Hewitt was an excellent player. As Pete and others have said, Hewitt would have won more majors in most eras but this era had the three greatest of all time. Lleyton was never going to win ten majors (lack of power and lack of a big shot) but he could certainly have won four or five in some eras. Same can be said for Roddick and maybe Safin, too. Wilander had no power at all but won seven. Hewitt in the Wilander era could have done very well but the modern game and the three awesome greats were just too good for him...as they would have been for many fine players from many eras.
@@1nalh Not quite, in 2004 and 2005 Federer and Hewitt were both peaking. But Hewitt and Djokovic didn't really overlap at any point. And with Nadal only slightly.
@@fuadasr8577 And a gentleman from Argentina, Del Potro. If Del Potro wasn't injured for half of his career, this guy would have taken at least 3 or 4 GSs away from the Big 3.
Back when Lleyton could rely completely on his speed, before his ankles and hips started to protest. His tennis IQ never left him but he just didn't have the weapons to beat the big guys after that.
@@iggypopisgod9 during Hewitt's peak years of 1999-2004 he led Federer 7-2...I'd say that qualifies as "often". Sure, this was before Federer peaked himself, and he ended up being dominated from 2004 onward. Once he started rolling his ankles he couldn't cover as much or the court and had no answer for the weaponry of the likes of Federer, Nadal, Safin, Roddick, etc.
Lleyton looked really good back in 2001. Then he faded away faster than a speeding auto. Pete shouldn't retire so soon. The racket's improved tech didn't favor Pete's net or serve/volley skills but I think he could adjust his game to adapt. Pete had the best serves in terms of placement and tactic. If Pete was to compete for another 5 years, the GSs landscape would be altered in some ways.
@@MeMe-td1ye lmao courts started getting slower in the mid 90s and federer beat Sampras on fast grass at wimbledon playing serve and volley, something Hewitt has never done. The 2005 us open was pretty fast as well, yet Hewitt didn't stand a chance. The courts have nothing to do with federer beating Hewitt, it's mainly due to fed hitting his prime and Hewitt declining.
Sampras wins over Agassi the following year 2002, a player Sampras was much more familiar with than Safin and Hewitt. When Sampras won the US Open Agassi was usually across the net. Sampras had anemia. Could that explain this loss? Did Hewitt just zone, playing his best match ever here? Also wasn't Sampras actually a huge favorite in this US Open final. This play from Hewitt rocked the tennis world, just 2 days before 9-11. Seems like yesterday, huh?
@@ronniep9272 Marat Safin kept Sampras in Base line. 2002 Australian open 4th Round between Safin & Sampras was like French open. Sampras style became outdated with emergence of Next Gen players like Safin, Hewitt, Federer who played passing shots when Sampras approached net. Agassi, Becker, Ivanisevic & Courier not good at playing passing shot agaist Sampras
@@soundar4270 Sampras was very good from the baseline early on in his career, he was able to rally well against baseliners like Agassi and Courier. It was only from the late 90s that he charged the net on nearly every point. At his peak he had much more to his game than other serve volley players like McEnroe, Becker, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Kraijecek.
@@ronniep9272 Hewitt was a better defensive player than Agassi and Courier, he had a bit more power than Chang and was as speedy as Chang. Hewitt seemed to be anticipating where the service was going to go and got a lot of balls back rather than slashing out for winners as Agassi did. He did not have that mental block that Agassi and Courier had in the big matches as he was a player from another generation.
@@jliang70well Sampras was older at this point and his rallying skills had diminished. His coach at the time just told him to rush the net all the time.
Great point, I remember watching this and thinking that the ease with which Hewitt passed the greatest serve and volleyer heralded a change in the game. He passed Pete at will and here we are twenty years later and I doubt Hewitt could have competed with Rafa or Novak.
I think the Sampras of 93-96 would have given Hewitt a much tougher match and the previous matches en route to the final had clearly taken a lot out of him, but Hewitt's game clearly bothered him, - Hewitt winning 5 out of their last 6 encounters. It was almost a return to the start of Sampras's career, when he lost his first 5 matches against another speedy counter puncher - Michael Chang, including a 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 thrashing at the 1989 French Open and 7-6, 6-0 loss in LA in 1989.
