No. 2 seed Michael Chang vs No. 6 seed Andre Agassi | US Open 1996 Semifinal
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2021
- No. 2 seed Michael Chang faces No. 6 seed Andre Agassi in the 1996 US Open semifinals.
After making the semifinals in 1992, Chang will be hoping to go a step further and reach his first US Open final. If successful, it would be the American's second Grand Slam final of the year having reached the Australian Open final in January. Meanwhile, 1994 US Open champion Agassi is aiming to reach his third US Open final in three years. After a disappointing French Open and Wimbledon, the 26-year-old is going for his first Grand Slam title of the year and the fourth Grand Slam title of his career. Prior to this, the pair have faced each other twice in Flushing Meadows with Agassi coming out on top on both occasions.
Who will emerge victorious in this thrilling semifinal encounter?
Click here to subscribe: / @usta
Twitter: / usta
Facebook: / usta
Website: www.usta.com - กีฬา
Ah, 1996. When life was much simpler and I played tennis. 🎾
Let's get back to it! I only started my last year of high school but I had great times playing with friends too. Never got amazing skills or anything but good enough to have fun. Now in my early 30's I wish I never stopped, but better late than never I guess.
Play again
Always miss watching movie “back to the future “
Just thought I’d pipe in and say I’m 42. Hadn’t picked up a racquet for almost 20 years. Played a lot in my youth but never got coached. I decided back in Sept 2022 to take it up again and do some group classes. Back in love with the sport and learning so much with some great guidance.
It’s never too late to return to something you love and makes you feel good. I hope you do get back to it someday.
Chang was amazing! Reached #2 in the World and had to face the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker and Edberg.
BADMINTON IS BEST SPORT
@@Henry12341way fast, but not better, u need to have more talent to spin de ball at tennis, and even more strength
90's Tennis was something else!
We really had a variety of playstyles. Serve and volley, baseliners. Even within playstyles players played very different. Sampras and Becker's serve and volley game was very different from Rafter's or Edbergs. Chang and Agassi have very different baseline games. Clay court guys like Alex Corretja that would play 10 feet behind the baseline. I went to an ATP Challenger tournament in 2023 and was struck by how every single guy plays the exact same style now.
People seriously underrate Chang's Game as though he only could get by on speed and moon balling but he was a good ball striker and knew how to play aggressively
Oh, for sure. He was talented but his serve was only mediocre and the top players attacked it. His second serve could be quite ordinary at times.
I’ve often wondered, in the darkest recesses of his mind, if Michael Chang has ever envisioned what he might have accomplished had he been blessed with Kei Nishikori’s physical gifts and modern racket technology. Agassi chose Brad Gilbert as a coach for some of the same reasons Chang makes a great coach for Nishikori. Those who don’t have the most outlandish physical gifts often have to be much smarter in their approach to the game. They have to think their way through the game to a much higher degree. It’s not availing himself of the buffet of people in this category and trusting to a preternatural talent alone that has proven the biggest limit on Nick Kyrgios’ career. Imagine what a Nick Kyrgios could do with a lunch pail, hard hat, smart as a whip, tough as nails coach, were he to actually listen to someone like that?
@@MrSmithla hmmm I think CHANG actually would have greatly benefitted from better coaching but I think changs game in general has been underrated as though he didn't have game on his own
@@temp850 yes, he had 2 weakness that caused him more slams. 1) very weak 2nd serve, 2) too loopy of a backhand, easy to get pinned.
Chang was no moon baller, i don’t think I’ve ever seen Chang’s hit a moon ball ever. And Chang was very aggressive in his feet! That’s the textbook correct way to play tennis.
Agassi was such a clean ball striker. There were no goofy hitches in any of his groundstrokes. Just great footwork, very consistent strike zone, terrific racquet acceleration, firm wrists, stepping into the shot/never anything off his back foot....his mechanics were just so solid.
Absolutely. So little could go wrong with his ground strokes. They were so simple which, along with great footwork let him take the ball so early. He used to be called so flashy in his younger days but other than some wild shotmaking on occasion and a great drop shot there wasn't a lot of flash to his game. He didn't have it on this particular day but still a clinic on how to keep things simple. Great observation.
yeah I've never seen him shank a ball, while the big 3 always do every match.
