had (at least for me) the most beautiful game of all and won his majors in times where we had huge competition with many very strong players playing at the same time... And the surfaces changed so much that it makes it so difficult to compare. Would Sampras have won his titles playing now with his old racket? we will never know! :-)
@@kartheep He was smart and skilled enough to have recognized it and would have come up with another trick from his illustrious hat to outsmart the greats. Such was he as a player
@@kartheep ahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahha
@@kartheep
Sampras was not a serve and volleyer, except on grass. He was an all-court player. Possibly the best serve ever, one of the best forehands, and an excellent volleyer.
Guess I didn't watch as much tennis in the 90s as I do now, although I always knew Sampras was a great player. Seeing some of his matches now makes me appreciate how much athletic ability he had. Sort of like a Michael Jordan or a Mario Lemieux, in that he seemed to control the action -- I realize basketball and hockey differ greatly to tennis, but the special ones just stand out.
Before Federer came around Pete was the idea of a complete player. The tennis world was so specialized that Pete's all-aroundness is unthinkable but to some they find it 'boring' (especially with his calm demeanor).
@@areezzy not complete as he never won any clay tournament
@@kartheep that's why I said before Federer. Agassi did win all 4 slams but Sampras in his heyday was considered to be the most complete player since Rod Laver. Meanwhile Roland Garros is reserved to clay court specialists (Costa, Berasategui, Kuerten, Moya etc)
@@kartheep tennis in the 90s had a lot of specialization compared to today. Edberg had amazing volley but no forehand. Becker had serve and forehand but no backhand. Courier had the forehand but no serve. Agassi had the return but no volley. Chang had speed but no power. So in comparison, you have Sampras who had the serve, volley, forehand and a decent backhand (still his weakness that prevents him to win on clay). He was complete by that day's standard. Then came Federer, Nadal, Djokovic who had much more complete game than Sampras (albeit not as good a touch at net)
I saw him at Roland-Garros in 1997. He was sending missiles with his serve. He was unique.
For me he is the GOAT. The amount of great players he beat and in that era was fierce.
Yes fully agree - he faced names like Agassi / Becker / Lendl / Mac / Edberg/ Rafter / Kuertin / Safin / Stitch etc etc ; these were all exceptionally good tennis players - VS the era of the big three - just didnt have that depth in my book
To prove this - just look at the ten best young gun up n coming male players of the last 8 to 10 yrs - and how many times did any of them defeat the big three in GS finals ???? Sampras ' era had more greats that he competed against in my opinion
Debatable, since he was pretty average on clay and was beatable at AO as well. GOAT on grass definitely. If he would have wanted he would have played for at least 2 more years or more and won another one or 2 Wimbledons, but his records seemed pretty untouchable at the time and he felt no need or desire to prolong his career. Pretty much same for Fed, if not for Rafa or Novak Fed wud have hung up his boots for good 5 years back.
@@rishabhaniket1952
For me it is the time he goes number 1. No matter the surface of the court. The thing is the competition as well. You have the three but back then you had more. Some aging stars, a lot of them relatively in their prime and other young guns of that time. It was just better competitively as well compared with today. Also, Sampras might be the greatest server of all time as well and for sure greatest second server.
my goat as well
@@Kalmar917 The reality is the big three are just insanely great. The ground strokes are much harder. They are extremely fit. The rest of the field are also much, much better than the people in the 90:s. There are just so much more opportunities now all around the world. More people are able to play. The competition has made it very hard for americans to compete and Sweden isn't even on the map anymore (having been great in the 70:s, 80:s and half parts of the 90:s ). The average professional player is just that good!
Since it was only Sampras that was on a level on his own and not three players, it seemed like the competition for him was harder, since he was the one that everyone else met in a final. Lots of different people in a final.
For the big three it often involved two of the big three (because they were that good), ie it made it artificially look like the competition was bad which it wasn't!
It wasn't that Sampras was bad, he just was almost as good as the big three. Almost since he was mainly the goat on grass, very good on hard court but not so good on clay.
Sampras first serve, second serve, movement, explosiveness, volleys and athleticism are at least on par with the big 3, so I think he would definitely be competitive. He was also a mental beast, clutch on the big points.
For me he was the greatest grass court player of all time.
