Watching this at the time, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I never thought Agassi could get whipped like that. I thought Agassi was gonna walk right over Pete using his return of serve and ground strokes. My jaw was on the floor watching Pete emerge.
I don't care what anyone says Sampras is the best all time. Tennis has been so watered down for the last fifteen years. Between Fed, Djok, and Nadal they've won 56 slams. In Sampras era there were multiple guys with between 6-8 slams. Not to mention guys like courier, rafter, ivanisevic, and the list goes on and on.
@- Anthony The game has definitely shifted towards baseliners and towards being able to play the same game regardless of court surface. Wimbledon and the US Open used to belong to the serve and volleyers and the French was for the baseliners and defensive players. I really felt that this changed when Lleyton Hewitt won Wimbledon in 2003....not coincidentally, the year after they changed the grass to produce higher bounces.
They both did a pretty good career after this match)))Absolutely legend,the competition between had something special,Pete was my favorite,I think he is the best fast court player ever,to bad he had injuries back in 1999 prior to the US Open,he was in tremendous form and probably would have won it,Andre won it.
Pete is one of the guys who changed the game of tennis forever. With him, tennis took a quantum leap forward. It was simply no longer enough to play as you did before Sampras entered, if you were to have a chance against him on fast surfaces
Absolutely raised the bar. I remember having a debate with a guy on here who laughed when I said Becker was a better player in the mid 90s, than he was in the late 80s, when he was winning slams. The game got better, and all the players did as well, they just werent as good as Pete on the fast courts.
So refreshing to read some savant tennis fans doing Sampras justice! He changed the game forever, to the point that during the Noughties all Major courts were sort of homogenized, including Wimbledon! And that was because of him being so dominant there! In his prime, and at Wimbledon and the US Open, all Big 3 would have been owned by Pete if he was having a good day.
@Steven Graham i disagree,nadal is a defensive baseliner and federer is an offensive baseliner which normally produces in unreal level of tennis,i personally prefer nadal federer over sampras agassi .In addition, nadal and federer are basically the opposite,federe is the genius an nadal is the fighter,federer is smooth and elegant and nadal is powerful and ruthless,nadal is clay and federer is grass
@@jgc1077 All the surfaces today are much more similar than they were in this era. I don't think that it's fair to simply say that today's Big Three are better than him. Nadal and Djokovic could not win Wimbledon on the old Wimbledon grass that played fast. But when I refer to nothing resonating for me as much, I'm talking about the sudden arrival of a force. His run through Muster, Lendl, McEnroe, and utter destruction of Agassi was just astounding. A young Agassi never challenged Pete Sampras at the US Open the way Old Man Agassi challenged Federer at the 2004 and 2005 US Opens.
@@michaelgarza8271 1. I agree that the Wimbledon surface is very different today. But I don't think Roland Garros is different. And I don't think there's much of a difference at the Aussie and U.S. Opens. 2. Federer did beat Sampras on the old Wimbledon surface when Sampras was 29 and still on the outskirts of his prime. And Federer wasn't even close to the player he later became. 3. I was at the Federer-Agassi match at the U.S. Open in 2004, and Agassi played very, very well in front of a raucous home crowd. (The 2005 match wasn't close.) And athough it's true that Agassi was older when he played Federer in 2004 and 2005, he wasn't washed up; he made the Open Final in 2005, and his winning percentages in 2004 and 2005 were pretty consistent with career norms.
jgc1077...Lucky you that you got to see the 2004 match between Federer and Agassi. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Agassi was over the hill. In the 2005 match he gave Federer hell for three full sets, but only won one. Then his body gave out. I read somewhere that Agassi was inspired by the new polyester strings and found he could really crush the balls and keep them in. But this gets into the technology changing the game so much. Sampras never played with polyester strings that I'm aware of. I wish that technology didn't play such a disproportionate role in effecting what is possible on a tennis court. I miss contrasting styles, the duels between baseliners and serve and volley players. Sampras haunts my imagination and moves me more than the current big 3. I was a serve and volley player who was coached by a man who played Rod Laver. I am very partial to the old school.
