Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi lock horns in the US Open 1995 final as two of America's finest ever players go head to head! Twitter: / usta Facebook: / usta Website: www.usta.com
Tennis fans today who weren't around to see these guys play live have no idea how good these guys were. They think that Fed, Nadal, and Djok are the only contenders for best ever because of Slam count and because they see the long topspin rallies of today. Agassi and Samprass could've beat the "big 3" on a given day though, all things being equal. There isn't some big gap in skill, if any, contrary to what people think.
@F5 Anabolic I don't know. Agassi and Sampras played mostly in a completely different era. Courts were MUCH faster in the 80's and 90's. Also, the competition was a lot tougher. Agassi on a fast hard court wouldve been a test for any of the big 3 with his incredible ability to hit closer to the baseline and drill laser like groundstrokes deep into the corner. I've seen all these guys live except Nadal and I've never seen anything like the way Agassi struck the ball. That being said no way Agassi could beat Djok and Nadal on clay or the slow hard courts of today. They move too well and are more consistent. They would grind him to a defeat like they do to Fed. Sampras beats Nadal and Djokovic on grass courts which used to be ridiculously fast. His serve and athleticism were beyond anything. Look at the way Sampras could leap into the air for those slam dunk overheads. He was like a gazelle, simular to Djokovic, but he could move forward better than Djokovic and could volley extremely well. Nadal beats everyone on clay and him and Djokovic are neck and neck on medium-slow hardcourts. Finally, there's Federer who is the best all around when he was playing well. Not as mentally tough as Djoko or Nadal which cost him some huge matches. One of the best serves ever. Only Fed and Sampras were proficient and athletic enough to play a true all court style. Fed beats Nadal and Djokovic on a fast grass court and most of the time on a fast hardcourt. He loses to Agassi on a fast hard court some of the time. The problem I have with Nadal and Djokovic is that their games are only suited well to today's slow courts. They simply are not all court tennis players. Neither was Agassi. They don't have the ability to transition forwards and backwards and their volleying skills are not close at the level of Fed and Sampras. Volley's and serve and volley, actually used to be a big part of singles. Today it's literally a liability. Nobody bases their game around it because guys like Nadal and Djokovic or any other great baseline has time to get to the ball before the all court player can close off the net. That makes what Fed can do against them even more impressive. He was the only player that could play an all court style against those guys but even then he would get punished half the time for it. Being able to play a true all court style of tennis has always been the hardest thing to do in tennis. Only the most skilled could do it. That's why I don't like the way tennis has evolved after 2008. There was a concerted effort to slow down hard and grass courts by the Usta, because they believed longer rallies were more exciting to watch. I think because of that Fed was in effect punished for it. Nadal and Djok I'm sorry but I don't see them having the amount of slams they have had the usta not made this change. You can even find interviews of Fed protesting this a bit and other pros acknowledging it. I'm not making this up. It was evident just watching matches on TV as well.
@@CC42_Novak has 7 wimbledons, 4 shanghais and 10 australian opens those are basically the fastest courts in modern tennis lol also novak is the only one out of the people you mentioned who won every big title multiple times, the man is literally amazing on every type of surface and condition
I love Sampras and Agassi, but it's hard to say that they were better than the big 3, especially a couple years after your comment, since Nadal and Djokovic have continued to win slams. Look, Federer beat Sampras at the 2001 Wimbledon championship in their only matchup, and he led Agassi 8-3. Federer wasn't even close to his prime when he beat Sampras, and Sampras was still 29 years old with another slam victory coming in 2002. Maybe we can say Pete was having an off year, or having injuries, I don't know. I can't really consider that too much because then someone like Del Potro suddenly could be the greatest of all time, because when he was healthy he could've beaten anyone. But he wasn't healthy.