I agree there was a passing of the torch. The game started changing in 2000, 2001, 2002. You had the rise of Safin and Hewitt. I think it's a thing where Agassi was ahead of his time by being so good with his forehand AND his backhand. But the game caught up because Safin had one of the best two-handers of all time, and Hewitt had amazing speed, return, and defensive skills. They paved the way for guys like Nadal and Djokovic and Murray. The game became more about fitness, grinding, long battles from the baseline ..... You could approach the net but very high chance of people hitting passing shots on you. (And also, let's not forget about the other passing of the torch when Federer beat him at Wimbledon. Although, that was more of a classic serve and volley battle)
@@zeddeka Pete looks lethargic here - painful for me to watch - he is not explosive - only now and then do we see Pete the Superstar - really weak approach shots
I remember watching this as a kid. Even though Sampras was ranked 10 at the time, he was still the best big game player and Lleyton was definitely the underdog. Some of Lleyton's returns off the Sampras serve were top class at the time. I remember with each returning winner, Pete's body language became more negative - you could sense the complete demoralisation. It was almost like Pete himself could sense that it wasnt going to be his day.
Hilarious that the commentators thought it was an achievement for Sampras to be contesting a final at 30 years and 7 months, given what Nadal, Federer and Djokovic did after age 35.
Look how quickly the ball moves between each point and after the bounce...this was the before slower courts and grippier strings.. Nadal is the main benefactor to the changes.
Nesse esporte 🎾 me falaram de Molgou 😂😂 Nunca até desisti dele na Requer Silêncio Concentração não leva Torcida do Grêmio do Flamengo Palmeiras 🌴 Os Brasileiros brasileiras me envergonha Falta de Educação deixo a vida cobra como Polícia 🚔 meus golpes
Petros Sampras could Of reached twenty slams imo. But he considered how far ahead he was in front with the rest of the slam achievers in his 14 slams, which was impressive then…….I think he thought he had a lifelong record with his 14? Which he figured he’d retire? I’d guess His wife also convinced him to retire early with his familial obligations I’d guess? Pete was really great. Kudos to him and his achievements. He has a higher percentage of grand slam wins than the “big 3”.
Young Hewitt was the worst matchup for Pete. Too much foot speed, excellent returns of serve, and too good of passing shots to counter Pete's tendency to aggressively go to the net.
He won 2000 wimbledon so you are wrong besides he destroyed Safin at 2000 masters cup. in 2001 Hewitt played the best tennis of his life and if you say Sampras was slow for Reaching the us open final the other 127 players must be a 🐢
@@edwinivanrodriguez3769 Lost to Safin the previous year, lost to Hewitt here, lost to Federer at Wimbledon. He was getting found out by the new young players. Could win again when he faced Agassi the following year.
Hewitt played a great match no question! Pete Sampras looked flat to me & he paid the price for serving to Hewitt's two handed backhand on the ad side of the court in particular. Hewitt got more & more confident & Pete just couldn't do anything about it that particular day. Pete perhaps could have served more up the T or tried to stay back more. Sampras just wasn't fit enough or sharp enough that particular day. Still Pete was humiliated by Hewitt. To lose the last two sets 6-1, 6-1 was probably Pete Sampras' most humbling day in his career. Still Pete came back & won in 2002. As for Hewitt, he couldn't deal with the Big three from 2004 on, although it wasn't until 2006 or 2007 that they were all too good for him. Too big, too much variety, and simply too good.
Agree! The Big 3 is an anomaly. They are head and shoulder above the rest. But it is also a blessing that there are 3 of them. Imagine just Roger and Rafa without Novak. Both Roger and Rafa would have won 25 GSs already. If there is just one of the Big 3, this player would have 40 GSs by now.
@@MeMe-td1ye I have been playing tennis for the past 35 years. I could be senseless or not sensitive, the balls had always been the same to me. Wilson balls might be a bit faster or lighter than other brands. But I think the difference is negligible.