Pete had a beautiful, elegant style - with the greatest serve of all time. He embodied a combination of fluidity and power. Clearly Federer's ancestor.
Watched this entire match with back spasms on a hard chair , I had started following tennis that year , obviously , little knowledge of the game , Agassi I had heard about at the time , not Sampras , I said after the match , " you'll never hear from this guy again " ( Pete ) 😂, I had alot to learn . I became a USTA 4.0 benchmark player , I'm proud of that . Met Sampras and got a photo with him , Courier also , two nice guys.
Thank you for uploading this. One of the best matches ever with the arrival of Sampras demonstrating a level of explosiveness unseen since Becker in 1985/86 Wimbledon. Jaw-dropping display of power hitting.
It seems like every sport hits a plateau at some point and someone or a team dominates for a while, then everyone adapts and the game changes. Tennis hit that plateau in the 80s and early 90s with players like Conner, McEnroe, Agassi, and Becker. Then Pete Sampras came along and opened a can of whoop-ass on everyone, forcing everyone to up their game. Next thing you know we have super-beings like Nadal and Federer, completely redefining what is possible on the court and taking the game to new levels.
Personally speaking, Men's Tennis was most competitive 15-20 years agothan it is today! So many more Grand Slam winners competing, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Kuerton, Chang, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Moya, Ivanesoivic, Hewitt, Bruguera, Etc
Agassi was in the same boat with Sampras. Connor, McEnroe, Becker, and Lendl were part of the tennis that hit the plateau, and then guys like Pete and Andre took over. Pete, moreso than Andre.
I thought Agassi was going to win , and remember how Sampras performance surprised me , for good . I liked his shy style and he spoke “with the racquet “
Mary Carillo "I like Agassi's chances" -- surely that was the first and last time she would ever say that in a Sampras-Agassi match. Next time these two met in a USO Final in 95 she knew better (even though Agassi was coming in super hot and ranked #1). You could tell that she, along with everyone else, was in awe of Pete's game and talent. Nobody had ever seen anyone with so much power, all around game and almost super-human poise at age 19.
Crazy that Sampras used the same racket throughout his whole career. Just watch this match then compare the average rally ball speed in their matches in 01-02. Seems like Sampras was hitting much harder in his later career, think that was due to improved strings, more muscle, or that his opponents were also adding more pace to rallies?
qmto , maybe he wanted to finish points early, as he could not cope with long rallies. He also did s&v on his 2nd serve later in his career, not when he was younger, like in this match here.
I have a vague memory that he would have used the same string material but he had them strung at a higher tension later on, as well as adding lots of lead tape to his racquet. He definitely put on more muscle, too.
"Sampras used the same racket throughout his whole career": That is definitely untrue. I used the Wilson Pro Staff from about 1983 to late 1990s, until they went off the market in fact, and they were not the same racquet by the end of that time. Anyway whatever he was using would have been custom-made specials for him. If they were on the market here I would still use them, variation and all.
I think this's the match that have changed the history between this 2 tennis legend. At the time Agassy was the top player in USA and the best new top player in the circuit. If Pete hadn't won probably the story would be very very different.
The US Open really should consider getting new chairs for the players. Good grief. They’ve been using these directors chairs for nearly 30 years. Why not use benches with the shelter like the Australian Open?
Today, playing the "Prime" Sampras, he would be among the two best players of Tennis. Too strong, agressive, lethal in net and the last player, master unmatched of serve and volley.
