He was one of the best players to play the game, very hard and not fair to compare with the game today where they have a silly 10-15 rallies. I would love to have seen Nadal, Federer and Novak play in Petes time, or Pete in their time.
@@JohnMal-nk2qw On today's slow and identical courts, I don't know how Pit would have behaved, the certain thing is that if the Big Four had played on the surfaces of the 90s, Pete would have massacred them all...
THE STRONGEST 💪❤ Just over 11 years of career, 19 Slam finals, 14 Slam titles...and in the most competitive era of tennis, playing on very fast courts with "specialist" scenarios, against at least 15 top level opponents. Not like the presumed BASELINER big 4 who fought only among themselves and against other baseliners clones. A bit like the Mastercard advertisement...
HE WAS TOO GOOD. I sometimes felt that he had no real competition and just play along to give spectators their monies worth. Aggasi was the best and about the only one that could take Sampras on. I could immediately pick up when he had enough by just playing along for the sake of the crowds and finishes the game in two ticks. The last words from the empire on almost every game was: game Sampras, game ,,Sampras Game Sampras. Then you know, he is done and just finishes of. A legend for centuries. Miss him a lot.
And when you think he plays all his career with the wilson PS original 85' (very good racket but no mistakes are permit with that gear)... You understand why he retired in 2002.
14 Slams under this conditions with this racket is really a lot. I thnik its difficult or maybe impossible to compare differet generarions but for me he will always be Real Goat and not boring Novak!
Djokovic will win at least 30 grand slams. But that will make him most successful not the greatest. Pete's & Roger's peak level were much better than that of Djokovic.
sampras was a player for the second symmester of the year , he starts around queen and then lands almost every title going on , andre agassi was not a rival it was all in sampras direction , the real rivals were kriajchek and michael stitch , they were not afraid of him and they believed they can defeat him , agassi never defeated sampras on the us open as far as i remember and you always feel sampras had the upper hand
If Pete had kept playing he no doubt would have over 23 grand slams. I think its an shame he left so early but when you think about his love of family it makes sense. In his prime no doubt with equal equipement he would have creamed the big 3.
Nope he won't have won 23 slams. That must be a joke. Remember after winning his 63th titles in 2000 Wimbledon he didn't win any title until 2002 us open. He even knocked out early round in ATP 250 events. So a big no. May be he would won one extra major even that looks tough because Federer era was quickly began in 2004 when he was simply untouchable outside clay and I am damm sure Sampras wouldn't have been a contender to win French open either.
Hard to say who is the best player of all time, but he certainly is my favourite tennis player, I loved everything about him, he moved like no one else and I've seen them all, no other has his grace.
Overrated and sampras should never be near to each other. İ would say he is even underappreciated. Maybe because he is so humble. He and federer are the goats for me. But personally sampras is my favorite. He made me love tennis. Me pete and eurosport were the perfect trio in the 90 s😂
Ahahahah weak opponents it's fantastic considering that played in the most competitive era ever. Pete had at least 10 top level opponents and this was because he was playing in the specialist scenario where there were 3-4 top baseliners players AND at least others 5-6 top serve & volley specialist players. The elusive "big 3" had no other opponents with only basileners remaining...it's certainly no coincidence that three won more than 60 slams...
@@atarumoroboshi75 Let's see: Simpras beat the likes of Martin, Pioline, Chang, Ivanesevic to win slams. The 3 kings had to beat each other + Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev, Alcaraz and Sinner. Stop coping, Simpo is not even fit to carry the jockstraps of the 3 kings !
@@zokkostenniszone3282 It's the exact opposite: Pete played against the best like Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Muster, Courier, Agassi etc etc...Those 4 you're talking about played among themselves since they didn't have any opponents of the their level. The only one was Stan but he had obvious physical limitations. Sinner and Alcaraz have nothing to do with it, they belong to another generation...
Secondo te, uno che ha vinto 14 titoli del Grande Slam, che ha vinto tanti titoli nonostante fosse anemico, è sopravvalutato? Ok, ognuno ha le sue opinioni, ma dire che Sampras, uno dei più grandi tennisti della storia(basta leggersi le statistiche che lo riguardano), sia sopravvalutato, mi sembra una stupidaggine
ATP data suggests the game was homogenized after Sampras so that the same players kept winning on all surfaces. It's absurd to think that there are 3 "GOATS" that all played at the same time against each other.
