Watching this Sampras makes you feel for today's tennis. This was on another level of lethal. And so beautiful to watch. To the young tennis fans, don't look at the numbers, how many tournaments this or that guy won, look at the immense class of Pete Sampras' game.
@@SriramPatnaik-bv7ob so the racquet plays by itself? Sampras couldn t play on clay. Sampras was all about serve and volley on grass and fast hardcourts. He was average on clay and Slow hardcourts. When Andre Faded away between 96-98 he got advantage of it and reigned Supreme, but The competition was terrible.
@@cloudman8911when Andre faded away? You do realize Sampras dominated Agassi throughout their rivalry from 1990 - 2002 right? You do realize he beat him in the US open in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2002 yeah? Through Agassi’s highs, lows and resurgence, Sampras consistently got the better of him. The only outlier tournament was the Australian Open. Check your history please.
Watching this Sampras makes you feel for today's tennis. This was on another level of lethal. And so beautiful to watch. To the young tennis fans, don't look at the numbers, how many tournaments this or that guy won, look at the immense class of Pete Sampras' game. didnt translate 2 clay tho
Agassi played out of his skin in this match, yet Sampras was still too good for him. That day Sampras produced the finest display in a Wimbledon men's final I've ever seen.
@@josiewallace7968You are absolutely right. Agassi first serve percentage was too low. Other than that, he played lights out tennis, against a full form Sampras.
This is Tennis of a different level altogether….you just don’t see anything like it these days at all! This was probably the greatest exhibition of Grass Court Tennis that I’ve ever seen, full of great Quality play, Athletic movement, Speed of foot , and Court coverage!! I always thought that McEnroe’s 1984 slaughter of Jimmy Connors in 3 sets, was the best, but this match tops even that classic!!
This is serve & volley player vs baseline player with both being legends. The present day GOATs like Djoker,Federer & Nadal have taken it to altogether different level and rightly "must be" with evolution. It would not be a good idea to compare present day sport with past .
Juste une petite remarque : Connors était blessé lors de la finale de Wimbledon en 1984. Il aurait dû déclarer forfait mais il avait quand même tenu à jouer, tout simplement parce que les spectateurs avaient payé leur place pour y assister. Si Connors n'avait pas été blessé on aurait assisté à un tout autre match. La preuve c'est qu'il avait poussé McEnroe au 5e set lors de la 1/2 finale de l'US Open 2 mois plus tard, et qui avait été un match extraordinaire.
@@Traders_Paradigm To me the speed of the surface would need to be very fast for Sampras to have a chance. I looked at how Roger played Sampras in those exhibitions on I think a hard indoor court in 07 etc (yes, Pete was retired), and Federer had a lot of time to set up passing shots. Sampra's serve allowed him to hold onto his games, but he rarely made an impact on the return games as his baseline game was weak in comparison - I think his grip and technique had become outdated. I would fear as the big 3 are super athletic, fast; can defend from any angle and technically close to complete - Sampra's volley game would be exposed all the time. I would say he would have his best chance to beat Nadal on a fast surface than Djokovic or Federer purely just with that incredible serve than anything else.
Tough to say considering he was already retired. I think he would have beaten them just as much as they beat him back in his prime. But I do think you're right, a lot of the matches would end up in tiebreaks because Sampras can't rally with any of them from the baseline. He would have to serve perfectly. @@Nightingale_1
Mesmerizing these 2 players are! A different class, a pure tennis match. Sampras' serve & volley control find no word to describe. Agassi, the best returner, is a man of speed & accuracy. A great scene here it is!
99' Sampras against, say, 06' Federer - now that would be some spectacle. I think my money might be on Pistol Pete. On this evidence, that serve and volley game looks unbeatable.
As damn good as he was here, I still feel the outcome would depend on the surface. 90s grass/indoor hard courts/carpet? Sampras takes it. Slow hard courts and clay would probably go to Fed, though.
99'? Pete was not even at his peak here. His best years here 97 and 94. But yeah like someone already mentioned, it would depend on the surface. On this fast grass, Sampras in most matches. On 2002-2022 grass, federer all day long tho you can argue some changes have been made on the grass in 20 years (not for the best unfortunately).
I had been an Agassi fan until I watched this match. That was the turning point when I realized how insanely good athlete Pete was. Probably this was one of the greatest performance in the history of the sport along with Roger's 04 US Open final and Rafa's 08 Roland Garros final.
I was always on team Andre and really hated Sampras but now watching these old matches on youtube i always cheer for the serve-and-volley guys. It's refreshing now since we haven't seen it in 20 years.
@@AricarccggDJGg totally, Nadal is way ahead of roger. Sinner seems excellent, but let’s see how he develops. I am rooting for him. In my book, Novak and nadal are much better than roger
Improved racket technology, slower courts and overall court homogenisation, most courts (including hard and grass) are medium speed at best. Very few fast courts on the tour, and indoor courts (mainly carpet) are all but extinct. Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot, some tournaments, like Wimbledon, also introduced bigger, fuzzier balls, too
I agree with you, put a Djokovic in the place of Agassi in that 1999 Wimbledon court, give him a 1999 racquet, and he would be totally humiliated by this Sampras.
In a very tennis-like connotation, Sampras walked on water during this final. Agassi really didn't do much of anything wrong, and surely played well, it's just that Pete did everything right and better than Andre. Pete Sampras really got it going for big matches like this one, kind of like Novak Djokovic does these days.
Unbelievable performance from Pete. As he said once, probably the best tennis he ever played. Andre played superb tennis himself, yet he never had the slimmest of chances to win even a set here. Some of Pete's shots almost defy belief, if not the laws of physics: 9:33 (forehand), 6:56 (volley), 5:54 (volley and smash), 8:15 (backhand, presumably his weaker shot - "not today", as one commentator of that very Wimbledon final aptly said). I am no fan of comparing different eras (a harmless idiocy), but I must say I've never seen that level of tennis perfection at a Wimbledon final since.
