Chang also thrashed future world no 1 Pete Sampras 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 in the 2nd round and also world no 1 Ivan Lendl, who was the top seed in the 4th round. In the match against Lendl, he overcame cramps and came back from a 2 sets to love deficit to win in 5 sets 4-6, 4-6. 6-3, 6-3, 6-3. In the deciding 5th set he served underarmed at 15-30 down and 4-3 up to win the crucial point and put Lendl off his game. Then at 40-15 up and leading 5-3 in the 5th set, Chang went to received Lendl's serve at the mid court. Lendl double faulted and Chang went on to win the match. And the rest as they say, is history.
This was such a great match to watch, especially having a serve and volleyer in the final. Chang absolutely wore down the competition with his tenacity and consistency. Edberg had so many chances to break, but Chang's denial of those breaks was what broke Edberg in the end. Edberg threw everything at Chang that he could, a great fight between two great players. Phenomenal final !!
I well recall watching this match live, and as much as I really liked Stefan Edberg, I was rooting for the underdog, Michael Chang. (Stefan certainly carved out a most tremendous tennis career for himself as well). Cheers (also!) to that grand NBC commentating team of Dick Enberg and Bud Collins. Their French Open and Wimbledon coverage was especially top-notch - I think it was during the very early 1980's when I first became a fan of theirs, and that lasted for decades. May those two bright souls RIP. As Bob Hope used to sing, "Thanks for the Memory."
I saw that match live, and i really wanted Chang to win at the time, this was an unbelievable outsider. But now, i regret Stefan Edberg's Beautiful Volleys, Modern players are all playing like Chang now. Edberg style was a thing of beauty.
Hahah .. It took 6 matches for Sampras to beat Michael Chang for the first time . All their first 5 meetings were won by Chang . Chang was a incredible teen in the tennis history . But unfortunately he was not consistent to win grandslams later.
@@coolyoutuber6237 he's handicapped by his height at 5'7" (170 cm). it's extremely difficult for men tennis players to win grand slams at that height. it's reality. nothing you can do about it.
@@coolyoutuber6237 if he was anything it was consistent. Unfortunately he didn’t have a big shot to backup the consistency.The RG courts that year were super slow.
Clarification for Mr. Sirknight2016: Chang did get to another Roland Garros final. It was in the 1995 edition, when he lost to Thomas Muster in the final. He also reached the finals of both the Australian Open and the US Open (both in 1996), where he lost to Boris Becker and Pete Sampras respectively. He was an outstanding player, that despite winning just 1 GS, has inspired other great players like Nadal. Tennis is not a "white man's sport", it's a sport open for whoever plays it. Not very bright people (kind of like Mr SirKnight2016) said something similar about golf, and then you had Tiger Woods. Please, we're in 2016, let's just stop with ridiculous and perished stereotypes.
Michael Chang is definitely worth of Hall of Fame and being called Legend. Here are some reasons that proves it. 1) He won French Open once, the Grand Slam, much more it is THE YOUNGEST achievement in the all time history which has not been eclipsed yet. 2) Some other tennis players with age close to Michael Chang, such as (a) Todd Woodbridge and (b) Mark Woodforde, are also the Tennis Hall of Famer. (a) Then the Grand Slam Single Results of Woodbridge are Wimbledon - Semifinal, French Open - 3R, US Open - 3R, and Australian Open - 4R. (b) Then Mark Woodforde's Grand Slam Single Results are Wimbledon - 4R, French Open - 4R, US Open - 4R, and Australian Open - Semifinal. Michael Chang made his Grand Slam Singles Results as French Open - Champion (at the youngest age of all time even now), US Open - Finalist (2nd), Australian Open - Finalist (2nd), and Wimbledon - Quarterfinal. Then even both Woodforde and Woodbridge are listed in the Hall of Fame, so this is ample reason to list Michael Chang in the list of Hall of Fame for Chang's having better Single Results in the Grand Slam than other 2 I wrote here. 3) In addition, (a) even an Australian Tennis player Patrick Rafter has his Grand Slam Single Results as Australian Open - Semifinal, French Open - Semifinal, Wimbledon - Finalist (2nd), and US Open - Champion. (b) Brazilian Tennis player Gustavo Kuerten is also a hall of famer. He won French Open 3 times, for sure, however Kuerten's highest position he advanced in other Grand Slam are, Wimbledon Quarterfinal, US Open - Quarterfinal and Australian Open - 3R. Then Rafter and Kuerten were both also listed in the Hall of Fame. Michael Chang with French Open Champion Title at the youngest age, also advanced to the Final in US Open and Australian Open while Wimbledon was Quarterfinal. The impact of Chang, Rafter, and Kuerten are almost the same, or maybe Chang is a bit better than even other two written here. 4) Michael Chang was leading the USA to the champion in Davis Cup in 1990 by winning the semi-final and final,, and also was a leading figure of the US squad in World Team Cup in 1993. 5) Chang is one of very few player who won matches with Lendl twice. The win-loss record Chang has with famous players are: vs Connors 12-12, vs Rafter 7-4, vs Ivanisevic 6-4, vs Edberg 9-12, vs Lendl 2-5, vs Matsuoka 3-0, vs Sampras 8-12, and vs Agassi 7-15. So Michael Chang has more wins than losses to some strong rivals, while other strong rivals have more wins than losses than Chang, but on the other hand, nobody or very few players won that many times in his generation in games with Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, and Agassi. Winning two games in Grand Slam from Lendl is miracle. Lendl himself also admitted it's worth of praise. 6) Chang was year-end top 10 (his career high of the world ranking was the 2nd) for 6 consecutive years matched in the decade only by Sampras. 7) His three Indian Wells Masters titles which is known as BNP Paribas Open, had been ATP record for 15 years till it was replaced by Federer. 8) Chang is one of a few players who won titles in ATP tours for 3 decades. 9)So the impact of winning the Grand Slam title at the youngest age of all time which isn't replaced yet, and won-loss record with strong players, continuous and consistent position which had been high, some ATP record etc... are the proof of Michael Chang as a player worth of being Hall of Famer. Grand Slam, Davis Cup, ATP, Olympic, are all important.