He had the best first and second serves i've ever seen.
Whether he had an opponent in trouble or he was under pressure himself, his serves were unflinchingly reliable .
His running forehand was as good as they come and his volleys were pinpoint accurate and often so constantly deep.
His overhead was so effective, you could bet your house the point would be his.
In terms of athleticism, no player has ever come remotely close to him.
In an era where there were so many talented players, his abnormally gifted game, his will to win and determination, his exceptional calmness and ruthlessness transcended all of his peers.
In a final and at his absolute best on fast courts, certainly grass and pretty much most hard courts, i can't see any other player in the history of the game beating him.
Totally agree with you, Top Turf.
Well stated... agree!
Auf den Punkt gebracht❤
He doesn't have the numbers to be grass GOAT. Pete won 7 Wimbledon titles and 8 grass titles overall. Roger won 8 Wimbledon's and 19 grass titles overall. He also defeated Pete at Wimbledon in their only official meeting. So there's no way to put Pete over Fed as grass GOAT. He's not even close to Roger's numbers.
Pete never broke character no matter how things were going. We will never know what he was capable of bc he would rise to the occasion. I have no doubt if he had to have played the “big 3 “ he would have found another level. None of them would have won the amount of majors that they have won. Pete in the era of the “big 3” would have just made it a little more exciting while being oh so calm.
Missing a great net player today, rallys are too long, matches too long.
The best matches usually are between the best net player vs the best base line player.
I was impressed by Felix Auger Aliassime against Rafel Nadal in the French Open 2022.
Felix was the closest to beat Rafa (tight five sets) and it was by playing both great base line and net tennis, a refreshing new way of playing tennis! Hope Felix can take the next level soon, then he might be the next no 1 like Sampras.
On a fast surface at his best, he'd beat the rest. He is the true king of grass court tennis.
On fast courts Pete Sampras would have crushed Nadal and Djokovic and given great battles against Federer like their only matchup at Wimbledon.
Nadal yes but novaks return is sublime! Noone in 90’s a return like his, agassi came close and even he beat sampras many times on hard!
He won a slam every year on an average. He couldn't crush his average contemporaries let alone the big 3. Talk some sense
In every GOAT list he's in everyones top 6, probably best clutch serve of all time.
The greatest champion to have played the game, until the entry of the FEDEX HIMSELF. But no denying the capability of this great player and a great character as Pete Sampras. Pete, I grew up idolizing you, emulating you from my primary school years - you will still be my idol, forever...
I’ve seen many of his matches and Pete is the best!
I seem to remember (may be wrong!) a match where he played Chang and decided to stay on the baseline for most of the time. He made Chang run from side to side until he was exhausted. Great player.
That was the 1993 US Open quarterfinal. USTA put highlights on Yourtube last year.
Sampras has to be considered among the top 3 best players on grass and indoors of all time, probably on hard court as well. His many achievements have been fading out since the big three came around but still, his legacy is immense. Both Novak and Roger idolized Pete when they were young.
Well he retired relatively young at 31 but the Big Three seem to want to go on forever and play 2000 matches and retire in their 40s. That way they stay in the public eye much longer than those in the past.
He was the best. When you consider Wimbledon changed the ball to a heavier one and the grass to a slower grass because of him. He was the Roger Bannister of tennis he broke the 11 barrier to 14. Yes , Roger, Novak, and Rafa have more. But Sampras allowed them to believe it was possible.
Pete was great but geez he didn't make them believe or something , if so they would have had 15/16 and not 20/20 plus
@@YTviewer2099 of course he did. One more thing Roger made a mistake playing Pete in those three exhibitions and losing one when Pete hadn’t played in years and came back to play. In losing Roger’s competition believed he was beatable, prior to that he was invincible. They all acquired a different mental attitude when playing him.
@@Boukephalos1 haha lol okay , if you take exhibition matches seriously then I have nothing more to say , thank you
@@YTviewer2099 I was hoping you’d write back. None other then John McEnroe agrees with me on this subject. It seems you’re not his equal, mine and history. The next year Federer started getting beaten by top players and also rams. As to Sampras being the Roger Bannister of tennis. He was remember but they had to get to that level then they advanced past a number they never believed they could unless Pete had done what he accomplished first. As soon as Bannister broke the 4:00 mile others did it also but they were close in times. I had a friend who could bench press 390:10 times but not 400. As soon as he did it he went up to 430 max. But see he was there. Sampras beat Federer in exhibitions where as others didn’t even in exhibitions.
