Just shows you how great Pete's serve was. He is completely overmatched by a much younger, Prime Federer off the ground. His serve still made this competitive and close. Not too many people could ace Fed without him reacting to it. The greatest serve of all time.
He was 5 years out of retirement when this happened, I wouldn't call 37 as a Athlete not prime anymore considering the avg number 1 Athlete for all sports combined is 35.7 vs 30 in 2008. Shows how good Sampras could have been if the exercise science was as good as it was now.
I couldn't agree with you more pete had retired 6 years prior and keeping up with the Peak Federer, just goes to show you how great Sampras was and in Petes peak 95-96 it would have been a diffrent outcome.
Federer was going easy though. Pete was double broken by Hewitt and Safin like 6-2 sets. S&V game is old, Federer's generation of players had all the answers. Blocked slice return or short return through the net then drill a top spin passing shot.
Yeah you just wonder how many more slams he could’ve won if he hadn’t retired, he would’ve had some competition Federer, Nadal and Djokovic but I still think you could’ve won a couple more slams.
Sampras may be the goat with all respect to the big3 baseliners and their continued morivation. He could destroy all of them because of his physical characteristics and game characteristics. Meaning in good form, which practically ended in end of 2008 or start of 1999 when he stopped training for champion ans consciously reduced training to put other stuff in his life and eventually retire . Sampras got bored after 6 years no1 , jn his good form Agassi was not really competitive on 3 out of 4 surfaces.
Only if somehow Federer was able to teleport 10 years earlier to a prime Sampras.......we can only imagine how both of them, in their primes, would've stood against each other. When eras clash!! 😮
Pete's serve still a thing of beauty. What a guy to try to serve and volley against though, Pete's forehand looked better then I remember when he was world number one. Enjoyed this one.
Watching this again a decade later - still one of the best display of high intensity tennis. Makes you wonder how a prime Sampras would have fared against Federer. Federer won Wimbledon and Australian Open when he was 36. Sampras was 36 when this match happened. Sampras retired early at age 32.
Federer was 37 and Sampras was 37 in this Match. And Nadal was 36 and Athletes are going much longer now. Shows Sampras 5 years out of the game and how good he was. As an exercise scientist Federer is not at an age I would call peak now as it's still a developing age. 30's in Tennis has been peak for awhile but it depends on the Athlete. If Sampras had everything we know now he would have won this match easily. And 10 years these days isn't much younger in sports. 20 years is and it happens all the time.
Sports science has taken a giant leap forward with age - this is evident with Messi, Ronaldo, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc... late 20s used to be the twilight years with very few exceptions at the top level. Sampras didn't really retire early, performance wise. He had become quite an easy beat on the circuit and would suddenly bloom once a year at the US open.
Both Sampras and Federer didn't retire due to outright physical problems, they retire due to the game becoming too defensive as their strategy started fading. Both would have made a comeback if their strategies are still working well. Federer did not want to play defense at age 40.
@@romangargiulo8350 Yes - for one of the all-time greats (surely in the top 5 or 10), his (career) return of serve stats are poor. Novak, Roger, Rafa, Andy are in the top-10 depending on surface. Pete's around the 60-70 mark.
@danguee1 I don't think that's fair. The only area where he struggled slightly was on very high, heavily spun backhands. That's why his clay court record was a lot weaker. On other surfaces of course his opponents would go to the backhand consistently, but it was usually too good for them all agassi, courier, becker
When Pete retired at 32 he was arguably the greatest male player of all time. Then his accomplishments got steamrolled by the Big Three, leaving his reputation in an odd sort of limbo. No one now mentions him as the GOAT. At least we can say that he was the dominant player of the decade of the 1990s, worldwide, as well as probably the greatest American player ever, alongside Helen Wills Moody and Serena Williams.