Yes, but he lost a lot of matches, just like this one
Prime Agassi would have gotten destroyed by prime Fed, Rafa, or Djoko. The mechanics and gear of the big three give them more power and spin than Agassi ever had. The reason why Agassi's ball has pace is because he hit it flat. That extremely compact motion of his gave him clean, consistent groundstrokes but limits the length of his stroke which gives him less time to build momentum.
Agassi’s ball was not flat , it may had had less spin than current players, but one requires to meet the ball from low to high due to court dimensions , which haven’t changed . You may be right as to who would win , nevertheless I see a more clean shot and more efficient technique in Agassi , as to the energy input , total amount of moving parts , good grip without going extreme , and the pace of the resulting stroke . If I had to show a young student a stroke that he/she may enjoy for the rest of their life , I’d go with Agassi more than current ones , which are more physical .
Michael Chang & Agassi! My idols!!
The acoustics of ball striking in this is amazing!!
if what you meant is that the video audio is clapped, then yeah i agree 😂
This time no tanking from AA. Chang beat him fair and square with real point to prove
It didn't stop AA from claiming he tanked, but I never bought it. You don't go all the way to the semis of the USO and then give up against a rival you always hated. Andre though was always a bit of a weasel and a very jealous man. He used to mock Chang all the time - his height, his physique, his game, even his fiancé....he used to mock Chang about being a Christian as well - this after Andre claimed to be a Christian for about 2 years while not acting like one, while Chang continued to be a Christian even until today.
Michael Chang´s endurance always pay off!! Congratalutions to Mikey! ♥♥♥
These two were such a pleasure to watch... really put on a footwork clinic, best of the era.
This version of tennis is so much more entertaining for me! Faster surface, and rallies that have a higher propensity to end in winners! Not misses.
@ajnguyen21 I think he was being sarcastic…I think.
I like that neither player goes crazy after winning a point -- just back to business. Of course, with highlights we don't see the errors. As far as the surface, I don't know what would happen if players with today's power played on super fast courts. It might be more entertaining, but it might not?
In my opinion , these guys had very sound technique, clean hitting . Took the ball early
Nostalgia has made you forget watching what it was like watching 2 hours of serve and volley with no groundstrokes
oberdot it takes some nerve to say they have “no groundstrokes”..wow !
This was Chang’s best hard court tournament effort. Hit top hard-court form. Agassi supposedly had a tough time this year, but he actually looks great and had just won the gold medal at the Olympics that summer of ‘96.
Andre was always childish and resentful towards Chang and always had excuses when he lost. In this case, he claimed after retirement that the didn't really want to win this match, but yes, that makes NO SENSE considering he had won the Olympics and then gone all the way to the semis. If he truly didn't want to win, he'd have tanked out in an early round - as he did many times in his career. Certainly it was true he was broken after Pete (anther guy Andre was childish and jealous of) bested him clearly in 1995 but all credit should go to Chang here.
Agassi has amazing timing...he makes taking the ball on the rise look easy....and it NOT easy to master taking the ball on the rise....especially doing it, consistently...
Read his autobiography. As a kid, his dad had him stand inside the baseline and practised recieving serves for hours on end.
More Agassi please! Thanks.
By 2001 You had 10 Grand Slam winners competing in the Mens! With all due respect to Djokovic today! The Competitions is weak
So incredible!!
Seems like the commentators were favoring Agassi. But Chang ruined their party lol
Agassi was wayyyyyyyy better than chang. Not even close
@@63002 Not in this match😄
Great match for Michael 👏😍
Fabulous and excellent play by Chang! Phenomenal player!
Michael chang was the original Nadal, he just didn’t have the power.
Closest player is James Blake and lleyton
Nor the technology , let’s be fair if he had the strings and racquets he would of been a better version of nadal
9 minutes 😩. How is there an echo with the game but the announcers sound great?