@@Boukephalos1 Each of the big 3 almost broke Borg's total slam record in a single slam dude , Rafa has as many RGs as Pete has in total . I get it , you like Pete but the Big 3 are simply another level . Sampras' records have absolutely nothing to do with their achievements .
I was very fortunate to have followed Pete his entire professional career. Pete was the last of the true serve and volley legends. He understood the importance of his serve and was willing to sacrifice games within his matches, to save energy, because he knew his opponents couldn't break him. The only issue tennis fans have with Pete was his inability to win the French Open (though many serve and volley players struggled on the clay). In fact, Pete never made it to a French Open final. If you've never seen Pete play, do yourself a favor and sit down and watch anything Sampras from around 1993-1997, I would consider this his prime and was unstoppable.
not just ‘good.’ He was very, very good
one of the goats simple as that and best serve i can remember, also probably the most legendary retirement in sports history
I started watching tennis AGAIN because of Pete Sampras. He would never hold his head up until his friend Agassi started winning majors, then he knew he had a chance. Great time in tennis, a lot of Americans were doing well. (I had previously stopped watching tennis because of MacEnroe’s ability to get away with his attitude.) thx Pete, Andre
That is such a 'Leslie' comment! If you want boring old person attitude go to a retirement village. Mac was a genius player and a pleasure to watch!
@@stephenkukec9784 Mac was great to watch! Always entertaining, always gave 100%...passionate!!
I think Pete won US Open in 1990, before Agassi had won a GS title, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Greatest serve and volley player of all time ❤
Showing my age, but all the Aussie players - Laver, Newcombe, Roche, Emerson and Stolle were wonderful serve and volleyers, too.
Why was he able to change from a 2 handed to on handed backhand so late in his development? Best athlete to ever step on a tennis court.. today’s players included.
Didn’t Thiem also switch about 14 years old?
One of Sampras' childhood coaches, Pete Fischer, thought that the transition to a one-hander would be beneficial to his winning Wimbledon, which during his formative years was one of the biggest goals between the two.
For sure, he started developing the one-hander well before 14. That's the age he officially took the final decision over the switch, beginning to play it in tournament matches.
His ability with the two hands was not enough to produce such a heavy shot as he style of play needed. Instead, he felt more ease with one hand, being able to fully use his insane arm speed on the ball... the second hand was just slowing his shots. That's a problem that several high level tennis player clearly have (Roddick, Tsonga, Berrettini,.Stosur, Ivanovic, just to name a few), and not finding the courage to abandon the 2nd hand can impair a whole career. Not everyone is able to effectively play the two-handed backhand, it can't be the right choice for every player.
Despite his one-hander was not the most aesthetically perfect with that "strange" high elbow, on good days he was perfectly able to disrupt rallies with its sheer power, even against Agassi. That says a lot.
@@pierdomenicosommati443 Very true, however I'm sure we all appreciate someone with a great one-handed backhand. Just looks special and devestating!
@@pollutionhead if you look at old Justine Henin's video, it's amazing to see the sheer fire power she had on backhand wing, despite her small, thin frame😱😍
And she was also able to play topspin shots in almost every possible situation, thanks to her great timing and to the fact that she played one-handed from very early age
Sampras owned Agassi for most of their rivalry. Federer is a tennis virtuoso who has equaled or surpassed Sampras in most respects. I think Nadal would be able to adapt his game to whatever would be required, it would have been interesting to see him in a serve-volley era. All that said, Sampras was always the most entertaining, and my personal favorite.
Nadal would have still dominated on clay, but hardcourts? Not win as much.
As for grass, well he still struggles a lot even on the slower, higher bouncing modern grass so he wouldn’t have won Wimbledon in Petes era.
I know he is most known for his serve but the way the guys could consistently hit pinpoint flat hard driving low fast winners with an older technique was miraculous
Let's not forget that he retired at the age of 31. We talk about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic being the GOATS but if you compare the three like to like at the same age that he retired, then I think we should be talking about 4 GOATS
Only Sampras and Federer are GOaTs. They revolutionised tennis
@@silviosarunic3234 How Sampras revolutionsided tennis?