@@benthekeeshond545 Bigger Balls May Slow Tennis Matches By Amanda Onion January 7, 2006, 7:23 AM ET • 5 min read Sept. 20, 2000 -- When Pete Sampras finishes off his opponents, he often does so in an efficient, rather uninteresting manner - he serves another ace. Even Sampras admits his dominance can make his games somewhat clinical. “There was nothing dramatic about the match,” he told reporters after soundly defeating Martin Damm in this year’s U.S. Open. Sampras’ blazing serves are exactly what the International Tennis Foundation (ITF) is hoping to tone down. Some believe the best way to increase exchanges and cut down the number of aces is to use a bigger ball. And new results from scientific studies in England suggest a new ball, which is 6 percent larger, has just that effect. More Sweat Per Point “The number of shots per point increased dramatically,” says Sean Mitchell, a sports technologist from Loughborough University in England who conducted tests on the new ball for the ITF. “We took that to mean that players were still matched the same, but they had to put more effort into each point because the serve was less dominant.” The Loughborough study, which evaluated four men and four women college players, showed an overall increase in rallies among all the players when using the larger ball. And among the men in particular, the number of shots per point increased even more markedly, by 25 percent. The oversized ball is 2.79 inches in diameter, compared with the conventional ball’s 2.63 diameter - about the difference between an apple and an orange. To make up for the larger size, the skin of the ball is slightly thinner so both balls weigh exactly the same. While thinner, the larger ball’s rubber covering is also slightly firmer, so each ball travels at the same rate from the racket. Where the balls differ is how fast they sail through the air and how they bounce once they strike the other side. “The physics is simple, really,” says Steven Haake, a mechanical engineer at Sheffield University who studied the new ball’s movement. “The larger ball slows down in the air because it’s larger and has more drag.” Haake explained the ball’s size also makes it bounce from the court at a steeper angle. That’s because the larger surface area of the ball causes it to compress more on the bounce and more forward energy is absorbed. Put together, the effects of the larger ball mean an opponent has more time to react to a shot or serve and must put more energy into each hit to make the ball travel fast and far. Tennis Elbows Researchers are still number crunching results from recent United States Tennis Association tests at the University of San Francisco. But Duane Knudson, an exercise scientist from California State University in Chico reports, “Many subjects thought the ball ‘felt’ heavier, even though the mass of the ball is the same … ” That ‘heavier ball’ perception is a little worrisome to trainers, since players might be inclined to hit the ball harder each time to make it travel further and faster. Hitting the ball hard over a long time can lead to muscle strain or a condition known as tennis elbow. To test for muscle strain in the Loughborough study, Mitchell and his colleague Mike Caine had each player perform grip tests and evaluate their muscle soreness after each day’s session. The players performed drills and played in matches for four days straight. On the first and third days, they used standard sized balls and on the second and fourth days, they played with the larger ball. If the ball were adding more strain, the expectation was the players would feel more soreness and their grips would weaken on the second and fourth days. Mitchell said they noticed no difference. But Will They Like It? Even if tests prove the oversized ball has the desired effect on the game, how players would feel about playing with a larger ball is less clear. Wimbledon tournament officials still resist the early 1970s’ change from white to yellow tennis balls. Many decried oversized rackets when they were introduced in the mid-1970s, saying they made hitting the ball too easy. And, most recently, people have been perplexed by the new purple courts at the Canadian Tennis Masters. So far, it seems players have similarly ambiguous feelings about the new ball. Among the eight college players tested in the recent studies at Loughborough University, six said they preferred the new ball, one remained neutral and one said she strongly preferred the standard ball. Mitchell points out that the person who favored the standard sized ball was also a very strong server. “She may have expected to win more easily,” he says. When the ball was introduced at four Davis Cup matches among fourth level players, it had less than glowing reviews. As Paul Rose, a project technologist for the ITF, reports, the Davis Cup players “had a mixed reaction.” Mixed feelings aside, Rose is fairly confident the ball will eventually make its way into professional tennis. “I’d say there’s a real possibility the ball will be introduced,” he says. “If you’re the number one seed, you’re still going to win matches. It will just make the game more interesting for spectators.” The larger balls, which are newly available from tennis ball manufacturers, Wilson and Penn, may have a bigger effect among casual players. Haake calculates the new balls give professional players about 10 percent more time to respond to a shot. For recreational players with slower serves and shots, that extra reaction time doubles. “I’m a player who is not terribly fast, slick or clever,” says Haake. “So for everyday players like me, it can be a great learning tool.”
@@benthekeeshond545 im confused, i thought a grand slam meant you had to win all four major titles in one calender year. if so no one can win all 4 for 25 years straight....or am i misinformed?
Pete, as three time defending Wimby champ, lost to teenage Federer at Wimbledon. I don’t think he would’ve fared well at all considering he was much closer to his peak than Federer was and on the most favorable surface
Top 3 have a level of tennis variation that Sampras could not handle. Even the new gen (Sinner, Alcaraz, Medvedev) has it. Sampras was a fanstastic player, but from an era where playing mono-dimentionally was enough, he was excellent at serve amd volley, attacking and net game.