Actually, data shows that Pete has the same winning percentage as the big 3. Even better at Wimbledon. Pete didn’t have rivals to push him. He was so good Agassi quit playing for a while because he couldn’t take the loss in the 95 US Open. Pete would have kept playing if he was chasing a higher number or better rivals.
14 wins in 18 GS finals , best winning % for men who had appeared in over 10 GS finals , retired with all the records ( at that time ) 6 year in a row number one , still standing record ( properly forever ) I'm not so sure in the future for GS title as players will get older and older , but this one ...yes 🙂 . Retired at 31 , Novak had 13 GS at that age ! And itscolin81 answer just nails it , easy weak era with homogenized slow courts ! Its like if all the courts in the 90 were fast hardcourt , if so Pete`s dominance would have been ridiculous ! Just like the ( big ) 3 era has been !
@@Truthseekerinspe Thank you!! Sampras was so good, he silenced his rivals. Becker, Edberg, Courier, and Agsssi. Agassi quit playing for a year and became a meth addict. It’s all about the character, too. The match against Corretja at the US Open when was sick and vomiting. Other times when he’s hobbled with injury. If what he chased was a higher number, he would’ve reached it. Sadly, the record then was only 12. He even reached his goal at a younger age than the big 3.
Subscribe to Tennis Talk at 👉 www.TennisTalkDaily.com 👈Thanks for being part of our community!
The Real GOAT of Tennis.
He was one of the best players to play the game, very hard and not fair to compare with the game today where they have a silly 10-15 rallies. I would love to have seen Nadal, Federer and Novak play in Petes time, or Pete in their time.
@@JohnMal-nk2qw On today's slow and identical courts, I don't know how Pit would have behaved, the certain thing is that if the Big Four had played on the surfaces of the 90s, Pete would have massacred them all...
THE STRONGEST 💪❤ Just over 11 years of career, 19 Slam finals, 14 Slam titles...and in the most competitive era of tennis, playing on very fast courts with "specialist" scenarios, against at least 15 top level opponents. Not like the presumed BASELINER big 4 who fought only among themselves and against other baseliners clones. A bit like the Mastercard advertisement...
HE WAS TOO GOOD. I sometimes felt that he had no real competition and just play along to give spectators their monies worth. Aggasi was the best and about the only one that could take Sampras on. I could immediately pick up when he had enough by just playing along for the sake of the crowds and finishes the game in two ticks. The last words from the empire on almost every game was: game Sampras, game ,,Sampras Game Sampras. Then you know, he is done and just finishes of. A legend for centuries. Miss him a lot.
And when you think he plays all his career with the wilson PS original 85' (very good racket but no mistakes are permit with that gear)... You understand why he retired in 2002.
Absolut genius. Certainly still the greatest the game has ever seen.
14 Slams under this conditions with this racket is really a lot.
I thnik its difficult or maybe impossible to compare differet generarions but for me he will always be Real Goat and not boring Novak!
@@peterloffler8121 No, it’s possible…Pete is the strongest of all time
If anything, Sampras might be underrated
The real GOAT
Djokovic will win at least 30 grand slams. But that will make him most successful not the greatest. Pete's & Roger's peak level were much better than that of Djokovic.
Awesome! I agree. Thanks for stopping by!
Legend without a doubt. His game was like an army marching down a mountain pass!
sampras was a player for the second symmester of the year , he starts around queen and then lands almost every title going on , andre agassi was not a rival it was all in sampras direction , the real rivals were kriajchek and michael stitch , they were not afraid of him and they believed they can defeat him , agassi never defeated sampras on the us open as far as i remember and you always feel sampras had the upper hand
Sampras was no doubt great but to honest i do consider federer as an equally greater legend, given he defeated him as a 19 year old.
If Pete had kept playing he no doubt would have over 23 grand slams. I think its an shame he left so early but when you think about his love of family it makes sense. In his prime no doubt with equal equipement he would have creamed the big 3.
