I'm extremely pleased that the class act of pete sampras would go out this way, winning his last match, the final, at the same venue it all started 12 yrs earlier, after not having won a tournament for 2+ yrs. Hollywood style ending.
@@jakehuang3545 Yes, and he had been competing against Agassi since they were both kids. I think they both brought out the best in each other regardless who won a particular match. Sampras & Agassi could play on a court in their backyard with nobody watching and they would be going all out to beat each other, yet still remain friends.
@@brownie43212 read my comment. Serena is the ONLY player, male or female, to have won 23 professional (7-match) grand slams. To claim that someone has 24 when they only had to play and win 5 matches is ridiculously incongruent. You either “adjust for inflation” and give Serena 6-12 additional slams for all the times she made the SF or F of a Slam, or you reduce Court’s count to reflect the number of times she actually had to play and win 7 matches for a slam. Can’t have it both ways if you wanna compare eras fairly!
I think the reason they call it vintage it's because that exact final had happened twice in the nineties, and seeing it happen again in 2002 at the end of both players' carreers gave a nostalgic feeling to all those who had been following them throughout the years.
@@t0msk8 that's exactly what it is, I don't know why they talked about generations here. It's just that the same thing happen 12 years earlier for the first time.
Nadal and djokovic: taking forever with messing around and endless ball bouncing for an average serve Sampras: Gets a ball. immediate effortless swing and serves bombs almost everytime. just a joy to watch him.
Yes and that was owesome to watch. I remember Petes one minute law games on his serve when returning player didnt hit a single ball. Like Agassi once said. I remember coming to court and coming out of the court. The rest is much blurred to me...
I feel this was the end of an era for the great American male tennis players. Ashe, Courier, McEnroe, Connors, Chang, Agassi, Sampras. It has been downhill since then.
No one is interested in this sport mainly their concentration is the 3 people currently. Tennis has become a commercial feature raking money by means of these 3 stars. In fact they have impeded the growth of upcoming players due to their dominance and selfishness.
Valsamma Joseph I disagree. I love watching the big 3 play against each other. I’ll be very sad when they will all retire. Tennis is tennis. There will always be rivalries and dominant players.
Exactly, the influence of the 90’s era is huge on the new Americans in tennis (huge serve, big forehand. Like Opelka or Isner) but no American now has that drive and passion like Agassi or Sampras, they’re all pretty complacent and not as driven
@@franciscoanguiano9838 This is not true. Great American athletes don't play tennis because of the dominance of team sports. Parents prefer team sports as opposed to individual sports. If you have a child that can choose between tennis or basketball or football or baseball or soccer, which would you choose to invest your hard earn cash? Tennis requires so much coaching and is super expensive. The other sports have so much less investment. Besides, the current American tennis players are pretty good. Many will be in top 100. They will be multi-millionaires because of that. So really where's the motivation to be No. 1? There's not much. Tennis is so rich that there's no motivation to win majors.
@@twinwankel It can be expensive to raise a kid in tennis, there are huge examples like the Williams sisters that show that it isn’t aleays costly. Also, it is not true that raising a kid in other sports is any less expensive, as there are many sports academies for every sport that arevhygely exoendive with some srrntd going into deep debt ti get the best coaching of their kid. My sister worked at IMG Academy in Florida, which is considered the top sports academy in the country, that is like a boarding school for gifted young athletes for all major sports you listed plus golf. Parents shell out $75,000 a year to hsve their kid coached there full time (they go to schook on site in between their sports training) with kids as young as 10….. and there is a waiting list to get in. As far as parents pushing their kids into team sports and away from individual sports, parents who have athletically gifted kids don’t push their kids into any particular sport if the kid doesn’t like the sport because no matter how gifted a kid may be, they won’t excel if they din’t like the sport. Also, there is a huge difference mentally between a kid who likes team and kids who like individual sports. As a young kid, if they are exposed to various sports, even if just by watching on tv, what draws their interest and what they are drawn to becomes evident very quickly. My sidtervhad her son playing Little League, flag football, soccar and a basketball in a church league. He liked playing all of them and is a goid all-around athlete (he is 16 now), but in visiting my home one day (he was 9 at the time), golf was on the tv and he was glued to the set. My sister noticed how glued he was to watching golf and started him with golf lessons shortly after that day. He quickly dripped akl othervsports and couldn’t get enough of golf andcspend hours practicing. Todsy, he is one of the best junior golfers in the state (CA) and competes in national junior events and is already being recruited by colleges as a hs junior. My point is thst kids that are gifted athletes end up in the sport they are meant to play regardless what parents may try to push them into, ehich usually createsxa backlash from the juds if it is not something they didn’t want want to do. I’ve never hesrd a successfule athlete say they were glad their parrnt pushed into playing football (for example) because they really wanted to play baseball (example).
Sampras used to hit his second serves 10 mph faster against Agassi than he did against any other player. It shows how much he respected Agassi's return of serve. Two legends who were easy to root for.
@z1az285 the 1999 wimbledon was the first time i ever saw a top athletes eyes literally quit on him, agassi had this look like im not beating pete today no matter what i do
Can remember playing football, for Busby, away at Bellshill, that afternoon. Father, and I, whilst driving home, were talking about how excited we were to watch this match, later that night. What ensued, was an epoch-defining culmination of one of the game's most transcendent rivalries. Also, with the match being exactly 12 months after 9/11, the cultural significance of the occasion cannot be overstated. An all-time classic!
I was addicted to oxycontin ... Vicodin... Soma.. and morphine.. my life completely out of control... Depressed... Almost broke... Drove to Reno nevada... For 3 days stayed in a hotel room alone... This match really lifted my spirits... Drove home to butte county Ca... Sobered up... This match had a lot to do with that for some reason !!! 😊😊😊😊
I love the USTA uploading great matches from their archives. I hope that they can find it in them to upload the matches that don't quite qualify as "classics" or "epics". It is a shame that those matches are probably sitting in storage somewhere. Let's go, USTA!!! Or ship me the tapes. I will digitize then upload. Pretty pleeeze!!!
Sampras must be pretty much unique in the history of men's tennis in that he won a Slam title in his last match. That is actually unique and a great way to go out!
Estou aqui vendo esse vídeo devido ao fato de ter tido a grande sorte de chegar às minhas mãos de maneira casual o livro de Pete.Sendo assim depois de ler essa história emocionante,motivante e mto legal só tenho q agradecer ao Pete por nôs conceder essa energia positiva enorme q nôs transfere nesse livro. Parabéns Pete Sampras, vc m inspirou fortemente com sua história. E gostaria de dar tmbm os parabéns para André Agassi q se mostrou um verdadeiro lord na postura ao final do jogo. Pois como diz Pete, ganhando ou perdendo tenha sempre a mesma cara, a mesma atitude. PARABÉNS companheiros PARABÉNS amigos ..