classic matchup! relentless serve and volleyer at his absolute best against a relentless returner, getting everything back. Forcing one of the greatest volleyers of all time to hit perfect volleys. Nobody else served and volleyed on every point and made the French open final.Eventually, the modern tactic of double handed backhands, heavy topspin, no unforced errors, and tireless running won through, as it does every year on the slow red clay. But in 1989 it nearly didn't! Strategically fascinating!
Their 1992 US Open Semifinal was one of the tightest matches I ever saw. Every set was decided by a point or two. Edberg won that and the title over Sampras
Dick Enberg is my favorite tennis commentator of all time, but he messed up here. Chang was one of the most unlikeliest winners of any major - and it seems like Edberg and Collins were upset that he won. Chang deserved a better reaction from them on match point like other people have said
Michael Chang is definitely worth of Hall of Fame and being called Legend. Here are some reasons that proves it. 1) He won French Open once, the Grand Slam, much more it is THE YOUNGEST achievement in the all time history which has not been eclipsed yet. 2) Some other tennis players with age close to Michael Chang, such as (a) Todd Woodbridge and (b) Mark Woodforde, are also the Tennis Hall of Famer. (a) Then the Grand Slam Single Results of Woodbridge are Wimbledon - Semifinal, French Open - 3R, US Open - 3R, and Australian Open - 4R. (b) Then Mark Woodforde's Grand Slam Single Results are Wimbledon - 4R, French Open - 4R, US Open - 4R, and Australian Open - Semifinal. Michael Chang made his Grand Slam Singles Results as French Open - Champion (at the youngest age of all time even now), US Open - Finalist (2nd), Australian Open - Finalist (2nd), and Wimbledon - Quarterfinal. Then even both Woodforde and Woodbridge are listed in the Hall of Fame, so this is ample reason to list Michael Chang in the list of Hall of Fame for Chang's having better Single Results in the Grand Slam than other 2 I wrote here. 3) In addition, (a) even an Australian Tennis player Patrick Rafter has his Grand Slam Single Results as Australian Open - Semifinal, French Open - Semifinal, Wimbledon - Finalist (2nd), and US Open - Champion. (b) Brazilian Tennis player Gustavo Kuerten is also a hall of famer. He won French Open 3 times, for sure, however Kuerten's highest position he advanced in other Grand Slam are, Wimbledon Quarterfinal, US Open - Quarterfinal and Australian Open - 3R. Then Rafter and Kuerten were both also listed in the Hall of Fame. Michael Chang with French Open Champion Title at the youngest age, also advanced to the Final in US Open and Australian Open while Wimbledon was Quarterfinal. The impact of Chang, Rafter, and Kuerten are almost the same, or maybe Chang is a bit better than even other two written here. 4) Michael Chang was leading the USA to the champion in Davis Cup in 1990 by winning the semi-final and final,, and also was a leading figure of the US squad in World Team Cup in 1993. 5) Chang is one of very few player who won matches with Lendl twice. The win-loss record Chang has with famous players are: vs Connors 12-12, vs Rafter 7-4, vs Ivanisevic 6-4, vs Edberg 9-12, vs Lendl 2-5, vs Matsuoka 3-0, vs Sampras 8-12, and vs Agassi 7-15. So Michael Chang has more wins than losses to some strong rivals, while other strong rivals have more wins than losses than Chang, but on the other hand, nobody or very few players won that many times in his generation in games with Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, and Agassi. Winning two games in Grand Slam from Lendl is miracle. Lendl himself also admitted it's worth of praise. 6) Chang was year-end top 10 (his career high of the world ranking was the 2nd) for 6 consecutive years matched in the decade only by Sampras. 7) His three Indian Wells Masters titles which is known as BNP Paribas Open, had been ATP record for 15 years till it was replaced by Federer. 8) Chang is one of a few players who won titles in ATP tours for 3 decades. 9)So the impact of winning the Grand Slam title at the youngest age of all time which isn't replaced yet, and won-loss record with strong players, continuous and consistent position which had been high, some ATP record etc... are the proof of Michael Chang as a player worth of being Hall of Famer. Grand Slam, Davis Cup, ATP, Olympic, are all important.
1989, the year Edberg and Becker were close to winning the French Open. They never were closer than this year. Federer took his chance 2009. In the 80's and 90's a lot of awesome players didnt win here: Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras. McEnroe was extremely close leading 2:0 vs. Lendl 1984. Probably the match he still might have nightmares.
