Honestly Goran wud have won more titles..the irony was Sampras was.his nemesis and whenever Sampras was knocked out Goran had such an opening but he wud get knocked out to sme random guy😭..and whenever Goran was in good knick Sampras wud knock him out in the final
This is what evolves when you put together modern racquets, fast balls, and slick courts. This is the tennis style that proved successful. People started complaining. They cannot change the racquets, so they slowed down the balls and the surfaces. Baseline play then became the winning style. It is really hard to figure out who the greatest players are. Looking at their records don't show much. Pancho Gonzales was a beast then but no records as they didn't let pros compete in grand slams. Rod Laver missed five years of Wimbledon in his prime because he turned pro to feed his family. Connors Borg McEnroe didn't even play the Australian Open as it was during the holidays. How many would Borg have won when it was being played on grass?
Pistol Pete has unique record in Wimbledon 1997 he has lost only 2 service games out of 119 service games he played he won 117 out of it. He had only 2 break points in the entire tournament. That is the power of Sampras's serve. Hence the name Pistol Pete. I am sure no one in the future can break this record
Goran served 25 aces in first set. It was insane. He just imploded mentally after 2 sets down. Such a shame. Gorans serve is the best serve in history of tennis. It was pure magic.
Because of these two players, the game was changed forever. These two players essentially killed the serve and volley play and the modern baseline players have no one to thank but these two. They slowed down the ball and courts because patrons started complaining.
Pointless to blame a player for having great technique and utilizing it. What were they supposed to do, serve shit on purpose? Use wooden racquets? Pretty sure Edberg would've loved to serve just as big but - despite using the same racquet as Sampras and being taller - he couldn't. It's on the tournament directors for going too far with the slowing down, from one extreme to the other.
@@Matt-qv8zj exactly. But it was the only time they ever played . It would have been interesting to see what the percentages would have been if they played , say 10 matches.
@@Matt-qv8zj Yes, and he got beaten in the next Round by Tim Henman, so, pistol pete was already past his prime, and they never met again after that until sampras retired
@@samw2650 Edberg was the more elegant volleyer for sure, but Sampras had so many weapons and the amount of options he had for ending points with made everything look easy and effortless.
@@hehehehehahahaha2025 fair enough but do you generally respond to very old comments. at least it was a comment back in the 80s when they were still playin lol🤣
Amazing smacking of the ball and shot making from these two really thrilled the crowd..their matches reminded me of Graf vs Novotna rivalry at Wimbledon..
Pete is a great grass court player. He beat all great grass court players viz. Stich, Becker, Ivanisevik , late pick up Pa Rafter etc. He lost to Krijeck and did not meet Edberg. Agassi is not a grass court player
Agassi was a phenomenal player, indicated alone by the fact he managed to win majors in his 30s. But him winning all 4 majors as opposed to Pete seems almost wrong. Wimbledon 92 was a once in a lifetime opportunity for Agassi, given the fact that Becker and Edberg were not at their best anymore and Ivanisevic and Pete still away from their grass court height!
@@mp1314 Agassi carrier was spoiled by Pete Samras on hard court and Clay court by Jim Courier. Agassi should have won at least 15 Grand Slams. Agassi was not a grass court player. I remember John McenRow upset Becker in Wimbledon 1992 QF, that made Agassi meet Mcenroe in SF and subsequently reach final Agassi was a fighter, He did not have big first service. That was the biggest problem for him to hold his own service game against quality opponents like Pete Sampras , Pat Rafter etc whereas 1990s big servers used get 40-0/ 30-0 just like that in every set. Therefore Agassi had to overcome Break points in own service and break the opponents 2 times to win a set. Overall, Agassi is a nice gentleman & sportman
@@z1az285 YES, you are correct. Sport is not only about skill but also temperament/patience/audacity. 1992 defeated Sampras crushed Ivanisevic in 1994 WIMBLEDON Final.
Goran is probably the highest number of aces for served on ATP all time - his record started in 1987 but the ATP only started recorded aces from 1991. Karlovic another Croat is top.
The backhand and the lobs are pretty enough. But his best feature was his heart. Temper or not he would not go down without a fight against many top rivals.
greatone33j no this is more boring - you literally know what’s going to happen every point. Roger, Novak and Rafa might rally, but at least there is some variation. Imagine comparing this, to now, the golden period of tennis where the three greatest players of all time are still playing.
@@alexmeechan15 do you know how much skill it takes to pull off a successful volley when the ball is coming fast at your feet? It's an art form. In addition, these guys went for winners at every opportunity instead of just hitting the ball back and forth for hours. Don't get me wrong, I like watching the big three play each other because it always has a big fight atmosphere to it. But I think the sport needs more variety to it. There's no clashing of styles anymore. That's what made watching Agassi v. Sampras fun to watch. It was a battle of base liner v. serve and volley.