This is something you probably will never see anytime soon. 2 guys using Oversize rackets in a Major semi-final. I don't think there is any one on the ATP tour who uses an oversize racket now. Chang is using a Prince Graphite at 110 sq. inches and Agassi is using a Head Radical at 107 sq. inches. People say you can't use Oversize rackets on the ATP tour, but these guys did very effectively.
Great....
Why did these highlights look like agassi was the better player? Chang cleaned house that day.
That's when normal height people can play well. Michael Chang was like what, 5'7"? Agassi maybe 5'10". Now, 6'4" guys dominate
I think Chang was 5'9", Agassi was more like 5'11". The normal height today is around 6'2". Drink your milk.
@@palerider2890 5’8 for Michael I think. Agassi was closer to Sampras height than many realise
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are shorter than 6' 4"and have been dominating for years. What are you talking about?
yeah land of giants now due to training, racquet and string technology… no one under 6 in top 10 except Shawtzman
Bill Tilden was 6'2". Stan Smith was 6'4". Lendl, 6'2". Becker 6'3". The big three, 6'2". Alcaraz, 6'1".
Yeah, today's top players are really tall.
One question. The really tall players like Zverev, Isner, Opelca, etc, how many grand slams between them?
People say Mike didn't achieve his potential or peaked too soon. Peaking early maybe but he went very far as a counter puncher who relied on out rallying
My analysis is the exact opposite. Chang wrung the last bit of tennis talent out of his tragically short frame. He trained harder than Sampras or Agassi but the game, racket tech and overall fitness levels on the tour mitigated to big, hard-hitting guys. Chang used an extended length racket to try and give him more leverage. To his brother/coach’s and reporters’ in the know eye-rolls, Chang would constantly tout how hard he’d worked on his serve, throughout his career, how much harder he was hitting it. Chang’s height meant he had to grind from the first round. As fit as he was it just makes it too hard to go two weeks against guys who could, conceivably, win their own service games with 4 swings of the racket. He could play defense as well as, say a Nadal, just force his opponent to play one more ball back, every time. I can only imagine the fighting heart in that guy to play your guts out at, say a 15-15 point to steal a 15-30 lead and a chance to get a break point, only to face two swings from your opponent and face the server up 40-30 after hitting two service winners. It’s one thing to be down 30-40 serving against John Isner, say, knowing if you lose your serve, you face very little hope of breaking his monster serve. Lose your serve to Chang, oh well, you know you’ll have chances to break back. Chang wasn’t ever going to run away with his service games, especially with that 70-80 mph Volkswagen Beetle of a second serve of his.
Chang won initially because he was usually fitter than his opponents but Lendl and Navratilova are most responsible for ushering in levels of off court prep that Chang capitalized on. By the end of Chang’s career, though, the overall game had passed him by. For those who say, “Chang peaked too early,” I’m curious what, exactly, they might envision Chang doing to compete with the likes of Becker, Courier, Hewitt and many others who spent as much time training as Chang did off the court but also far more naturally gifted with height, quick-fire muscles and timing. Listen and watch the average ball struck on the tour at the beginning of Chang’s career vs the end. With the vinyl and blended strings and the frame tech, gone were the days of swinging harder to make the ball go deeper and softer to bring it in. The game changed to players hitting every ball with maximum racket head speed on every shot, especially the forehand and using less or more topspin to control the length of the shot. All the footspeed in the world won’t catch up to the modern topspin forehand, especially on hard or clay courts. Chang couldn’t reliably win points at net. He was too short to cover the widest passes or topspin lobs. He shouldn’t have felt too, too bad about that, no one was. Look at photos of Wimbledon in the second week in the 80s compared to the 2000s. Gone are the patches of dead grass that showed the relentless avenues of attack players like Sampras and Edberg used and deepened, themselves. Today the wear and tear even on grass is all on the baseline. The game changed and Chang, ferocious as he was, couldn’t adapt.
Chang would have been fantastic in the later era, with the courts slowing down. Shame for him to be Born early. With modern diets, supplements and technology, I think he would be faster than Novak
@@MrSmithla you have validity in what you said but here's one issue with Mike. Mike got his family coaching him after he won his grand slam with coach
@@Rowlph8888 he would've won more on clay perhaps but he would've been weak on grass I feel
A taste of modern tennis
Agassi … the Meth years …
Started winning Majors again once he got clean 1999-2003.