Sampras was unbeaten in finals at Wimbledon, which means if his game was on then he would always win the final there. if fed, nadal, djoko, samprass were all the same age, Sampras would have the most wimbledon titles among those guys. Fed 2nd most at wimbledon. Nadal of course would dominate on clay. US open and australian, it'd be djoko and sampras with the most championships there. and if all these were playing at their prime, Fed, nadal and djoko would all have some wins on their least favorite surfaces. However, sampras wouldn't have any at the French. The reason sampras so good on grass and hardcourts is because he never tried to alter his play style or strategy to win the French. In this hypothetical scenario, the GOATs would be rated like this: 1. djoko and sampras tied for most major titles, djoko gets credit for titles on all surfaces, BUT sampras most titles at wimbledon and us open. . 2nd best is nadal, with the most wins at a single major tournament, the french. fed would have a good record at all the tournaments, but on this list of greats, he is the 4th best player.
@@johncraftenworth7847lol what a bunch of crap. If Sampras played on the current era he's winning like 2 slams due to injury to the big3.. You see how shit his backhand is? Even worse than federer. Nadal would make his backhand look like tissue paper. Same with djokovic . Also his forehand technique is pathetic . He's player of the past . He would be looked as a plumber 10 years from now
I'd mention him and Agassi as the goats because even McEnroe mentions that they slowed down the courts and balls right in this video, AND players hit much much flatter shots without top spin, Sampras forehand was 100mph.
I always got the feeling watching this that Federer was a little annoyed Sampras would not put on a show for the crowd - Sampras really wanted to win. This made it tough for Federer as if he got too serious and embarrassed Pete, he gets a bad press for it. In the 2nd set Federer was setting up the ball often for a nice exhibition rally but no, Sampras was having none of it. This is actually not a criticism of Sampras, it shows he has a winner's mentality. Just that I really do not think Federer was there for a re-run of their Wimbledon match.
Federer clearly moved faster on the court than Sampras but that was expected. Sampras in his prime, was deceptively quick as well. It would have been a treat to watch both of these players in a head-to-head in their 20s.
The sequence starting at about 6:33 was ridiculous. Pete hits a monster serve and should reasonably expect to hit an attacking volley. Instead, Fed rips a return at his feet. The greatness of Sampras shows here as he quickly adjusts and still manages to hit an attacking volley with INSIDE-OUT slice that leaves the spinning away from Federer. And Fed, who had to step to his left in the ad court to hit the return, still manages to run down that great volley in time to bend a forehand pass down the line. I saw this live and could not freaking believe that sequence. Imagine the points these 2 could have played if their primes overlapped?
@@Anticommunism99 for me Sampras is the best in fast courts and Federer 2st... the most effective player in Grand Slam finals remains - and clearly so - Pete Sampras: 14 Grand Slam titles and only 3 finals lost, a total of 77.8% that no one even comes close to… he could easily have won at least another 2-3 gs's titles if he wanted to keep playing, Sampra was clutch, the player with prefect weapons for a fast court
Dude, I never saw this match and I identify so much with what you said.. I cant believe this was a serve of 37 year Sampras with 5 years after his retirement. WHAT A MONSTER, WHAT A SERVE AND DRIVE...and his net game... AMAZING
To all of you out there who keep saying that serve and volley is the worst type of tennis you can play; ever heard of Feliciano Lopez? The guys is 17th in the world, and serves and volleys the heck out of his opponents. It all comes down to how well executed the tactic is.
Both in their exhibition matches and during their 2001 Wimbledon match, Fed returned Pete’s serve better than Agassi ever could. That extra wingspan really helps. Also, Agassi did not have a good slice return like Roger. Agassi tried to bludgeon the ball on all his returns, which would often pop the ball up for Sampras to easily volley. But Roger did a great job slicing the return and keeping it low.
so what ? sampras is not ridiculous on this match, but federer's generation brought greatest athletes as nadal , djokovic, and roger himself ! they also are more complete and powerful , but sampras at his great time would have beat anyone on grass even a great federer or djokovic
To understand which Power Sampras had, watch the ATP Final Sampras vs Becker 1996.This Sampras was actually unbeatable for sure and Boris played his best Hard Court Tennis in his Life.Two Master Class Player in that Match.
