Pete Sampras vs Andy Roddick Full Match | US Open 2002 Quarterfinal
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 เม.ย. 2020
- Watch the full match of this All-American classic between Pete Sampras and Andy Roddick in the quarterfinal of US Open 2002.
Twitter: / usta
Facebook: / usta
Website: www.usta.com - กีฬา
Roddik: "at least this guy will retire soon"
Federer: "oh hi"
Wow stiffler is playing good tennis.
🤣
Haah
And where is mom?)
@Andres Porras Roddick
@Andres Porras Steve Stiffler. Fictional Character from "The American Pie" series.
This wasn't a match, it was a serve and volley clinic.
No one in tennis can serve as perfect as Pete did with the best form.
I think Pete’s the best server ever, but what’s really amazing about that is he was 6’1 at most. The skill required to be such a dominant server at 6’1 is astounding to me.
Federer was better easily.
@@drummersinger5324 Federer himself said Pete had the better serve. Stop being a moron.
Goran could
@@operation2096 Goran hit a lot of faults
This match was a serve and volley clinic. Pete's '02 run was magical.
Pete didn't have a good 2001 or 2002. He wasn't training anymore was bored of tennis. Even the Wimbledon run 2001 was without alot of training and mostly momentum. He only trained for this tournament, to do a good run there. And then he decided to retire from the game that he was bored.
@@innosanto Went out at the top though.
27:50. Really? Pfft.
@@jeffwads6158 yes really. Errors still happen. Douchebag comment of the day.
@@paulserafini
Pete's run was magical. He was like 62 years old in 2002.🙄
Another extraordinary match by Pete Sampras. Once he is ahead, there is no stopping him.
sampras toss is a thing of beauty. no spin and in the same spot all the time.
Pete's split steps and volley footwork are freaking galactic level my god.
Also amazing how quickly he can get from the baseline to the service box
Pete had great serve & volley skills, especially powerful serve. He is legendary and my favorite player
Pete's second serve is almost same as first serve
Exceptional indeed
@@mikkokarkkainen2807 yeah very accurate and not much of a difference from first serve
The best second serve I've seen in over forty years of watching tennis.
It was, but Pete didn't hold back w/ any of his other shots either. When he saw a chance to make quick work of a point, he was letting it rip. Whether that meant taking just 10% off his 1st serve to his 2nd, closing in off a strong forehand w/o even waiting for a short ball, ripping that 1-handed backhand suddenly crosscourt when he saw you playing the down-the-line chip-&-charge, just to make you hit something weak he could approach on. Once he had that, he'd either flush you off the court, or jam you, and then he was closing the net in a flash. He four shots to get him to net consistently. You're pretty good if you have two. It's a great style for when you have those weapons on a fast surface. Slow surface, you have to be more methodical, not use a weapon to get to net, but rally around to do it once your opponent gets something back in in desperation.
Greatest server in the history of tennis, both first and second serve, bar none.
That Sampras' 2nd serve is the most devastating weapon in the history of tennis...
And the 1st serve too
Until he got old and met Federer.
@@TC-td1vx Sampras’ serve is much better than Fed’s.
@@TC-td1vx Until Federer got old and disappeared...
¨If Sampras had been a contemporary of mine, of Nadal and Nole, we would probably have had half the tournaments we have" - words of Roger Federer.
@@alexjavieralonsobesil4148 What do you mean until Federer got old and disappeared?! Federer was 36 when he won his last Grand Slam! He was 37 when he reached his last Wimbledon final! What do you expect him to win Slams at 40?! Federer is one of the oldest Grand Slam winners, and played exceptional much longer than Sampras.
If Nadal, Nole and Federer had been a contemporary or Sampras, Sampras would also probably have half the tournaments he has. That means Sampras would still have less tournaments than the BIG 3, even if they also had half of their titles. Also, Rafa probably wouldn't have any less Roland Gaross titles because Sampras never even won the French Open.
Pete could blow away today's players just like this. He's the only one that could dominate serve and volleying. That serve is the best of all time as well as the second serve but his effortless movement doesn't get nearly enough recognition. He was lightning fast.