@@machineofadreamif you followed Sampras career, he was already teetering in his late 20s - he seemed to lose focus and interest in tennis. I blamed it on his marriage. Lol he just had different priorities. He wanted to ended his career with one last good run and it was like a fairytale ending at the US open. Agassi was the perfect opponent (anyone else I think he would’ve lost). He was lacking confidence in his shots during this time, especially his backhand. And there was something very comfortable and familiar about playing against Agassi.
Pete always was my absolute favourite player. It can`t be true that these matches and my youth are so lang ago. Unfortunately a look in the mirror tells a different story. Anyway, by watching this video there are coming so mutch great remembrances, tensions and good feelings onto the surface! It`s overwhelming, thanks!
@Ron P That's right, not just the 1990s though, that trend continued right up to around 2005, just look at the crazy baggy kits footballers used to wear in the Premier League in the early 2000s.
@@mrcid572 1970s, tight shirts and tight shorts. 1980s, slightly tight shirts but well fit, mid 1990s, to mid 2000s, ridiculously baggy clothes, literally falling off sportsmen and women.
Andre was so nasty that summer. To see how much better he was as a player here than in 1990 when they met, and to still get relatively handled by Pete, is a testament to how insanely good Pete Sampras was. I was heartbroken as a kid watching this match. God, Agassi had the prettiest groundies ever, didnt he? There are better players, sure, but there is no wasted motion, and hes just crushing the ball. Gorgeous.
@@ciaronsmith4995 Cant say that bro. Look at their head to head. I think both were equally as talented as players in their own ways, but Pete was so much more mentally stronger than Andre. And thats coming from someone who worshipped Andre Agassi as a kid.
I forgot how great Sampras moved on the court when he was young. Later in his career he slowed down significantly, but still kept winning with his big serve and volley game
@@2badger2 I’d say 01’ he was a shade of his former self movement wise. He wasn’t even hitting his serves big anymore. He was coming into the net on 90mph second serves and his opponents would just kill them
@@2badger2 I think Sampras played well in 2000. His quarterfinal against Krajicek and semifinal against Hewitt was both very high quality. But that defeat by Safin in the final shocked the world, and shocked him, that's where things really started to go wrong.
@@ciaronsmith4995 he was considered the best of his era. I watched him win Wimbledon live. Best athlete ever to pick up a racquet. Your comment exploded the douchebag meter. FYI, the French Open is the bastard child compared to the other Majors.
@@paulserafini Pete Sampras didn't even win all the slams, and got beaten by a baby Federer. A guy who can only play serve and volley on fast courts, with a GARBAGE backhand the best ever? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH. You are just a nostalgic fool. On-form Agassi, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal beat Sampras with a margin. Deal with it...
@@Sticktothemodels I think he just wasn't interested in winning RG as he did Wimbledon. I love pete but he really symbolized American's disdain for clay
Hell he was interested in. Who would not especially when it's the only grand slam title missing. Having watched him playing on TV in the 90s, I can say that he hadn't had it to win the French open. Sampras was my hero of all sports and of all times but I was always very stressed watching him play clay and when Agassi intentionally played only his left... but despite all that, he was the best back then. Such a powerful but also beautiful player he was.. I had his posters all over in my room (from the tennis magazine!!!) !
His second serve was always the best, too. Many experts say having a great serve is essential, but you need to have an excellent second serve to be called a master, and Sampras had both, as well as wonderful disguise, because the ball toss was the same, so you didnt know where he was going to hit.
@@thorium222 Wrong... 6 years in ROW number one ranking .. Rafa was number one in the world in 2019 at year's end... Rafa also has the longest timespan between 1st and last year-end #1 titles, 2009 to 2019 . He is the only player to be world number 1 in three decades..... as far as total weeks at the number one the joker just past Sampras with 289 to 286 With Federer on top at 310 but not year end ranking number one player. That will never be broken ! USA #1 🇺🇸
@@thorium222 No biggie, Being number one at the end of the year means you're number 1 for that year. Even though other players can take the number 1 ranking throughout the year.
Amazing point!! Love how AA laughs to himself, knowing that Pistol can rally from back of the court. The look on Pete's face is classic. First set Sampras!!