@JimAsian1 I think it was just Bud Collin's style, sort of against social norms and a bit impolite. He spent half the match obsessing about Edberg's foot faults. I think people really liked Edberg as a person. The ATP sportsmanship award is named after him. In the end though, I agree with you that they should have recognized the historic moment much more. First Asian American winner during the week of Tianemen. I was 14 and it was electric.
Just saw this broadcast after all this time, and it seemed odd that Collins and Enberg were so subdued sounding, given the historic nature of what Chang had just done. Hard to believe they'd be rooting for Edberg. Oh well. Chang was awesome.
Regarding Edberg's foot faults - he was absolutely notorious for them (especially when he was nervous) and it was something everyone looked out for as a measure of how Edberg was playing and his state of mind. I don't think it was unreasonable for Bud Collins to "obsess" about them. It was a key indicator of Edberg's form.
Did the commentator really say "Maybe we should thank Mao Tse Tung for this"?? I guess I kinda see what he was trying to say but that seriously was a stupid comment, especially on live tv.
To clarify, I read recently that this tournament happened during the Tiananmen Square uprising and that Chang's run made a big impact in China, so in that context the comment doesn't seem so much out of left field.
talk like this was common in the past. words like "colored" or "midget" were thrown around freely. Now you can't say anything without someone being offended.
Edberg absolutely botched the 1989 French Open Men's Singles Final to Chang. Throughout the match Edberg made the colossal mistake during baseline rallies of waiting until the fourth or fifth short ball from Chang before advancing to the net. That tactical mistake caused Edberg to tire, and in the fifth set he was so tired that he repeatedly made forehand groundstroke errors.
@ stephen lucas. Edberg did not serve-and-volley on every point in every one of his service games against Chang in the 1989 French Open Men's Singles Final. For example, Edberg did not follow his serve into the net on the 0-30, 0-40, 15-40 and 30-40 points in the fourth game of the fifth set. And Edberg did not serve-and-volley on every single point of every one of his service games in the first six rounds of the 1989 French Open. Although Edberg liked to serve-and-volley on both his first and second serve in his matches, even he did not serve-and-volley on every single point of all of his service games.
Along with his foot faults, his forehand was always an indicator of how sharp he was. When he started foot faulting and missing his forehand you knew he was in trouble.
Why bring race into this discussion? Chang's style of play was perfectly suited for clay courts and he had an edge on Edberg, who is a serve and volleyer. Just sit back and enjoy the tennis and don't worry about their race, religion, or any other nonsense.
Anjong: Sunil Thomas makes a perfectly intelligent point. race plays a huge factor in many things but probably not so much during a tennis match. at least, not if you understand anything about tennis... as to the commentators themselves, although sometimes done clumsily, it was clear that they were trying build Chang up, not tear him down. by bringing race into a situation where that is not warranted, you are degrading all human beings involved. the need to do so can be a sign of ignorance, desperation and hatred. do any of those motives apply to you here, Anjong?
Daniel Quiroz: yes, that's right - you don't know what is biased. they are commentators and are supposed to COMMENT. typically, when the ball hits the net, it slows. a slow ball for a person hitting a forehand past a net player is an advantage for the baseliner. please explain to me how in your brain pointing that out could be a biased statement... i'm quite eager to listen to what could be a fascinating explanation.
John Patrick McEnroe thinks Michael Te Pei Chang is just lucky to beat Edberg, he doesn't believe it. Michael Te Pei Chang can get the second GS, the result is that Michael Te Pei Chang really only took GS once.
John Patrick McEnroe thinks Michael Te Pei Chang is just lucky to beat Edberg, he doesn't believe Michael Te Pei Chang can get the second GS, the result is that Michael Te Pei Chang really only took GS once.
In my posted comment about the 1983 French Open Men's Singles Final, I failed to put the apostrophe after the letter ''n'' in the word ''Men's'' and put the apostrophe after the letter ''s'' by mistake.
+Gregoryt700 Funny how boris becker knocked out the little china man in 1991 in the Qf . Micheal chang was juiced in his 89 victory ,he was able to outlast Lendl ,Edberg to win RG a complete Fluke.
+Sirknight2016 As I recall, Michael Chang was an American citizen. He is also an exception to your comment that Chinese people "suck" at tennis. Sure, I hardly here of Chinese tennis players, but Michael Chang did not "suck" (like some people do)..
+Ebonyknight The topic is that Michael Chang was a professional tennis player. Therefore, he was very good and he did not "suck" at all. End of topic..
I have no idea why. I find it stupid. What is so wrong with having the last few games? They allowed the first 4 1/2 sets to be shown no problem. But we never get to see the ending. It would be nice the see the actual match point as it was broadcast.
Incredible what Chang could do with alll his athletic and physique limitatiion........he was a really short player for tennsi standards and without athlticism to compensate.........bad to ok backhand and a bad serve. he compensate this alll with his mental toughness and perseverance
although becker had a stronger serve, his game was never suited for clay. the best he did at the french was three semis...and had lost all six times he reached a clay final.
Chang lost to Becker at the 1991 french open in the quarters in straight sets. Becker seems to have really had Chang's number. He only lost to chang once in all their meetings
@TheSuperstick55 A "crap player"? The French Open champ, who eventually reached #2 in the world. Never won any other majors but got to the finals of a couple more. Hardly a bad player.