@@alexmeechan15 No, the answer is somewhere in between. The indoor carpet surfaces even in the 90s were MUCH faster than grass, but they still had long baseline rallies because of a high enough consistent bounce. The 1996 matches between Becker and Sampras (Stuttgart, ATP Finals) was one of the finest displays of all court tennis you will ever see. It had everything. Wimbledon grass was somewhat one dimensional because of the low bounce but clay court tennis was much slower then. What has happened now is clay court tennis is much faster and that's a good thing but they have eliminated carpet and hardcourts are painfully slow with some exceptions (US open, Cincy, ATP Finals (last 2 years), Australian open (2017,2018, maybe 2020) etc). Grass has a much higher bounce and the balls are much heavier, so there is homogenized play across surfaces. What's the point? Where is the variety? The only good thing is clay court tennis is much faster and players hit more winners which makes it more exciting than older clay matches.
@@AkshatSharma-uz7im You forget that both Sampras and Ivanisevic were all court players who won titles on all surfaces indoors and outdoors. They had excellent groundstrokes and could rally on slower surfaces. In fact both were predominantly basrliners earlier in their careers but both had huge serves and Wimbledon was low bouncing, and inconsistent which is why you didn't see rallies. But indoor carpet was even faster than grass so the bounce while low was consistent and there were long rallies plus all court play. You need to watch Becker Sampras Hannover 1996 or Becker Ivanisevic Stockholm 1994 on indoor carpet/ hard to understand it was not just about the serve
Coucou 👋
Quelle belle époque de tennis 🎾 !!!
Quels joueurs !!!
Ivanisevic had most dangerous serve in 90s.
I loved 90` tennis ... to this day I can name top 50 players 1994 - 1995
Thanks for posting, great match.
dude this is classic. love it!!
Glad you're enjoying it. More to come...
Thanks for this great match!
Honestly Goran wud have won more titles..the irony was Sampras was.his nemesis and whenever Sampras was knocked out Goran had such an opening but he wud get knocked out to sme random guy😭..and whenever Goran was in good knick Sampras wud knock him out in the final
Goran was unplayable to all except of Sampras.
I've been waiting for this. Thanks.
If they gave our Doctorates in Tennis, Sampras would have one.
This is what evolves when you put together modern racquets, fast balls, and slick courts. This is the tennis style that proved successful. People started complaining. They cannot change the racquets, so they slowed down the balls and the surfaces. Baseline play then became the winning style. It is really hard to figure out who the greatest players are. Looking at their records don't show much. Pancho Gonzales was a beast then but no records as they didn't let pros compete in grand slams. Rod Laver missed five years of Wimbledon in his prime because he turned pro to feed his family. Connors Borg McEnroe didn't even play the Australian Open as it was during the holidays. How many would Borg have won when it was being played on grass?
Millenials said this is not tennis LOL
and because millenials say it stops being true?
@@juanfedericocriado8229 its even more true
@@mtklaric nah... it's great. Watching long 265 stroke rallies is so boring..
Pistol Pete has unique record in Wimbledon 1997 he has lost only 2 service games out of 119 service games he played he won 117 out of it. He had only 2 break points in the entire tournament. That is the power of Sampras's serve. Hence the name Pistol Pete. I am sure no one in the future can break this record
Das Ewige Duell. Super 🎾Tennis. 👍👍
Goran served 25 aces in first set. It was insane. He just imploded mentally after 2 sets down. Such a shame. Gorans serve is the best serve in history of tennis. It was pure magic.
Hardly any rallies in this match 😬
Miss those NBC telecasts..
Because of these two players, the game was changed forever. These two players essentially killed the serve and volley play and the modern baseline players have no one to thank but these two. They slowed down the ball and courts because patrons started complaining.
Pointless to blame a player for having great technique and utilizing it. What were they supposed to do, serve shit on purpose? Use wooden racquets? Pretty sure Edberg would've loved to serve just as big but - despite using the same racquet as Sampras and being taller - he couldn't.
It's on the tournament directors for going too far with the slowing down, from one extreme to the other.
Even federer can't touch prime pistol pete on grass.
He beat Pete when he was 19…
@@Matt-qv8zj exactly. But it was the only time they ever played . It would have been interesting to see what the percentages would have been if they played , say 10 matches.
Matt below is right. I don’t think anyone comes in the path of the genius RF at the peak of his powers brosef.
@@Matt-qv8zj Yes, and he got beaten in the next Round by Tim Henman, so, pistol pete was already past his prime, and they never met again after that until sampras retired
@@ahmedisa3723 you make no sense. Good try though
Sampras on grass is like poetry in motion.....
that was edberg
@@samw2650 Edberg was the more elegant volleyer for sure, but Sampras had so many weapons and the amount of options he had for ending points with made everything look easy and effortless.
@@hehehehehahahaha2025 fair enough but do you generally respond to very old comments. at least it was a comment back in the 80s when they were still playin lol🤣
НЕПОВТОРИМ ГОРАН!!!❤
Amazing smacking of the ball and shot making from these two really thrilled the crowd..their matches reminded me of Graf vs Novotna rivalry at Wimbledon..
Pete is a great grass court player. He beat all great grass court players viz. Stich, Becker, Ivanisevik , late pick up Pa Rafter etc. He lost to Krijeck and did not meet Edberg. Agassi is not a grass court player
Agassi was a phenomenal player, indicated alone by the fact he managed to win majors in his 30s.