Sampras .....6 year in a ROW finish nr one ................... That`s the REAL GOAT material ...................beat that record and we can talk again ! Thats dominance on a whole other level !
Really? He usually did just enough to regain the first position at the end of the year, while losing it during the season. While he was clearly the best player of his era, that's far from the dominance displayed by Fed, Djokovic or even Nadal. And Sampras other records have been crushed by the big 3.
@@livingbeing1113 Goat talk is a lot about what kind of dominance you show in your own era ! Sampras left his era with 6 GS between him and number 2 .... And the 6 year in a row 1. And i got to say......this era where guys in there twenties cant beat 3 guys in there thirties ..almost fourties dont strike me as strong...
Wow 1995 was a different time. You had grown man as ball boys, you have spectators under the umpire, a lines person to check the net cord during serves, and are those family members on each side of the corner of the court? Crazy how we don’t have that anymore
Watching tennis and golf during the 1990s and early 2000s was just amazing. Sampras.Vs Agassi and Tiger Woods. Amongst the greatest spectacles in sport. Mouthwatering, couldn't wait for the slams to watch these guys bring sheer magic to the screen
Andre was the slight favorite after entering the final with 26 wins in a row, his career-best streak that started after losing in the semi-final of Wimbledon, conquering Washington, Montreal, Cincinnati and New Haven, edging Becker in the semi-final to set Sampras clash. Agassi couldn't solve the rival's first serve but he did enough on the second to create six break points, converting two but suffering three breaks from seven chances he gave to Pete and hitting the exit door in four sets. Sampras lost just two sets en route to the title match and he did everything right against Agassi as well, staying in touch with a great rival in the longer rallies and outplaying him in the shortest points with those booming serves that Andre failed to control.
Very difficult to beat Sampras on this surface. Agassi had his number on the slower hard courts that year - 3:1 I think, but Pete during this phase of his career was close to unbeatable on fast surfaces.
Man I miss this rivalry. Tough going for Andre, he really hit the ball sweetly than anyone off the ground even better than Pete. But without doubt Pete’s serve was the dealbreaker.
their H2H is 20-14 in pete's favor so andre has fared pretty well I'd argue. pete's serve was ofc a dealbreaker for anyone but andre also had one of the best return of all time so I would also say that he probably had the most ideal game to take on pete
The difference most don't understand is Sampras' second serve was better than anyone who has ever played. He was dominant in his era and I would be willing to bet Nadal and fed would not have 20 slams apiece during Sampras' reign.
Agreed. That is the reason Sampras is still in the argument for greatest ever despite the slam number difference. These modern commentators forget that sometimes. The 90s era was the most competitive in tennis history. Great points!!!
Pete Sampras when at his best was simply unplayable…..In my lifetime he was the greatest most complete Grasscourt, Indoor Carpet , player that I’ve ever seen, but Boris Boom Boom Becker comes in as a very close second behind him, he too was truly awesome!!
दोनो का खेल देखकर मजा आ गया अगासी का बेसलाइन खेल ओर पासिंग शाट लाजवाब है उधर सैम्प्रास पूरी तरह से समर्पित और परिपक्व चैम्पियन की तरह खेल रहे हैं लाजवाब खेल रहा है इन दोनो खिलाड़ियों का।
Sampras wasn't even as good as Agassi on Andre's best days, and Pete would get destroyed by Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. Playing serve and volley the way he did with such a weak backhand would result in getting annihilated in today's game.
@@MohsinSir Yeah that's the point. Pete has an incomplete game. Never won the French. He needs a certain climate and court speed to perform at his best. Very one-dimensional. That's why I rate Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Agassi higher. Their games stand the test of time.
@@ciaronsmith4995 how? When they never played in that era at all... On the contrary Pete even after many years of retirement could compete and even beat a Prime Federer
@@MohsinSir Pete never beat a prime Federer. Andre beat Federer 3 times in a row. Sampras lost to a 2001 Federer. Sampras vs Federer in an exhibition match is a JOKE not real competition.