I remember watching this and being broken hearted when Agassi lost. This and the 99 Wimbledon final really felt like a letdown, because they werent even close. Its also so funny to me to see how much their games changed over the years from this time. Pete served lights out in this match, but his service motion is SO MUCH LESS athletic as it became in his prime, which is scary. Watch his back in this match, compared to some of his matches when he was number one. The toss was behind him more later, and he curled his back up to get more spin and power in later years. Agassis groundstrokes to me, seemed to get a lot less topspinny here than later, when his groundies were much more flat and penetrating. Also while Andre would never be considered a big server, he was able to refine it where he got a few free points, and at worst, put enough on it where his opponent was a lil more on the defensive for his next shot. Someone in that camp dropped the ball with his serve early on. There seemed to be no need for any offense on it, merely get it in play and lets start the point. Not good enough against guys like Pete and Lendl. Two great champions though. I feel so lucky to have grown up then, because we will probably never see that quality of a group of Americans again. US tennis should be better. Its embarassing how far its fallen from this era.
Sampras retired way too early,IMHO.But maybe Agassi was more dedicated to his fitness than.Sampras was,and hence outperformed him during the latter years of their careers.Sampras has more slams ofcourse...but he never won the French.That honour went to Agassi...
@@uncletony6210 it was definitely some sort of work....you don't just go as bald as he was in '94 over night when you've got an epic flowing mullet like that
His wig was a weave of additional hair added to his own. The only reason it was loose at the french final was because he accidentally damaged it while washing it. If in good shape there would be no reason for it to come out.
Sampras just kept getting hotter as this tournament went on. But for him to beat Andre on this day, he needed a great serving day. And wow did he come up big. He dominated. Pete was just in control from the word GO
i truly believe if jaime yzaga had won that 5th set tiebreak vs muster in the 3rd round he would have beaten pete in the 4th round.and then lendl would have beaten yzaga and then mcenroe and agassi
@Charles Darakdjian you're showing your lack of tennis knowledge, agassi was no match for lendl back then it would have been a massacre just the same, even krickstein would have beaten agassi here
@Charles Darakdjian becker gave that match away he didnt play like he normaly does, that wasnt the same becker that serves and volleys and he stayed back most of the time, also lendl taking sampras to 5 sets proved how lendl was a much greater player than agassi at that point in time
I agree. He was great to watch, but didn't have any personality. I was a ball girl in Indianapolis and had a Sampras match. Nothing. No personality. His coach was dealing with brain cancer then, so that may have been part of it.
@@pcar1578 you're right. He didn't disrespect the sport or anything. He wasn't a whiner like McEnroe. And he made tennis look so grateful and effortless. That said, I was in awe of him as a kid and thrilled to have been assigned to his match. It would've been nice if he had said thank you at some point or smiled after the match to us or acknowledged that we existed. Not even a crumb. He was in his own head. But like I said, his coach was dying and it was probably a tough time for him.
Opposite-Pete had personality,character and balls,he was a champion remember him dying and winning on court against Alex Corretja during 1996 Us Open,one of the most thrilled matches ever
Well duh. This was 1990 (almost 30 years ago.) The game has evolved since 1990. In 30 years the guys playing in 2048 will make Federer, Nadal and Djokovic look outdated.
Joey Smith , don’t be ignorant..... Courts were super fast in the 90’s compared to today’s....A prime Sampras would dominate any player in history on these really fast courts.... Put things in perspective...
@@juandi2570 Of course. In fact, he won 7 Wimbledon's (In his time, the most quickly surface). Today, playing the "Prime" Sampras, he would be among the two best players of Tennis. Too strong and the last player, master of serve and volley. Greetings my friend from 🇨🇱.
They both are founder of todays modern tennis. Both are legend. Pete sampras is always above benchmark of greatness.
Omg, this was so precious--to see Pete as a boy winning it all and being interviewed at the end, in all his youth and shyness!
Watching this at the time, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I never thought Agassi could get whipped like that. I thought Agassi was gonna walk right over Pete using his return of serve and ground strokes. My jaw was on the floor watching Pete emerge.
I don't care what anyone says Sampras is the best all time. Tennis has been so watered down for the last fifteen years. Between Fed, Djok, and Nadal they've won 56 slams. In Sampras era there were multiple guys with between 6-8 slams. Not to mention guys like courier, rafter, ivanisevic, and the list goes on and on.
This was young Pete Sampra's first major title!
Sampras wasn't as consistent at the top as today's big three, but OMG when he was on he was arguably the GOAT.