Why aren't they screaming stuff like "Pint-sized genius!!" and "Boy Wonder floors the tennis world!!" and "Changaldinho!!" and "Our Oriental Marvel strikes down the Nord!!" and "Yellow Mozart!!" and "Under-age but drunk with success" and "Junior Beast Boy!!!"?? ...dim commentary
Daniel Quiroz: you still kicking - i see your comment is from 6 years ago? if so... sometimes ignorance biases a person towards believing lies. other times, good information biased them towards believing the truth. so, yes, the commentator was biased, just as you are, except his conclusions were reality-based. Edberg's body language and play clearly indicates fatigue to anyone who has ever played the game of tennis. how many times did Edberg - one of the best volleyers the game has ever seen - dump the ball into the net in the final set? how many times was he just a little late in his movements? have you ever played tennis, i wonder? also, some common sense/intelligence would tell you he was tired, without having even to watch the match... 5 sets in the final playing against Chang who ran so many shots down and kept so many rallies going? come on most athletes of that day would be tired, especially a non-baseliner like Edberg. in fact, even Chang, who was an endurance-type player and just a kid chronologically, had himself experienced cramping earlier in that same tournament. Chang did not win, though, because Edberg was tired. he won, in part, because Chang was not. it was a level playing field in that there can be no excuses in a major tournament. i was rooting for Chang in my grandmother's home, despite the liking i had for Edberg. Chang, whatever you want to say about him, is a warrior. he was, symbolically, proudly fighting for many oppressed people and a respect for young people on the world stage. tennis-wise, he was very young and rose to the challenge. you don't win a major without playing some darn good tennis. on the other hand, i saw unusually bad play from Lendl and Edberg during this tournament, possibly being worn out by them physically and/or mentally. Chang, therefore, also had a rare opportunity... i'm glad Chang won the French Open. i still remember watching that match to this day. in any case, please consider me biased towards the truth and common sense/intelligence, rather than the fragility of the deluded who are incapable of or can't be bothered to indulge in rigorous thought.
absolutely no need to make it a racist situation. BTW, I don't think there has ever been a Chinese or Taiwanese or any other fish heads that were number 1 in tennis. Also, table tennis; Who the hell cares about table tennis?
Chang also thrashed future world no 1 Pete Sampras 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 in the 2nd round and also world no 1 Ivan Lendl, who was the top seed in the 4th round.
In the match against Lendl, he overcame cramps and came back from a 2 sets to love deficit to win in 5 sets 4-6, 4-6. 6-3, 6-3, 6-3.
In the deciding 5th set he served underarmed at 15-30 down and 4-3 up to win the crucial point and put Lendl off his game.
Then at 40-15 up and leading 5-3 in the 5th set, Chang went to received Lendl's serve at the mid court.
Lendl double faulted and Chang went on to win the match.
And the rest as they say, is history.
Thank You YT for bringing back great memories in so many ways🤙🏼
This was such a great match to watch, especially having a serve and volleyer in the final. Chang absolutely wore down the competition with his tenacity and consistency. Edberg had so many chances to break, but Chang's denial of those breaks was what broke Edberg in the end. Edberg threw everything at Chang that he could, a great fight between two great players. Phenomenal final !!
I well recall watching this match live, and as much as I really liked Stefan Edberg, I was rooting for the underdog, Michael Chang. (Stefan certainly carved out a most tremendous tennis career for himself as well). Cheers (also!) to that grand NBC commentating team of Dick Enberg and Bud Collins. Their French Open and Wimbledon coverage was especially top-notch - I think it was during the very early 1980's when I first became a fan of theirs, and that lasted for decades. May those two bright souls RIP. As Bob Hope used to sing, "Thanks for the Memory."
I saw that match live, and i really wanted Chang to win at the time, this was an unbelievable outsider. But now, i regret Stefan Edberg's Beautiful Volleys, Modern players are all playing like Chang now. Edberg style was a thing of beauty.
The World forget that beside winning Lendl and Edberg, Michael Chang also won Sampras in 1989 French Open!
Hahah .. It took 6 matches for Sampras to beat Michael Chang for the first time . All their first 5 meetings were won by Chang . Chang was a incredible teen in the tennis history . But unfortunately he was not consistent to win grandslams later.
@@coolyoutuber6237 he's handicapped by his height at 5'7" (170 cm). it's extremely difficult for men tennis players to win grand slams at that height. it's reality. nothing you can do about it.
@@minavamp2359 NEW Might Mouse in 2020 -Diego Schwartzman
@@coolyoutuber6237 if he was anything it was consistent. Unfortunately he didn’t have a big shot to backup the consistency.The RG courts that year were super slow.
It's becoming difficult for a 5-7" woman to win a grand slam
Clarification for Mr. Sirknight2016: Chang did get to another Roland Garros final. It was in the 1995 edition, when he lost to Thomas Muster in the final. He also reached the finals of both the Australian Open and the US Open (both in 1996), where he lost to Boris Becker and Pete Sampras respectively. He was an outstanding player, that despite winning just 1 GS, has inspired other great players like Nadal. Tennis is not a "white man's sport", it's a sport open for whoever plays it. Not very bright people (kind of like Mr SirKnight2016) said something similar about golf, and then you had Tiger Woods. Please, we're in 2016, let's just stop with ridiculous and perished stereotypes.
Michael Chang is definitely worth of Hall of Fame and being called Legend. Here are some reasons that proves it.