Pete played some incredible tennis during the second part of 1999 season,just insane,he beat Andre here and in ATP finals in straight sets,Cincinnati and Washington as well,and Andre was probably playing the tennis of his life,winning RG and Us Open and playing a final here,to bad Pete missed AO and Us Open due to injury issues,he would have been a huge favourite to win it,and had 15-17 Slams.
This 1999 Wimbledon final between Sampras and Agassi was Pete when he was 2-3 years past the peak of his prime, and he still played dominating serve-and-volley tennis!
@@tano2775 Sampras was not at his peak in 1999. His prime was from 1993-1996/1997. Sampras experienced a herniated disc in his back in 1999 and he was never quite the same after that injury even though he won the 2002 U.S. Open in his last tournament in his stellar career on the men's pro tour.
I loved watching both of these amazing players. When they played each other, Iwas always torn about who to root for. I admit I was slightly more partial to Pete Sampras.
Federer would have had a chance. For sure, he defeated Sampras in the 4th round two years after this match but Sampras was past his peak then. A peak Federer against the Sampras of 1999 would be too close to call in terms of the result - it would have probably gone to 5 sets though, however Sampras would have blew Djokovic off the park in a more one sided scoreline than this match against Agassi. I know its hypothetical, but I reckon the Sampras of 1999 would have won something like 6-2 6-1 6-3 against Djokovic who today is only 'dominating' against massively inferior opponents (compared with who Sampras faced in the 1990's) on the homogenised slow courts of today which make Djokovic look 'better' than he really is!
@@fieldtripfan Here here! It’s amazing how Sampras keeps Agassi completely on the back-foot here. Djokavic (who I view as Agassi 2.0) would stand perhaps a couple of steps back and thus have bigger cuts at the ball, but Sampras would then move him side to side like a puppet.
This match shows why Pete at his absolute best from 1993-1996/1997 on the faster pre-2001 Wimbledon grass courts, would have the edge over Federer at his peak from 2003-2008! Pete at his best, was better than Djokovic or Nadal at their best as well!
Nadal doesn't belong in this conversation. He wouldn't touch a Wimbledon on these fast, low bouncing conditions. Faster balls on this grass, Pete would have the edge over Federer and Djokovic though. In their conditions, they would have the edge.
Nadal is the clay goat. He is one of the best on all courts but in goat conversations on clay. Nadal didnt face many fast court players, maybe one or two. But all big 3 except Fed , and also wawrinka nd Mirray, are mostly baseliners for slower courts
@@jacksongreene3687 Fed is better than Djokovic on fast coirts, he is primarily chasing the ball and defending and setting ip the poijt. Of course both Djokovic would adapt to gaster era and Sampras to slower era so it is all inknown if not tried for some years by each player. 1999 was also the last year Sampras trained seriously as he has said.
@@innosanto Nadal is definitely not the GOAT clay court player! That distinction goes to one player and one player only in men's tennis history and that is Bjorn Rune Borg! Borg had a much better first serve than Nadal, hence he could win free points on his serve, whereas Nadal would struggle to win free points on his serve in a match between them on any surface, especially if you require Nadal to play with a wood or metal racket and regular, non-lubricated strings which is real tennis! Nadal has had 0 great clay court players to challenge him at Roland Garros in his entire pro tennis career! At least Borg had two definite all-time great clay court players in Vilas and Lendl to challenge him at Roland Garros (albeit a young Lendl) and Nadal has benefitted enormously from the deplorable changes in the game which have elevated the level of play of Nadal Federer and Djokovic at least a level and a half above their true ability levels ( i.e., the lubricated strings that add 20% more spin to the ball, the larger Type3 tennis ball utilized in many tournaments, the slowed-down court surfaces and the graphite rackets! Borg was at least as fast and as physically fit as Nadal, so neither player would have an advantage in those departments. If Borg keeps the ball deep and serves well getting a lot of first serves in, then he definitely defeats Nadal. Only if Borg doesn't serve well and hits a lot of short balls in rallies would Nadal defeat him! Modern tennis fans and so-called "experts" delude themselves into erroneously thinking that those three modern champions are the three greatest male tennis players of all-time, and fail miserably to examine the underlying reasons/factors which explain why their accomplishments are so grossly inflated and disproportionate to those of the great players of the past in men's tennis history!
@@michaelbarlow6610 Nadal is the undisputed King of clay and 2nd GOAT (22 Slams + Double Career Grand Slam + 24-16 H2H over Federer + Olympic Gold in singles), you're an old boomer letting nostalgia ruin your capacity of objectivity. Nadal has more than twice the number of RG Borg has. Borg only won 6 RG, Nadal won 14 RG. Nadal at his peak at RG is untouchable, 14 out 14 (100% winning ratio) in finals. Not even Pete(r) Sampras on grass comes close, as he only won 7 W. 14 RG is twice as dominant as 7 W.
When people just automatically put the current crop of alpha players at the top of the all-time list, they make an error of recency bias. The # of Grand Slam victories by the big three of the last 20 years (obv who I'm referring to) doesn't have the meaning people think it does. One of the possibilities is that the level of those below them is greater than the level below Sampras and the other "alphas" of that generation. Just on the evidence of these players' games...I'm not so sure you put all three, Federer, Nadal, and Dokovic ahead of Sampras. And maybe you only put one of them ahead of him.
Nobody beats Sampras playing Wimbledon like this. Not Agassi, not Federer, not Djokovic, not Nadal. Maybe Ivanisevic, read Samprases book, Sampras said he was the only oponent over whom he didnt have control.
