I mean, we'll never have such a kind of perfect rivalry capable of creating factions from school childhood to adult age. It was like being in a team or the other. Team Pete had serve&volley, classic style, one-handed backhand, attack and charmed. Team Andre went for defense, return, passing shots, counter-attack from the baseline. Like the opposite in everything. Such a perfect rivalry. A definition of rivalry.
I think you have to give it to Pete here mainly for his consistency but looking at it retrospectively, he appears less dominant than how it felt at the time. This may in part have something to do with the big 3's dominance of today. Agassi's playing style however was ahead of its time and was probably not "as effective" then due to the pace of the courts in the 90s. Had they had the homogenised and slower paced courts of today, he would probably have had even better success.
I mostly agree with you with the exception of Andre on today’s hard courts. Because of Andre’s ability to hit exceptionally well on the rise he was a problem for his opponents on fast courts since they had less reaction time against him. Which is why in part Andre was able to win Wimbledon when it was still played on a faster type grass than now
I think the problem today is the dominance of those three players may make it seem that way. But anyway who lived through the 1990s clearly remember Sampras being quite dominant. The reducing of all masters tournaments from best of 5 to best of 3 set finals (and other ATP tour finals dropping from 5 to 3) including the year end cham[pionships means it is much easier today to rack up the numbers.
Sampras was better overall due to the serve, but on slower courts Agassi had the edge. It's amazing how well Agassi did considering his height and lack of service winners. His returning, that I saw live, was ridiculous!
Very nice video. I think you got all things just about right. The only thing I would add is that even though Sampras was a serve volleyer and Agassi a baseliner, they played some of the best rallies ever seen in tennis, especially on hardcourts. Mainly because Sampras himself liked to rally and had superior movement. So he could stay with Agassi in a way other attacking players like Edberg and Becker couldn't.
Don't forget his second serve, which was great, too. As the old tennis adage says, "You're only as good as your second serve." And Pete was the best at both first and second serves.
I've never head Agassi being characterized as a defensive player. I also think that's not the right way to describe him. He was one of the most aggressive, looking to dictate player who ever existed. Why is that a defensive player? It was not his preferred way to go to the net and finish the point from there, but that just does make him a defensive player.
Back in the heyday of their rivalry tennis pundits routinely said it was the great attacker vs the great counterpuncher. I happen to agree with you as Agassi's game was more based on being the ultimate baseline bully but in going back decades net rushers were viewed as attacking players and baseliners as counterpunchers. That's the history of why. Pete's game was about having the match's outcome rest on his racket and even though Agassi was a supremely aggressive baseliner he still had to react to what Pete did, so in that way it is an accurate description.
Andre is better but Pete is mentally stronger and more consistent. Agassi was extremely talented but didn’t tap into his true potential until the end of his career. Pete on the other hand was laser focused his entire career. If Andre had the same focus as Pete he would have won more slams. But nonetheless Andre has won all the slams and has a gold medal. Pete never accomplished this feat.
Andre was often outplayed even on baseline game by Pete,especially on hard,Pete had better forehand,better net game,much better serve,faster and stronger,Andre had better returns,and better clay court player. There is no discussion who is the better player,the numbers speak-in 1999 Agassi was playing his best tennis,he was focused and devoted,won RG and UsOpen,but was badly beaten by Pete at Wimbledon and ATP finals,also beaten in Washington final and Cincinnati semis.
Pete beat him badly in 1999 at Wimbledon and ATP finals,straight sets,and it was probably Andre’s best yers,he won RG and Us Open(Pete missed it due to injury). Plus he beat him in Washington final and Cincinnati semis that year. Both great,Pete better.
2000 Aussie Semi-Final was one of the best matches I've ever seen. Honestly it was the first time I saw Andre not become phased by multiple (read: endless) aces by Pete. He just stayed the course and wore Pete down.
Yeah, that 5th set was kind of sad. Pete basically gave up. I think when people talk about mental toughness and that Pete had it...well maybe but with everything Agassi went through off the court in his personal life and the way he could rally back to win a game he'd almost lost, not to mention his whole career (😵), that's superior mental toughness IMO.
I’ll forever have Agassi as my GOAT regardless of trophies as I saw him rise from a 15 year old (who I beat back then as another one of nicks protégés) to a grand slam champion on all surfaces. He’s a dreamer who achieved it all
In my opinion this is the greatest tennis rivalry ever. Better than Conners vs McEnroe or Borj vs Mac or Conners. I graduated high school in 1995 and went on to play division one tennis in college and I grew up watching these two legends of the game. As a kid I wanted to be like Andre. He was my favorite. I had posters all over my bedroom walls of Andre and Pete. I had the Nike attire from both of these guys. Mostly Andre because it suited my style back then. I still watch the old US Open and other 90’s-00’s matches between these two.