Love these matches. Watched live. Pete was amazing. I'll never to GOAT status though. Simple reason: Never won on Clay. Ever. That alone excludes him. He hated it, and his game was suited for grass first, and the courts in NY. Even the Aussie gave him issues. But you can't be the GOAT if you can't conquer them all. Andre isn' that, but was first in the Open Era to win on ALL surfaces . surfaces.
Correct. Who in their right mind wouldn't choose Agassi's qualitative superiority over Sampras numerical superiority? All 4 slams on 4 surfaces Olympic gold year end tournament world #1.
"Peak" Sampras here. Not sure I've seen a better player...unstoppable serve, wicked groundstrokes off both sides, attacking volleys, super-human overheads. Who could beat this version of Pete?
Sampras ist der beste Angriffsspieler aller Zeiten,aber was zu etwas besonderem macht ist die Tatsache,daß er Grundlinienralleys gegen die besten Spezialisten problemlos mitging❤❤❤❤❤
Very fast courts and very fast balls. What you see seems a bit slow, but it aint at all. They were great players and athletes do be able to play like this. We the spectators have no idea.😆👍
So many years watching these guys play. Funny, I have given Agassi so much credit for Nadal's game because of his influential baseline power. But there are things I forgot, like how soon Agassi could be to quit on a point. With 15 years of Nadal on tape now, I see balls Rafa would definitely not let past that Agassi just watches. And yet... on the other side of the net, I see Sampras running down those balls. I think Sampras doesn't get ENOUGH credit for so much of what we now recognize as part of Nadal's game: the determination to run down every ball, then place it tactically when he gets to it, the baseline running forehand winner from outside the court (Sampras even uses the lasso topspin swing). It was Sampras being so relentless that used to take the spirit out of me as I rooted for Agassi to pull it together and make it a match.
Part of that was by design... Sampras knew that the biggest edge he could give himself in matches was to beat Agassi at his own game.. you also have to take into account that the surface was alot faster than it is today.. so some of those balls you think Nadal would have ran down might now be so cut and dry as you think.. the ball was going Deceptively fast when it was coming off the racket of sampras.. just like Sampras was deceptively fast.. in his best years EVERYONE said "He's like a jackrabbit.. he gets to everything and just DOESN'T MISS" later in his career as he struggled with injuries that wasn't the case as often as it used to be but he still had that burst speed that was incredible.. so in the first set Sampras would do something that not many others could against Agassi.. break his will.. and then the rest of the match would be him trying to keep Agassi in that Struggle mode... but yeah... Sampras always put a little extra on every ball when he was against Agassi... 2001 Australian Open when they faced off was probably some of the hardest hitting in a match I've ever seen TO this day.. but yeah if you want to watch grinding Agassi and Chang were both definitely grinders and could probably still be relevant if they were playing their style in today's game as it's very much like a more modern style.. Nadal I'd say is somewhat of a combination of Chang and Agassi as he has the movement of Chang but also the groundstroke power like Agassi... I loved Agassi and I also LOVED Sampras as Sampras was my idol(and the person I most modeled my game after when I was still competing.. not professional but tournament play and Highschool and such) there was 1 positive that you could take away from any Agassi vs Sampras match... nomatter who won... the crowd was in for a show that drove Tennis to new levels.. was like Ali vs Frasier... puncher vs counter puncher...
I don't know about that. Agassi has always admitted that Sampras will always be the favorite whenever they met. He once said that if they were both on, that he'd lose. You have to be mentally strong and patient as a defensive player. Agassi did good with his career.
Sampras' baseline game was highly underrated. He started off aa more of an all court player who would often serve and volley. It was in his mid & latter years he became more of a compulsive volleyer like Edberg, Becker or Rafter, cutting short points thanks to him realizing potential of his all time great serve & advancing age
Love Agassi's game of setting up power shots and just going for winners. He kind of expects to hit winners and as a result gets flat after some of his shots enabling Sampras to counter.