@@mtklaric .In the graphite era, only John McEnroe of 1984 would have an outstanding chance of defeating Sampras at his best from 1993-1996/1997 on the pre-2001 grass courts at Wimbledon. In terms of the graphite era in tennis history, I rank them (1) John McEnroe-1984, (2) Pete Sampras- 1993-1997, (3) Roger Federer- 2003-2008, (4) Boris Becker-1989, (5)Novak Djokovic-2011.
@@jacksongreene3687 .I would still rank Djokovic 5th on the list of the greatest male tennis players of the graphite era behind the other 4 players I cited in my previously posted comment regardless of which season 2015 or 2011 was his best season on the men's pro tennis tour .
5:53 -5:55 -- There is no player on the planet that could hit that half volley like Sampras. Maybe only a few in the history of the game at this level.
Whoever says Nadal djoko or Federer are superior than that are simply blind. There is no bigger example of true dominante over other Big Big player than that. Amazing
Beautiful to watch real grass court tennis on the pre-2001, faster grass courts at Wimbledon in which the ball skided low with a sometimes erratic bounce, compared to the hard court tennis played at Wimbledon since and including the 2001 tournament in which the deplorable change in the composition of the surface to 100% rye grass has resulted in tediously dull, seemingly never-ending, baseline "war-of-attrition" slugfests!
Never ending rallies 2001 right? Well, the average rally length of the 2003 wimbledon final (Federer vs philippoussis) was 2.34 strokes per point. Not any longer than what you see here.
@@user-cy6xl3vd3f .You noticeably fail to mention that in the 2003 Wimbledon final Federer and Philippoussis were both SERVE -AND-VOLLEYING! Today's tennis is all baseline play, with never-ending rallies, whereas in the pre-2001 era at Wimbledon, players tried to win points as efficiently as possible by getting to the net! Federer vs. Philippoussis is a very rare post-2001 example of serve-and-volley play at Wimbledon!
@@michaelbarlow6610 I didn't fail to mention anything, it's the point of my comment. The two finalists serve and volleying implies that the surface was not that slow compared to before. Let's take a look at the numbers for final and semi finals combined : -2003 : 2.9 strokes per rally -2004 : 3.4 -2005 : 3.9 You can see here that the average rally length gradually increases, so we can draw a line between these numbers and a progressive change in the way play evolved at wimbledon. The top average I've calculated is for the 2013 final, Djokovic vs Murray : 6.06 this is clay numbers, and even if it's only for the final we can suggest the grass continued to slow down after 2002. Because yes, it's 2002. Stop with this pre-2001 thing. The change happened in 2002. In 2001 most quarterfinalists were serve volleyers, rallies were short and there were a lot of aces.
@@user-cy6xl3vd3f Wrong! The AELT&CC in 2001 NOT 2002 changed the composition of the grass courts at Wimbledon from the traditional composition of 70% rye grass and 30% Red Creeping Fescue (a lightening fast surface with low, skidding and sometimes erratic bounces of the tennis ball) to 100% rye grass courts and put in place a firmer subsoil below the grass surface which results in the ball rebounding higher and truer off the grass surface and a fraction of a second slower because the post-2000 surface is a much more impact resistant surface! That fraction of a second difference no matter how small can make all the difference in the world between a net player putting away a volley and an opposing baseline player having a fraction of a second longer to react to the net player's volley or approach shot to knock the ball past him, especially with the huge, unfair advantage baseline players have from the lubricated strings which studies have proven add 20% more spin to the ball and favor baseline play over serve-and-volley play! As Ivan Lendl accurately stated in the 2019 roundtable discussion about tennis at the U.S. Open with McEnroe, Wilander and Becker, if the net player doesn't get the ball very deep to force the opposing baseline player to block the ball back, the baseline player because of the lubricated strings can knock the ball past the net player at very sharp angles and can get the ball to dive down rapidly after it clears the net! That along with slowed down surfaces, the abandonment of the lightening fast indoor supreme court carpet surface and the larger Type3 tennis ball explains why serve-and-volley play has essentially vanished from the men's and women's pro tennis tours because the deplorable changes in the game have made it exceedingly difficult for serve-and-volley/net play to succeed! Those regrettable changes in the game and the total lack of all-time great players (especially serve-and-volley players) to challenge them, explains why Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have achieved grossly inflated statistical achievements compared to the earlier and previous era all-time great players! Wimbledon tennis is no longer real grass court tennis! It is hard court tennis played on grass courts! That's reality despite your refusal to see it!
@@michaelbarlow6610 hey calm down, why being so passionate about this? You're reacting like I insulted your family. I completely agree about the domination of baseline play at wimbledon being an absurdity, and I want variety just like you do. However, saying the grass was already slowed down in 2001 just doesn't make any sense. How would you explain such different dynamics of play from 2001 to 2002 if the courts were playing exactly the same both years? I looked up an article from the NY times (the one you might be relying on) and what *you* fail to mention is that the percentage of points won at the net decreased over time. In 2002, it was 30% and in 2005 it was 19% which confirms what I said about the courts changing even after 2002. It appears pretty clear to me that the change was made in 2001 after wimbledon, thus was operating from 2002 on. However there is one thing about it you're completely ignoring. Change was *necessary* at the time. With the racket technology improving relentlessly, matches had become too serve dominated and eventually boring. A wimbledon final with more than 50% unreturned serves and a 4 strokes rally as the longest point of the match *is not real grass court tennis* . The 1994 final was not serve and volley, it was just serve. www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2016/06/11/the-grass-is-slowing-another-look-at-surface-speed-convergence/ You can see here that as the 90s passed by rallies were becoming shorter and shorter at the venue. Actually in the 80s, serve was less dominant and rallies were longer due to rackets being less powerful, but the grass was still fast. To me that was the perfect mix although you could argue that the early 2000s were good too since the pace was faster and grass courts were certainly faster than today. Maybe reverting the composition change, or maybe going for a 85% ryegrass and 15% red fescue grass mix would be beneficial for variety at wimbledon. But to me the main problem is still the rackets.