Calling it INSANE means you probably haven't factored in the sheer wealth disparity between those big three and the rest of all the players, and its implications, it's staggering. I am not saying they were not talented. but tons of money helps in every regard. Just having a private jet adds years to a career. Have you ever seen the not top ranked players, even top 20 players, arguing with ticket agents for upgrades at the airport? Those top three are not at that airport, not at the terminal, they and their coaches, family, etc are getting out of an escorted SUV right on the tarmac, with a fueled jet, flight crew already done the preflight inspection, engines starting up, with takeoff clearance, all ready to make the few hour flight to the next tourney, where the reverse process happens: right to the hotel to sleep more if needed, right to the gym, right to the practice court, or right to home and back. Sponsorships pay big money, more than prize money. Tournaments pay the top player huge appearance fees. Tournaments provide luxury homes with tennis courts and gyms for the top players. There are some many more inputs of income if a player wins big early, it sets up their career. I have, have heard of it (friends are ticket agents in palm springs). MONEY is a HUGE thing to all but the top 1 player that has been there for a while. You would think Zverev would have enough cash not to have to fly coach with his tall frame? think again. And I like Zverev, sorry for that example but it is an example. This was when he was top 5 in the world. The top top top guys are sauntering up the stairs of their small jets. The concentration of wealth in life and sport has multiplied in the past 2 decades. Financial advantage allows a player to 1. REst more fully 2. experiment with novel techniques for recovery (See Djokovic hyperbaric oxygen egg for example). 3. Hire niche expensive consultants for important projects 4. Have better care of family while touring. You can keep coming up with the ways that this gives a top player a HUGE advantage over even a #10 guy, a # 20 woman, etc. It's the elephant in the room that NO BODY, except me, has mentioned. Everyone goes on and on about the Big 3 overtaking sampras. etc. et.c ad nauseum. It's the same comment with no new input as to why. Everyone is duped thinking somehow these three are some kind of miracle. Yes they are talented, yes maybe they are more committed. But big MONEY early on, in any career, in and business, in and endeavor, obviously allows one to prosper and get much better faster recover more quickly have a healthier life if good choices are made in that direction. Obviously, there are more simple rational reasons, than INSANITY, for their success, and the non-success of the other, and 99.99 percent of them are, much financially poorer players. So, is it really INSANE? no, not really. The same as everything is not amazing, as this generation of kids likes to call it. I wish people would show some evidence of thinking before calling everything insane, amazing. Amazing is reserved for descriptions of outlier events or circumstances that don't have a normal simple explanation. Insane means there is no rational explanation. Having a good weekend trip, is not AMAZING, unless it is a trip that is way better that 99 percent of your other trips. Insane implies no rational explanation for behavior or circumstance. Wealth disparity in tennis is neither.
@@phoenixrising441 Explain please how is that woke? The process is called concentration of wealth, it's been happening since time began, and it completely explains the advantages of the most recent decade of tennis players through Djokovic. It doesn't mean they didn't deserve to win, or inequality is bad, in fact, it's natural. Since the inception of the 3rd central bank of the United States (Federal Reserve Bank) the creation of fiat currency has accelerated this concentration of wealth as a process. The problem that this looks like, is that engaging with you would mean im fighting an unarmed opponent with a lack of historical economic knowledge, and what looks like a lack of command of the English language with which to express ideas. I am far from Woke supportive, in fact, quite the opposite. But since you have such a limited vocabulary with which to discern nuances in explanations, your comment suffers and makes you appear as a reactive dolt.
corporatism, along with with concentration of wealth at the top of the tennis pyramid, played a key role in the slowing of tennis, both in terms of more dramatic matches and corporations' desires to have a BRAND tennis player, one's who win all the time, so their sponsorship dollar are more effective as their BRAND player is easily identified even by casual tennis fans and players. It is harder to make money as a sponsor when many different players are winning week in and week out. The Big 3 created more tennis related, inflation adjusted, sponsorship profit than at any time in history.
A remarkable performance by Pete. But Agassi's sluggish movement in this match made it obvious that the Hewitt match took a lot out of him. Pete's semi-final was much easier.
I really wish that Agassi had still had Brad Gilbert in his corner with him for this match, because i think the outcome would have been a lot different, probably a fairly comfortable win for Andre. Nothing against Darren Cahill who is a fine coach, but Gilbert just had that magic working with Andre, they were a legendary team. At this point in his career, pretty much all that Sampras had left was his serve & the occasional giant forehand, and he struggled terribly with low volleys due to his back problems... yet inexplicably, Andre came out flat, no-showing mentally for the first 2 sets and then missing many chances in the 4th set when he likely would have won it easily had it gone to the 5th. Agassi was in great form coming into this match while Sampras was just lucky to be there (both Rusedski & Schalken should have beaten him in earlier rounds), and he had no aura of invincibility left after getting destroyed in straight sets by Safin & Hewitt in the 2 prior USO finals. As a massive Agassi fan, no loss of his in his 2-decade-long career bothers me more than this one.
Not you again. I don't know how you cope, clearly you are still in denial. Agassi lost with Gilbert in his corner for the three previous occasions at the US Open but somehow would win this one. I am not going to humour you and say, yeah whatever, I will say it straight. No chance. However, if you paid attention to what I responded to you in another thread (don't think you did), the real problem was the scheduling. The less than 24 hour turnaround time for players between semis and finals was a handicap for players over 30 during this era. If Agassi played the first semifinal instead of the second, he would have had few more hours recovery time, that would have been in Agassi's favour. However, that was the schedule during this era, thankfully due to the terrible New York weather in the late 2000s, US Open was forced to jettison this kind of schedule which did not favour players, particularly the seasoned veterans. You are not seriously suggesting Schalken should have beaten Sampras in the semifinals are you? Sampras won in straight sets, two tie breaks and two breaks in the third. Hmmm......Strange cat.
@@dickn.ormous1064 Pete was actually smart with it.. I remember he said in an interview that he stayed back to Rally alot more with Agassi than others because he knew that was Agassi's game and if he could beat him at it he would Break Agassi's will..... dude was playin 4d Chess with Agassi....
@@raheelakhtar7 Agassi was playing way better than Sampras in '02. This match shouldn't even have been close (see Hewitt's destruction of Sampras the previous year)... Andre only has himself to blame for screwing it up. And maybe Brad for not being there with him.
Little did he know a dude named Roger was about to break his record in 7 years. Had he known that, he might have fought for a few more slams for 4-5 more years.
Could be any year now with four in the top 20 who aren't likely to retire anytime soon. I just don't like to see people put down our players, though. Feels like we take guys like Sampras and Agassi for granted sometimes, rather than cherish them for how special they were.
If I had to choose between the current tennis and this tennis, I would go with this. There's so much that has changed. The style of play is only one part. There's also the general lack of time between points. Limited grunting too.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 Both of them are giants.Of course they had it easier with that height.And also neither of them won even 1 slam.They have the stats,not the results. Pete was 6 feet.Serve was a crucial part of his game.Won 14 slams.
@@SuperBosbon if you take the serve alone their had more dangerous serve.but they had only serve.How their lost their serve : they made easy volley misstackes or forehand mistackes.Pete was 6 feet.Serve was a crucial part of his game. - bit not one and only part of his game
Agassi said back then, the differernt when he plays against federer and sampras. When agassi played good against sampras he lost with 3-6 ,5-7 and when he played bad against sampras he also lost with 3-6 ,5-7.........AND if he plays good against federer he lost with 3-6, 5-7 and when he played bad against federer then with 1-6, 2-6. This was the different when he played against federer or sampras
@@chrisc2439 Exactly! Agassi said a lot of things about Sampras which don't quite add up, Sampras dished out those kind of beatings on Agassi, like 1996 Stuttgart. Still they are contemporaries and rivals and you try harder against your direct rivals. To me, Agassi often sounds like a punch drunk boxer who doesn't make a lot of sense.