Sampras still has the GOAT serve amongst the top 10 winningest players ever. I wish Fed developed his net game more, he’s nowhere near Pete in the serve and volley department.
Yes although Fed is not the natural volleying wiz Sampras was - Federer has a stronger back court game than Sampras did ; a better more lethal single handed backhand , and forhand shot ; and Fed moves just as well if not better than Sampras did i believe ; but - Sampras s serve and his volley is unmatched even today
Agassi was unfortunate here after being so dominant during the summer. Semis and finals used to have no day of rest in between, which was just ridiculous. Agassi played the night match against Becker and injured a rib during the match and woke up in pain. His serve and forehand were compromised.
This is the match I always point people to watch in its entirety whenever they try to tell me Agassi had a bigger or better forehand than Sampras. There was a reason Agassi played keep away from Sampras's forehand. Because he could not hang with it and he knew it. And quite honestly... I think Sampras always looked better from the baseline anyway
Sampras had the better forehand by far. Agassi was better on the backhand but the Sampras backhand was world class till about 1998. The whole chip and charge constantly play detracted from his baseline game even though there was a spectacular revival during the summer of 1999.
For all the discussions around who was the greatest and who would have beaten whom, I would like to add that the players do not live and play in vacuum. A Sampras of 1995 would have had to adapt his game in 2011 based on how he would lose to Djokovic in an Australian open. Similarly a Djokovic in Wimbledon 1995 would have had troubles playing against Sampras with the grass game that he won Wimbledon 2015. But they are all great players and they would all have adapted and evolved. Look at how much Djokovic and Nadal evolved their games to beat Federer. All three openly acknlowedge how their other two opponents helped them in improving their games. Champions are all about problem solving and it would have been amazing to see how they would have problem solved against each other in different eras. Sadly we would never know for real. But I do sometimes hope that Sampras would have played till his late 30s and we would have had the chance to see him take on Fed and Nadal more often. Sigh!
I've played for over 40 years and the biggest difference to occur in the pro sport is the dominance of the serve in the men's game. Only clay counters it to a degree and personally I'd like to see it 's effect dampened on other surfaces so we can see more great play and points. How should this be done? IMO for pros experiment with limiting racquet head size or string tensions and explore what effect having a 'serving line' set back at various distances from the baseline could have...3 inches, six inches, etc. I want to see more strokes and points played.
sampras had abigger serve then fed and a potent forehand.. agassi clean striker of the ball.. u have to wonder these men in there twenties vs fed or djoko nadal would have been great match ups.. plus the faster surfaces back thne were alot more dangerous
I dont know how Andre played against Pete who was so dominant its a credit to Andre what a match just a true heavy weight title fight for the belt. Both players crushing the ground strokes, Pete was so good normally it was serve and volley he was a tremendous player complete no weaknesses again a credit to how good Andre was to force so many ground stroke rallies, both great players. Also both class acts.My only complaint...the clothes brown for the stylish Andre, prob last time earth tones were in, lol.
Funny how memory plays tricks on you. I first saw Sampras play the second half of 1999. When I saw this match afterwards, I thought both played poorly. That is what happens when you see Sampras in god mode.
Agassi lost that match due to physical condition and his incapability to develop more often passing shots. Pete's net game was unbelievable, he won most of the points that could go either way and pushed Agassi to a very attacking approach that comes together with errors that usually cost the win.
@@Kishnabe Somehow I don't think that will be one of their choices, or my choice either ;-) I am not going to make suggestions, just look forward to see what they come up with.
@@usta Okay, after thinking about it, I will make these suggestions. Thank you: v Rafter - 2001 v Safin - 2001 v Haas - 2002 v Schalken - 2002 v Hewitt - 2000 v Krajicek - 2000 v Corretja - 1996 v Chang - 1996 v Courier - 1995 v Chang - 1993 v Edberg - 1992 v Todd Martin - 1992 v Muster - 1990 v Lendl - 1990