Nobody now uses Sampras technigue.
You do realise he never won the French, right ?
@@YTviewer2099 I don't think he cared too much about winning it.
@@georgestavrinides5082 cared or not , it's a grandslam he's never won and hampers his argument in the GOAT debate
I disagree with the inclusion of Federer in the never-faltered-on-court club, since he did and it's just the veneration around him that made certain episodes less evident.
This said, kudos for shedding light on such an amazing champion, one who is not mentioned enough in the everlasting GOAT debate.
He had the greatest serve of all time. Could hit aces off of second serves on break points and set points in really important matches like his 2000 Wimbledon final
Yes, I remember that 2000 W final, and the second serve aces. Best player I've seen, along with Laver, and a really nice guy, as well.
Great video mate :) Pistol Pete the original GOAT
Thanks Cam! I love your channel 🤩 Thanks for stopping by 🤝
no not really, the og GOAT is either Pancho Gonzales or Rod Laver...either of those two! Guess Laver is more legendary because of his double calendar slam 7 years apart, but let's not forget Pancho came before so...
@@Summon256 rafa or nole are goat
@@rishbahpandey8697 Do you not understand what - “the original GOAT” phrase means?! No?! Go google it…
@@rishbahpandey8697 When someone says a person is an "original" at something, ir simply means he was first to do it...an inventor! In our case we are making the case for the tennis player, who has been the first to be considered the GOAT! And Nobody that came after got anything to do with that...the OG GOAT of tennis is an uncertain thing, because of the whole "amateur vs. open" era debate with a former not really holding a candle to the latter i nterms of competition! That's why many people consider Borg or Laver original GOATS of tennis, but like i said Pancho Gonsalez was the first inventor of many many revolutionary things in tennis (for ex. he had the killer serve that was very rare and non-typical for the era he played in, some people even claim some of the best players of the 80's like Becker or Edberg had weaker serve than Pancho! And that says a lot for someone, who played 30 years before those aforementioned individuals in their respective peaks!) and so as such she be put into heavy consideration...
Still think Sampras had the most solid first volley of anyone. He could hit a great first volley off the top of his shoelaces from anywhere in the court. And don't forget ---- Sampras only lost 4 Grand Slam singles finals in his entire career, which is insane. The only blemish is that he never won the French. Cheers.
Pete could have remained a contender for several more majors for at least 5 more years if he had not been so stubborn regarding his equipment. Sampras played with the mostly-graphite, 85 sq. in. Wilson Pro Staff Original 6.0 with enough lead tape to inflate the racquet to over 400 grams. He was basically playing with a roofing hammer. To make matters even less advantageous to him, he used natural gut string with 75 lbs. of tension. This tells you that all of Pete's power on his strokes were coming entirely from his arm! If Pete would have embraced a modern racquet with a larger racquet face, a more aggressive string-bed, and modern materials, he would have easily kept up with most of his younger counterparts (way to go, advisors at Wilson!) Further, if Pete would have adopted poly or multifilament strings, or hybrid string setups, he would've added more pop, spin, and kick to a serve that was already the best in the game. The way Pete rolled his backhands would have benefitted from the string technology, basically creating a weapon in place of a defensive shot. HIs volleys would have been more crisp, and he would have been able to continue hitting most of his opponents off the court. I don't know if Sampras was a luddite, or simply just afraid of change. Either way, his reluctance to embrace advances in technology probably cost him continued success on the tour.
Sampras was a purist, he said himself poly strings were akin to cheating. Consider putting his racket in the hands of Nadal and Djokovic, they would not stand a chance against the best players of the 90's.
@@lanapearce9968 That reinforces my point. Sampras' stubbornness regarding equipment left him standing in place while everyone else on tour was moving forward. There was no legitimacy to the criticism of progress in player equipment. No one makes a stink about technology gains in Golf. BTW, Federer spent the first part of his pro career using the same racquet as Sampras. He switched to a 90 sq. in. version in 2002. It wasn't until 2014 that Roger fully committed to a racquet change. His acceptance that a modern racquet was his best chance to prolong his career gave him a second act. I'll say it again, had Sampras converted to the modern Wilson Pro Staff line (ex. Pro Staff RF 97) with a hybrid string setup, he would have contended for SW19, Melbourne, and Flushing Meadows for at least another 4 - 5 years. I'd even say that it would have positively impacted his ability to contend at Roland Garros.