I agree Sampras would still have the best serve in this era. The problem he would have though is that the courts at the USOpen and Wimbledon have been slowed down considerably. He simply would not get free points nearly as much today and especially against Nadal, Alcaraz, the Djoker, etc.
@@liamg2271 Yes this would be a factor on the slow Wimbledon court designed for Rafael Nadal to win Wimbledon. Lol
you're nuts. You see how terrible Roddick is? TOdays players don't dump balls into the net every other shot. They can actually hit.
@@liamg2271
I used to think the courts were slowed down also but it turned out to be a myth.
Here is a link to video on a different subject but shows how the court speeds have changed over the past 20 years: th-cam.com/video/eKWlOtdOJfA/w-d-xo.html
Given this, I think Sampras' S&V style could have still been effective in this current era. I guess we will never know but it is an interesting thing to think about.
@@BriceBriceBabyyThe courts or the balls have slowed down for sure. There is a difference in how they play when you watch the videos.
Thank you for uploading this. This is a historic match. Sampras playing the young gun who would go on to win it the following year. This is the matchup of the teacher vs the student, you might say.
I was extremely lucky to see
Pete
@
#queens club
🇬🇧🇬🇧
I wouldn't say that at all because their styles aren't even remotely similar. If anything, it's Federer who's emulated the some of the techniques of Sampras even without having as good of an serve as he did.
@@mikehipparchusnewton7436 Sampras schooled Andy in this match. It was on a big stage with both guys contending for the championship.
@@alanchong7513 Has anyone ever had a serve as perfect as Pete Sampras? (and no by perfect, I don't mean "most powerful")
@@mikehipparchusnewton7436 I agree. Sampras has the best serve ever. There are many great servers in the history of tennis. Goran, John Newcombe, Wayne Arthurs, Boris Becker, etc. But most people would agree that Sampras' delivery is rated the best.
We often forget how great Pete was. He has to be in the greatest of all time debate. Rock solid technically and mentally.
@Oliver McCall he is no 3 or 4 depends what u like. But h2h hes almost unbeatable on grass.
GOAT is a combination of mental and physical accomplishments. I put him in top 3 above Roger.
@@danielkriz7533 well tenis îs a sport that mast bi divided in amator era semi profesional and profesional , semi profesional is diveded in Two bicose of tehnologies ,and profesional divided in two faster courts and not faster , so logic exist 5 GOATs , first îs for start of tenis to 1950/ after semiprofesional is 50'-60' 70'-85 ATP era, profesional fast 85- 2003 , after profesional not fast.so GOATs are after 50' Laver, next Borg , Sampras is for profesional fast Novak Djokovic is GOAT for not fast surface.
@@danielkriz7533 Yessir. I have Novak as overall GOAT, and PETE as the Vice-GOAT with Rod. Level wise though, I think Pete is a bit above Novak, meaning Pete's best on grass is a little bit better than Novak's best in Australia.
@@danielkriz7533 LOL
All you gotta do is watch that first game. Sampras came out guns blazing. Ace on the second serve. One of the best ever, no question about it.
Remember watching this match live. Stellar from Pete. To this day Sampras still has the best serve period. First and second serve. It wasn’t just the serve technique wise but his absolute unwavering confidence and faith in it in the big moments and clutch points. You can’t teach that.
Also you dont know where he is going
1 and 2
Fully agree, it's such a pleasure to watch... and be surprised time and again
I see it 100% the same way. And with his fast preparationtime he put great pressure on the returners.
I was more an Agassi fan but respected them both, and totally agree Sampras' serve was his ace in the hole. Agassi was a fantastic returner of serve, and he can be up 0-40 on Sampras and every person in the building fully expected to see 5 aces coming right up.
Amen to that~
Still cannot believe how even the best servers of today cannot even match the consistency of Sampras especially on the second serve which is a weapon for him
Karlovic,Isner,Opelka are serving better than Pete
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 no way...they might serve harder than Pete, but Pete had variety and could place the ball wherever he wanted. Plus, it was very hard to read Pete's serve.
@@greatone33j they also place the ball wherever he wanted,they make more aces than Pete,and they have to play on slower serfice vs better return players.They make 2 times more aces than Peter.without placement it is not possible to make so many aces
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 ain't no way. If they had as good of a serve as you say, one them of them would've won at least one major by now.