1) He won French Open once, the Grand Slam, much more it is THE YOUNGEST achievement in the all time history which has not been eclipsed yet. 2) Some other tennis players with age close to Michael Chang, such as (a) Todd Woodbridge and (b) Mark Woodforde, are also the Tennis Hall of Famer. (a) Then the Grand Slam Single Results of Woodbridge are Wimbledon - Semifinal, French Open - 3R, US Open - 3R, and Australian Open - 4R. (b) Then Mark Woodforde's Grand Slam Single Results are Wimbledon - 4R, French Open - 4R, US Open - 4R, and Australian Open - Semifinal. Michael Chang made his Grand Slam Singles Results as French Open - Champion (at the youngest age of all time even now), US Open - Finalist (2nd), Australian Open - Finalist (2nd), and Wimbledon - Quarterfinal. Then even both Woodforde and Woodbridge are listed in the Hall of Fame, so this is ample reason to list Michael Chang in the list of Hall of Fame for Chang's having better Single Results in the Grand Slam than other 2 I wrote here. 3) In addition, (a) even an Australian Tennis player Patrick Rafter has his Grand Slam Single Results as Australian Open - Semifinal, French Open - Semifinal, Wimbledon - Finalist (2nd), and US Open - Champion. (b) Brazilian Tennis player Gustavo Kuerten is also a hall of famer. He won French Open 3 times, for sure, however Kuerten's highest position he advanced in other Grand Slam are, Wimbledon Quarterfinal, US Open - Quarterfinal and Australian Open - 3R. Then Rafter and Kuerten were both also listed in the Hall of Fame. Michael Chang with French Open Champion Title at the youngest age, also advanced to the Final in US Open and Australian Open while Wimbledon was Quarterfinal. The impact of Chang, Rafter, and Kuerten are almost the same, or maybe Chang is a bit better than even other two written here. 4) Michael Chang was leading the USA to the champion in Davis Cup in 1990 by winning the semi-final and final,, and also was a leading figure of the US squad in World Team Cup in 1993. 5) Chang is one of very few player who won matches with Lendl twice. The win-loss record Chang has with famous players are: vs Connors 12-12, vs Rafter 7-4, vs Ivanisevic 6-4, vs Edberg 9-12, vs Lendl 2-5, vs Matsuoka 3-0, vs Sampras 8-12, and vs Agassi 7-15. So Michael Chang has more wins than losses to some strong rivals, while other strong rivals have more wins than losses than Chang, but on the other hand, nobody or very few players won that many times in his generation in games with Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, and Agassi. Winning two games in Grand Slam from Lendl is miracle. Lendl himself also admitted it's worth of praise. 6) Chang was year-end top 10 (his career high of the world ranking was the 2nd) for 6 consecutive years matched in the decade only by Sampras. 7) His three Indian Wells Masters titles which is known as BNP Paribas Open, had been ATP record for 15 years till it was replaced by Federer. 8) Chang is one of a few players who won titles in ATP tours for 3 decades. 9)So the impact of winning the Grand Slam title at the youngest age of all time which isn't replaced yet, and won-loss record with strong players, continuous and consistent position which had been high, some ATP record etc... are the proof of Michael Chang as a player worth of being Hall of Famer. Grand Slam, Davis Cup, ATP, Olympic, are all important.
No "2016" or "2019" crap. So what? Do not be so sensitive! It is really tiresome. How about appreciating some humor?
Most of the top 100 ATP are from Europe. Very few Asian players up there.
classic matchup! relentless serve and volleyer at his absolute best against a relentless returner, getting everything back. Forcing one of the greatest volleyers of all time to hit perfect volleys. Nobody else served and volleyed on every point and made the French open final.Eventually, the modern tactic of double handed backhands, heavy topspin, no unforced errors, and tireless running won through, as it does every year on the slow red clay. But in 1989 it nearly didn't! Strategically fascinating!
McEnroe also made the final serve and volleying.
Their 1992 US Open Semifinal was one of the tightest matches I ever saw. Every set was decided by a point or two. Edberg won that and the title over Sampras
One of the greatest stories in sport.
Chang was a pure class act person as well. Well deserved win.
I love Michael Chang, but hey.... Stefan, that's pure admiration. What a player.
I don't get why an American commentator would not be more enthusiastic for an American player winning. It's the best thing for American tennis. Crazy.
surfjabroni racist
no. pusher
Dick Enberg is my favorite tennis commentator of all time, but he messed up here. Chang was one of the most unlikeliest winners of any major - and it seems like Edberg and Collins were upset that he won. Chang deserved a better reaction from them on match point like other people have said
no
They think tennis slams should be won by Caucasian only.
Michael Chang is definitely worth of Hall of Fame and being called Legend. Here are some reasons that proves it.