But him winning all 4 majors as opposed to Pete seems almost wrong. Wimbledon 92 was a once in a lifetime opportunity for Agassi, given the fact that Becker and Edberg were not at their best anymore and Ivanisevic and Pete still away from their grass court height!
@@mp1314 Agassi carrier was spoiled by Pete Samras on hard court and Clay court by Jim Courier. Agassi should have won at least 15 Grand Slams.
Agassi was not a grass court player. I remember John McenRow upset Becker in Wimbledon 1992 QF, that made Agassi meet Mcenroe in SF and subsequently reach final
Agassi was a fighter,
He did not have big first service. That was the biggest problem for him to hold his own service game against quality opponents like Pete Sampras , Pat Rafter etc
whereas 1990s big servers used get 40-0/ 30-0 just like that in every set.
Therefore Agassi had to overcome Break points in own service and break the opponents 2 times to win a set.
Overall, Agassi is a nice gentleman & sportman
soundar not sure I can follow you, but btw Agassi played Becker in the 92 QF, not McEnroe
Ivanisevic defeated pete in 1992 as well. He took pete to 5 sets twice in 1995 and 1998.
@@z1az285 YES, you are correct. Sport is not only about skill but also temperament/patience/audacity.
1992 defeated Sampras crushed Ivanisevic in 1994 WIMBLEDON Final.
Back when Wimbledon was played on grass, not green clay.
true
@@mtklaric its still on grass, just not as green
@@samw2650 much slower grass now
Back when it was completely unwatchable
@@alexmeechan15 lol...those long 237 stroke rallies are so boring. Puts me to sleep..
Zverev looks soo much like you guys Goran.
I disagree. And his second serve is just not comparable
You serious? Zverev is 3rd league compared to the skills of these two
Goran's serving posture sure is ugly and mechanical compared to Pete's. Deadly, nonetheless.
Goran is probably the highest number of aces for served on ATP all time - his record started in 1987 but the ATP only started recorded aces from 1991. Karlovic another Croat is top.
The backhand and the lobs are pretty enough. But his best feature was his heart. Temper or not he would not go down without a fight against many top rivals.
Snore fest😴😴😴
Not nearly as boring as 2 guys hitting the ball back and forth for an hour..
greatone33j no this is more boring - you literally know what’s going to happen every point. Roger, Novak and Rafa might rally, but at least there is some variation. Imagine comparing this, to now, the golden period of tennis where the three greatest players of all time are still playing.
@@alexmeechan15 do you know how much skill it takes to pull off a successful volley when the ball is coming fast at your feet? It's an art form. In addition, these guys went for winners at every opportunity instead of just hitting the ball back and forth for hours.
Don't get me wrong, I like watching the big three play each other because it always has a big fight atmosphere to it. But I think the sport needs more variety to it. There's no clashing of styles anymore. That's what made watching Agassi v. Sampras fun to watch. It was a battle of base liner v. serve and volley.
Alex Meechan No, not the three greatest players ever, just three great players in an era without much competition and where surfaces no longer matter.
@@alexmeechan15 No, the answer is somewhere in between. The indoor carpet surfaces even in the 90s were MUCH faster than grass, but they still had long baseline rallies because of a high enough consistent bounce. The 1996 matches between Becker and Sampras (Stuttgart, ATP Finals) was one of the finest displays of all court tennis you will ever see. It had everything. Wimbledon grass was somewhat one dimensional because of the low bounce but clay court tennis was much slower then. What has happened now is clay court tennis is much faster and that's a good thing but they have eliminated carpet and hardcourts are painfully slow with some exceptions (US open, Cincy, ATP Finals (last 2 years), Australian open (2017,2018, maybe 2020) etc). Grass has a much higher bounce and the balls are much heavier, so there is homogenized play across surfaces.
What's the point? Where is the variety? The only good thing is clay court tennis is much faster and players hit more winners which makes it more exciting than older clay matches.
Bruh what is this lol why do people think serving matches are interesting
Better than Monfils and Simon tapping the ball at each other for 50 strokes.
Did you see the return winners or passing shots? Or do you want to see 30 shot boring rallies end in errors
Son, watch this match from
begining to end, maybe you'll understand...
No wonder they had to change the court speed, why did people like tennis back then😂
I’m not joking when I’m saying how could people actually enjoy this?
Awesome aggressive tennis, nerves of steel required when there are so few breaks of serve.
Not easy to serve aces or hit clean winners at will
@@z1az285 it becomes when u just have to practice serve and volley and hitting winners. They didn't have to try out rallies
@@AkshatSharma-uz7im You forget that both Sampras and Ivanisevic were all court players who won titles on all surfaces indoors and outdoors. They had excellent groundstrokes and could rally on slower surfaces. In fact both were predominantly basrliners earlier in their careers but both had huge serves and Wimbledon was low bouncing, and inconsistent which is why you didn't see rallies. But indoor carpet was even faster than grass so the bounce while low was consistent and there were long rallies plus all court play. You need to watch Becker Sampras Hannover 1996 or Becker Ivanisevic Stockholm 1994 on indoor carpet/ hard to understand it was not just about the serve
@@z1az285 Modern players serve even more aces.