@@greatone33j the problem is,that it is not enough to win gs now,if you have a great serve.25 years ago only Agassi was able to play great passing shots from every side.Now everybody from top100 is able to play like agassi.you here you can see stata if you dont believe eme : www.atptour.com/en/stats/aces/all/all/all/ .
www.atptour.com/en/stats/aces/2020/all/all/
18:07, that beautiful cross court forehand was Pete's bread and butter for most all of his career, and man he makes it look easy!
Yep, the forehand on the dead run. And the greatest first and second serve ever. And not to mention his overheads!
I remember that people expected Sampras to lose that game. And how it turned out! An old and out of shape Sampras destroyed Roddick. Unforgettable!
¨If Sampras had been a contemporary of mine, of Nadal and Nole, we would probably have had half the tournaments we have" - words of Roger Federer
And if any one player would know it's Roger. The master
I don't think so, because it would have been terribly difficult for Sampras to play against Nadal, even on hard courts. His one-handed backhand was too weak to resist the power of Rafa's forehand. Moreover, Nadal rarely loses against one-handed backhand on clay court and hard court, the only exceptions are Thiem and Roger. I'm also pretty convinced that Novak could have found a way to manage Sampras' serve because his return is way much better than Agassi's.
Really hard to compare players from different eras. Better equipment, nutrition and training today. I wonder what some of those guys would be like today.
@@Dime-bz6hc o nomnomnom nutrition 😋🍗🍅
Sampras would have adapted as everyone of the big 3 did. Btw there are examples, him firing laser shots on the backhand side.
They used to go thru serves a lot faster. These days it takes a minute between each serve
The game was only a hour long....
Yeah isner and Medvedev serve fast they have games under a minute
nadal and djokovic made serves longer
Points used to be a lot shorter, too. Even professional athletes need some time to recover after long, brutal rallies.
longer rallies longer recovery
Pistol Pete was the greatest player of all time. The most impressive service technique, he also possessed the best second serve in the game. He was confident at the net and had an accomplished baseline game. Just a legend in every way.
You are wrong.The Pistol was definitely the greatest American tennis player of all time; not the greatest of all time. That honor has yet to be established, but it is either Fed, Joker, or Rafa. Pete comes in fourth or fifth depending where you rank Laver. Personally I think that Pete would destroy Laver.
accomplished baseline game? lol, his baseline game was average at best, thats why he wasnt successful at clay
@@juanestebankruhsanmguel1960 So 7 Hard Court Grand Slam Titles were won from just serve & volleying were they? If you followed his career during those slams you'd know he wasn't one dimensional, In fact he only became more aggresive to the net in the later part of his career. Agassi smoked Serve and Volley players in his prime to beat him you needed a formidable ground strokes as well.
@@jakenorthbriz he won't dream of winning 1 slam on a modern court. Agassi is miles ahead, and he is the only one to be among the top three.
@@stk6mkt he is better probably than all 3 except perhaps for Fed although a trained Sampras would probably beat Fed. He wasn't even trained in the Wimbledon game.
The thing about Pete's serve that people forget: every toss was exactly the same, and he could hit flat, slice, or kick anywhere in the box. It was *impossible* to read, on top of perfectly placed with lots of pace.
Remember Agassi's story about figuring out Becker's tell? He savaged Becker but could never figure out Pete's serve.
Pete is definitely one of the GOATs.
People are so focused on GS numbers they forget how good Sampras was. IMO he deserves to be in the GOAT category
This was a blowout - should upload Agassi vs Sampras Final.
Blowout is kind...more like an ass whupping.
Peak Sampras would still be a top 5 player today. That serve is sick, and he has no problem outhitting the modern strokes as he showed against Roddick.
Haha you use the word sick…. What are you in 9th grade.
@@adamgarza9153 it’s not 9th grade that uses it. It was people your age who used it when you were in 9th grade. Words dwell in times, not grades.
Sampras was so beautiful to watch. A complete player. Could do it all.