1) He won French Open once, the Grand Slam, much more it is THE YOUNGEST achievement in the all time history which has not been eclipsed yet. 2) Some other tennis players with age close to Michael Chang, such as (a) Todd Woodbridge and (b) Mark Woodforde, are also the Tennis Hall of Famer. (a) Then the Grand Slam Single Results of Woodbridge are Wimbledon - Semifinal, French Open - 3R, US Open - 3R, and Australian Open - 4R. (b) Then Mark Woodforde's Grand Slam Single Results are Wimbledon - 4R, French Open - 4R, US Open - 4R, and Australian Open - Semifinal. Michael Chang made his Grand Slam Singles Results as French Open - Champion (at the youngest age of all time even now), US Open - Finalist (2nd), Australian Open - Finalist (2nd), and Wimbledon - Quarterfinal. Then even both Woodforde and Woodbridge are listed in the Hall of Fame, so this is ample reason to list Michael Chang in the list of Hall of Fame for Chang's having better Single Results in the Grand Slam than other 2 I wrote here. 3) In addition, (a) even an Australian Tennis player Patrick Rafter has his Grand Slam Single Results as Australian Open - Semifinal, French Open - Semifinal, Wimbledon - Finalist (2nd), and US Open - Champion. (b) Brazilian Tennis player Gustavo Kuerten is also a hall of famer. He won French Open 3 times, for sure, however Kuerten's highest position he advanced in other Grand Slam are, Wimbledon Quarterfinal, US Open - Quarterfinal and Australian Open - 3R. Then Rafter and Kuerten were both also listed in the Hall of Fame. Michael Chang with French Open Champion Title at the youngest age, also advanced to the Final in US Open and Australian Open while Wimbledon was Quarterfinal. The impact of Chang, Rafter, and Kuerten are almost the same, or maybe Chang is a bit better than even other two written here. 4) Michael Chang was leading the USA to the champion in Davis Cup in 1990 by winning the semi-final and final,, and also was a leading figure of the US squad in World Team Cup in 1993. 5) Chang is one of very few player who won matches with Lendl twice. The win-loss record Chang has with famous players are: vs Connors 12-12, vs Rafter 7-4, vs Ivanisevic 6-4, vs Edberg 9-12, vs Lendl 2-5, vs Matsuoka 3-0, vs Sampras 8-12, and vs Agassi 7-15. So Michael Chang has more wins than losses to some strong rivals, while other strong rivals have more wins than losses than Chang, but on the other hand, nobody or very few players won that many times in his generation in games with Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, and Agassi. Winning two games in Grand Slam from Lendl is miracle. Lendl himself also admitted it's worth of praise. 6) Chang was year-end top 10 (his career high of the world ranking was the 2nd) for 6 consecutive years matched in the decade only by Sampras. 7) His three Indian Wells Masters titles which is known as BNP Paribas Open, had been ATP record for 15 years till it was replaced by Federer. 8) Chang is one of a few players who won titles in ATP tours for 3 decades. 9)So the impact of winning the Grand Slam title at the youngest age of all time which isn't replaced yet, and won-loss record with strong players, continuous and consistent position which had been high, some ATP record etc... are the proof of Michael Chang as a player worth of being Hall of Famer. Grand Slam, Davis Cup, ATP, Olympic, are all important.
If Tennis is played in three set, Edberg is the winner . Just giving you the way to heal your sadness .😄
Federer tied with Chang ; 1 RG each
Wow. Edberg, the serve and volley specialist number 1, was so close winning French Open.
he looked so tired in set 5
Effectively,Mr volley at the era
1989, the year Edberg and Becker were close to winning the French Open. They never were closer than this year. Federer took his chance 2009.
In the 80's and 90's a lot of awesome players didnt win here: Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras. McEnroe was extremely close leading 2:0 vs. Lendl 1984. Probably the match he still might have nightmares.
@JimAsian1 I think it was just Bud Collin's style, sort of against social norms and a bit impolite. He spent half the match obsessing about Edberg's foot faults. I think people really liked Edberg as a person. The ATP sportsmanship award is named after him. In the end though, I agree with you that they should have recognized the historic moment much more. First Asian American winner during the week of Tianemen. I was 14 and it was electric.
Just saw this broadcast after all this time, and it seemed odd that Collins and Enberg were so subdued sounding, given the historic nature of what Chang had just done. Hard to believe they'd be rooting for Edberg. Oh well. Chang was awesome.
Regarding Edberg's foot faults - he was absolutely notorious for them (especially when he was nervous) and it was something everyone looked out for as a measure of how Edberg was playing and his state of mind. I don't think it was unreasonable for Bud Collins to "obsess" about them. It was a key indicator of Edberg's form.
Did the commentator really say "Maybe we should thank Mao Tse Tung for this"?? I guess I kinda see what he was trying to say but that seriously was a stupid comment, especially on live tv.
Maybe back then people weren't looking to be so offended or looking for offense, unlike today.
ZigZaggy P Yes I'm sure you'd prefer if those pesky minorities would just shut up and know their place like the "good old days"
To clarify, I read recently that this tournament happened during the Tiananmen Square uprising and that Chang's run made a big impact in China, so in that context the comment doesn't seem so much out of left field.
talk like this was common in the past. words like "colored" or "midget" were thrown around freely. Now you can't say anything without someone being offended.
Bud Collins was notorious for saying stupid shit....!
Edberg absolutely botched the 1989 French Open Men's Singles Final to Chang. Throughout the match Edberg made the colossal mistake during baseline rallies of waiting until the fourth or fifth short ball from Chang before advancing to the net. That tactical mistake caused Edberg to tire, and in the fifth set he was so tired that he repeatedly made forehand groundstroke errors.
guess Lendl botched, too. Not that I would hold Chang in high regards for that matter.
it was the heavy top spin killed
Too much respect for Chang's passing shots.
Quite a dramatic upload, thanks for putting it up.