At that time, this game was broadcast early in the morning in Japan. When I was a student, I skipped class in the morning and watched the match between the two in front of the TV. My father and mother were both Sampras fans, so they didn't say anything. Somehow, we all knew this was his last fight, his final shot against his greatest rival.
Nice that the match was uploaded but a bit disappointing the match was edited down. Not sure why as there are many four hour long matches on TH-cam. Match time on this match was around three hours.
People talk about Warinka or Federer when it is about the best backhand ever, honestly it's Sampras who scores highest regarding technique, style and efficiency when it comes to backhand killers. What a great talent.
honestly I'm a HUGE Sampras fan... he was my idol growing up.. his backhand was DEFINITELY his weakest shot... but that by no means meant it was weak.. lol... you don't get 14 grand slams with a duck for a backhand..
I didn't care to watch Men's Tennis except for "Pistol Pete." He was tre-suave, composed altho he lost his coach Anacone,who he REALLY loved& he LITERALLY broke down . I believe SERENA once said that she watched the Sampras SERVE & wanted to incorporate it into her game. I LOVE Pete Sampras doing it all on HIS terms then retiring his own way. WHAT A GAME!!! THIS was the MAN to BEAT & That's why Federer fell to the ground because he finally arrived! My favorite Ernst Gulbis from Latvia, could've been the men's GOAT...sheer GENIUS, but bad attitude& no commitment. I wasn't crazy about Agassi ever& his attitude toward Pete. Agassi walls like a duck. WHAT can I say about Nole? He grew on me . Djokovic is superb. Sampras, Gulbis,Djokovic, RAFA oh yeah & Andy.
It wasn't Anacone.. the Coach that he lost that he loved and broke down about was Tim Gullikson(Gully).. Anacone was the coach he went to after. but yeah I can agree.. Sampras was in a league of his own.
This reaction at 1:30:27 sums up Agassi's feelings towards playing Sampras. In Agassi's mind he should be winning the long rallies and yet he gets constantly surprised / disappointed.
If you are watching tennis for a long time, you know the game has evolved in favor of baseliners (also contributed by slow courts) to keep the games longer and interesting. But Alcaraz has the sports mixed up where its baseline for few shots and then a net play or a drop. Alcaraz is the best thing happened to tennis (after Roger) and its no longer boring defense-oriented sport.
I loved these two professionals when they played each other was just perfect for me. I would smile through the entire match. Was just heart broken when each one stop playing tennis. Back then, I didn't think I would recover- silly girl.
This is an unique record. Youngest to win US open 1990 Oldest to win US open. Last man to win Wimbledon in 1999, 20th century. First man to win Wimbledon in 2000 ie 21st century.
The circumstances of how these two met in the 2002 finals is eerily similar to that of the 2013 mens final. Agassi (Hewitt) and Djokovic (Wawrinka) had to play exhaustive semifinals, while Nadal (Gasquet) and Sampras (Schalken) on the other side of the draw had basically practice matches for their semis. A shame these finals weren't on an equal footings. Oh well...it's just sports (nothing serious).
That's the case in a lot of slams, to be honest. Last USO Zverev played 5 sets against Carreno while Thiem beat Medvedev in 3. French Open 2020 Djokovic beat Tsitsipas in 5 while Nadal won in 3. And so on...
The only reason you might possibly hear about Agassi more is because Agassi is more personable and had that book that got a lot of attention. I know of nobody who thinks he's on the same level as Pete.
@@machineofadreampersonally think aggasi was a far better bal striker Pete was the Superior athlete and had the perfect serve. Tbh I'm not sure if athletically aggasi could hang w people on the tour today when you compare him to the new gen he really sticks out for lack of athletic ability
I have a question for the USTA: maybe I wasn't paying attention, but Sampras breaking Agassi early in the 2nd set seems to be missing for the most part.
I will always believe that Agassi threw this match just enough to give Sampras the win. These guys had a bromance going. HUGE respect for each other and understanding each other's demons.
As a agassi fan back then, i can says that Agassi has make always the same mistake against sampras over and over again. He plays always for no reason to sampras forehand middle in the railly or he hit the ball always to short. I really thought that he would win this us open 2002 final. He make always odd mistake, i never saw this by agassi against others opponents.... But the win by the australian open 2000 against sampras was for me enough:)
Thats because the pressure is different against Sampras. Its not easy to execute. He knows what he has to do and what is not allowed to do but thats tennis. It all comes down to how you play that shot or two in a key moment down the stretch. For Sampras its easier to do that cos he has the serve.
I also think because he really wanted to win in US soile, Agassi always felt an extra pressure. If the courts were slower as they are today, he probably would have won every match he lost to Sampras at the US Open.
I think what you guys don't realise is that it is very difficult to do something different when the tactics you use against everyone else works. For example, Agassi has a winning record against every serve volley player from that era. Bar a 2:2 tie with Henman. Convincing records over Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Rusedski, Stich, closer against Krajicek but still a winning record. However, a losing record against Sampras. Why? Well Agassi moves you around, opens up the court and then force the error or put away the winner. Traditionally serve volleyers don't move as well. However, because Sampras was quicker and more athletic, those tactics didn't work as well, as he could get to the balls out wide and get it back with interest, often making Agassi look a little flat footed. Unfortunately for Agassi, he and Brad Gilbert then Darren Cahill never came up with a counter plan.
@@BrunoSilvaRox Not at all. Sampras beat Agassi in finals in Miami and Indian Wells which were both considerably slower courts and in America. Also, the court in Australia in 2000 played faster than here in 2002, USTA already started putting more sand in the courts. Plus Agassi liked fast courts too as he also grew up on it.
@@BurnsTennis Actually, there is no need for such an explanation when you compare Agassi's H2H with Rusedski, Edberg, etc and Agassi's H2H with Sampras.. Its simple.. Sampras was strong in the head plus had unbelievable serve plus unbelievable voley plus had a good ground game. Plus the most important thing, Sampras is a champion of the champions. And last thing, could be the first one as well- Sampras is such a bad matchup for Agassi for one simple reason.. Sampras with his serve and wuicker courts backthen wins almost every service game easily while on the other hand, Agassi needs to grind. As simpe as it is.. Possibility for break of serve between the two always edged Sampras.. Thats it..
What most kids and ppl don't realize is today a lot of the surface and racquet, strings everything as changed a lot, it was impossible on the surface with theses racquet to play like Nadal / Djoko etc surface was too fast
2:06:00 "on the verge of proving everyone wrong that has said he should retire" Sampras after playing three more professional points, nah I'll go with retirement
Can you imagine a tennis player today having the temerity to serve and volley on a 2nd serve? Sampras and others of the same ilk actually employed this as a viable strategy. You see serve and volley every now and again today but it's half-hearted, players not attacking the net so much as sluggishly encroaching upon it seemingly hoping for the best. Volleying is an art and it's been reduced, disparaged even, by players possessing only rudimentary volleys at best. You don't see the punch in the volleys anymore, players not wanting to incisively put the ball away, almost as if they're actively wanting to extend the point rather than end it decisively. I want to see winners, not unremitting force-your-opponent-into-unforced-errors kind of gameplay. Interminable baseline rallies arent, by definition, entertaining in and of themselves like the powers-that-be think they are.