Very enjoyable match to see pistol Pete and shotgun Roddick. The net play, you got to love it.>>>>
It took less than an hour and a half for Pietros to show Andy the door. Brutal.
only because Roddick no-showed for the match... you can't blame him much for that though, as he was only 19 at the time and it was by far the biggest moment he had ever come up against... Andy came back the next year and handled the pressure a lot better. And he also had the luxury in 2003 of not facing Sampras, who hung up his rackets at the young age of 31, thinking his 14 GS total would be safe in the record books for a long time...
@@willritter4076 he didn't think that. He had nothing else to prove. He will forever be the best ever. Pete would smoke fed on fast hard courts and grass in his prime. Hell old pete have fed a run for his money at wimbledon. Pete got married to veronica vaughn and lost interest in tennis. Federer and nadal and joker can win all the grand slams they want they won't ever be better then prime Pete. Back when courts played fast. Back when men played tennis. Back when racquet technology wasn't ridiculous. Pete won all his grand slams with a 85 square inch heavy kevlar wilson racquet. He beat lendl at a young age. He beat agassi. He had superior competition then today. Nadal wouldn't win a set vs pete on fast hard courts or grass. Pete's more athletic then federer. Only thing federer is better at is his backhand.
@@frankmclain3634 Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal, and Novax Djokovic are all substantially superior players to Sampras on the modern court surfaces. Even Murray and Wawrinka are clearly superior to Sampras. Sampras was the world's best player in the early/mid 90s. That's a quarter century ago, the game has evolved. Feds is the undisputed GOAT.
@@frankmclain3634
*"He will forever be the best ever."*
One of the dumbest comments I've ever read.
@@willritter4076 all I can do is tell you what my eyes see. Boris Becker and other players have said Pete is the best Fast Court player of all time. That is Undisputed just like your goat claim about Federer. I like Roger, he's probably my favorite player besides Pistol Pete. I will say this though, it is hard to name Federer the goat when Nadal has a winning record against him and has just as many slams. I get it Roger has more Wimbledon titles, way more Australian Open titles and 1 more US Open title. Nadal does have a gold medal in singles that Federer does not. And obviously Roland Garros. I don't think you can clearly call Federer the goat. I think Djokovic has a very good shot to break most of Federer's records especially the Grand Slam number. You have to go by Era's when you are talking about the greats! Technology, training and even Court surfaces have changed. Rod Laver would undisputedly be the goat had he been allowed to play for the 7 years he couldn't. If Bjorn Borg hadn't retired at 25 he would have won several more slams. Let us not forget the reason we count how many slams you have is because of Pete Sampras! He is the goat of his era. Roger is by far the goat of the 2000s and Djokovic and Nadal after that.
Pete was unfortunate to have the the back issues plaguing him far to frequently with which he played far too often ... when healthy I sincerely believe he was the best !!!
How much I love this guy (Sampras)
Sampras did all that with a PS6.0 85. Imagine what he'd play like with a RF97. Pure attack tennis. An utter pleasure to watch.
True, but the original 85 is on the Mt.Rushmore of all-time rackets.
It was such a big thing when Sampras beat Roy Emerson's all time Grand slam record. And yet within the next generation after him, we had no fewer than three players overtake him.
@eoe123321 The answer lies in the original comment. Yes we will see someone eventually breaking the Big 3's GS records. May be not in the near future but within 2 or 3 decades I can see it as a possibility.
Think about it... if not for the other 2, a lone member of the Big 3 could conceivably have racked up more than FIFTY Grand Slam titles over the past 16 years... wrap your head around that for a minute.
@@willritter4076 That's what court homogenization brings. You can essentially play the same game everywhere and win on all surfaces. Not like the older days when clay and grass were polar opposites, and you'd get dangerous clay and grass court specialists.
@@willritter4076 that wouldn't happen. Federer would have retired years ago if Djokovic or Nadal were not there. Nadal and Djokovic would not have won anywhere near the amount they have won if they didn't have the other one forcing them to constantly improve and evole to keep up.
@@seruresto1386agree, but we still wait for the calendar GS winner since the homogenization. Laver won calendar GS twice when the surfaces were the polar opposites. Just proves how amazing player he was. Cheers.
Pete's tennis is so beautiful
NO GRUNTING!!!
Old Pete gave young Andy a lesson in this game!