If Sampras played in Nadal's era, Sampras could win a match only with 90% 1st serve. Because, Nadal would run from Baseline to net in no time & play Passing shot. Nadal made Roger Federer run on entire Wimbledon court in 2007 & 2008 to win every point Sampras was class but he had limitations. Perhaps, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Courier, Becker could not run faster & make Passing shot when Sampras approached Net in 1990s.
If only Hewett played this way with this type of intensity and skill against federer he would have won more grandslams easily since he faced federer alot during his career. Layton gifted alot of matches away to federer.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 his serve might have been better, but his all around game had declined significantly by this point. This was not the Sampras of the 90s.
Hewitt's act was always so funny to me. Trying to stare and scowl and shake fists and break bad like he's a tough guy. Like...Dude, this isn't rugby. You are a 5'5" "bloke" playing tennis.
Who would have thought that just three years later, a young Swiss would - kind of - avenge Pete's defeat beating the same player with almost the same score (I think it was 7-6, 6-1, 6-0). Of course, has to be Roger... 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙏🏼
If anybody wants to know how prime Sampras would fare against prime Federer or Djokovic in the mid 2000’s or 2010’s please refer to this video. Dude wouldn’t have even won a set
This is comprehensive and convincing. Those returns and passing shots against Sampras, impressive.
Hewitt was an excellent player. As Pete and others have said, Hewitt would have won more majors in most eras but this era had the three greatest of all time. Lleyton was never going to win ten majors (lack of power and lack of a big shot) but he could certainly have won four or five in some eras. Same can be said for Roddick and maybe Safin, too. Wilander had no power at all but won seven. Hewitt in the Wilander era could have done very well but the modern game and the three awesome greats were just too good for him...as they would have been for many fine players from many eras.
hewitt was at his peak prior to federer being at his peak. hewitt peaked earlier.
@@1nalh Not quite, in 2004 and 2005 Federer and Hewitt were both peaking. But Hewitt and Djokovic didn't really overlap at any point. And with Nadal only slightly.
I couldn’t agree more same with Murray and Wawrinka
@@fuadasr8577
And a gentleman from Argentina, Del Potro. If Del Potro wasn't injured for half of his career, this guy would have taken at least 3 or 4 GSs away from the Big 3.
Hewitt depends on mobility. He was lightning quick in this match, but he was never the same as he got older.
Back when Lleyton could rely completely on his speed, before his ankles and hips started to protest. His tennis IQ never left him but he just didn't have the weapons to beat the big guys after that.
Yep. Peak Hewitt was around this time. Beat federer often too
between this victory and his retirement the courts and balls got slowed down a lot too so that didn't play into his favour
Yep. Peak Hewitt was around this time. Beat federer often too
Fed dominated him 18-9
@@iggypopisgod9 during Hewitt's peak years of 1999-2004 he led Federer 7-2...I'd say that qualifies as "often".
Sure, this was before Federer peaked himself, and he ended up being dominated from 2004 onward. Once he started rolling his ankles he couldn't cover as much or the court and had no answer for the weaponry of the likes of Federer, Nadal, Safin, Roddick, etc.
Sampras won the following year, I remember this match very well as when Hewitt won this final, then the next day or 2 September 11 happened
hewitt was a fighter, played sooo many 5 setters and won, feared noone even at a very young age
Lleyton looked really good back in 2001. Then he faded away faster than a speeding auto. Pete shouldn't retire so soon. The racket's improved tech didn't favor Pete's net or serve/volley skills but I think he could adjust his game to adapt. Pete had the best serves in terms of placement and tactic. If Pete was to compete for another 5 years, the GSs landscape would be altered in some ways.
no way he could win against Mr Federer 2004 version
Sampras did great by retiring as a winner. He was old and injured.
Hewouldn't stand a chance against anyone by 2003.
@@carlosm9364 Hewitt beat federer regularly before courts got slower & tennis balls got bigger
@@MeMe-td1ye lmao courts started getting slower in the mid 90s and federer beat Sampras on fast grass at wimbledon playing serve and volley, something Hewitt has never done. The 2005 us open was pretty fast as well, yet Hewitt didn't stand a chance. The courts have nothing to do with federer beating Hewitt, it's mainly due to fed hitting his prime and Hewitt declining.
@@MeMe-td1ye lol no...by mid 2003 federer had hewitt's number and was not loosing to Hewitt.
Being a huge Pete Sampras fan this match hurt more than any other loss
his run in us open 2001 was more impressive than 2000 and 2002 combined !
It's proof Agassi was better.