You're not in the GOAT running without the French.
@- Anthony The game has definitely shifted towards baseliners and towards being able to play the same game regardless of court surface. Wimbledon and the US Open used to belong to the serve and volleyers and the French was for the baseliners and defensive players. I really felt that this changed when Lleyton Hewitt won Wimbledon in 2003....not coincidentally, the year after they changed the grass to produce higher bounces.
You don’t call the Roland Garros “the French”. Only Americans call it that
@@maturanita I call it that, and I'm not American. QED
@@EJP286CRSKW well, that’s not the proper way to call it and the French people resent it. QED
They both did a pretty good career after this match)))Absolutely legend,the competition between had something special,Pete was my favorite,I think he is the best fast court player ever,to bad he had injuries back in 1999 prior to the US Open,he was in tremendous form and probably would have won it,Andre won it.
Pete is one of the guys who changed the game of tennis forever. With him, tennis took a quantum leap forward. It was simply no longer enough to play as you did before Sampras entered, if you were to have a chance against him on fast surfaces
Absolutely raised the bar. I remember having a debate with a guy on here who laughed when I said Becker was a better player in the mid 90s, than he was in the late 80s, when he was winning slams. The game got better, and all the players did as well, they just werent as good as Pete on the fast courts.
So refreshing to read some savant tennis fans doing Sampras justice! He changed the game forever, to the point that during the Noughties all Major courts were sort of homogenized, including Wimbledon! And that was because of him being so dominant there! In his prime, and at Wimbledon and the US Open, all Big 3 would have been owned by Pete if he was having a good day.
“Contrasting styles should be a lot of fun to watch” I sure miss this era.
What is your age then and now?
@@robmoody4710 why miss what when the best tennis in the history has been played in thids era wimbledon 2008
@Steven Graham i disagree,nadal is a defensive baseliner and federer is an offensive baseliner which normally produces in unreal level of tennis,i personally prefer nadal federer over sampras agassi .In addition, nadal and federer are basically the opposite,federe is the genius an nadal is the fighter,federer is smooth and elegant and nadal is powerful and ruthless,nadal is clay and federer is grass
Yep !!! Different playing styles made for great theatre , these young guys on here will never understand
@@juanestebankruhsanmguel1960 ever hear of serve& volley , Google it , learn something
Everyone knew after this tournament that a tennis immortal had arrived. Nothing since has resonated so powerfully for me.
Nothing since? Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are all better players, and they've succeeded on every surface. Sampras was a zero on clay.
@@jgc1077
All the surfaces today are much more similar than they were in this era. I don't think that it's fair to simply say that today's Big Three are better than him. Nadal and Djokovic could not win Wimbledon on the old Wimbledon grass that played fast. But when I refer to nothing resonating for me as much, I'm talking about the sudden arrival of a force. His run through Muster, Lendl, McEnroe, and utter destruction of Agassi was just astounding. A young Agassi never challenged Pete Sampras at the US Open the way Old Man Agassi challenged Federer at the 2004 and 2005 US Opens.
@@michaelgarza8271
1. I agree that the Wimbledon surface is very different today. But I don't think Roland Garros is different. And I don't think there's much of a difference at the Aussie and U.S. Opens.
2. Federer did beat Sampras on the old Wimbledon surface when Sampras was 29 and still on the outskirts of his prime. And Federer wasn't even close to the player he later became.
3. I was at the Federer-Agassi match at the U.S. Open in 2004, and Agassi played very, very well in front of a raucous home crowd. (The 2005 match wasn't close.) And athough it's true that Agassi was older when he played Federer in 2004 and 2005, he wasn't washed up; he made the Open Final in 2005, and his winning percentages in 2004 and 2005 were pretty consistent with career norms.
jgc1077...Lucky you that you got to see the 2004 match between Federer and Agassi. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Agassi was over the hill. In the 2005 match he gave Federer hell for three full sets, but only won one. Then his body gave out. I read somewhere that Agassi was inspired by the new polyester strings and found he could really crush the balls and keep them in. But this gets into the technology changing the game so much. Sampras never played with polyester strings that I'm aware of. I wish that technology didn't play such a disproportionate role in effecting what is possible on a tennis court. I miss contrasting styles, the duels between baseliners and serve and volley players. Sampras haunts my imagination and moves me more than the current big 3. I was a serve and volley player who was coached by a man who played Rod Laver. I am very partial to the old school.
jgc1077...