They slowed the surfaces down so much that Novak and Nadal could win with a teenagers serve. No way they would have existed at all before that. You have to have some kind of great serve also to win back in this era, in general.
@@deltafalcon8339 From what I recall, Agassi had a great kick serve. I believe he had a good serve, not winning points outright, but enough action on it to sometimes set up a big forehand. Remember what Lendl allegedly said of Agassi? "A haircut and a forehand." hahahaha.
Agreed. Yes Agassi didn't look like he had a huge serve. He came along right on the cusp of the surface changes. Yes he did have a fantastic kick serve, and, at the time, besides chang or maybe more offensive than Chang's, one of the best return stats of a player in that era. A great return game can make up for lack of brute force on the serve. However, there were a few times Agassi spoke about what would happen when Pete's serve was really on. Basically he said there is nothing even he could do about it. That's why the slowing of surfaces led to all this baseline play, combined with new tech strings and better spin. A great server on a fast surface is nearly undefeatable. But as the surfaced were all slowed down and homogenized, that enabled Nadal and Djok to get by with relatively anemic serves early in their career. I don't think there is a close comparison of Federer's serve compared to Nadal or Djok each in the early part of their career. Federer's serve was levels above both of those two's serves especially early on.
he was tired of the grind.. that and his Blood Disorder made training harder every year.. plus he had just recently had his first child.. Felt like he had nothing left to prove.. He was so ramped up for the 2002 Open because everyone had counted him out 2 years prior when he was dealing with injuries. I would have loved to see him fighting for another few years but I respect his decision to walk away when the passion was gone and not just phone it in... Boris Becker did similar when he felt like he was no longer the best player in the world because he wanted to play for the victory.. not just the competition.
@@Eliath1984 sums it up…not sure you guys remember, Pete struggled with his game the last year or so…it was the injuries, combined with the loss of passion. His priorities changed, and with his new family, it seemed like he didn’t want to be out there anymore. Meeting Agassi in the final was a blessing, it was like putting on your favorite shoes and he played like the old Pete one last time.
@@dustierbottoms oh I definitely remember. The news blamed it on Bridgette Wilson and I was just like. Let this legend enjoy having a life.... He's earned happiness
@@Eliath1984 i remember thinking at the time if it was any other top young player in the final, Pete may have lost. His backhand was so shaky that final year. But he always had Agassi’s number. Or maybe he was just focused more when he played a rival. He was the best of his generation, many considered him the GOAT at the time, not much left to prove. Totally agree with you, just let him be.
Back in these days I knew every player of the top 50, even most of the top 100.. they all were characters, the top 10 were legends already. Nowadays I know maybe 5 players out of the top 100, 95 of them I have never heard of. Roger Federer would have fit well into this time, I even think he would have had much more competition as in the 90s and early 2000s each of the top 50 were playing top level tennis. I miss this time.
Well, we are coming out of an era where the same 3 guys won almost every slam for 20 years. Now two of those guys aren't playing, and we are stuck wondering who besides Alcaraz will start winning slams in their absence. Still, you exaggerate. If you are actively watching tennis you would know more than 5 guys in the top 100.
Uneducated tennis fans like to get excited by the GOAT distraction. Well let me educate you. Tennis is primarily a biomechanics competition and nobody had better technique on the most important part of the game than Sampras.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm extremely pleased that the class act of pete sampras would go out this way, winning his last match, the final, at the same venue it all started 12 yrs earlier, after not having won a tournament for 2+ yrs. Hollywood style ending.
And against the opponent he won his first slam against too. Truly a Hollywood ending.
@@jakehuang3545 Yes, and he had been competing against Agassi since they were both kids. I think they both brought out the best in each other regardless who won a particular match. Sampras & Agassi could play on a court in their backyard with nobody watching and they would be going all out to beat each other, yet still remain friends.
Just like Serena's record-breaking 23rd Slam being against her sister Venus
@@brownie43212 read my comment. Serena is the ONLY player, male or female, to have won 23 professional (7-match) grand slams. To claim that someone has 24 when they only had to play and win 5 matches is ridiculously incongruent. You either “adjust for inflation” and give Serena 6-12 additional slams for all the times she made the SF or F of a Slam, or you reduce Court’s count to reflect the number of times she actually had to play and win 7 matches for a slam. Can’t have it both ways if you wanna compare eras fairly!
@@bryanmartin5901 So I guess we move BJK back from 13 to 12?
I feel so old if the 2002 final is considered " vintage"
Me too. Then again, I think it's nonsense to call it "vintage". It's 1 (or, at most, 2) generations in the past, that's not "vintage".
I think the reason they call it vintage it's because that exact final had happened twice in the nineties, and seeing it happen again in 2002 at the end of both players' carreers gave a nostalgic feeling to all those who had been following them throughout the years.
@@t0msk8 that's exactly what it is, I don't know why they talked about generations here. It's just that the same thing happen 12 years earlier for the first time.
Back then you were either a Pete or Andre fan, now you miss BOTH.
Nadal and djokovic: taking forever with messing around and endless ball bouncing for an average serve
Sampras: Gets a ball. immediate effortless swing and serves bombs almost everytime.
just a joy to watch him.
Pistol Pete
Yes and that was owesome to watch. I remember Petes one minute law games on his serve when returning player didnt hit a single ball. Like Agassi once said. I remember coming to court and coming out of the court. The rest is much blurred to me...
@@steveharaslin3822 yes i remember this quot also. it was from a wimbledon final where sampras played insane
Nadal has got to adjust his wedgie
Don't forget the useless, distracting grunts. I have watched games on mute at times.
I feel this was the end of an era for the great American male tennis players. Ashe, Courier, McEnroe, Connors, Chang, Agassi, Sampras. It has been downhill since then.
No one is interested in this sport mainly their concentration is the 3 people currently. Tennis has become a commercial feature raking money by means of these 3 stars. In fact they have impeded the growth of upcoming players due to their dominance and selfishness.
Valsamma Joseph I disagree. I love watching the big 3 play against each other. I’ll be very sad when they will all retire. Tennis is tennis. There will always be rivalries and dominant players.
Exactly, the influence of the 90’s era is huge on the new Americans in tennis (huge serve, big forehand. Like Opelka or Isner) but no American now has that drive and passion like Agassi or Sampras, they’re all pretty complacent and not as driven
@@franciscoanguiano9838 This is not true. Great American athletes don't play tennis because of the dominance of team sports. Parents prefer team sports as opposed to individual sports. If you have a child that can choose between tennis or basketball or football or baseball or soccer, which would you choose to invest your hard earn cash? Tennis requires so much coaching and is super expensive. The other sports have so much less investment. Besides, the current American tennis players are pretty good. Many will be in top 100. They will be multi-millionaires because of that. So really where's the motivation to be No. 1? There's not much. Tennis is so rich that there's no motivation to win majors.
@@twinwankel It can be expensive to raise a kid in tennis, there are huge examples like the Williams sisters that show that it isn’t aleays costly. Also, it is not true that raising a kid in other sports is any less expensive, as there are many sports academies for every sport that arevhygely exoendive with some srrntd going into deep debt ti get the best coaching of their kid. My sister worked at IMG Academy in Florida, which is considered the top sports academy in the country, that is like a boarding school for gifted young athletes for all major sports you listed plus golf. Parents shell out $75,000 a year to hsve their kid coached there full time (they go to schook on site in between their sports training) with kids as young as 10….. and there is a waiting list to get in.