Oh my! Enberg & Collins doing the play by play for the French, then Wimbledon... ahh memories! 🤙
@ stephen lucas. You forgot that Yannick Noah won the 1983 French Open Mens' Singles title by serve-and-volleying.
yes and Mac almost won in 1984
Noah played from the baseline that final. It wasnt pure serve and volley in that game.
@ stephen lucas. Edberg did not serve-and-volley on every point in every one of his service games against Chang in the 1989 French Open Men's Singles Final. For example, Edberg did not follow his serve into the net on the 0-30, 0-40, 15-40 and 30-40 points in the fourth game of the fifth set. And Edberg did not serve-and-volley on every single point of every one of his service games in the first six rounds of the 1989 French Open. Although Edberg liked to serve-and-volley on both his first and second serve in his matches, even he did not serve-and-volley on every single point of all of his service games.
nice edit! and it's in english too. dick enberg and bud collins were great together.
Edberg’s forehand was a disaster in that fifth set. A complete disaster.
His forehand had a tendency to be a disaster.
Along with his foot faults, his forehand was always an indicator of how sharp he was. When he started foot faulting and missing his forehand you knew he was in trouble.
I have been disappointed that Michael Chang has not won any grandslams after winning only 1 French Open.
Rafa was 3 years old and just began to be honed by Uncle Toni. From righty to lefty. 12 and counting. Amazing. Hope he wins 2 or 3 more.
Already at 14 and counting
@@astonm.8173 Incredible achievement! Beyond Incredible. That will NEVER be broken.
At the end Chang deserved but...so many errors for Edberg in the 5th! Pity...his style is still art!
Thanks for uploading!!!!!! and it's good quality!!!!! Do you have the Lendl match too!? =)
do you know why the French don't want to show it in full ??.. its strange having the last few games deliberately cut off chang v lendl match.
I'm not surprised at the reactions of the commentators. It still goes on today. These old white tennis players still think it's a white sport.
Tony Trabert was beside himself that this little (Asian) kid won. Couldn't even bring himself to root for a fellow American.
vivahernando1 I think he's a white guy with a fake black guys account lmao
Why bring race into this discussion? Chang's style of play was perfectly suited for clay courts and he had an edge on Edberg, who is a serve and volleyer. Just sit back and enjoy the tennis and don't worry about their race, religion, or any other nonsense.
Anjong:
Sunil Thomas makes a perfectly intelligent point. race plays a huge factor in many things but probably not so much during a tennis match. at least, not if you understand anything about tennis... as to the commentators themselves, although sometimes done clumsily, it was clear that they were trying build Chang up, not tear him down. by bringing race into a situation where that is not warranted, you are degrading all human beings involved. the need to do so can be a sign of ignorance, desperation and hatred. do any of those motives apply to you here, Anjong?
CHANG My favourite player (ALONG Jim Courier)
chang is american, not taiwanese
He's still a communist !
1st place gets a cool trophy, 2nd place gets a dinner tray.
wimbledon also but how cool would it be to go to Edberg's house and receive cheese and crackers on that tray !!
@@user-jv9qz2bu1r they only actually get a small copy of it.
Obviously the announcers were Edberg fans. "The net slowed the ball down which helped Chang." Ok dude, if that isn't biased idk what is.
Daniel Quiroz:
yes, that's right - you don't know what is biased. they are commentators and are supposed to COMMENT. typically, when the ball hits the net, it slows. a slow ball for a person hitting a forehand past a net player is an advantage for the baseliner. please explain to me how in your brain pointing that out could be a biased statement... i'm quite eager to listen to what could be a fascinating explanation.
??? Do you have some kind of persecution complex? They're just describing what actually happened? That's not bias?
SO HARD JUST TO WIN 1 French OPEN !!!!
RAFA makes it Look Easy 13 French Open WOW
Look how much hair Chang had back then
John Patrick McEnroe thinks Michael Te Pei Chang is just lucky to beat Edberg, he doesn't believe it.
Michael Te Pei Chang can get the second GS, the result is that Michael Te Pei Chang really only took GS once.
McEnroe also said that Ivanesivich was merely a good server - which infuriated Goran! Max is opinionated but I do not always agree.
John Patrick McEnroe thinks Michael Te Pei Chang is just lucky to beat Edberg, he doesn't believe Michael Te Pei Chang can get the second GS, the result is that Michael Te Pei Chang really only took GS once.
In my posted comment about the 1983 French Open Men's Singles Final, I failed to put the apostrophe after the letter ''n'' in the word ''Men's'' and put the apostrophe after the letter ''s'' by mistake.
At least Edberg made a French final. Can't say that about serve and volleyers like Sampras or Becker
+Sirknight2016 Maybe because he was good enough (and he was) to win his one and only major that day..
+Gregoryt700 Funny how boris becker knocked out the little china man in 1991 in the Qf .
Micheal chang was juiced in his 89 victory ,he was able to outlast Lendl ,Edberg to win RG a complete Fluke.
+Sirknight2016 As I recall, Michael Chang was an American citizen. He is also an exception to your comment that Chinese people "suck" at tennis. Sure, I hardly here of Chinese tennis players, but Michael Chang did not "suck" (like some people do)..
+Ebonyknight The topic is that Michael Chang was a professional tennis player. Therefore, he was very good and he did not "suck" at all. End of topic..