In any case...all these guys were pretty good. To say the least.
Pete had a beautiful, elegant style - with the greatest serve of all time. He embodied a combination of fluidity and power. Clearly Federer's ancestor.
The emergence of Pete. I remember watching this as an Agassi fan and thinking that Agassi would never beat Pete. He looked unstoppable at the net.
pistol here was in the best shape of his life I doubt anyone from any era could of beaten him here
Watched this entire match with back spasms on a hard chair , I had started following tennis that year , obviously , little knowledge of the game , Agassi I had heard about at the time , not Sampras , I said after the match , " you'll never hear from this guy again " ( Pete ) 😂, I had alot to learn .
I became a USTA 4.0 benchmark player , I'm proud of that . Met Sampras and got a photo with him , Courier also , two nice guys.
Thank you for uploading this. One of the best matches ever with the arrival of Sampras demonstrating a level of explosiveness unseen since Becker in 1985/86 Wimbledon. Jaw-dropping display of power hitting.
that's true. Becker took power tennis to a new level in 85, then Sampras here.
Alan Chong That’s already his hear.
It seems like every sport hits a plateau at some point and someone or a team dominates for a while, then everyone adapts and the game changes. Tennis hit that plateau in the 80s and early 90s with players like Conner, McEnroe, Agassi, and Becker. Then Pete Sampras came along and opened a can of whoop-ass on everyone, forcing everyone to up their game. Next thing you know we have super-beings like Nadal and Federer, completely redefining what is possible on the court and taking the game to new levels.
Don't forget Djokovic.
Personally speaking, Men's Tennis was most competitive 15-20 years agothan it is today! So many more Grand Slam winners competing, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Kuerton, Chang, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Moya, Ivanesoivic, Hewitt, Bruguera, Etc
Agassi was in the same boat with Sampras. Connor, McEnroe, Becker, and Lendl were part of the tennis that hit the plateau, and then guys like Pete and Andre took over. Pete, moreso than Andre.
Yep, and in the top 10 those days, every player had at won at least won a GS or Masters title.
krajicek, costa, muster, lendl, wilander, edberg, korda
you uploadet a bunch of old matches in good quality. Fantastic. Merci
That chair umpire is the same guy who was in the chair 12 months later for Connors-Krickstein. The "abortion" as Jimmy called him 😂
I thought Agassi was going to win , and remember how Sampras performance surprised me , for good . I liked his shy style and he spoke “with the racquet “
Mary Carillo "I like Agassi's chances" -- surely that was the first and last time she would ever say that in a Sampras-Agassi match. Next time these two met in a USO Final in 95 she knew better (even though Agassi was coming in super hot and ranked #1). You could tell that she, along with everyone else, was in awe of Pete's game and talent. Nobody had ever seen anyone with so much power, all around game and almost super-human poise at age 19.
The one that began it all for one of the greatest tennis player of all time.
Crazy that Sampras used the same racket throughout his whole career. Just watch this match then compare the average rally ball speed in their matches in 01-02. Seems like Sampras was hitting much harder in his later career, think that was due to improved strings, more muscle, or that his opponents were also adding more pace to rallies?
qmto , maybe he wanted to finish points early, as he could not cope with long rallies. He also did s&v on his 2nd serve later in his career, not when he was younger, like in this match here.
I have a vague memory that he would have used the same string material but he had them strung at a higher tension later on, as well as adding lots of lead tape to his racquet. He definitely put on more muscle, too.