Nope he won't have won 23 slams. That must be a joke. Remember after winning his 63th titles in 2000 Wimbledon he didn't win any title until 2002 us open. He even knocked out early round in ATP 250 events. So a big no. May be he would won one extra major even that looks tough because Federer era was quickly began in 2004 when he was simply untouchable outside clay and I am damm sure Sampras wouldn't have been a contender to win French open either.
Legend, but big shadow in carear that he never won French Open..
Hard to say who is the best player of all time, but he certainly is my favourite tennis player, I loved everything about him, he moved like no one else and I've seen them all, no other has his grace.
Real goat
He was awesome during the 90s
Overrated and sampras should never be near to each other. İ would say he is even underappreciated. Maybe because he is so humble. He and federer are the goats for me. But personally sampras is my favorite. He made me love tennis. Me pete and eurosport were the perfect trio in the 90 s😂
LEGEND!
Sampras was the best in his prime ❤. No one could touch him 😮
These clips have no context with the verbal commentary.
Snorfest of a playing style
Overrated, weak opponents, 1TP, weak BH and no longevity
Nobody cares about the opinion of a 3.0.
@@JayJay-ye7ic stop coping and face facts
Ahahahah weak opponents it's fantastic considering that played in the most competitive era ever. Pete had at least 10 top level opponents and this was because he was playing in the specialist scenario where there were 3-4 top baseliners players AND at least others 5-6 top serve & volley specialist players. The elusive "big 3" had no other opponents with only basileners remaining...it's certainly no coincidence that three won more than 60 slams...
@@atarumoroboshi75 Let's see: Simpras beat the likes of Martin, Pioline, Chang, Ivanesevic to win slams.
The 3 kings had to beat each other + Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev, Alcaraz and Sinner.
Stop coping, Simpo is not even fit to carry the jockstraps of the 3 kings !
@@zokkostenniszone3282 It's the exact opposite: Pete played against the best like Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Muster, Courier, Agassi etc etc...Those 4 you're talking about played among themselves since they didn't have any opponents of the their level. The only one was Stan but he had obvious physical limitations. Sinner and Alcaraz have nothing to do with it, they belong to another generation...
To me he’s overrated
Secondo te, uno che ha vinto 14 titoli del Grande Slam, che ha vinto tanti titoli nonostante fosse anemico, è sopravvalutato? Ok, ognuno ha le sue opinioni, ma dire che Sampras, uno dei più grandi tennisti della storia(basta leggersi le statistiche che lo riguardano), sia sopravvalutato, mi sembra una stupidaggine
How old are you?
You know nothing
ATP Data suggests Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are better.
ATP data suggests the game was homogenized after Sampras so that the same players kept winning on all surfaces. It's absurd to think that there are 3 "GOATS" that all played at the same time against each other.
Actually, data shows that Pete has the same winning percentage as the big 3. Even better at Wimbledon. Pete didn’t have rivals to push him. He was so good Agassi quit playing for a while because he couldn’t take the loss in the 95 US Open. Pete would have kept playing if he was chasing a higher number or better rivals.
14 wins in 18 GS finals , best winning % for men who had appeared in over 10 GS finals , retired with all the records ( at that time ) 6 year in a row number one , still standing record ( properly forever ) I'm not so sure in the future for GS title as players will get older and older , but this one ...yes 🙂 . Retired at 31 , Novak had 13 GS at that age !
And itscolin81 answer just nails it , easy weak era with homogenized slow courts !
Its like if all the courts in the 90 were fast hardcourt , if so Pete`s dominance would have been ridiculous ! Just like the ( big ) 3 era has been !
@@Truthseekerinspe Thank you!! Sampras was so good, he silenced his rivals. Becker, Edberg, Courier, and Agsssi. Agassi quit playing for a year and became a meth addict. It’s all about the character, too. The match against Corretja at the US Open when was sick and vomiting. Other times when he’s hobbled with injury. If what he chased was a higher number, he would’ve reached it. Sadly, the record then was only 12. He even reached his goal at a younger age than the big 3.
@@Truthseekerinspewhich player never made it past the semifinals at Rolland Garros ?