These commentators were severely biased against Chang and ignorant at the same time. I don't miss that ignorance at all from the 90's. They said Chang was 5-1 up in the third set, about to go to the final and still went after everything, then said that's the only way he knew how to play, as in if you have no talent then you grind. Well look at tennis now. You don't play like that, you can easily lose, no matter how talented and how much you are ahead. Players like Nadal can beat you if you let up the gas pedal just a wee bit, no matter how much you are ahead.
Chang never got much respect. You don't reach #2 ranking, beat Agassi in SF at the US Open, win French Open at age 16 by chance. He was a bit undersized, didn't have a glamorous life, Asian...didn't fit central casting criteria.
There is racism in the Commentary because he was a Chinese man and Person.
@@palerider2890 The white Establishment didnt like him because he was an Asian Person out there
White people are nice but sometimes they hide their racism so well
@@jamesbedugraham8056 I don't think it had much to do with being Asian. They hit Chang because of his size and conservative values. If he had been a big flashy Asian dude like the Thái player Paradorn, it would have been different. He would probably be praised. I lost counts of how many times McEnroe called out Chang's height.
I wanna be like Mike!
Chang has beaten all those terrific rivals all along his career, he Is a Grand Slam champion.... I mean he Is the GOAT dudes
He’s not in any GOAT argument lmao
@@jesse9307 Roger or Borg may be better but Chang is right second to them...
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
He said he threw the 96 Aussie Open semi against Chang to avoid "another holy war" vs Becker.
🤣👌🏻, sure he did
@@spirg I watched the match. He didn't gaf.
Do you mean that he did a match fixing? That’s illegal.🤔
He also said there were matches where "Chang was God."
The two did not have what is now considered as the modern-day forehand (with the bottom of the racquet pointing to the place of the ball's intended landing place across the net at the start of the forward swing). What changed (since racquet and string technology has about reached the height at this time, and the US Open hard courts are the same)? Did sport innovators discovered new and better forehand and body mechanics?
Strings and racquet tech. Both these players developed their swings as juniors in the early-80s before advances in poly strings and light, graphite racquets.
String that allows you to impart more top spin to the ball.
Agassi was carrying a bear gut in this match, totally out of shape yet he had won Olympic Gold and Cincinnati that summer. Speaks much about the man’s talent that he won those two prestigious tournaments and made it to the US Open semi-final while carrying an extra 15 pounds.
Yes, but crystal meth's, a are performance enhancing and will more than make up for it
He was falling apart, falling to his worst lows in life with drug addiction, but still that good.
Michael “chimpy” Chang was my nickname for him when I played tennis as a youth. Our discussions of talking about ATP pros would arise, I’d refer to him as “Chimpy Chang”. Because he’s like a chimpanzee running around the court, full of robust energy
Last organized match: 2019
Last time he picked up his racquet: 2019
Without TH-cam and social, none of these players were as fit as today's players I'm sure they would have benefited from that
Looking back. Chang had the wheels. When he played with a babolat, it wasn't good
Agassi was always SO VERY smug and condescending towards Chang during their careers - and even after. Back in the early 90's one writer who did an in depth profile travelling with Agassi hypothesized was that the real reason Andre always mocked Chang - his height, his Christianity (while at times claiming to be Christian himself), his game, his physique, even Chang's fiancee....was that Andre secretly felt very threatened by Chang as he admitted that Chang improved 10% every year. It was satisfying to see Chang get a big win whenever he could against Andre.
I think Agassi got mad because he's losing hair and everybody else still having hair
3:23 4:17 Agassi fh
Announcers: This has to be a low point in Agassi’s career
Agassi: Hold my meth
how Agassi lost that match is beyond me...
was Chang the best pusher ever?
His 2nd serves were a joke but I wouldn't say he was a pusher.
Similar styles, right? Agassi was just a better version of Chang. Stronger, better little bit at everything Chang was merely good at.
Not faster...maybe not as mentally strong.