"Sampras used the same racket throughout his whole career": That is definitely untrue. I used the Wilson Pro Staff from about 1983 to late 1990s, until they went off the market in fact, and they were not the same racquet by the end of that time. Anyway whatever he was using would have been custom-made specials for him. If they were on the market here I would still use them, variation and all.
I think this's the match that have changed the history between this 2 tennis legend.
At the time Agassy was the top player in USA and the best new top player in the circuit.
If Pete hadn't won probably the story would be very very different.
1:28 What a generation it was.
Thank you so much for uploading this ! I was only 1 year while this US open was held that year.
The US Open really should consider getting new chairs for the players. Good grief. They’ve been using these directors chairs for nearly 30 years. Why not use benches with the shelter like the Australian Open?
After all these years, I still can't believe how badly Sampras beat Agassi. I was shocked when I watched this match live.
Me too
That's because Sampras was Death Incarnate in this tournament.
@@michaelgarza8271 you ain't lying !
Today, playing the "Prime" Sampras, he would be among the two best players of Tennis. Too strong, agressive, lethal in net and the last player, master unmatched of serve and volley.
Nope. Today's courts are too slow for Sampras. He'd be 5th best behind the Big Three and Wawrinka.
@ will ritter del po was better than all of them except maybe sampras
@Steven Graham not absurd del po was plagued with injuries most of his career but he always could be the best of his era more than say raonic could
"A Sampras sampler of near-perfect tennis." --Mary Carrillo
the best player ever and the perfect final
tenis lol Sampras was not the greatest ever.
@gowi sorry son but Sampras was the best followed by Del po and then novak
Pioneers of the modern era
It's quite amazing that if it wasn't for Pete Fischer's vision, Pete probably would be a totally different player.
30:58 Back to the Future ... Michael Keaton !
I remember watching this and being broken hearted when Agassi lost. This and the 99 Wimbledon final really felt like a letdown, because they werent even close.
Its also so funny to me to see how much their games changed over the years from this time. Pete served lights out in this match, but his service motion is SO MUCH LESS athletic as it became in his prime, which is scary. Watch his back in this match, compared to some of his matches when he was number one. The toss was behind him more later, and he curled his back up to get more spin and power in later years.
Agassis groundstrokes to me, seemed to get a lot less topspinny here than later, when his groundies were much more flat and penetrating. Also while Andre would never be considered a big server, he was able to refine it where he got a few free points, and at worst, put enough on it where his opponent was a lil more on the defensive for his next shot.
Someone in that camp dropped the ball with his serve early on. There seemed to be no need for any offense on it, merely get it in play and lets start the point. Not good enough against guys like Pete and Lendl.
Two great champions though. I feel so lucky to have grown up then, because we will probably never see that quality of a group of Americans again. US tennis should be better. Its embarassing how far its fallen from this era.
Agassi was amazing that year
How amazing? He won 0 majors in 90.
iamtman1
He made 2 slam finals, won the WTF, a master's title and ended the year in the top 4. Find a 20 year old capable of that today.
That's a good year for Agassi. Not "amazing". He lost to andres gomez at the French. Win that match, then truly a great yr.
iamtman1 he lost because his wig messed up.. he didn't want it to fall off during the match
No he lost bec Gomez played a great match mixing slices, sound, and a good lefty serve. Wig nonsense.
I didn't know Pat Summeral was a tennis announcer lol
Great show of Serve and volley!!
I worked that tournament for restaurant Associates
Sampras retired way too early,IMHO.But maybe Agassi was more dedicated to his fitness than.Sampras was,and hence outperformed him during the latter years of their careers.Sampras has more slams ofcourse...but he never won the French.That honour went to Agassi...
1:41:15
His parents doesn’t want to watch him live ,so when he won this they just found out on television I think they were in a mall isn’t that cute
Andre said. ...A good old fashioned street mugging
Sampras always had Agassi's number at the US Open
Interestingly....his wife won the Miss Teen USA pageant that year too.
Despite the hold, Agassi was mentally defeated in game one.
Agassi...The 80s want their hair style back
Was this the youngest U.S. Open men's final ever?
How does this have so few views? Where are all the serious tennis fans?