Pete was just 31 in this match, he looks older though.
@@guitaroon Pete got bored of tennis at late 29 years old, in late 2000. Has said in an interview.
It looks like a grown man playing a little boy. Roddick had absolutely nothing for Sampras. I remember watching this match in college
Roddick also played very bad.2nd set 1:1 Roddick made 4 easy errors
@MUFC go back to your hole
Two legends 🎾❤️🎾❤️
2002 US Open Champion Vs 2003 US Open Champion.. Love da Meeting of Generation's..
Fillius Awusi both survivors of the BIG 3 era
@@Sebastian-wz1wh Sampras has retired before Nadal start his pro career
Amazing how Americans dominated Tennis throughout the 90s and early 2000s, fast forward 20 years I would be shocked if we see another American male win a major in the next decade
I think it’s the lack of versatility in American tennis, usually just a big serve and forehand with not much else.
im guessing a lot wanted to be like Pete, but it was Agassi's way of play that translates better to current tennis. Tho Pete was an underrated baseliner
the only way that will happen is when the USTA allow men to compete in birthing-persons' tennis 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 #fjb
Sampras playing with that 85 in racket with gut string and Roddick with the 100 inch racket with polyester ! Quite the contrast !
Gostava muito de ver o estilo saque e voleio de Sampras.
I wish they still played tennis on fast courts.
YEAH... TODAY RUN RUN BASELINERS ARE DISGUSTINGLY BORING
Why have they gotten slower over time
@@GoDawgs18 Mostly because Europe and US were developing big servers because mostly they played on hardcourts, carpet and grass courts. Most other warm countries were playing on claycourts which were much slower and they developed more heavy spinners with groundstrokes. Later on Europe took away all their carpet courts and changed them with hard courts due to economic reasons. Another reason for change is that big servers lets say ivanesvic and sampras would just be serves the whole match, the average count of rallies would be 2 strokes, and the crowd wouldnt see the finess in that, and the crowd would only fire up every now and then when the rally would go on 3+ strokes. So to create more depth in players in the game on a international stage they slowed down the courts and balls. Which i think was ridiculous cause now every player shits their pants if they catch themselves past the service line. I think Marcelo Rios was one of the best all round player that could shake any baseliner or big server regardless. And that sort of dynamic talent development is what tennis has lost in the past 20 years.
I thought they got rid of carpet because more players got injured on it, too. Maybe im mistaken 🧐
Sampras is my all time favourite tennis player. Not just because I like the 90s and the early 20s tennis era (my era) but also because of his serve and volley game. You do not see this anymore in today's modern game. Perhaps due to advancement in racquet and string technology and the modern strokes came a time when players find it more difficult to come to the net as often as Sampras did for fear of getting passed (by passing shots). Not that I dislike today's modern game. For sure there are great and entertaining players in today's game. I just have a liking for the way Sampas played back in that era. In fact I like to play with old models of tennis racquets even today.
The players are also bigger--my last tourney I played I was against a dude that was 6ft6 and i could not get many shots that i would have against someon of nor mal size--average ten player in the top ten is 6ft2 or over.If u r over 6ft2 you are htiing down on serves which makes it way easier and the racquets--I race cars now--its easier.
Sampras is virtually unbeatable on fast grass and hard courts of the 90s. Even Novak and Rafa would be overwhelmed. Fed would have the best chance with his aggressive game.
on grass maybe, on hard gets peppered by Novak
@@SaskobestRemember that match at Shanghai against Federer, remember that aggressive tennis by Federer, up that by 3x, that's how Sampras would dissect everybody on hard courts, he was super aggressive, only ones that could even manage against him would've been Roger with his shot selection and mix-up play.
@@GoneBoi99Federer took the ball earlier than Sampras(Who had late swing on the forehand), hit harder on both sides and was much faster to run around or defend from Novak than Sampras would
You could tell at this point roddick was used to beating all the juniors with just his serve. Sampras made him play out points and roddick just couldn’t volley or win rallies.
Andy had already beaten Sampras twice before this match. Pete just outplayed him this day.
It's the problem Roddick would have for the rest of his career to one degree or another - he had big weak spots in his game that he never managed to remedy, and the great players could really expose that.