I believe Sampras himself said in his autobiography that he regretted not changing his racket, or that it had been a mistake not to, words to that effect.
My favourite player of all time. I know he's not the G.O.A.T. but he was the reason I watched tennis (though not having any talent for the game whatsoever! Lol) There were clear highlights in his game that I always looked forward to: the serve (1st and 2nd), his net game, the volleys, the groundstrokes, his steely nerves on critical points, his running forehand, the one-handed backhand down the line, his chip and charge counterattacks against his opponents' serve and of course, the Sampras Slam Dunk (an overhead smash that he set up with a powerful serve with insane spin, forcing his opponent to uncontrollably return it in the air). Prior to his back injury, I believe he was unstoppable. For me, his only blemish is his lack of silverware in Roland Garros.
Well Federer would succeed in the 90s and I can see Djokovic too doing well in the 90s given his game is more about redirection and insane flexibility and he has the most underrated service game, especially since he started working with Goran. Nadal, however, would stand no chance in that era. He probably would still win the French but stand no chance at Wimbledon and most hard court events.
I) Before 30:
1. Pete sampras: 286 weeks
2. Roger federer: 285 weeks
3. Jimmy connors: 251 weeks
4. Ivan lendl: 247 weeks
5. Novak djokovic: 223 weeks
II) After 30:
1. Pete sampras: 286 weeks
2. Roger federer: 310 weeks
3. Jimmy connors: 270 weeks
4. Ivan lendl: 268 weeks
5. Novak djokovic: 425 weeks
Pete was a machine that was designed to win matches. Personally, I found him a little boring to watch (compared to Edberg or Rafter) due to his methodical ways of winning the match. Agassi describes Pete's game as "Pete can play a lousy thirty-eight minutes, then one lights-out minute and win the set" But If you have a tie-breaker to win for your life, you go with Pete. As for his relatively weak backhand, he had to sacrifice his groundstroke games to win Wimbledon - back then, you had to choose.
The greatest and most fluent service action you will ever see.
Fed would have been just as great in the 90s. He won his first grand slam serve and volleying every 1st and 2nd serve and second Wimbledon every first serve.
Nope. Less slams for Fed in the 90s.
@@Marko777ify nope. Probably more. No one to stop him
Always admired this legend. Him, Stefan Edberg and Roger Federer are in my opinion the most elegant players ever!
Yes, the greatest make everything look so easy, and they did it in men's tennis.
Lovely soul that's best thing about him
Best serve I've seen, by a good margin. Great forehand, good backhand. Top 4 player ever.
“Boring” because Pete was so good until Federer was on the rise that people knew Sampras’ match results before they even took place.
Thanks for posting this. So many forget just how great Pete Sampras was.
Pete was a gifted athlete and a fierce competitor. He had a high tennis IQ that made him very adaptable. I think he would've been a force to be reckoned with in any era.
his physique had the aesthetic and proportions that resembled the by gone Grecian era, and I believe one of his parents had Grecian roots as well. Had it not been for thalassemia, he would have been the most successful, relentless and I dare say, the most complete player that would have played on any court
What elevates the big three is not just their individual abilities but that they had to compete against each other, and yet, even then, they each ended up surpassing Sampras's slam total. Really, he can't be compared. It was a different era, and the big three elevated tennis to a whole new level. I remember watching Sampras at Wimbledon, and it WAS dull. At that time I preferred women's tennis like Hingis. But - like everyone else at the time - when Federer and Nadal competed in the 2008 Wimbledon final, it was a standard of tennis that none of us had ever seen before... it was mind-blowing. Sampras would have competed on grass because of his serve, but he was nowhere near good enough to compete from the back of the court, and I could easily imagine Federer and Nadal whipping shots past him at the net.
At the beginning of Pete's era there were a lot of Grand Slam winners or aspirants in the top, like Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Stich, Becker, Agassi, Chang, Courier, Bruguera, Ivanisevic, Muster, Korda, Kafelnikov, Krajicek and some other very dangerous players (Ferreira, Forget, Gilbert, Wheaton, Martin, Medvedev, Larsson, Enqvist etc.) The list of these players was scarier than the one of The Big Three's.