Sampras' ground strokes are so underrated
Best ever period
Sampras looks so young.
I've always much preferred Sampras's ground game (alone) than Agassi's.
Great match ! Always amazed how Agassi's wig managed to stay on in matches of this caliber :)
he was barely 20 here. I'm pretty sure he lied about that to sell more books.
@@uncletony6210 it was definitely some sort of work....you don't just go as bald as he was in '94 over night when you've got an epic flowing mullet like that
His wig was a weave of additional hair added to his own. The only reason it was loose at the french final was because he accidentally damaged it while washing it. If in good shape there would be no reason for it to come out.
He wasn't wearing a wig here. Talks about that in his book.
@Steven Graham No shit sherlock, he's wearing the headband to cover his receding hairline, hence he isn't wearing a wig here. That's the point.
Andres gameplan was non existent in this final. He didn't fully commit to the game until 1999.
For all his sublime skill and greatness, he couldn't win the French....weird.
Sampras is a beat
Very good
Agassi wearing a wig.
Amazingly enough, he actually wasn't wearing a wig here.
dude he was 20. c'mon.
Weave
$350k?! boy that’s a of money printed
Agassi was not having service advantage compared to Sampras
Destruction!
Sampras just kept getting hotter as this tournament went on. But for him to beat Andre on this day, he needed a great serving day. And wow did he come up big. He dominated. Pete was just in control from the word GO
thank you Sampras for not having the stupid rocker hair
right! fall in line! everybody must look the same! TEN HUTTTT!
World Trade Towers.... who knew
i truly believe if jaime yzaga had won that 5th set tiebreak vs muster in the 3rd round he would have beaten pete in the 4th round.and then lendl would have beaten yzaga and then mcenroe and agassi
@Charles Darakdjian you're showing your lack of tennis knowledge, agassi was no match for lendl back then it would have been a massacre just the same, even krickstein would have beaten agassi here
@Charles Darakdjian becker gave that match away he didnt play like he normaly does, that wasnt the same becker that serves and volleys and he stayed back most of the time, also lendl taking sampras to 5 sets proved how lendl was a much greater player than agassi at that point in time
Borrrrring tennis 🎾 😩
So happy that Federer took the mantle of greatest ever from Sampras. Never liked that guy.
Lol why may I ask?
I agree. He was great to watch, but didn't have any personality. I was a ball girl in Indianapolis and had a Sampras match. Nothing. No personality. His coach was dealing with brain cancer then, so that may have been part of it.
@@antjobert he had the personality to behave like a man
@@pcar1578 you're right. He didn't disrespect the sport or anything. He wasn't a whiner like McEnroe. And he made tennis look so grateful and effortless. That said, I was in awe of him as a kid and thrilled to have been assigned to his match. It would've been nice if he had said thank you at some point or smiled after the match to us or acknowledged that we existed. Not even a crumb. He was in his own head. But like I said, his coach was dying and it was probably a tough time for him.
Opposite-Pete had personality,character and balls,he was a champion remember him dying and winning on court against Alex Corretja during 1996 Us Open,one of the most thrilled matches ever
Not near the level of Fed and Nadal
Well duh. This was 1990 (almost 30 years ago.) The game has evolved since 1990. In 30 years the guys playing in 2048 will make Federer, Nadal and Djokovic look outdated.
A think a 40 year Sampras would have won a set against Nadal or Federer on that fast courts
Joey Smith , don’t be ignorant..... Courts were super fast in the 90’s compared to today’s....A prime Sampras would dominate any player in history on these really fast courts.... Put things in perspective...
@@juandi2570 Of course. In fact, he won 7 Wimbledon's (In his time, the most quickly surface). Today, playing the "Prime" Sampras, he would be among the two best players of Tennis. Too strong and the last player, master of serve and volley. Greetings my friend from 🇨🇱.
@@juandi2570 and prime nadal would dominate any player in the history on a clay court so what it is your point?
@34:17, So true, Becker totally wasted his big, power game.
What a terrible copy