Usually Sampras didn't let opponents play rallies. He would play strong and go to the net.
True that>>>>
in 2002 Roddick had bad year compared to 2001
Wow, 4 games under 10 minutes. Thats like Rafas 1 game.
that's how long Djokovic takes to bounce the ball after a let 1st service
lol
@@AlonsoRules hahahaha! so true
THATS A REAL TENNIS OUT THERE NOT THIS BULLSHIT RUN RUN BORINGLINERS OF TODAY
@@danilomarvel5657 nah all styles are created equal
love sampras so much
Why?
@@Dhorpatan @ because he is one of the best tennis player of course
Sampras beat Roddick like he was a child in this match. A few years earlier, he beat Becker the same way at Wimbledon. At one point, his serve had so flummoxed Becker that Becker covered his eyes with his hand and started tapping his racket like a blind man with a cane, as if to say, "I might as well be a blind man against this serve!"
like hewitt and safin beat sampras like kid...
Watching the match, particularly in the third set, one thing that stands out is just how much Roddick had a tendency to rush through points. Never seeming to slow down just for a second and try and figure out what was going wrong.
That’s because he was one dimensional. He only had one way of playing and if that didn’t work. That was it. No need for him to think about a “Plan B”.
He had a power game that was suited to short points.
You can tell Andy was very nervous playing the legendary Pete
This tournament, as Pete has said multiple times, was the only time he trained to be fit in 3 years. Because he had dscided ut might be his last run.
He was not training seriously 3 years. Had been bored. Hired an old coach back, git back to fit, and played this tournament, to thrb think about retirement. He was thinking of retirement since 28 or 29 years.
So here Andy was playing a Aampras back to good level.
McEnroe called Sampras' retirement 15:40
good call Jackass Mac..
Whole match. Wow.
Sampras be the only guy to have 100% first serve percentage when he don’t double fault.. I mean the speed is pretty much the same!
he did it since 1998 and not in every match
I hope USTA might consider uploading any of these Sampras matches:
Edberg v Sampras - 1992 final
Sampras v Lendl - 1990 quarterfinal
Sampras v Chang - 1993 quarterfinal
Sampras v Chang - 1996 final
Sampras v Rafter - 2001 rd 16
Sampras v Hewitt - 2000 semifinal
Sampras v Agassi - 1995 final
Sampras v Schalken - 2002 semifinal
Quite a few of them are already available on TH-cam from different people uploading them
@@th8257 Erm, thanks for that. But no. The 1980s and 1990s were lost decades. DVD recorders came into its own around 2004. Before that most people were using very cheap video recorders and too many matches have been uploaded where the picture quality is diabolical (no other word to use). It would be nice to see these matches in very good picture quality directly from the source tape. Only the various Federations can do that so its nice to see they are making a start. Hopefully we get more over the coming months.
Sampras has the best serve in tennis history.
Now with the USTA be able to do a few from the Forest Hills era, included highlight vids on 1968 finals - Ashe vs Okker and Wade vs King? Now these are significant as they're amongst the first finals of Open Tennis.
THIS IS FIRE
As smooth and elegant as Federer looks playing tennis, I still think Sampras is the Goat in this regard especially on the serve.
Uhm no.
Think a lot of people are skipping over the fact that sampras beat roddick, who uses a 98-100 (?) square inch racket, using his wilson pro staff which only had a 85 sq. inch head!!! That's what amazes me the most
Drinking game: take a drink every time the announcer says, "Pete Sampras is in full control."
Don't worry Andy, there's always next year
He did win in 2003
@@damerkharmawphlang4196 yes, that was the joke
I’m sure he heard that about Wimbledon a couple of times.....
Damer Kharmawphlang WHOOSH
@@damerkharmawphlang4196 you don’t say
Pete turned more into serve&volley since his back injury in 1999,he was probably playing his tennis during that year,and prior to that injury his game had more variety,especially his baseline game, even this way he still was capable of winning some Slams.
No.He did it already in 98 : at USO.