As far as parents pushing their kids into team sports and away from individual sports, parents who have athletically gifted kids don’t push their kids into any particular sport if the kid doesn’t like the sport because no matter how gifted a kid may be, they won’t excel if they din’t like the sport. Also, there is a huge difference mentally between a kid who likes team and kids who like individual sports. As a young kid, if they are exposed to various sports, even if just by watching on tv, what draws their interest and what they are drawn to becomes evident very quickly. My sidtervhad her son playing Little League, flag football, soccar and a basketball in a church league. He liked playing all of them and is a goid all-around athlete (he is 16 now), but in visiting my home one day (he was 9 at the time), golf was on the tv and he was glued to the set. My sister noticed how glued he was to watching golf and started him with golf lessons shortly after that day. He quickly dripped akl othervsports and couldn’t get enough of golf andcspend hours practicing. Todsy, he is one of the best junior golfers in the state (CA) and competes in national junior events and is already being recruited by colleges as a hs junior. My point is thst kids that are gifted athletes end up in the sport they are meant to play regardless what parents may try to push them into, ehich usually createsxa backlash from the juds if it is not something they didn’t want want to do. I’ve never hesrd a successfule athlete say they were glad their parrnt pushed into playing football (for example) because they really wanted to play baseball (example).
Sampras used to hit his second serves 10 mph faster against Agassi than he did against any other player. It shows how much he respected Agassi's return of serve. Two legends who were easy to root for.
As a kid my first Grand Slam experience was watching Agassi against Chang at the US Open. Jaw dropping speed and skill. Unforgettable champions.
Sampras serve was really really awesome.
I still think at his peak he had the all time best serve across the board.It was the ERASER.
In Pete's own words..."this is the best slam final I've ever played". It was not 1999 Wimbledon.
Yeah dude...pete is wrong
@@therealbs2000 I think it's a toss up between the 1999 Wimbledon final and 2002 USO
@z1az285 the 1999 wimbledon was the first time i ever saw a top athletes eyes literally quit on him, agassi had this look like im not beating pete today no matter what i do
Qué jugador extraordinario Pete, felicitaciones LEYENDA 👏 👏👏👏👏 Seis años CONSECUTIVOS COMO NÚMERO UNO ❤👑🎾🥎🏆🏅INOLVIDABLE 👏 👏👏👏🇦🇷
Pistol Pete was class personified. Effortless serve with laser precision. Graceful on and off the court. Thank you for all the reat memories Pete
Can remember playing football, for Busby, away at Bellshill, that afternoon. Father, and I, whilst driving home, were talking about how excited we were to watch this match, later that night. What ensued, was an epoch-defining culmination of one of the game's most transcendent rivalries. Also, with the match being exactly 12 months after 9/11, the cultural significance of the occasion cannot be overstated. An all-time classic!
That 2nd serve ace at 30-0 in the last game was the kind of decision that made him one of the greatest.
The way he throws the racket after shaking the refs hand. He had this in mind to be his last match. What a way to send it!
What a way to call it a career
I was addicted to oxycontin ... Vicodin... Soma.. and morphine.. my life completely out of control... Depressed... Almost broke... Drove to Reno nevada... For 3 days stayed in a hotel room alone... This match really lifted my spirits... Drove home to butte county Ca... Sobered up... This match had a lot to do with that for some reason !!! 😊😊😊😊
you're a legend.
Just a reminder that even in 2002…Pete was still using an 85 square inch racquet. As well as serving and volleying with it still.
Watching Sampras and Agassi was so awesome. Or Chang. Wow those guys were real awesome
I love the USTA uploading great matches from their archives. I hope that they can find it in them to upload the matches that don't quite qualify as "classics" or "epics". It is a shame that those matches are probably sitting in storage somewhere. Let's go, USTA!!! Or ship me the tapes. I will digitize then upload. Pretty pleeeze!!!
You, Sir, are one smart man.
what happened to american tennis ?
Sampras must be pretty much unique in the history of men's tennis in that he won a Slam title in his last match. That is actually unique and a great way to go out!
Thank you so much for sharing this! Please share their other great matches along the years (including 1995 final).
Tennis was more interesting back then, for sure.
And another request, any chance of Sampras v Chang 1993 quarterfinal? That was a tremendous match.
I remember that match,one of the best in US Open i've seen.
Yes, the best matches are not necessarily the finals, nor the semi-finals.
@@antonboludo8886 Agreed,another great match is Sampras vs Chang in the Us Open QF 1993.
Estou aqui vendo esse vídeo devido ao fato de ter tido a grande sorte de chegar às minhas mãos de maneira casual o livro de Pete.Sendo assim depois de ler essa história emocionante,motivante e mto legal só tenho q agradecer ao Pete por nôs conceder essa energia positiva enorme q nôs transfere nesse livro. Parabéns Pete Sampras, vc m inspirou fortemente com sua história. E gostaria de dar tmbm os parabéns para André Agassi q se mostrou um verdadeiro lord na postura ao final do jogo. Pois como diz Pete, ganhando ou perdendo tenha sempre a mesma cara, a mesma atitude. PARABÉNS companheiros PARABÉNS amigos ..
Respect USTA to upload the Pete's swan song.
Damn.... ace serve volley forehand winner break, ace ace serve volley break, ace ace ace ace break, over... game set match Sampras
Just randomly wanted to search and see if something like this could be viewed. TH-cam is awesome.
Beating the same person your first and last major major.
what an amazing rivalry this was...
Only Pete has done it
PETE
And at the same major
Wow, to think that not one but three surpassed in one generation Pete’s 14 slams. Insane…
Calling it INSANE means you probably haven't factored in the sheer wealth disparity between those big three and the rest of all the players, and its implications, it's staggering. I am not saying they were not talented. but tons of money helps in every regard. Just having a private jet adds years to a career. Have you ever seen the not top ranked players, even top 20 players, arguing with ticket agents for upgrades at the airport? Those top three are not at that airport, not at the terminal, they and their coaches, family, etc are getting out of an escorted SUV right on the tarmac, with a fueled jet, flight crew already done the preflight inspection, engines starting up, with takeoff clearance, all ready to make the few hour flight to the next tourney, where the reverse process happens: right to the hotel to sleep more if needed, right to the gym, right to the practice court, or right to home and back.
Sponsorships pay big money, more than prize money. Tournaments pay the top player huge appearance fees. Tournaments provide luxury homes with tennis courts and gyms for the top players. There are some many more inputs of income if a player wins big early, it sets up their career.
I have, have heard of it (friends are ticket agents in palm springs). MONEY is a HUGE thing to all but the top 1 player that has been there for a while. You would think Zverev would have enough cash not to have to fly coach with his tall frame? think again. And I like Zverev, sorry for that example but it is an example. This was when he was top 5 in the world. The top top top guys are sauntering up the stairs of their small jets.
The concentration of wealth in life and sport has multiplied in the past 2 decades. Financial advantage allows a player to 1. REst more fully 2. experiment with novel techniques for recovery (See Djokovic hyperbaric oxygen egg for example). 3. Hire niche expensive consultants for important projects 4. Have better care of family while touring. You can keep coming up with the ways that this gives a top player a HUGE advantage over even a #10 guy, a # 20 woman, etc.