Io penso che Federer ha potuto raggiungere i livelli tennistici superlativi che poi ha raggiunto con la sua tecnica perchè ha studiato i movimenti e gli schemi di gioco dei giocatori come Sampras ed altri del passato ma nessuno potrà mai dire a parità di anni chi fosse veramente il più forte anche sè ritengo che qualora i due giocatori fossero stati contemporanei sarebbe stata un grandissima lotta al ultimo colpo in ogni partita perchè giocatori della generazione di Sampras Agassi... avrebbero trovato le motivazioni e gli stimoli per migliorarsi ed equipararsi come livello di gioco con metodi di allenamento differenti da quelli di allora che già erano di altissimo livello questo ovviamente tenendo conto anche di altri grandissimi campioni del epoca di Federer come Nadal Djokovic Murray... tutto questo ragionamento lo faccio perchè ritengo che da allora sia cambiata solo la violenza con cui si picchia la palla mentre il livello di tecnica penso che sia rimasto pressochè tale come spettacolarità dei colpi nelle partite.
Sampras got tired. But overall was pretty good for 9 years after stopping serious trainjng and 6 after retirement (he stopped trainjng 3 years before retirement with the exception of one month for his farewell tournament, he wanted a proper way to announce)
what a match by sampras to come back and play against the peak fedex of 2007 hats off... i m a RF fan but wanted pete to win this he is legend great to see legends prevail... well plyd RF...
Prime Fed would still have had an edge over prime Sampras. Fed's return and passing shots would have been too accurate and consistent even for Sampras's masterful serves and volleys. Fed's movement and footwork were more efficient and superior. Fed's groundies were also superior. Sure, Sampras had a big forehand from time to time, but it came and went. Fed's groundies were big AND steady. His backhand near the end of his career was remarkably better. His groundies allowed him to punish any and every shot that was too slow, too high, too short, and /or not well placed. As good as Sampras was, he would not have had the consistency to maintain such high standards of play while relying on his first serve and first volley
@@williansantos1919 just type Sampras v Federer - Macao 2007, its six parts.....this match here where Federer won was just before it, the date is wrong
@@uncletony6210memory serves you wrong; they played three matches, each time on a faster surface. If you watch the third match Federer was outplayed. He couldn't get close to Samprases serve.
@@mtklaric 3 times, 6 times, 36 times...I'm pretty sure the win was a gift. Rog was 7 yrs better than when he beat Pete in 2001 and Pete was 7 yrs the worse.
Pete's approaches to the net were on the back of some very easy shots to return. If you are coming to the net you at least need to make the approach shot a potential winner to to make the return extremely difficult and more likely to be in the sweet spot to put it away.
TMJFItself Yeah because Sampras stopped training a long time ago and probably gave up his strict diet after he retired. If Sampras was in good shape he would easily give Federer a run for his money, even at 40.
الاردني حظه اليوم ضد الاسترالي المصنف خمسة وأربعين عالميا قلت حظه مع الارسال الاول بكثرة قلت نعم رمح في حلقة مفرغة لكن مشكلته انه يتسرع متسرع في قراراته جيد تمنح سبعين بالماء ة 70٪٪π~§بمعدل واحد من الجزء عشرة أجزاء الثانية دوما ليس هناك حل لهذه المسألة سوى النتائج قد ترفع ايقاعه وامكانياته اية العوني تقنياتها داخل رقعة النبراس قليلة لكن مع مرور الاسابيع سترتقي البرزة خمسة أشهر المقبلة تجعلها خمسمائة وثلاثة وستون تصنيع بالمئة اي اولى دوليا في التقدم كانت الف وماءتان في وقت وجيز هي لديها الجرءة ما يميزها تحتاج الوفاق اي دعم في صغر سنها والاغاني في خدمة الوطن فقضيتها وطنية
El slice de federer ,en toda su carrera,es el mejor de la historia,lo a salvado,aveces lo usa agresivamente,y bueno sampras,una derecha fulminante,sin duda los 2 mejores de la historia del tenis universal
6 years retired and gave Prime Feds an amazing game, dont care if it was exhibition, feds ran for balls that he could not of bothered with, he was playing freely with no pressure. No doubt Prime Sampras can beat roger in a GS final on either Grass or Hard court. Honestly if they payed like 8 finals i wouldnt be surprised if it was like 4 each.