Sampras wins over Agassi the following year 2002, a player Sampras was much more familiar with than Safin and Hewitt. When Sampras won the US Open Agassi was usually across the net. Sampras had anemia. Could that explain this loss? Did Hewitt just zone, playing his best match ever here? Also wasn't Sampras actually a huge favorite in this US Open final. This play from Hewitt rocked the tennis world, just 2 days before 9-11. Seems like yesterday, huh?
@@ciaronsmith4995better than what? Sampras?!? The guy who beat Andre four times at the USO?
So? Andre was better than Pete post Meth.@@rjamesyork 2001 could have gone either way and 2002 was a joke, Andre had 0 days rest.
Lleyton got into Pete’s head in this match and Pete started coming to net on almost everything.
That was Sampras's style from the late 90s onwards.
@@ronniep9272 Marat Safin kept Sampras in Base line. 2002 Australian open 4th Round between Safin & Sampras was like French open.
Sampras style became outdated with emergence of Next Gen players like Safin, Hewitt, Federer who played passing shots when Sampras approached net.
Agassi, Becker, Ivanisevic & Courier not good at playing passing shot agaist Sampras
@@soundar4270 Sampras was very good from the baseline early on in his career, he was able to rally well against baseliners like Agassi and Courier. It was only from the late 90s that he charged the net on nearly every point.
At his peak he had much more to his game than other serve volley players like McEnroe, Becker, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Kraijecek.
@@ronniep9272 Hewitt was a better defensive player than Agassi and Courier, he had a bit more power than Chang and was as speedy as Chang. Hewitt seemed to be anticipating where the service was going to go and got a lot of balls back rather than slashing out for winners as Agassi did. He did not have that mental block that Agassi and Courier had in the big matches as he was a player from another generation.
@@jliang70well Sampras was older at this point and his rallying skills had diminished. His coach at the time just told him to rush the net all the time.
To think that Sampras has still won a grand slam more recently than Hewitt though lol
LOL...
@@angel91485that thought cheers my heart. I was crestfallen after this match.
Federer is to blame
If you ever want to explain to someone why serve & volleying went extinct, just show them these highlights. Very much a "passing of the torch" moment
Great point, I remember watching this and thinking that the ease with which Hewitt passed the greatest serve and volleyer heralded a change in the game. He passed Pete at will and here we are twenty years later and I doubt Hewitt could have competed with Rafa or Novak.
I think the Sampras of 93-96 would have given Hewitt a much tougher match and the previous matches en route to the final had clearly taken a lot out of him, but Hewitt's game clearly bothered him, - Hewitt winning 5 out of their last 6 encounters. It was almost a return to the start of Sampras's career, when he lost his first 5 matches against another speedy counter puncher - Michael Chang, including a 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 thrashing at the 1989 French Open and 7-6, 6-0 loss in LA in 1989.
I agree there was a passing of the torch. The game started changing in 2000, 2001, 2002. You had the rise of Safin and Hewitt. I think it's a thing where Agassi was ahead of his time by being so good with his forehand AND his backhand. But the game caught up because Safin had one of the best two-handers of all time, and Hewitt had amazing speed, return, and defensive skills. They paved the way for guys like Nadal and Djokovic and Murray. The game became more about fitness, grinding, long battles from the baseline ..... You could approach the net but very high chance of people hitting passing shots on you. (And also, let's not forget about the other passing of the torch when Federer beat him at Wimbledon. Although, that was more of a classic serve and volley battle)
@@zeddeka Pete looks lethargic here - painful for me to watch - he is not explosive - only now and then do we see Pete the Superstar - really weak approach shots
yeah, then a year later in 2002 Sampras wins US Open with serve and volley...
36 hours later in new york 9/11 happened
Sampras losing was the bigger tragedy.
I remember watching this as a kid. Even though Sampras was ranked 10 at the time, he was still the best big game player and Lleyton was definitely the underdog.
Some of Lleyton's returns off the Sampras serve were top class at the time. I remember with each returning winner, Pete's body language became more negative - you could sense the complete demoralisation. It was almost like Pete himself could sense that it wasnt going to be his day.
Hilarious that the commentators thought it was an achievement for Sampras to be contesting a final at 30 years and 7 months, given what Nadal, Federer and Djokovic did after age 35.
Actually he was born August 12, 1971 so he was about 30 years & 3 1/2 weeks old on that Sept. 9, 2001.
Look how quickly the ball moves between each point and after the bounce...this was the before slower courts and grippier strings.. Nadal is the main benefactor to the changes.