It's the elephant in the room that NO BODY, except me, has mentioned. Everyone goes on and on about the Big 3 overtaking sampras. etc. et.c ad nauseum. It's the same comment with no new input as to why. Everyone is duped thinking somehow these three are some kind of miracle. Yes they are talented, yes maybe they are more committed. But big MONEY early on, in any career, in and business, in and endeavor, obviously allows one to prosper and get much better faster recover more quickly have a healthier life if good choices are made in that direction.
Obviously, there are more simple rational reasons, than INSANITY, for their success, and the non-success of the other, and 99.99 percent of them are, much financially poorer players.
So, is it really INSANE? no, not really. The same as everything is not amazing, as this generation of kids likes to call it. I wish people would show some evidence of thinking before calling everything insane, amazing. Amazing is reserved for descriptions of outlier events or circumstances that don't have a normal simple explanation. Insane means there is no rational explanation. Having a good weekend trip, is not AMAZING, unless it is a trip that is way better that 99 percent of your other trips. Insane implies no rational explanation for behavior or circumstance. Wealth disparity in tennis is neither.
@@orthopraxis235take your woke nonsense and shove it
@@phoenixrising441 Explain please how is that woke? The process is called concentration of wealth, it's been happening since time began, and it completely explains the advantages of the most recent decade of tennis players through Djokovic. It doesn't mean they didn't deserve to win, or inequality is bad, in fact, it's natural. Since the inception of the 3rd central bank of the United States (Federal Reserve Bank) the creation of fiat currency has accelerated this concentration of wealth as a process.
The problem that this looks like, is that engaging with you would mean im fighting an unarmed opponent with a lack of historical economic knowledge, and what looks like a lack of command of the English language with which to express ideas. I am far from Woke supportive, in fact, quite the opposite. But since you have such a limited vocabulary with which to discern nuances in explanations, your comment suffers and makes you appear as a reactive dolt.
corporatism, along with with concentration of wealth at the top of the tennis pyramid, played a key role in the slowing of tennis, both in terms of more dramatic matches and corporations' desires to have a BRAND tennis player, one's who win all the time, so their sponsorship dollar are more effective as their BRAND player is easily identified even by casual tennis fans and players. It is harder to make money as a sponsor when many different players are winning week in and week out. The Big 3 created more tennis related, inflation adjusted, sponsorship profit than at any time in history.
my left ear enjoyed this
Thanks USTA, Look forward to the 1990 and 1995 finals at some stage :-))
Watching this right after reading about it in Agassi's autobiography 'OPEN'... What a feeling!
Their first and last Grand Slam final were in the US Open (1990 and 2002)
A remarkable performance by Pete. But Agassi's sluggish movement in this match made it obvious that the Hewitt match took a lot out of him. Pete's semi-final was much easier.
I really wish that Agassi had still had Brad Gilbert in his corner with him for this match, because i think the outcome would have been a lot different, probably a fairly comfortable win for Andre. Nothing against Darren Cahill who is a fine coach, but Gilbert just had that magic working with Andre, they were a legendary team. At this point in his career, pretty much all that Sampras had left was his serve & the occasional giant forehand, and he struggled terribly with low volleys due to his back problems... yet inexplicably, Andre came out flat, no-showing mentally for the first 2 sets and then missing many chances in the 4th set when he likely would have won it easily had it gone to the 5th. Agassi was in great form coming into this match while Sampras was just lucky to be there (both Rusedski & Schalken should have beaten him in earlier rounds), and he had no aura of invincibility left after getting destroyed in straight sets by Safin & Hewitt in the 2 prior USO finals. As a massive Agassi fan, no loss of his in his 2-decade-long career bothers me more than this one.
Not you again. I don't know how you cope, clearly you are still in denial. Agassi lost with Gilbert in his corner for the three previous occasions at the US Open but somehow would win this one. I am not going to humour you and say, yeah whatever, I will say it straight. No chance.
However, if you paid attention to what I responded to you in another thread (don't think you did), the real problem was the scheduling. The less than 24 hour turnaround time for players between semis and finals was a handicap for players over 30 during this era. If Agassi played the first semifinal instead of the second, he would have had few more hours recovery time, that would have been in Agassi's favour. However, that was the schedule during this era, thankfully due to the terrible New York weather in the late 2000s, US Open was forced to jettison this kind of schedule which did not favour players, particularly the seasoned veterans.
You are not seriously suggesting Schalken should have beaten Sampras in the semifinals are you? Sampras won in straight sets, two tie breaks and two breaks in the third.
Hmmm......Strange cat.
For some reason Agassi always thought he had more game than Sampras, clearly that's not the case.
@@dickn.ormous1064 Pete was actually smart with it.. I remember he said in an interview that he stayed back to Rally alot more with Agassi than others because he knew that was Agassi's game and if he could beat him at it he would Break Agassi's will..... dude was playin 4d Chess with Agassi....
Sampras owned AA’s a$$ in slam finals. Wouldn’t have made a difference who the coach was.
@@raheelakhtar7 Agassi was playing way better than Sampras in '02. This match shouldn't even have been close (see Hewitt's destruction of Sampras the previous year)... Andre only has himself to blame for screwing it up. And maybe Brad for not being there with him.
look how fast the courts were!
Sampras: Now that I got 14 slams I can retire knowing that no one will get more.
Yep, and Sampras was only 31 at the time, maybe Federer would have been playing Sampras in 2003 Wimbledon final rather than Philippoussis.
@@stevennorris7181 That would be an epic proposition.
Steven Norris Federer wouldn’t have wanted to face Sampras in a Wimbledon Final to try to win his first Slam.
@MUFC long live the glazers
Little did he know a dude named Roger was about to break his record in 7 years. Had he known that, he might have fought for a few more slams for 4-5 more years.
Two American men in a US Open final. When do you think that's gonna happen again? :)
Hopefully soon
2078
When Roddick's son turns pro andy comes out of retirement and they make it on either side
Could be any year now with four in the top 20 who aren't likely to retire anytime soon. I just don't like to see people put down our players, though. Feels like we take guys like Sampras and Agassi for granted sometimes, rather than cherish them for how special they were.
If I had to choose between the current tennis and this tennis, I would go with this. There's so much that has changed. The style of play is only one part. There's also the general lack of time between points. Limited grunting too.
Sampras's serve is so damn good, the best of all times!
Isner,Karlovic have better serve.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 Just no
@@SuperBosbon just yes.their have higher 1serve % and 2 times more aces.also 2nd serve is faster
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 Both of them are giants.Of course they had it easier with that height.And also neither of them won even 1 slam.They have the stats,not the results.
Pete was 6 feet.Serve was a crucial part of his game.Won 14 slams.
@@SuperBosbon if you take the serve alone their had more dangerous serve.but they had only serve.How their lost their serve : they made easy volley misstackes or forehand mistackes.Pete was 6 feet.Serve was a crucial part of his game. - bit not one and only part of his game
Agassi said back then, the differernt when he plays against federer and sampras. When agassi played good against sampras he lost with 3-6 ,5-7 and when he played bad against sampras he also lost with 3-6 ,5-7.........AND if he plays good against federer he lost with 3-6, 5-7 and when he played bad against federer then with 1-6, 2-6. This was the different when he played against federer or sampras
huh?