Sampras was basically a less talented and powerful version of Becker but his mobility was way superior, making him into the GOAT discussion for modern tennis.
I'm going to come out and say it....Agassi played dumb against Pete on fast surfaces. He stands in the same return position pretty much every time and seemingly hopes Pete gives him enough second serves. Agassi should have been leaning if not outright cheating to the T or the out wide serve pretty much every time. You guess right, you have a real shot at winning the point. You guess wrong, you get aced. But not guessing at all means you barely get a racket on the ball and hit a weak return which means you lose the point anyway. At least guessing gives you a CHANCE. Plus the other thing is that would have put some doubt in Pete's head "oh man where is Andre going to guess"
@mjells8478 You are a few decades late to give Agassi any tip about how to play that game. On the other hand it's possible you found a microspopic part of the social media motherload.
estos jugaban de verdad!.... ma que Tipsipas, ni Medvedev, ni Alcatraz, etc....completo control de todos los aspectos del juego estos 2 tenistas... no porque se juegue a mas velocidad de pelota en estos tiempos va a ser un mejor tenis..nadie pero absolutamente ninguno de los jugadores de la actualidad tiene idea de lo que es el juego de red, nadie tiene idea de lo que es volear..es solo para entendidos....
They made all the surfaces suit Sampras game but not suit Aggasi's. They made the Grass Faster at Wimbledon. Once Sampras got old they made the Grass at Wimbledon slower to suit Federer's game. The Australian Open became a faster surface and the US Open too. The Clay was slowed down to suit the South Americans and Spanish. So Federer, Nadal and Djpkovic's achievements are less impressive than Aggasi's.
Although this 1999 Wimbledon match between Sampras and Agassi demonstrates how freakishly great Sampras was, that short, crosscourt forehand that Sampras hit at 9:24 that forced an error from Agassi is a perfect example of what Jimmy Connors stated during the 1989 Wimbledon final Sunday, NBC Sports TV roundtable discussion of racket technology with Bud Collins and Bob Costas about how the graphite rackets had elevated players' games a full level ( i.e., from "C"-level to "B"- level, "B"-level to "A"- level and "A"- level to Wimbledon-level) above their actual playing abilities! There is no way Sampras could have forced that error from Agassi if he had hit that flick of the wrist, crosscourt forehand with a small-head wood or metal racket. The midsize graphite/kevlar Wilson Pro Staff racket provided most of the power on that shot! So that shot was not "genius" by Sampras - it was racket technology and the speed of the pre-2001, faster grass courts at Wimbledon that permitted Sampras to hit that shot!
Sampras was an absolute beast at Wimbledon. That blistering serve with the serve and volley was a beauty to watch
Too bad his career didn't overlap with Federer's more...would have been absolutely classic.
Watching this Sampras makes you feel for today's tennis. This was on another level of lethal. And so beautiful to watch. To the young tennis fans, don't look at the numbers, how many tournaments this or that guy won, look at the immense class of Pete Sampras' game.
Lol. Agassi played like a clown. Novak or Roger would have destroyed Sampras.
@@cloudman8911of course with their better rackets, better shoes and better training. Sampras is just too good for his time
@@SriramPatnaik-bv7ob so the racquet plays by itself? Sampras couldn t play on clay. Sampras was all about serve and volley on grass and fast hardcourts. He was average on clay and Slow hardcourts. When Andre Faded away between 96-98 he got advantage of it and reigned Supreme, but The competition was terrible.
Two very classy players putting on a fantastic show.
The only clown here is the one writing silly comments 🤣
@@cloudman8911when Andre faded away? You do realize Sampras dominated Agassi throughout their rivalry from 1990 - 2002 right? You do realize he beat him in the US open in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2002 yeah? Through Agassi’s highs, lows and resurgence, Sampras consistently got the better of him. The only outlier tournament was the Australian Open. Check your history please.
A man a myth seven Wimbledon finals all seven won! Mr Pete you are the best grass court player ever!
Pete at his best was unbeatable. And I am an Agassi/Federer fan
Watching this Sampras makes you feel for today's tennis. This was on another level of lethal. And so beautiful to watch. To the young tennis fans, don't look at the numbers, how many tournaments this or that guy won, look at the immense class of Pete Sampras' game.
didnt translate 2 clay tho
9:34 the shortest forehand motion in the history, and was a bomb kkkkkkkk
His racket was a tank....almost 390 grams. Guys now think 350 is heavy lol
With that serve Pete,on the grass,was Unstoppable!!!!
Agassi played out of his skin in this match, yet Sampras was still too good for him. That day Sampras produced the finest display in a Wimbledon men's final I've ever seen.
@@josiewallace7968You are absolutely right. Agassi first serve percentage was too low. Other than that, he played lights out tennis, against a full form Sampras.
With this serve of Sampras..he was untouchable, even combine of federer, nadal and djoker won't be able to stop him..
The best grass player ever
7-0 Wimbledon finals record, grass GOAT
Roger Federer is also goat of Grass.
one of the best, yes :)
Federer,Pete Sampras,Novak Djokovic and Bjorn Borg are 4 best grass court players in open era.
@@kikaa1884 you forgot the one and only McEnroe....and I would add Becker and Edberg
This is Tennis of a different level altogether….you just don’t see anything like it these days at all!
This was probably the greatest exhibition of Grass Court Tennis that I’ve ever seen, full of great Quality play, Athletic movement, Speed of foot , and Court coverage!!