Thomas only losing to Brett Kelley 6-4, 6-0 🤣
Imagine wearing Agassi's shirt. The hell?
This is his worst outfit ever.
Chang played similarly to Andre … he likes to hug the base line but he didn’t have the firepower… if Chang played in the woody era he would win at least 4 GS… he just used too much effort to win matches
and gassed out in the semi or finals of most GS…
Agassi had all this kick ass cuz he had to deal with Sampras..Robert at 67.
Agassi tanked this
Not enough for Pistol Pete 💪🏻
Agassi was such a clown to lose this match... probably bet against himself...
Would just be deja vu in the final
Agassi threw this match because he was out of shape and didn't want to lose to Sampras in the final again. He didn't get over that 95 loss to Sampras until his comeback in 99.
Yeah from his autobiography. Was just about to comment this.
Exactly!
I call BS , I don’t care if Agassi even said it , following , and playing tennis 35 years, NOBODY , enters a tournament, let alone a MAJOR , planning to tank , if in the event they have tp play a dreaded opponent , did you watch this video? Anyone that knows the game , would see how Chang was outhitting Agassi , ( clean winners ) , maybe tired , but not a tank , sorry , complete lack of respect for the guy playing him , funny he was ‘’ out of shape ‘’, yet made it to the semis , yeah ok , BS .... give credit where it’s due , shake hands, then get off the court ...
@@spirg you clearly don't know Agassi. He tanked a lot of matches in his career. He flatly hated tennis until he started playing for his foundation in 99. Just because you're good at something doesn't mean you like it. There were several times in Agassi's career he just checked out. Chang doesn't need any credit. Chang ALWAYS came to play. He didn't have the weapons the other top players had at the time and that's what makes Chang so impressive. His heart, grit, and desire were second to none, but other than his speed he didn't have anything to hurt guys like Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and Becker. When you played Chang you knew it would be a long day and you had to really have the desire to win. Agassi had no desire to win that day.
It's interesting, Agassi came to US Open '96 with trophy from Cincy and Olympic gold from Atlanta but yes, he was out of form still. On the other hand, Sampras,at his standards, also had a poor year that point, specially a loss to Krajicek in Wimbledon.
So Chang beat Meth-head Agassi here ? Carry on.
And than came Pete Sampras...
Sampras was older than Michael Chang, Master Chang beat Ivan Lendl at the age 17!!! ^^
@@suzeel chang didnt respect lendl when he served that way. furthermore, that was his ONLY grand slam he won.
@@guimov1984 He peaked too soon but he could've won more and this was Mike at his best. He overachieved as a counter puncher and played high risk high reward. James Blake is quite close style wise
@@paulz4667 not really that similar.
@@kchuk1965 Lleyton Hewitt is better example
Chicken feet 🦶
maybe yours, and hairy!! ahahaahh ..
These two wouldnt stand a chance against modern tennis greats like Federer, nadal or djorkovic.
Obviously you know very little about tennis because Federer did play Agassi and Chang. Federer has a winning record against Agassi but Agassi actually beat Fed 3 times. You should not disrespect tennis greats like Agassi and Federer. Agassi actually played Federer in the 2005 US Open Final. I would consider that "modern tennis". Learn your history before making ridiculous statements.
@@TheTopspin77 3 wins against federer when federer is still young and gaining experience. After that , when federer went into world no.1 quality, agassi is a pea to federer. 20+21+22 grandslams from federer, nadal and novak. By me saying agassi dont stand a chance, i dont mean he cant win a match or two once in a blue moon, every top player may lose some matches. But in a LONG RUN, agassi is no match. He will lose more than he win. U seemed like a dumb so i need to define my words in statistical manner to make u understand.
Different eras but Agassi can play in any era… I believe Chang would be better in the woody era considering his speed… i think the modern era is weakest because great players win GS no matter what eras… young players today are mentally horrible… and Fed, Raf and Joker had too much of a mental edge on them. If AA and MC grew up in this era they would not be afraid of the 3 and win their fair share of GS.. Pete and Lendl played in the toughest era in my book..
Michael chang play like arantxa Sánchez vicario and agassi play like Mónica seles