Against Agassi in Cincinatti in 3rd set , he stopped to play rallys
Sampras el mejor de todos los tiempos fuera y dentro de las canchas
Que buenos jugadores
I always thought Pete's backhand was amazing. Now that I've come back to tennis after twenty years and seen the current standard...
its fine - sampras's powerful game would definitely keep these ridiculously overstated records by Fed, Nadal and Djokovic a bit more modest.
Really Kids on grass Sampras would eat Nadal alive but Nadal would do the same on clay. He would hold his own against Fed and Joker on everything but clay but I do think prime for prime they all are better than Sampras
I think that one mistake Sampras made was not to change with time and adopt a more technologically advanced racquet. I would imagine the couple of finals he lost in US (Safin/Roddick) would have been his and would likely could have continued to play professionally for more years - had he upgraded his racquet. Given that he kept his racquet, he was exceptional in the later years.
@Really Kids spoken like a genexer.
@@vivahernando1 'he would hold his own against Djokovic on grass and hard'? Get out of here man, a prime Sampras would destroy prime Djokovic at Wimbledon and USO and any fast surface in the fall indoors swing. I think people forget how destructive Pete's game was for the opponent.
Not sure Pete gets enough credit for being a spoiler. He spoils the opponent’s game. Never allows any sort of rhythm or consistent pace to the match unless of course it’s Pete who’s serving. Mixes up his ground strokes constantly. Throws in the occasional junk ball. Pete is the world’s best spoiler.
At least he gets credits for being considered a spoiler by you. That is more than enough.
That's right. He was a true pick pocket. Never allowing rhythm and all of a sudden forcing you to come up with big shots at important moments.
I think Agassi explained it best in on of the documentaries on Pete.
"Great players tend to rise above their opponents. Pete had a second option. He could pull his opponent down. We'd play matches where we would have no rallies for the longest period of time. Next thing you know, you're serving 4-5 30-all, and you're having to hit a backhand, and you felt like you haven't hit a backhand in 20 minutes."
We used to make fun of Roddick during these days “40-0 for the Stifmeister” 🤣🤣
Another planet 🌍
What a serve....a must in the history in tennis...
Sampras really only cared for Wimbledon and US Open. French Open is about out grinding your opponent physically and Australian Open was just horrible conditions to play in. Historically speaking for most of Open Era players skipped the Australian more often than other Majors
No it's because the Australian Open is a slower court and favours baseliners, it may have been skipped in the past but since the 90s everyone took it seriously. He couldn't win the French Open because his serve was nowhere near as effective on the slow clay and although he had very good baseline shots they were not good enough compared to the clay court specialists and even the likes of Agassi and Courier. He was a fast court master but not as good on the slower courts.
although the serve of andy rroddick is harder than that of pete Sampras , u always find pete Sampras serve very difficult to deal with
@Devesh Bose I watch tennis before u were changing ur diapers u worthless garbage piece of shit fuck off
sorry i did not get it. can anyone help explain why it was Peter's breakpoint after he lost his point by returning out? 4:32
Pete Sampras body movement showed that age was catching up & Roddick sublime game added it up. Sampras lacked what Roger had.Roger was lucky to have Mirka as his wife who wholly supporrted him in improving his game. Amen
Roger didn’t need mirka to be a great tennis player.
@dpistons 149 Roger has publicly acknowledged the significance of Mirka in his Game. Remember dude Behind the success of the man there is always a woman.
@Logic M asper logic Federer is the GOAT. So whenever comparison comes his name crops up.Amen.
@Logic m bro do you remember US Open final 2005 between Federer & Agassi. I was rooting for Agassi to win the tournament. Regarding loyalty Federer has made the TENNIS game more popular & Global. Nadal & Djokovic do not have the same fan following nor did his predecessors Sampras, Agassi etc had. Now hope you get the logic.A men.
Many of you forget Pete had a bad back and he wasn't able to train because of it. It hurt his fitness.
This match always reminded me of the teacher teaching the child, Roddick was simply out of his league.
Roddick's hair is inexplicable
And indefensible.
Nah, common look at the time. At least Roddick didn't have the barbed wire tat on his bicep
You think you knew the guy and then you see this...
This was almost twenty years ago. In twenty years from now, people will think people today look ridiculous.
Haha Guy Fieri 😆
What??? Neither one is bouncing the ball 10 times before serving. One bounce and fire.