I always thought that McEnroe’s 1984 slaughter of Jimmy Connors in 3 sets, was the best, but this match tops even that classic!!
This is serve & volley player vs baseline player with both being legends. The present day GOATs like Djoker,Federer & Nadal have taken it to altogether different level and rightly "must be" with evolution. It would not be a good idea to compare present day sport with past .
Sampras would have beaten those guys just as much as they would beat him. Serve and volley is the antidote to these baseline players
Juste une petite remarque : Connors était blessé lors de la finale de Wimbledon en 1984. Il aurait dû déclarer forfait mais il avait quand même tenu à jouer, tout simplement parce que les spectateurs avaient payé leur place pour y assister. Si Connors n'avait pas été blessé on aurait assisté à un tout autre match. La preuve c'est qu'il avait poussé McEnroe au 5e set lors de la 1/2 finale de l'US Open 2 mois plus tard, et qui avait été un match extraordinaire.
@@Traders_Paradigm To me the speed of the surface would need to be very fast for Sampras to have a chance. I looked at how Roger played Sampras in those exhibitions on I think a hard indoor court in 07 etc (yes, Pete was retired), and Federer had a lot of time to set up passing shots. Sampra's serve allowed him to hold onto his games, but he rarely made an impact on the return games as his baseline game was weak in comparison - I think his grip and technique had become outdated. I would fear as the big 3 are super athletic, fast; can defend from any angle and technically close to complete - Sampra's volley game would be exposed all the time. I would say he would have his best chance to beat Nadal on a fast surface than Djokovic or Federer purely just with that incredible serve than anything else.
Tough to say considering he was already retired. I think he would have beaten them just as much as they beat him back in his prime. But I do think you're right, a lot of the matches would end up in tiebreaks because Sampras can't rally with any of them from the baseline. He would have to serve perfectly. @@Nightingale_1
Mesmerizing these 2 players are! A different class, a pure tennis match. Sampras' serve & volley control find no word to describe. Agassi, the best returner, is a man of speed & accuracy. A great scene here it is!
99' Sampras against, say, 06' Federer - now that would be some spectacle. I think my money might be on Pistol Pete. On this evidence, that serve and volley game looks unbeatable.
99’ Sampras v 06’ Federer v 15’ Djokovic
As damn good as he was here, I still feel the outcome would depend on the surface. 90s grass/indoor hard courts/carpet? Sampras takes it. Slow hard courts and clay would probably go to Fed, though.
@@johnmurphy7674 sampras beats both
@@mtklaric yea ok especially not Federer
99'? Pete was not even at his peak here. His best years here 97 and 94. But yeah like someone already mentioned, it would depend on the surface. On this fast grass, Sampras in most matches. On 2002-2022 grass, federer all day long tho you can argue some changes have been made on the grass in 20 years (not for the best unfortunately).
I had been an Agassi fan until I watched this match. That was the turning point when I realized how insanely good athlete Pete was. Probably this was one of the greatest performance in the history of the sport along with Roger's 04 US Open final and Rafa's 08 Roland Garros final.
I was always on team Andre and really hated Sampras but now watching these old matches on youtube i always cheer for the serve-and-volley guys. It's refreshing now since we haven't seen it in 20 years.
Roger is not that a good player, the media pumped his reputation.
Novak's 2019 final? Novak's 2023 Australian Open?
@@4lugan Nadal is better, and watch out for Sinner, he's the best of his generation
@@AricarccggDJGg totally, Nadal is way ahead of roger. Sinner seems excellent, but let’s see how he develops. I am rooting for him. In my book, Novak and nadal are much better than roger
I think this was the greatest match Sampras ever played...and that's saying something!
The legendary "yeah" from Sampras after his ace to win the match 15:00 ... a stunning moment in tennis history.
Sampras = G.O.A.T
It’s not number of Slams it’s the Charisma perseverance skills on the court makes one Great 👍🏻
Perseverance? Kindly watch Djokovic and Nadal games. They are the best
@@kazeemadegboyegakola Sure they are good as well but the serve of Sampras sets him apart from all others.
“He’ll be walking on water next”. Love that quote
GREAT for the ages!!
The best fast court player ever
I often wonder why there isn't more serve and volley in todays game. Pete's serve and volley would seriously hamper any of the big 3 of today.
Courts arent as fast as they used to be.And better materials in strings and racquets.It is a shame really.Contrast in styles are lost because of that.
@@SuperBosbon Yeah absolutely 💯 I'd love to see a classic serve and volley style against a baseliner again. 😊
There are no fast courts now. Wombledon is also slow now. This was. On pirpose to prolong games and pointsZ
Improved racket technology, slower courts and overall court homogenisation, most courts (including hard and grass) are medium speed at best. Very few fast courts on the tour, and indoor courts (mainly carpet) are all but extinct.
Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot, some tournaments, like Wimbledon, also introduced bigger, fuzzier balls, too
I agree with you, put a Djokovic in the place of Agassi in that 1999 Wimbledon court, give him a 1999 racquet, and he would be totally humiliated by this Sampras.
In a very tennis-like connotation, Sampras walked on water during this final. Agassi really didn't do much of anything wrong, and surely played well, it's just that Pete did everything right and better than Andre. Pete Sampras really got it going for big matches like this one, kind of like Novak Djokovic does these days.
No one would have beat Sampras that day. No one.
Unbelievable performance from Pete. As he said once, probably the best tennis he ever played. Andre played superb tennis himself, yet he never had the slimmest of chances to win even a set here. Some of Pete's shots almost defy belief, if not the laws of physics: 9:33 (forehand), 6:56 (volley), 5:54 (volley and smash), 8:15 (backhand, presumably his weaker shot - "not today", as one commentator of that very Wimbledon final aptly said). I am no fan of comparing different eras (a harmless idiocy), but I must say I've never seen that level of tennis perfection at a Wimbledon final since.