People saying Sampras made this close - respectfully this is an exhibition against Prime Federer, if they contested a proper tournament in 2008 Federer comfortably takes him - look at Sampras Hewitt 2000 @ Us Open
It feels like a 36-year-old Sampras was a bigger challenge on hard court for Federer than even Nadal or Djokovic was! Based on his multiple 2007-2008 exhibitions against Roger I could confidently say that he was still top 10 material. Just imagine him playing against all each top 10 member in 2005, he would beat more than half of them for sure!
Federer was trying hard because Sampras wanted to beat Federer. Sampras made a lot of irrational placements but compensated with greater play than that of Federer.
i agree fed wasn't playing his best and just playing around with some points. when pete was at net and federer would try to play a curvy slice low to him. that's like weekend warrior stuff. you never see him playing that like in majors. it wasn't his best consistently, but at times, especially with some of those backhand passing shots, it approached his best. the two are still insanely well matched.
I'm sure you realize that Federer was not playing this match with 100% effort. Sure he wanted to win, but he likely would've dropped just 2 or 3 games if he really wanted to crush Pete. Sampras is currently 45 years old, he wouldn't even make the top 100 on today's tour.
Gibillan Atotputernicul Lol if you say so. If you think Pete Sampras could still be a top 5 contender on today's tour you're dreaming that's all there is to it.
I agree with that. How old was Pete here, 38? Fed won a slam at 35. The fact Sampras took a set off Fed when Fed was undisputed no.1 says a helluva lot about how good Sampras was. Neither players were taking the match seriously but I highly doubt Federer was giving Sampras a chance. Sampras is still the greatest server of all time.
hats off to federer too for even doing this. Great match and with the chance of making a fool out of himself- very little to gain from him other than entertaining fans.
SAMPRAS...JOUEUR. DE TENNIS....MALADROIT...TRES MAUVAIS GOUT.... ENCORE UNE FOIS...DES COUP DROIT..ET REVERS......BAS GAMME.....RIEN A VOIR....AVEC.. LES JOUEURS A PARTIR .DE 2005.....JUSQUA PRESENT
Even if Sampras were in his prime here, serve and volley as a match-long strategy just wouldn't have worked against Federer - or any of the other top guys in 2008 (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc.).
It's hard to say with Pete why at the US Open he got cleaned up so badly by Hewitt and Safin considering he was most definitely a little stronger than Andre from the baseline. How does it make sense that Pete could not play at this level from the Baseline in these two finals? with Andre against Hewitt and Safin it would have been tight.
The 4 in a row aces made me think again that perhaps Federer made the match a little more ' competitive ' for the spectators? Stretch things to a 3rd set. Give the folks their money's worth? That grin was perhaps seeing that Sampras was tired and that Sampras' best artiĺlery was no match for him.
People have to understand why Pete retired early , The tools were there but Pete Suffered from A disease Thallisima Minor and that seriously messes with your body ability to recover . a fact . So the writing was on the wall . So competing with The Feds , The up and rising future stars was not on the mark Pete went on to play golf and enjoy his family .
Sampras 5-2 up in the third set & 5-3 up in the tie break & loses.Two of the greats of the game showing just why.Enjoyed watching this clash of the titans exhibition match.👍
It's nuts to think that Sampras was only 36/37 years old here. Federer will be 36 this year and he's still killing it on the tour. plus sampras looks old as hell compared to fed now!
It's just a matter of motivation. Agassi won more (slams and other atp) when 29+ but wasted his prime in his mid\late 20s with injuries and Brooke Shields, so he had a lot to prove and kept going. Pete won a lot early in his career and by the time he was 29 he had already checked out mentally.
David Smale Yeah cause Sampras retired a long time ago so he gave up his strict diet and intensive training (6+ hours a day), that Federer still does because he's still playing professionally. That's why he looks old. If Sampras wanted he could've kept playing and probably would have still done well, but he decided to retire in the spotlight right after he won his final major. It's not like he retired because he was crap or anything.