Great players.
Kind of the same sort of tennis federer would use to best roddick , chip return short roddick comes in passed and just stay solid from the back of the court , Sampras such a all round player
Who gave this a thumbs down? Roddick? Was that you?
I gave one for not displaying the score
eoe123321
I am a djokovic fan but love Sampras and Agassi
I did. Video quality is poor and no score is displayed.
I wonder if pre-Mac Cam era is more exciting. I say, 'hell yeah!'
incredible how much tennis has changed
Im here for the serve game
Bridget, you were lookin’ fine!
Actually it’s really quite a spectacle if u observed their forehand techniques. Sampras forehand wasn’t “modern” as he didn’t strike his racket across his shoulder but yet he could generate such power and accuracy. If you’re on the baseline’s camp against Sampras, it can get a little depressing as very little got past him.
people pointed to this match as being a big learning lesson for andy, esp for return of serve
Sampras is a beast at the net
Sampras was “old” here at 31 years old. Meanwhile Nadal, Djokovic and Federer were winning slams into their 30’s like it was going out of style.
True but sampras could of won a few more slams if he wanted to, i think he wanted to go out with a win
@@codygainz6981 I don’t think so, I think his style of play was outdated. The Fed era was just months away and the next crew (Fed, Safin, Hewitt) coming up was already beating Pete in the majors. He left just in time.
@@RossBayCult probably he did win his last slam though
I agree with you sampras left just in time. He was no way gonna win Wimbledon 2003. Or any other slam in 03 for that matter. Federer era was around around corner. I think they were two reasons only why dampras retired. One he had the major slams at 14. And two he said he couldn't motivate himself to the training programme anymore. If you can't get motivation to train them it's only right to call it a day.
@@RossBayCult but keep in mind if he would have switch to a 97 head sz and it was working out he could have been winning slams for two or three more years
I was afraid for central line judge when Pete served)
Two of the greatest servers ever
Pete probably has the best volleys in the history of tennis. Obviously, his serve is second to none but his volleys don’t get talked about that much.
Ummm... ever heard of Stefan Edberg?
I think Sampras would play more at the baseline today. He had great forehand and during his prime also good overall game, speed and decent backhand. I think he would go to the net sometimes after his serve, especially on grass.
The best serve of tennis Sampras vs the best style serve Roddick
Classic right around 56 minutes when Pete goes down into a catcher's squat to perfectly volley a low and short backhand.
日本語に翻訳できる方へ
サンプラスは、審判に16:30で何を相談していたのでしょうか？
教えて頂けると幸いです。
"You should put someone on there. It's two it's missed. I think it's going so fast it's hitting it"
Pete was just gettin Andy used to getting schooled for Roger to continue the lessons later...
Liam Silver agreed. Andy never managed to find a way through Fed’s issue. Maybe should have served volleyed more...
@@christianella84 Nah, his best chance was to keep his monster forehand that he had up until 2005 and occasionally mix it up w/ Serve & volley
Roddick also played very bad.2nd set 1:1 Roddick made 4 easy errors
@@fariddamasio7880 Agreed. People forget the 2004 Wimbledon final match was very close. His best chance was to play like that, and play the big points a bit tighter/better. Would not get the win everytime of course, but that was his best chance to be competitive.
if roddick kept that hair, he would have won 12 grandslams
'greed. Roger would have been intimidated.
The best ever serve in tennis.
1:08:11 Amazing courtview of Sampras net-rushing in action.
I think sampras could easily play with success until 2005
I dunno, this was the only title Sampras won at any level in all of 2001 and 2002, and as the announcers said at 19:26, this tournament was the first time in 5 months he won more than 2 matches in a row. Add in the fact that Federer emerged the following season and I don't think Sampras was winning anything anymore.
@@plaxic Pete was tired.
Yeah then Roger would have had tough time.
Maybe physically, but his heart wasn't in it.
Sampras lost his passion earlier because he broke the biggest records and had no rival who could've matched that at that time. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic kept each other motivated.
this is federer best competition between 2003/2007 and then federer fans say there is not a weak era
Can anyone explain when the horn is supposed to sound on a fault serve? It doesn't seem to be a let or footfault. I
King.