Pete played some incredible tennis during the second part of 1999 season,just insane,he beat Andre here and in ATP finals in straight sets,Cincinnati and Washington as well,and Andre was probably playing the tennis of his life,winning RG and Us Open and playing a final here,to bad Pete missed AO and Us Open due to injury issues,he would have been a huge favourite to win it,and had 15-17 Slams.
This 1999 Wimbledon final between Sampras and Agassi was Pete when he was 2-3 years past the peak of his prime, and he still played dominating serve-and-volley tennis!
No, that season was the end of peak Sampras.
@@tano2775 Sampras was not at his peak in 1999. His prime was from 1993-1996/1997. Sampras experienced a herniated disc in his back in 1999 and he was never quite the same after that injury even though he won the 2002 U.S. Open in his last tournament in his stellar career on the men's pro tour.
I loved watching both of these amazing players. When they played each other, Iwas always torn about who to root for. I admit I was slightly more partial to Pete Sampras.
Pete Sampas and #AndreAgassi are both the best tennis players during the 90's and the millennium. ❤❤❤
This is prime Sampras. Imagine seeing prime Djokovic or fed against him at Wimbledon. Hard to pick who'd win
If the Grass was still as it was then back in the 90’s, Pete Sampras is still kicking today’s big 3 Asses….no doubts about that whatsoever!!
Pete would win!
@@dillonsolanki4986 He lost to Krajicek at Wimby.
Federer would have had a chance. For sure, he defeated Sampras in the 4th round two years after this match but Sampras was past his peak then. A peak Federer against the Sampras of 1999 would be too close to call in terms of the result - it would have probably gone to 5 sets though, however Sampras would have blew Djokovic off the park in a more one sided scoreline than this match against Agassi. I know its hypothetical, but I reckon the Sampras of 1999 would have won something like 6-2 6-1 6-3 against Djokovic who today is only 'dominating' against massively inferior opponents (compared with who Sampras faced in the 1990's) on the homogenised slow courts of today which make Djokovic look 'better' than he really is!
@@fieldtripfan Here here! It’s amazing how Sampras keeps Agassi completely on the back-foot here. Djokavic (who I view as Agassi 2.0) would stand perhaps a couple of steps back and thus have bigger cuts at the ball, but Sampras would then move him side to side like a puppet.
André has the Best Return ever
A clear thrashing! "Come on" at 14:56, and "Yeah" at match point! Best serve ever!
Greatest ever
Best grass court tennis. I love it although I love Sampras vs Becker matches a little bit more overall 😉
This was the last Sampras year in form. He he started to lessen training in end 1999 because he wanted to retire.
This match shows why Pete at his absolute best from 1993-1996/1997 on the faster pre-2001 Wimbledon grass courts, would have the edge over Federer at his peak from 2003-2008! Pete at his best, was better than Djokovic or Nadal at their best as well!
Nadal doesn't belong in this conversation. He wouldn't touch a Wimbledon on these fast, low bouncing conditions. Faster balls on this grass, Pete would have the edge over Federer and Djokovic though. In their conditions, they would have the edge.
Nadal is the clay goat. He is one of the best on all courts but in goat conversations on clay. Nadal didnt face many fast court players, maybe one or two. But all big 3 except Fed , and also wawrinka nd Mirray, are mostly baseliners for slower courts
@@jacksongreene3687 Fed is better than Djokovic on fast coirts, he is primarily chasing the ball and defending and setting ip the poijt.
Of course both Djokovic would adapt to gaster era and Sampras to slower era so it is all inknown if not tried for some years by each player.
1999 was also the last year Sampras trained seriously as he has said.
@@innosanto Nadal is definitely not the GOAT clay court player! That distinction goes to one player and one player only in men's tennis history and that is Bjorn Rune Borg! Borg had a much better first serve than Nadal, hence he could win free points on his serve, whereas Nadal would struggle to win free points on his serve in a match between them on any surface, especially if you require Nadal to play with a wood or metal racket and regular, non-lubricated strings which is real tennis! Nadal has had 0 great clay court players to challenge him at Roland Garros in his entire pro tennis career! At least Borg had two definite all-time great clay court players in Vilas and Lendl to challenge him at Roland Garros (albeit a young Lendl) and Nadal has benefitted enormously from the deplorable changes in the game which have elevated the level of play of Nadal Federer and Djokovic at least a level and a half above their true ability levels ( i.e., the lubricated strings that add 20% more spin to the ball, the larger Type3 tennis ball utilized in many tournaments, the slowed-down court surfaces and the graphite rackets! Borg was at least as fast and as physically fit as Nadal, so neither player would have an advantage in those departments. If Borg keeps the ball deep and serves well getting a lot of first serves in, then he definitely defeats Nadal. Only if Borg doesn't serve well and hits a lot of short balls in rallies would Nadal defeat him! Modern tennis fans and so-called "experts" delude themselves into erroneously thinking that those three modern champions are the three greatest male tennis players of all-time, and fail miserably to examine the underlying reasons/factors which explain why their accomplishments are so grossly inflated and disproportionate to those of the great players of the past in men's tennis history!
@@michaelbarlow6610 Nadal is the undisputed King of clay and 2nd GOAT (22 Slams + Double Career Grand Slam + 24-16 H2H over Federer + Olympic Gold in singles), you're an old boomer letting nostalgia ruin your capacity of objectivity. Nadal has more than twice the number of RG Borg has. Borg only won 6 RG, Nadal won 14 RG. Nadal at his peak at RG is untouchable, 14 out 14 (100% winning ratio) in finals. Not even Pete(r) Sampras on grass comes close, as he only won 7 W. 14 RG is twice as dominant as 7 W.