Sampras had the greatest serve and volley and I’d say that was the key ingredient he needed to dominate, most of the time. Of course he was great player with many resources, but his decline began when he couldn’t keep his serve and volley as strong and fast as in his prime. Agassi was a more rounded up, arguably best service return in history - but his serve was never as good as Sampras, Becker and other of his rivals. Could certainly give Sampras a run for his money, to ultimately lose in fast courts, at least most of the time and win sometimes . However Sampras’ serve and volley game was not enough in clay, and Agassi was clearly a better player in this surface. Let’s say overall Sampras was a fast court player, and overall he was better there than Agassi due to his serve and was a better athlete - but he was a zero in clay. Agassi could compete in all surfaces.
Don't be silly. Sampras wasn't a zero anywhere. He won the most prestigious clay tournament after RG, Rome, and carried the US team to victory at the Davis Cup on clay in 1995. He made 3 QFs and 1 SF at Rolland Garros and beat 2 2 time French Open champions en route to the semis in 1996 where he lost in the semis due to exhaustion because he'd played multiple 5 setters and had Thalassemia minor and none of today's recovery methods. On top of that Pete also beat Agassi on clay.
Sampras' elbows could touch when he brought them behind his back. Try it. This is one of the main reasons he could be a corkscrew with his torso n shoulder rotation. NOT NORMAL.
I mean, we'll never have such a kind of perfect rivalry capable of creating factions from school childhood to adult age. It was like being in a team or the other.
Team Pete had serve&volley, classic style, one-handed backhand, attack and charmed.
Team Andre went for defense, return, passing shots, counter-attack from the baseline.
Like the opposite in everything. Such a perfect rivalry. A definition of rivalry.
I think you have to give it to Pete here mainly for his consistency but looking at it retrospectively, he appears less dominant than how it felt at the time. This may in part have something to do with the big 3's dominance of today. Agassi's playing style however was ahead of its time and was probably not "as effective" then due to the pace of the courts in the 90s. Had they had the homogenised and slower paced courts of today, he would probably have had even better success.
I mostly agree with you with the exception of Andre on today’s hard courts. Because of Andre’s ability to hit exceptionally well on the rise he was a problem for his opponents on fast courts since they had less reaction time against him. Which is why in part Andre was able to win Wimbledon when it was still played on a faster type grass than now
I think the problem today is the dominance of those three players may make it seem that way. But anyway who lived through the 1990s clearly remember Sampras being quite dominant. The reducing of all masters tournaments from best of 5 to best of 3 set finals (and other ATP tour finals dropping from 5 to 3) including the year end cham[pionships means it is much easier today to rack up the numbers.
Clearly Sampras, as their career achievements and rivalry record proves.
Yeah he won that Rivalry. More Slams, Weeks as World Nr.1, better H2H and better H2H in Slams. He was the Man in the 90s
He could Never win the French Open and I am Still Shocked he could not win the Gold Medal ??? Andrea Agassi hand the more complete career
Sampras was better overall due to the serve, but on slower courts Agassi had the edge. It's amazing how well Agassi did considering his height and lack of service winners. His returning, that I saw live, was ridiculous!
Very nice video. I think you got all things just about right. The only thing I would add is that even though Sampras was a serve volleyer and Agassi a baseliner, they played some of the best rallies ever seen in tennis, especially on hardcourts. Mainly because Sampras himself liked to rally and had superior movement. So he could stay with Agassi in a way other attacking players like Edberg and Becker couldn't.
If god allows me to choose one skill of any player then I could choose Sampras serve. 😅 it was just so lethal
Don't forget his second serve, which was great, too. As the old tennis adage says, "You're only as good as your second serve." And Pete was the best at both first and second serves.
I've never head Agassi being characterized as a defensive player. I also think that's not the right way to describe him. He was one of the most aggressive, looking to dictate player who ever existed. Why is that a defensive player? It was not his preferred way to go to the net and finish the point from there, but that just does make him a defensive player.
Back in the heyday of their rivalry tennis pundits routinely said it was the great attacker vs the great counterpuncher. I happen to agree with you as Agassi's game was more based on being the ultimate baseline bully but in going back decades net rushers were viewed as attacking players and baseliners as counterpunchers. That's the history of why. Pete's game was about having the match's outcome rest on his racket and even though Agassi was a supremely aggressive baseliner he still had to react to what Pete did, so in that way it is an accurate description.
Andre is better but Pete is mentally stronger and more consistent. Agassi was extremely talented but didn’t tap into his true potential until the end of his career. Pete on the other hand was laser focused his entire career. If Andre had the same focus as Pete he would have won more slams. But nonetheless Andre has won all the slams and has a gold medal. Pete never accomplished this feat.
Andre was often outplayed even on baseline game by Pete,especially on hard,Pete had better forehand,better net game,much better serve,faster and stronger,Andre had better returns,and better clay court player.