This court on that day was the deathbed of the serve-and-volley game. More powerful rackets and polyester strings were the final nails in the coffin.
Thank God.
A younger Pete would have been more patient and created his attacking opportunities from the baseline
He won the next year. Still plenty in the tank
Part of it was his back. His back limited his conditioning which forced to play with less patience
@@MeMe-td1ye He won by playing weak opponents and an exhausted Agassi in the final. Sampras was incomplete compared to Agassi and some others.
Nesse esporte 🎾 me falaram de Molgou 😂😂 Nunca até desisti dele na Requer Silêncio Concentração não leva Torcida do Grêmio do Flamengo Palmeiras 🌴 Os Brasileiros brasileiras me envergonha Falta de Educação deixo a vida cobra como Polícia 🚔 meus golpes
@@MeMe-td1ye his training for the next year’s event was different. There are clips of him preparing before his match with Agassi.
This was 2 days before 9/11.
Petros Sampras could
Of reached twenty slams imo. But he considered how far ahead he was in front with the rest of the slam achievers in his 14 slams, which was impressive then…….I think he thought he had a lifelong record with his 14? Which he figured he’d retire? I’d guess His wife also convinced him to retire early with his familial obligations I’d guess? Pete was really great. Kudos to him and his achievements. He has a higher percentage of grand slam wins than the “big 3”.
Masterpiece 👍 ✌️
🇨🇴🇯🇵 🇯🇵🇨🇴 🇨🇴🇯🇵 🇯🇵🇨🇴 🙏🙏🙏🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙☕☕☕☕und schokolat too 💔💔💔💔💔❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥😱😱😱😱🫠🫠🫠🫠🫠🇲🇽🇪🇨🇨🇦🇨🇱...
🇹🇩🇻🇪 🇻🇪🇹🇩 🇹🇩🇻🇪 🇻🇪🇹🇩 🇹🇩🇻🇪 🙏🙏🙏 ☕☕☕☕
🇲🇽🇧🇬 🇧🇬🇲🇽 🇲🇽🇧🇬 🇧🇬🇲🇽 🇲🇽🇧🇬 🇧🇬🇲🇽 ☕☕☕☕☕⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽🫶🫶🫶🫶🫶🤝🤝🤝🤝🤝 lanetacarnal!!!
Young Hewitt was the worst matchup for Pete. Too much foot speed, excellent returns of serve, and too good of passing shots to counter Pete's tendency to aggressively go to the net.
best match hewitt ever played
That and the Davis Cup match against Kuerten in Brazil
Great match from Hewitt!
15:53 “Thanks mate I appreciate it”
In late years Sampras look like slow and without Power to win easily at the net. Loss to Hewitt, Safin, two years without win tournaments.
He won 2000 wimbledon so you are wrong besides he destroyed Safin at 2000 masters cup. in 2001 Hewitt played the best tennis of his life and if you say Sampras was slow for Reaching the us open final the other 127 players must be a 🐢
@@edwinivanrodriguez3769 he also defeated Safin in the semifinals of this very tournament.
It was the final of the US Open..
@@edwinivanrodriguez3769 hewitt was in prime form in 2001 and 2002 . he was the world no.1 in 2002.
@@edwinivanrodriguez3769 Lost to Safin the previous year, lost to Hewitt here, lost to Federer at Wimbledon. He was getting found out by the new young players. Could win again when he faced Agassi the following year.
este fue el principio del final de los jugadores de saque y volea
Hewitt played a great match no question! Pete Sampras looked flat to me & he paid the price for serving to Hewitt's two handed backhand on the ad side of the court in particular. Hewitt got more & more confident & Pete just couldn't do anything about it that particular day. Pete perhaps could have served more up the T or tried to stay back more. Sampras just wasn't fit enough or sharp enough that particular day. Still Pete was humiliated by Hewitt. To lose the last two sets 6-1, 6-1 was probably Pete Sampras' most humbling day in his career. Still Pete came back & won in 2002. As for Hewitt, he couldn't deal with the Big three from 2004 on, although it wasn't until 2006 or 2007 that they were all too good for him. Too big, too much variety, and simply too good.
Agree! The Big 3 is an anomaly. They are head and shoulder above the rest. But it is also a blessing that there are 3 of them. Imagine just Roger and Rafa without Novak. Both Roger and Rafa would have won 25 GSs already. If there is just one of the Big 3, this player would have 40 GSs by now.