Legends
When people just automatically put the current crop of alpha players at the top of the all-time list, they make an error of recency bias. The # of Grand Slam victories by the big three of the last 20 years (obv who I'm referring to) doesn't have the meaning people think it does. One of the possibilities is that the level of those below them is greater than the level below Sampras and the other "alphas" of that generation. Just on the evidence of these players' games...I'm not so sure you put all three, Federer, Nadal, and Dokovic ahead of Sampras. And maybe you only put one of them ahead of him.
Nobody beats Sampras playing Wimbledon like this. Not Agassi, not Federer, not Djokovic, not Nadal. Maybe Ivanisevic, read Samprases book, Sampras said he was the only oponent over whom he didnt have control.
@@mtklaric .In the graphite era, only John McEnroe of 1984 would have an outstanding chance of defeating Sampras at his best from 1993-1996/1997 on the pre-2001 grass courts at Wimbledon. In terms of the graphite era in tennis history, I rank them (1) John McEnroe-1984, (2) Pete Sampras- 1993-1997, (3) Roger Federer- 2003-2008, (4) Boris Becker-1989, (5)Novak Djokovic-2011.
@@michaelbarlow6610 2011 wasn't even Djokovic's best level. 2015 was.
@@jacksongreene3687 .I would still rank Djokovic 5th on the list of the greatest male tennis players of the graphite era behind the other 4 players I cited in my previously posted comment regardless of which season 2015 or 2011 was his best season on the men's pro tennis tour .
@@michaelbarlow6610 I wouldnt but you're free to your opinion and wouldn't rank Becker above him or Borg.
Fast Grass = beautiful tennis
5:53 -5:55 -- There is no player on the planet that could hit that half volley like Sampras. Maybe only a few in the history of the game at this level.
I like Agassi's hair cut.
What hair???
Pistol Pete was my favorite from that era......
Never lost a Wimbledon final unlike Federer, Borg, Djokovic.
1999...12 GS titles is the new record
Whoever says Nadal djoko or Federer are superior than that are simply blind. There is no bigger example of true dominante over other Big Big player than that. Amazing
All are superior athletes compared to Pete
@@yussepig6629You are not serious...or u just can't see the level of tennis and the lethal serve
Beautiful to watch real grass court tennis on the pre-2001, faster grass courts at Wimbledon in which the ball skided low with a sometimes erratic bounce, compared to the hard court tennis played at Wimbledon since and including the 2001 tournament in which the deplorable change in the composition of the surface to 100% rye grass has resulted in tediously dull, seemingly never-ending, baseline "war-of-attrition" slugfests!
Never ending rallies 2001 right? Well, the average rally length of the 2003 wimbledon final (Federer vs philippoussis) was 2.34 strokes per point. Not any longer than what you see here.
@@user-cy6xl3vd3f .You noticeably fail to mention that in the 2003 Wimbledon final Federer and Philippoussis were both SERVE -AND-VOLLEYING! Today's tennis is all baseline play, with never-ending rallies, whereas in the pre-2001 era at Wimbledon, players tried to win points as efficiently as possible by getting to the net! Federer vs. Philippoussis is a very rare post-2001 example of serve-and-volley play at Wimbledon!
@@michaelbarlow6610 I didn't fail to mention anything, it's the point of my comment. The two finalists serve and volleying implies that the surface was not that slow compared to before. Let's take a look at the numbers for final and semi finals combined :
-2003 : 2.9 strokes per rally
-2004 : 3.4
-2005 : 3.9
You can see here that the average rally length gradually increases, so we can draw a line between these numbers and a progressive change in the way play evolved at wimbledon. The top average I've calculated is for the 2013 final, Djokovic vs Murray : 6.06 this is clay numbers, and even if it's only for the final we can suggest the grass continued to slow down after 2002.
Because yes, it's 2002. Stop with this pre-2001 thing. The change happened in 2002. In 2001 most quarterfinalists were serve volleyers, rallies were short and there were a lot of aces.
@@user-cy6xl3vd3f Wrong! The AELT&CC in 2001 NOT 2002 changed the composition of the grass courts at Wimbledon from the traditional composition of 70% rye grass and 30% Red Creeping Fescue (a lightening fast surface with low, skidding and sometimes erratic bounces of the tennis ball) to 100% rye grass courts and put in place a firmer subsoil below the grass surface which results in the ball rebounding higher and truer off the grass surface and a fraction of a second slower because the post-2000 surface is a much more impact resistant surface! That fraction of a second difference no matter how small can make all the difference in the world between a net player putting away a volley and an opposing baseline player having a fraction of a second longer to react to the net player's volley or approach shot to knock the ball past him, especially with the huge, unfair advantage baseline players have from the lubricated strings which studies have proven add 20% more spin to the ball and favor baseline play over serve-and-volley play! As Ivan Lendl accurately stated in the 2019 roundtable discussion about tennis at the U.S. Open with McEnroe, Wilander and Becker, if the net player doesn't get the ball very deep to force the opposing baseline player to block the ball back, the baseline player because of the lubricated strings can knock the ball past the net player at very sharp angles and can get the ball to dive down rapidly after it clears the net! That along with slowed down surfaces, the abandonment of the lightening fast indoor supreme court carpet surface and the larger Type3 tennis ball explains why serve-and-volley play has essentially vanished from the men's and women's pro tennis tours because the deplorable changes in the game have made it exceedingly difficult for serve-and-volley/net play to succeed! Those regrettable changes in the game and the total lack of all-time great players (especially serve-and-volley players) to challenge them, explains why Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have achieved grossly inflated statistical achievements compared to the earlier and previous era all-time great players! Wimbledon tennis is no longer real grass court tennis! It is hard court tennis played on grass courts! That's reality despite your refusal to see it!