There is no discussion who is the better player,the numbers speak-in 1999 Agassi was playing his best tennis,he was focused and devoted,won RG and UsOpen,but was badly beaten by Pete at Wimbledon and ATP finals,also beaten in Washington final and Cincinnati semis.
@@aleksthegreat4130 you're wrong about one thing: Agassi was playing his best tennis in 1995
Andre was never better than Sampras. Its not even close. The French open eluded Sampras. Sampras had more talent too. Agassi better returner
Pete beat him badly in 1999 at Wimbledon and ATP finals,straight sets,and it was probably Andre’s best yers,he won RG and Us Open(Pete missed it due to injury).
Plus he beat him in Washington final and Cincinnati semis that year.
Both great,Pete better.
2000 Aussie Semi-Final was one of the best matches I've ever seen. Honestly it was the first time I saw Andre not become phased by multiple (read: endless) aces by Pete. He just stayed the course and wore Pete down.
Yeah, that 5th set was kind of sad. Pete basically gave up. I think when people talk about mental toughness and that Pete had it...well maybe but with everything Agassi went through off the court in his personal life and the way he could rally back to win a game he'd almost lost, not to mention his whole career (😵), that's superior mental toughness IMO.
@@spacevspitch4028 I agree although I do believe that Pete hit the stamina wall in the 5th set and that likely affected his mentality
I’ll forever have Agassi as my GOAT regardless of trophies as I saw him rise from a 15 year old (who I beat back then as another one of nicks protégés) to a grand slam champion on all surfaces. He’s a dreamer who achieved it all
In my opinion this is the greatest tennis rivalry ever. Better than Conners vs McEnroe or Borj vs Mac or Conners. I graduated high school in 1995 and went on to play division one tennis in college and I grew up watching these two legends of the game. As a kid I wanted to be like Andre. He was my favorite. I had posters all over my bedroom walls of Andre and Pete. I had the Nike attire from both of these guys. Mostly Andre because it suited my style back then. I still watch the old US Open and other 90’s-00’s matches between these two.
When Sampras retired, he had won 14 Grand Slam titles, while none of the players he competed against had more than 8.
Agassi won Steffi Graf.
Game.
Set.
Match.
Federer/Nadal is actually Agassi/Sampras 2.0
If only Agassi abuse Sampras bh 🤣
Yes, but for second and third place because one is above them!!!
No player has won a single grand slam as many as Sampras??? Ummm Federer has 8 Wimbledons and Nadal has 12 French Opens
Tennis doped
Nadal has 14 french open titles
They filmed a commercial together, Nike on the NY street~ Great~~!
the wrong trophy photos for the particular grand slams will always bother me
Sampras had the greatest serve and volley and I’d say that was the key ingredient he needed to dominate, most of the time. Of course he was great player with many resources, but his decline began when he couldn’t keep his serve and volley as strong and fast as in his prime.
Agassi was a more rounded up, arguably best service return in history - but his serve was never as good as Sampras, Becker and other of his rivals. Could certainly give Sampras a run for his money, to ultimately lose in fast courts, at least most of the time and win sometimes . However Sampras’ serve and volley game was not enough in clay, and Agassi was clearly a better player in this surface.
Let’s say overall Sampras was a fast court player, and overall he was better there than Agassi due to his serve and was a better athlete - but he was a zero in clay. Agassi could compete in all surfaces.
Don't be silly. Sampras wasn't a zero anywhere. He won the most prestigious clay tournament after RG, Rome, and carried the US team to victory at the Davis Cup on clay in 1995. He made 3 QFs and 1 SF at Rolland Garros and beat 2 2 time French Open champions en route to the semis in 1996 where he lost in the semis due to exhaustion because he'd played multiple 5 setters and had Thalassemia minor and none of today's recovery methods. On top of that Pete also beat Agassi on clay.
Andre Agassi had won everything although he loses to Pete many times.
11:55 - "no player has won a single grand slam as many times" - what
Always Pete Sampras.👍
Both awesome
Its funny both Agassi and Graf contributed greatly to turning tennis into the baseline rally fest it is today.
Steffi and Andre along with Seles and Nadal are probably the most influential Tennis players ever in that regard.
Again disrespecting Djokovic as if he hasnt done anything.@@thb1091
Sampras' elbows could touch when he brought them behind his back. Try it. This is one of the main reasons he could be a corkscrew with his torso n shoulder rotation. NOT NORMAL.
Fedal rivalry entioned, yet no mention of Novak basically killing it? lol
Blödsinn,auf den Plätzen von damals hätte ihn ein Sampras nie und nimmer in seine nervtötenden Ralleys gelassen!
@@Raimund6602 it takes a lot of talent to construct a phrase that even google translate can't understand.