@@chrisc2439 Exactly! Agassi said a lot of things about Sampras which don't quite add up, Sampras dished out those kind of beatings on Agassi, like 1996 Stuttgart. Still they are contemporaries and rivals and you try harder against your direct rivals. To me, Agassi often sounds like a punch drunk boxer who doesn't make a lot of sense.
Different eras...
No
Agassi was old by the Federer era.
At that time, this game was broadcast early in the morning in Japan.
When I was a student, I skipped class in the morning and watched the match between the two in front of the TV.
My father and mother were both Sampras fans, so they didn't say anything.
Somehow, we all knew this was his last fight, his final shot against his greatest rival.
Nice that the match was uploaded but a bit disappointing the match was edited down. Not sure why as there are many four hour long matches on TH-cam. Match time on this match was around three hours.
People talk about Warinka or Federer when it is about the best backhand ever, honestly it's Sampras who scores highest regarding technique, style and efficiency when it comes to backhand killers. What a great talent.
honestly I'm a HUGE Sampras fan... he was my idol growing up.. his backhand was DEFINITELY his weakest shot... but that by no means meant it was weak.. lol... you don't get 14 grand slams with a duck for a backhand..
Really? are you comparing Wawrinka's backhand with Sampras? Honestly, it is like comparing Nadal's serve with Sampras
I didn't care to watch Men's Tennis except for "Pistol Pete." He was tre-suave, composed altho he lost his coach Anacone,who he REALLY loved& he LITERALLY broke down . I believe SERENA once said that she watched the Sampras SERVE & wanted to incorporate it into her game.
I LOVE Pete Sampras doing it all on HIS terms then retiring his own way. WHAT A GAME!!! THIS was the MAN to BEAT & That's why Federer fell to the ground because he finally arrived!
My favorite Ernst Gulbis from Latvia, could've been the men's GOAT...sheer GENIUS, but bad attitude& no commitment.
I wasn't crazy about Agassi ever& his attitude toward Pete. Agassi walls like a duck.
WHAT can I say about Nole?
He grew on me . Djokovic is
superb.
Sampras, Gulbis,Djokovic, RAFA oh yeah & Andy.
It wasn't Anacone.. the Coach that he lost that he loved and broke down about was Tim Gullikson(Gully).. Anacone was the coach he went to after. but yeah I can agree.. Sampras was in a league of his own.
Underrated how classy Pete was for the platform and success he had.
2002 - Sampras Last US Open championship
2002 born - Emma Raducanu Current Winner
This reaction at 1:30:27 sums up Agassi's feelings towards playing Sampras. In Agassi's mind he should be winning the long rallies and yet he gets constantly surprised / disappointed.
That's because Sampras's game was simple but affective... Win your service game quick and have fun on your opponents service game.
Sampras: This is my last slam and no one is gonna get more than 14, so I’m done.
Next year: Roger Federer
This court is faster than whats now right?
I would say yes, the court today has a bit more sand to slow the ball.
Yes, far faster than today
This match was broadcast in HD, yet shown in SD here. WTF??
L'un des meilleurs match de Pete Sampras
1:40:20 the shot that won him the grand slam
If you are watching tennis for a long time, you know the game has evolved in favor of baseliners (also contributed by slow courts) to keep the games longer and interesting. But Alcaraz has the sports mixed up where its baseline for few shots and then a net play or a drop. Alcaraz is the best thing happened to tennis (after Roger) and its no longer boring defense-oriented sport.
Miss them both ❤️👍🙏
I loved these two professionals when they played each other was just perfect for me. I would smile through the entire match. Was just heart broken when each one stop playing tennis. Back then, I didn't think I would recover- silly girl.
Pure brilliance. Must be one of the best games played on a tennis court of all times. Go U.S.A!!
This is an unique record.
Youngest to win US open 1990
Oldest to win US open.
Last man to win Wimbledon in 1999, 20th century.
First man to win Wimbledon in 2000 ie 21st century.
21st century begins until 2001
@@gustavobeenrood6095 hmm what do you mean?????
I think the oldest to win the US Open now is Nadal
and now the oldest is Djokovic@@norm-bb3bb
The circumstances of how these two met in the 2002 finals is eerily similar to that of the 2013 mens final. Agassi (Hewitt) and Djokovic (Wawrinka) had to play exhaustive semifinals, while Nadal (Gasquet) and Sampras (Schalken) on the other side of the draw had basically practice matches for their semis. A shame these finals weren't on an equal footings. Oh well...it's just sports (nothing serious).
Exactly
That's the case in a lot of slams, to be honest. Last USO Zverev played 5 sets against Carreno while Thiem beat Medvedev in 3. French Open 2020 Djokovic beat Tsitsipas in 5 while Nadal won in 3. And so on...
@@jessyjohaug7392 yeah but medvedev is technically a tougher opponent than carreno Busta.
My epic when we played the golden age of megatennis so long by by Will never come back
Please post Sampras mcenroe 1990 match
I have an HD version of this match. Suprised that USTA uploaded not HD video
do you still have it ?
Thank you so much for sharing! Can you please by any chance upload Sampras vs. Rusedski USO 2002 full match?
Rusedski was an awful player lol..🤣
Sampras was truly one of the greats of the game. Why is he not spoken about the same way as Federer..Agassi, etc.
He is almost unanimously considered better than agassi. He is with the big 3, laver, and borg
The only reason you might possibly hear about Agassi more is because Agassi is more personable and had that book that got a lot of attention. I know of nobody who thinks he's on the same level as Pete.
@@machineofadreampersonally think aggasi was a far better bal striker Pete was the Superior athlete and had the perfect serve. Tbh I'm not sure if athletically aggasi could hang w people on the tour today when you compare him to the new gen he really sticks out for lack of athletic ability
Sampras = Greek?
Agassi = Persia?
The plains of Marathon...
Iran is better.
The version with American commentary is so much better.
Could you also share Agassi - Sampras in US open final 1990 ?
How many times these 2 facing off each other in final,
I have a question for the USTA: maybe I wasn't paying attention, but Sampras breaking Agassi early in the 2nd set seems to be missing for the most part.
Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi played very interested.
Was that the dude from the Soprano’s at the end after Sampras found his wife 😆
Agassi makes all these awesome returns and backhand passes........................................... no replay. wtf......
Between the slower courts and improvements in hair plugs, the sport has really changed!
I will always believe that Agassi threw this match just enough to give Sampras the win. These guys had a bromance going. HUGE respect for each other and understanding each other's demons.
As a agassi fan back then, i can says that Agassi has make always the same mistake against sampras over and over again. He plays always for no reason to sampras forehand middle in the railly or he hit the ball always to short. I really thought that he would win this us open 2002 final. He make always odd mistake, i never saw this by agassi against others opponents.... But the win by the australian open 2000 against sampras was for me enough:)
Thats because the pressure is different against Sampras.
Its not easy to execute.
He knows what he has to do and what is not allowed to do but thats tennis.
It all comes down to how you play that shot or two in a key moment down the stretch.
For Sampras its easier to do that cos he has the serve.
I also think because he really wanted to win in US soile, Agassi always felt an extra pressure. If the courts were slower as they are today, he probably would have won every match he lost to Sampras at the US Open.