Courts got slower & tennis balls bigger. Worked against hewitt
@@MeMe-td1ye
I have been playing tennis for the past 35 years. I could be senseless or not sensitive, the balls had always been the same to me. Wilson balls might be a bit faster or lighter than other brands. But I think the difference is negligible.
@@benthekeeshond545 Bigger Balls May Slow Tennis Matches
By
Amanda Onion
January 7, 2006, 7:23 AM ET
• 5 min read
Sept. 20, 2000 -- When Pete Sampras finishes off his opponents, he often does so in an efficient, rather uninteresting manner - he serves another ace.
Even Sampras admits his dominance can make his games somewhat clinical. “There was nothing dramatic about the match,” he told reporters after soundly defeating Martin Damm in this year’s U.S. Open.
Sampras’ blazing serves are exactly what the International Tennis Foundation (ITF) is hoping to tone down. Some believe the best way to increase exchanges and cut down the number of aces is to use a bigger ball. And new results from scientific studies in England suggest a new ball, which is 6 percent larger, has just that effect.
More Sweat Per Point
“The number of shots per point increased dramatically,” says Sean Mitchell, a sports technologist from Loughborough University in England who conducted tests on the new ball for the ITF. “We took that to mean that players were still matched the same, but they had to put more effort into each point because the serve was less dominant.”
The Loughborough study, which evaluated four men and four women college players, showed an overall increase in rallies among all the players when using the larger ball. And among the men in particular, the number of shots per point increased even more markedly, by 25 percent.
The oversized ball is 2.79 inches in diameter, compared with the conventional ball’s 2.63 diameter - about the difference between an apple and an orange. To make up for the larger size, the skin of the ball is slightly thinner so both balls weigh exactly the same. While thinner, the larger ball’s rubber covering is also slightly firmer, so each ball travels at the same rate from the racket. Where the balls differ is how fast they sail through the air and how they bounce once they strike the other side.
“The physics is simple, really,” says Steven Haake, a mechanical engineer at Sheffield University who studied the new ball’s movement. “The larger ball slows down in the air because it’s larger and has more drag.”
Haake explained the ball’s size also makes it bounce from the court at a steeper angle. That’s because the larger surface area of the ball causes it to compress more on the bounce and more forward energy is absorbed. Put together, the effects of the larger ball mean an opponent has more time to react to a shot or serve and must put more energy into each hit to make the ball travel fast and far.
Tennis Elbows
Researchers are still number crunching results from recent United States Tennis Association tests at the University of San Francisco. But Duane Knudson, an exercise scientist from California State University in Chico reports, “Many subjects thought the ball ‘felt’ heavier, even though the mass of the ball is the same … ”
That ‘heavier ball’ perception is a little worrisome to trainers, since players might be inclined to hit the ball harder each time to make it travel further and faster. Hitting the ball hard over a long time can lead to muscle strain or a condition known as tennis elbow.
To test for muscle strain in the Loughborough study, Mitchell and his colleague Mike Caine had each player perform grip tests and evaluate their muscle soreness after each day’s session.
The players performed drills and played in matches for four days straight. On the first and third days, they used standard sized balls and on the second and fourth days, they played with the larger ball. If the ball were adding more strain, the expectation was the players would feel more soreness and their grips would weaken on the second and fourth days. Mitchell said they noticed no difference.
But Will They Like It?
Even if tests prove the oversized ball has the desired effect on the game, how players would feel about playing with a larger ball is less clear.
Wimbledon tournament officials still resist the early 1970s’ change from white to yellow tennis balls. Many decried oversized rackets when they were introduced in the mid-1970s, saying they made hitting the ball too easy. And, most recently, people have been perplexed by the new purple courts at the Canadian Tennis Masters.
So far, it seems players have similarly ambiguous feelings about the new ball. Among the eight college players tested in the recent studies at Loughborough University, six said they preferred the new ball, one remained neutral and one said she strongly preferred the standard ball. Mitchell points out that the person who favored the standard sized ball was also a very strong server.
“She may have expected to win more easily,” he says.
When the ball was introduced at four Davis Cup matches among fourth level players, it had less than glowing reviews. As Paul Rose, a project technologist for the ITF, reports, the Davis Cup players “had a mixed reaction.”
Mixed feelings aside, Rose is fairly confident the ball will eventually make its way into professional tennis.
“I’d say there’s a real possibility the ball will be introduced,” he says. “If you’re the number one seed, you’re still going to win matches. It will just make the game more interesting for spectators.”