@@michaelbarlow6610 hey calm down, why being so passionate about this? You're reacting like I insulted your family. I completely agree about the domination of baseline play at wimbledon being an absurdity, and I want variety just like you do. However, saying the grass was already slowed down in 2001 just doesn't make any sense. How would you explain such different dynamics of play from 2001 to 2002 if the courts were playing exactly the same both years? I looked up an article from the NY times (the one you might be relying on) and what *you* fail to mention is that the percentage of points won at the net decreased over time. In 2002, it was 30% and in 2005 it was 19% which confirms what I said about the courts changing even after 2002.
It appears pretty clear to me that the change was made in 2001 after wimbledon, thus was operating from 2002 on. However there is one thing about it you're completely ignoring. Change was *necessary* at the time. With the racket technology improving relentlessly, matches had become too serve dominated and eventually boring. A wimbledon final with more than 50% unreturned serves and a 4 strokes rally as the longest point of the match *is not real grass court tennis* . The 1994 final was not serve and volley, it was just serve.
www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2016/06/11/the-grass-is-slowing-another-look-at-surface-speed-convergence/
You can see here that as the 90s passed by rallies were becoming shorter and shorter at the venue. Actually in the 80s, serve was less dominant and rallies were longer due to rackets being less powerful, but the grass was still fast. To me that was the perfect mix although you could argue that the early 2000s were good too since the pace was faster and grass courts were certainly faster than today. Maybe reverting the composition change, or maybe going for a 85% ryegrass and 15% red fescue grass mix would be beneficial for variety at wimbledon.
But to me the main problem is still the rackets.
Is it just my impression or did players hit the ball a lot harder 24 years ago?
Seems they hit the ball flatter. Today’s players use way more top spin. Only comparable in terms of hitting flat with pace is Kyrios.
Sampras was basically a less talented and powerful version of Becker but his mobility was way superior, making him into the GOAT discussion for modern tennis.
Agassi - Sampras in Wimbledon. No need to see the thumbnail to know who won (and I’m an Agassi fan).
With the courts today being slower, with more bounce and consistency, the serve and volley game is dead. Sampras is the greatest server ever.
Ein Agassi in Topform sagte damals:"da war nichts zu machen"!😢
For that i hate tennis on grass is really annoying ,just serve well you win
This Sampras could basically beat anyone.
90's were the years of hunch people in tennis.
In Pete Sampras words “a clean trash”
You just can pay to watch that Sampras serve alone…
Pete was the best on grass!
Wow that shot at 9:34 was genius
This is true grass.
I'm going to come out and say it....Agassi played dumb against Pete on fast surfaces. He stands in the same return position pretty much every time and seemingly hopes Pete gives him enough second serves. Agassi should have been leaning if not outright cheating to the T or the out wide serve pretty much every time. You guess right, you have a real shot at winning the point. You guess wrong, you get aced. But not guessing at all means you barely get a racket on the ball and hit a weak return which means you lose the point anyway. At least guessing gives you a CHANCE. Plus the other thing is that would have put some doubt in Pete's head "oh man where is Andre going to guess"
@mjells8478 You are a few decades late to give Agassi any tip about how to play that game.
On the other hand it's possible you found a microspopic part of the social media motherload.
Unplayable Pete
estos jugaban de verdad!.... ma que Tipsipas, ni Medvedev, ni Alcatraz, etc....completo control de todos los aspectos del juego estos 2 tenistas... no porque se juegue a mas velocidad de pelota en estos tiempos va a ser un mejor tenis..nadie pero absolutamente ninguno de los jugadores de la actualidad tiene idea de lo que es el juego de red, nadie tiene idea de lo que es volear..es solo para entendidos....
Sampras was amazing on grass
08:43 holy f s
The dog and his boss
They made all the surfaces suit Sampras game but not suit Aggasi's. They made the Grass Faster at Wimbledon. Once Sampras got old they made the Grass at Wimbledon slower to suit Federer's game. The Australian Open became a faster surface and the US Open too. The Clay was slowed down to suit the South Americans and Spanish. So Federer, Nadal and Djpkovic's achievements are less impressive than Aggasi's.
I don't think they did it to suit anyone's game. If anything wimbledon getting slower helped nadal.
They kind of Sampras would give the top 3 now problems on grass clinical class
Although this 1999 Wimbledon match between Sampras and Agassi demonstrates how freakishly great Sampras was, that short, crosscourt forehand that Sampras hit at 9:24 that forced an error from Agassi is a perfect example of what Jimmy Connors stated during the 1989 Wimbledon final Sunday, NBC Sports TV roundtable discussion of racket technology with Bud Collins and Bob Costas about how the graphite rackets had elevated players' games a full level ( i.e., from "C"-level to "B"- level, "B"-level to "A"- level and "A"- level to Wimbledon-level) above their actual playing abilities! There is no way Sampras could have forced that error from Agassi if he had hit that flick of the wrist, crosscourt forehand with a small-head wood or metal racket. The midsize graphite/kevlar Wilson Pro Staff racket provided most of the power on that shot! So that shot was not "genius" by Sampras - it was racket technology and the speed of the pre-2001, faster grass courts at Wimbledon that permitted Sampras to hit that shot!
It was also based on Sampras' forehand grip and hand/eye coordination that allowed him to flick that forehand.
OK, but this final was so boring.
Sampras owned Agassi
Sampras moved so much better than Agassi.. He was a much better athlete than Andre
Even after all these years I can't stand Pete.
Me too
This game was...boring. Serve&volley etc. Hmmm...now? That are rally, long rallies...
Agassi... The bane of tennis...
Andre got best groundstrokes.
Sampars olağanüstü
Servisleri mermi gibi.