I think what you guys don't realise is that it is very difficult to do something different when the tactics you use against everyone else works.
For example, Agassi has a winning record against every serve volley player from that era. Bar a 2:2 tie with Henman. Convincing records over Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Rusedski, Stich, closer against Krajicek but still a winning record. However, a losing record against Sampras. Why? Well Agassi moves you around, opens up the court and then force the error or put away the winner. Traditionally serve volleyers don't move as well. However, because Sampras was quicker and more athletic, those tactics didn't work as well, as he could get to the balls out wide and get it back with interest, often making Agassi look a little flat footed. Unfortunately for Agassi, he and Brad Gilbert then Darren Cahill never came up with a counter plan.
@@BrunoSilvaRox Not at all. Sampras beat Agassi in finals in Miami and Indian Wells which were both considerably slower courts and in America. Also, the court in Australia in 2000 played faster than here in 2002, USTA already started putting more sand in the courts. Plus Agassi liked fast courts too as he also grew up on it.
@@BurnsTennis Actually, there is no need for such an explanation when you compare Agassi's H2H with Rusedski, Edberg, etc and Agassi's H2H with Sampras..
Its simple..
Sampras was strong in the head plus had unbelievable serve plus unbelievable voley plus had a good ground game.
Plus the most important thing, Sampras is a champion of the champions.
And last thing, could be the first one as well- Sampras is such a bad matchup for Agassi for one simple reason..
Sampras with his serve and wuicker courts backthen wins almost every service game easily while on the other hand, Agassi needs to grind.
As simpe as it is..
Possibility for break of serve between the two always edged Sampras..
Thats it..
Now everybody is 20 years older :D
Samp is true family man, enjoy life
maybe they don't hate each other but they sure as hell aren't friends
Half court in the dark, half court in the light, a real shit for both players...
real men are fans of sampras
Aren't bad line calls just sickening. All congratulations for the player who can overcome them and keep playing.
Sampras was walking around like an old man at 32. All of the big three were still prime in their mid 30's.
What most kids and ppl don't realize is today a lot of the surface and racquet, strings everything as changed a lot, it was impossible on the surface with theses racquet to play like Nadal / Djoko etc surface was too fast
42:47 conversation about grand slams. Very interesting in hindsight.
what happened to the sound of the ball?
2:06:00 "on the verge of proving everyone wrong that has said he should retire" Sampras after playing three more professional points, nah I'll go with retirement
That 4th set..Pete looks vulnerable..Agassi returning well
Who was commentating?
if there was hawkeye back then, Pete would have won this 1 hour quicker
2nd service , one ball bounce , and we r in ...
The first game of the second set when Sampras broke serve??? Sampras hit a great running forehand, I can't see it.. :(
Can you imagine a tennis player today having the temerity to serve and volley on a 2nd serve? Sampras and others of the same ilk actually employed this as a viable strategy. You see serve and volley every now and again today but it's half-hearted, players not attacking the net so much as sluggishly encroaching upon it seemingly hoping for the best. Volleying is an art and it's been reduced, disparaged even, by players possessing only rudimentary volleys at best. You don't see the punch in the volleys anymore, players not wanting to incisively put the ball away, almost as if they're actively wanting to extend the point rather than end it decisively. I want to see winners, not unremitting force-your-opponent-into-unforced-errors kind of gameplay. Interminable baseline rallies arent, by definition, entertaining in and of themselves like the powers-that-be think they are.
20 YEARS AGO IS VINTAGE ??
They slowed the surfaces down so much that Novak and Nadal could win with a teenagers serve. No way they would have existed at all before that. You have to have some kind of great serve also to win back in this era, in general.
They both have better serves than aggasi
@@deltafalcon8339 From what I recall, Agassi had a great kick serve. I believe he had a good serve, not winning points outright, but enough action on it to sometimes set up a big forehand. Remember what Lendl allegedly said of Agassi? "A haircut and a forehand." hahahaha.
Agreed. Yes Agassi didn't look like he had a huge serve. He came along right on the cusp of the surface changes. Yes he did have a fantastic kick serve, and, at the time, besides chang or maybe more offensive than Chang's, one of the best return stats of a player in that era. A great return game can make up for lack of brute force on the serve. However, there were a few times Agassi spoke about what would happen when Pete's serve was really on. Basically he said there is nothing even he could do about it. That's why the slowing of surfaces led to all this baseline play, combined with new tech strings and better spin. A great server on a fast surface is nearly undefeatable. But as the surfaced were all slowed down and homogenized, that enabled Nadal and Djok to get by with relatively anemic serves early in their career. I don't think there is a close comparison of Federer's serve compared to Nadal or Djok each in the early part of their career. Federer's serve was levels above both of those two's serves especially early on.
The golden epic of the megatennis Will never come back
I am sure Agassi use to wear lifts as he has that pigeon walk
Not sure why Pete retired after this match. He surely had it in him to get a few more grand slams.
he was tired of the grind.. that and his Blood Disorder made training harder every year.. plus he had just recently had his first child.. Felt like he had nothing left to prove.. He was so ramped up for the 2002 Open because everyone had counted him out 2 years prior when he was dealing with injuries. I would have loved to see him fighting for another few years but I respect his decision to walk away when the passion was gone and not just phone it in... Boris Becker did similar when he felt like he was no longer the best player in the world because he wanted to play for the victory.. not just the competition.
@@Eliath1984 sums it up…not sure you guys remember, Pete struggled with his game the last year or so…it was the injuries, combined with the loss of passion. His priorities changed, and with his new family, it seemed like he didn’t want to be out there anymore. Meeting Agassi in the final was a blessing, it was like putting on your favorite shoes and he played like the old Pete one last time.
@@dustierbottoms oh I definitely remember. The news blamed it on Bridgette Wilson and I was just like. Let this legend enjoy having a life.... He's earned happiness
@@Eliath1984 i remember thinking at the time if it was any other top young player in the final, Pete may have lost. His backhand was so shaky that final year. But he always had Agassi’s number. Or maybe he was just focused more when he played a rival. He was the best of his generation, many considered him the GOAT at the time, not much left to prove. Totally agree with you, just let him be.
@@dustierbottoms nah. He was breathing fire that tournament. His backhand may have been weaker than the past but just ask Roddick how he was doing
Imho, only Nadal surpasses Sampras. I used to consider Pete to be the "statue that cannot be toppled". :)
Andre had no rest day. Pete did.
Andre was better than Pete by 2002.
Back in these days I knew every player of the top 50, even most of the top 100.. they all were characters, the top 10 were legends already. Nowadays I know maybe 5 players out of the top 100, 95 of them I have never heard of. Roger Federer would have fit well into this time, I even think he would have had much more competition as in the 90s and early 2000s each of the top 50 were playing top level tennis. I miss this time.
Well, we are coming out of an era where the same 3 guys won almost every slam for 20 years. Now two of those guys aren't playing, and we are stuck wondering who besides Alcaraz will start winning slams in their absence. Still, you exaggerate. If you are actively watching tennis you would know more than 5 guys in the top 100.
Why are teh sleeves s odam long?
Uneducated tennis fans like to get excited by the GOAT distraction. Well let me educate you. Tennis is primarily a biomechanics competition and nobody had better technique on the most important part of the game than Sampras.