The larger balls, which are newly available from tennis ball manufacturers, Wilson and Penn, may have a bigger effect among casual players. Haake calculates the new balls give professional players about 10 percent more time to respond to a shot. For recreational players with slower serves and shots, that extra reaction time doubles.
“I’m a player who is not terribly fast, slick or clever,” says Haake. “So for everyday players like me, it can be a great learning tool.”
@@benthekeeshond545 im confused, i thought a grand slam meant you had to win all four major titles in one calender year. if so no one can win all 4 for 25 years straight....or am i misinformed?
Lucky he met andre in the 02 final.
shame Pistol Pete lost this one
I am curious to know how peak Sampras would fare against the big 3 at their peak in His era or their era on non-clay surfaces.
DJOKOVIC WOULD DESTROY THAT ONE HANDED BACK HAND.
Pete, as three time defending Wimby champ, lost to teenage Federer at Wimbledon. I don’t think he would’ve fared well at all considering he was much closer to his peak than Federer was and on the most favorable surface
Top 3 have a level of tennis variation that Sampras could not handle. Even the new gen (Sinner, Alcaraz, Medvedev) has it. Sampras was a fanstastic player, but from an era where playing mono-dimentionally was enough, he was excellent at serve amd volley, attacking and net game.
thats how Sampras was so bad !!! and some idiots say he would win in this era hahah. DJoković would smoke Sampras
You Djokovic fanboys are a disgrace to the tennis community
Sampras’s strategy 😴 🥱
Two days later...
Without score it's horrible
One match too far for Sampras in this tournament.
5 days before attack...
He didn't have any big weapons. Had to play too many 5 setters against easy players. You can't fight every match in a slam draw.
Speed was his weapon. Won two grand slams
@@MeMe-td1ye yep, before the big 3 took over.
@@scottbrady4472 on proper grass court nadal & joker wouldn't have won anything
@@MeMe-td1ye dont you have to win all 4 major titles in one calender year to win a grand slam?
@@stavros693000 no
This was only 48 hrs before 9/11
If Sampras played in Nadal's era, Sampras could win a match only with 90% 1st serve. Because, Nadal would run from Baseline to net in no time & play Passing shot.
Nadal made Roger Federer run on entire Wimbledon court in 2007 & 2008 to win every point
Sampras was class but he had limitations.
Perhaps, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Courier, Becker could not run faster & make Passing shot when Sampras approached Net in 1990s.
The problem with Sampras is that his baseline game isn't very good.
Hewitt with an exhibition on how to beat pistol Pete
If only Hewett played this way with this type of intensity and skill against federer he would have won more grandslams easily since he faced federer alot during his career. Layton gifted alot of matches away to federer.
Federer wasn’t a poor stylistic matchup for Hewitt. Sampras was.
So nice to hear the late barry McKay in the commentary booth. Not the obnoxious McEnroe
Barry "oh yes" McKay
Lol 😆
Haha cry more hater
And people say Agassí had best return
Hewitt wouldn't have made all those returns vs the Sampras of the 90s. Sampras in 2001 was already a shadow of the player he was at his peak.
@@serenaistheb.o.a.t but his serve was much better in 2001 than in 96 oder 97.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 his serve might have been better, but his all around game had declined significantly by this point. This was not the Sampras of the 90s.
@@serenaistheb.o.a.t yes.but i spoke about return.i sayed ,that Hewit had better return than Agassi
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 he didn’t. Sampras was gassed by the end of the tournament
Hewitt won 2 slams, yet beats a legend in his first slam appearance, who wound up witj a 14 of 18 slam win 🏆 percentage? Hmmm? Define irony
Pete had 38 errors to Hewitts 13
Destruction.
Agassi was much better than both.
Did he actually say sampras was never really a beloved grand slam champion??? Smh only idiots would think that
Sampras would have won if he had stayed back and not served and volleyed.
He was not fast enough to play on the baseline
hewitt was the dumbest tennis player.
Hewitt's act was always so funny to me. Trying to stare and scowl and shake fists and break bad like he's a tough guy.
Like...Dude, this isn't rugby. You are a 5'5" "bloke" playing tennis.
5'11
@@DSN262 😆
Sampras looked awful
Who would have thought that just three years later, a young Swiss would - kind of - avenge Pete's defeat beating the same player with almost the same score (I think it was 7-6, 6-1, 6-0). Of course, has to be Roger... 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙏🏼
If anybody wants to know how prime Sampras would fare against prime Federer or Djokovic in the mid 2000’s or 2010’s please refer to this video. Dude wouldn’t have even won a set
11s