+Ebonyknight Oh, sorry there, Ebony. My bad. Carry on. Chang rules lol..
Edberg played with his watch on. Classic!
Edberg and Lendl lost because of lack of mentality - against a boy of 17 who had the nerfs and the will … unbelievable.
More fun Stefan play on Clay than the Wimbledon final
Would most people agree that Edberg was a huge underachiever? It seem thsat he had a ton of talent but he couldn't win big matches.
Dick Enberg & Bud Collins...there will be no better tennis commentary 🙏
For clay court groundstroke is more effective than serve and volley
toujours aussi fabuleux!!!
I have no idea why. I find it stupid. What is so wrong with having the last few games? They allowed the first 4 1/2 sets to be shown no problem. But we never get to see the ending.
It would be nice the see the actual match point as it was broadcast.
对中国人来说，张德培是很多人的第一个网球偶像
Funny how a year earlier John McEnroe simply destroyed Chang in 3 sets without much of an effort at RG.
マイケルチャンは若い時格好良いよね❗爽やか青年👱
Could he miss any more volleys
So this match can be shown in its entirety, but the French won't allow the Chang/Lendl 4R match to be fully shown? I'm not following that at all.
Incredible what Chang could do with alll his athletic and physique limitatiion........he was a really short player for tennsi standards and without athlticism to compensate.........bad to ok backhand and a bad serve. he compensate this alll with his mental toughness and
perseverance
Without athleticism? Chang was the fastest player on the tour at the time.
His backhand was just fine to me
What would have happened in a Becker-Chang final. I feel Boris had a stronger serve. Chang would have struggled to break Boris
although becker had a stronger serve, his game was never suited for clay. the best he did at the french was three semis...and had lost all six times he reached a clay final.
Chang lost to Becker at the 1991 french open in the quarters in straight sets. Becker seems to have really had Chang's number. He only lost to chang once in all their meetings
@@chinobalam Chang lost to Becker at the 1991 french open in straight sets. Becker really had Chang's number, only ever losing to him once.
Legendary
The biggest mystery in tennis: Chang wins a GS at 17, but couldn't win another GS for the rest of his career.
@TheSuperstick55 A "crap player"? The French Open champ, who eventually reached #2 in the world. Never won any other majors but got to the finals of a couple more. Hardly a bad player.
miracle, 17 only
What a terrible fifth set by Edberg, so many completely unforced errors.
jefdarcy when legs are tired the rest starts falling
Why aren't they screaming stuff like "Pint-sized genius!!" and "Boy Wonder floors the tennis world!!" and "Changaldinho!!" and "Our Oriental Marvel strikes down the Nord!!" and "Yellow Mozart!!" and "Under-age but drunk with success" and "Junior Beast Boy!!!"??
...dim commentary
and Badminton.
The Net >>> Edberg
Edberg played horribly in this match. Dude couldn't hit a volley to save his life.
Shook hands as two competitors would and should. And, none of this constant freaking hugging.
Have you considered being less salty? I highly recommend it.
"Edberg's tired" again biased!
Daniel Quiroz:
you still kicking - i see your comment is from 6 years ago?
if so...
sometimes ignorance biases a person towards believing lies. other times, good information biased them towards believing the truth. so, yes, the commentator was biased, just as you are, except his conclusions were reality-based.
Edberg's body language and play clearly indicates fatigue to anyone who has ever played the game of tennis. how many times did Edberg - one of the best volleyers the game has ever seen - dump the ball into the net in the final set? how many times was he just a little late in his movements? have you ever played tennis, i wonder?
also, some common sense/intelligence would tell you he was tired, without having even to watch the match... 5 sets in the final playing against Chang who ran so many shots down and kept so many rallies going? come on most athletes of that day would be tired, especially a non-baseliner like Edberg. in fact, even Chang, who was an endurance-type player and just a kid chronologically, had himself experienced cramping earlier in that same tournament.
Chang did not win, though, because Edberg was tired. he won, in part, because Chang was not. it was a level playing field in that there can be no excuses in a major tournament.
i was rooting for Chang in my grandmother's home, despite the liking i had for Edberg. Chang, whatever you want to say about him, is a warrior. he was, symbolically, proudly fighting for many oppressed people and a respect for young people on the world stage.
tennis-wise, he was very young and rose to the challenge. you don't win a major without playing some darn good tennis. on the other hand, i saw unusually bad play from Lendl and Edberg during this tournament, possibly being worn out by them physically and/or mentally. Chang, therefore, also had a rare opportunity...
i'm glad Chang won the French Open.
i still remember watching that match to this day.
in any case, please consider me biased towards the truth and common sense/intelligence, rather than the fragility of the deluded who are incapable of or can't be bothered to indulge in rigorous thought.
He Had A Tough Semifinal-Match In 5 Sets Against Becker Before.
He quite clearly was tired though? Reporting reality isn't biased? Chang had worn him down and outlasted him.
亞洲之光張德培
And he never won again
Wow. Bitter much? :-)
🐂
@weedermann Sorry, I think it was my mood of the day. Of course he wasn't crap, he even won a major. I just don't like the tiny sob. ;-)
Lucky pusher.
What an awful match...
How so?
absolutely no need to make it a racist situation. BTW, I don't think there has ever been a Chinese or Taiwanese or any other fish heads that were number 1 in tennis. Also, table tennis; Who the hell cares about table tennis?
Legendary