He was a machine, particularly at Wimbledon.
You should have also mentioned that he had two First Serves. Pistol Pete could fire aces on his second serves. Such varieties he had! Running forehand, Slam Dunk smashes, superb volley abilities. We won't know how he would have fared against Big Three but he took on Roddick, Safin, Hewitt and dismantled them too.
he did not dismatled Safin and Hewitt.it is more like Hewitt dismatled him
He was a tonsil jockey
I believe (we may never know) that the Sampras before the back injury would have been too much for the big three. The big three all thrive on long points; Sampras had the tools to keep points short and when he was at his best, there was simply no answer for him!
But dont forget they slowed down the surface in the end of Petes career..if they didnt he would have played longer…two players made a career of that slow surface..Djoko and Nadal..
Otherwice we would see a goatrace between Federer and Sampras the two most skilled players of history…
djokovic is still a good player on moderately fast courts. can’t say the same for rafa though
His 2002 US Open was the last live match I ever watched. Those were the days…
Pete did not use continental for ground strokes. Eastern forehand, and semi western backhand
The most beautiful and powerful playing style.
He was good enough to win 14 slams and 7 Wimbledon titles...
That's no mean feat even if it has later been surpassed...
I wonder what his game would have looked like if he was playing today with the racket tech and slower courts I don't think the game he played in the 90s would have won him as much success.
However as a tennis great I think he could and would have adapted much like Roger did...
Adaptation stuff is bs. Federer won his last 3 slams on faster conditions.
Djokovic started winning after the AO surface change.
You're either suited for fast courts, medium or slow.
Sampras would struggle today even with a newer racquet and a more baseline oriented style.
Might have success on faster courts like Dubai, Basel, Shanghai.
Pete is the best player to have ever lived. Hands down
Absolutely, the GOAT! He had to struggle with way more strong opponents than the big 3 (or 4 if you count Murray) had to: Agassi, Rios, Hewitt, Enquist, Korda, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Chang, Stich, Krajicek, Bruguera, Edberg, Becker, Moya, Courier, Muster, Kafelnikov, Safin, Kuerten, and so on... I think his game was so beautiful to watch... He was moving like a panther on the court, so fast! We got the impression the racket was part of his body. I think even Federer would have been number 2 if they would have played at the same time. My 2 cents... Pete, you are the greatest!!! :)
The big 3 had to struggle with each other, first of all, and they still all won 20+ Slams. But for the other two, any one of them could have won about 30 Slams. The reason Roddick, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Almagro Wawrinka, Del Potro, Nishikori, Raonic, Anderson, Isner, Schwartzman, Thiem, Zverev, Medvedev, Alcaraz, Nalbandian, Verdasco, Lopez, Söderling, Bautista-Agut and Cilic look like lesser players compared to the ones you name may just be that the big 3 were too good to allow most of them a single Slam. Hewitt, Safin and Agassi, Rafter, Kurten, Kafelnikov, Ferrero? Federer competed with them too.
@@molybdaenmornell123hopp5 Again we cannot compare today to yesterday at least not 1 to 1. Federer came when Sampras was at the end of his career and the other players you mentioned were not Sampras... Good players though. Maybe you are right, all these guys did not make it against the big 3... But maybe they were not good enough or got injured like Del Potro who the had to stop? I just think that Pete at bis best would have won against Federer and Co. at their best on hard! court and gras. On clay? Well, then surely not... :) at the end they are all incredible athlets and I am lucky I could see all of them play.
Best ever. No can ever serve like Pete.
His return of serve was not too shabby either.
I'd forgotten that Pete was also a one-handed backhand like Fed. It opens up a lot more crazy shot angles. However, I fail to see any maestro strokes in Pete perhaps because he mostly serve/volley at net. Fed beats him here. I strongly believe that only Fed could have dethroned Sampras using elegant strokes. Nadal / Djoker robotic styles would not be enough to overcome Sampras. Rewatch the Fed/Sampras Wimbledon match and you'll see that Fed had to really squeeze those angles in to win points. Sampras will be forever the greatest serve/volley player which I'll add Fed could learn from in his 40s to win a few more.