Watch the full match of this All-American classic between Pete Sampras and Andy Roddick in the quarterfinal of US Open 2002. Twitter: / usta Facebook: / usta Website: www.usta.com
I think Pete’s the best server ever, but what’s really amazing about that is he was 6’1 at most. The skill required to be such a dominant server at 6’1 is astounding to me.
Pete didn't have a good 2001 or 2002. He wasn't training anymore was bored of tennis. Even the Wimbledon run 2001 was without alot of training and mostly momentum. He only trained for this tournament, to do a good run there. And then he decided to retire from the game that he was bored.
It was, but Pete didn't hold back w/ any of his other shots either. When he saw a chance to make quick work of a point, he was letting it rip. Whether that meant taking just 10% off his 1st serve to his 2nd, closing in off a strong forehand w/o even waiting for a short ball, ripping that 1-handed backhand suddenly crosscourt when he saw you playing the down-the-line chip-&-charge, just to make you hit something weak he could approach on. Once he had that, he'd either flush you off the court, or jam you, and then he was closing the net in a flash. He four shots to get him to net consistently. You're pretty good if you have two. It's a great style for when you have those weapons on a fast surface. Slow surface, you have to be more methodical, not use a weapon to get to net, but rally around to do it once your opponent gets something back in in desperation.
I remember watching Sampras that year and being happy that he won the tourney.. was, and always will be my favorite player. He's the one who got me into liking the sport back in the early early 90's.
I don't think so, because it would have been terribly difficult for Sampras to play against Nadal, even on hard courts. His one-handed backhand was too weak to resist the power of Rafa's forehand. Moreover, Nadal rarely loses against one-handed backhand on clay court and hard court, the only exceptions are Thiem and Roger. I'm also pretty convinced that Novak could have found a way to manage Sampras' serve because his return is way much better than Agassi's.
Really hard to compare players from different eras. Better equipment, nutrition and training today. I wonder what some of those guys would be like today.
Pete could blow away today's players just like this. He's the only one that could dominate serve and volleying. That serve is the best of all time as well as the second serve but his effortless movement doesn't get nearly enough recognition. He was lightning fast.
I agree Sampras would still have the best serve in this era. The problem he would have though is that the courts at the USOpen and Wimbledon have been slowed down considerably. He simply would not get free points nearly as much today and especially against Nadal, Alcaraz, the Djoker, etc.
@@liamg2271 I used to think the courts were slowed down also but it turned out to be a myth. Here is a link to video on a different subject but shows how the court speeds have changed over the past 20 years: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eKWlOtdOJfA.html Given this, I think Sampras' S&V style could have still been effective in this current era. I guess we will never know but it is an interesting thing to think about.
@@TC-td1vx Until Federer got old and disappeared... ¨If Sampras had been a contemporary of mine, of Nadal and Nole, we would probably have had half the tournaments we have" - words of Roger Federer.
@@alexjavieralonsobesil4148 What do you mean until Federer got old and disappeared?! Federer was 36 when he won his last Grand Slam! He was 37 when he reached his last Wimbledon final! What do you expect him to win Slams at 40?! Federer is one of the oldest Grand Slam winners, and played exceptional much longer than Sampras. If Nadal, Nole and Federer had been a contemporary or Sampras, Sampras would also probably have half the tournaments he has. That means Sampras would still have less tournaments than the BIG 3, even if they also had half of their titles. Also, Rafa probably wouldn't have any less Roland Gaross titles because Sampras never even won the French Open.
The thing about Pete's serve that people forget: every toss was exactly the same, and he could hit flat, slice, or kick anywhere in the box. It was *impossible* to read, on top of perfectly placed with lots of pace. Remember Agassi's story about figuring out Becker's tell? He savaged Becker but could never figure out Pete's serve. Pete is definitely one of the GOATs.
@@danielkriz7533 well tenis îs a sport that mast bi divided in amator era semi profesional and profesional , semi profesional is diveded in Two bicose of tehnologies ,and profesional divided in two faster courts and not faster , so logic exist 5 GOATs , first îs for start of tenis to 1950/ after semiprofesional is 50'-60' 70'-85 ATP era, profesional fast 85- 2003 , after profesional not fast.so GOATs are after 50' Laver, next Borg , Sampras is for profesional fast Novak Djokovic is GOAT for not fast surface.
@@danielkriz7533 Yessir. I have Novak as overall GOAT, and PETE as the Vice-GOAT with Rod. Level wise though, I think Pete is a bit above Novak, meaning Pete's best on grass is a little bit better than Novak's best in Australia.
Still cannot believe how even the best servers of today cannot even match the consistency of Sampras especially on the second serve which is a weapon for him
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 no way...they might serve harder than Pete, but Pete had variety and could place the ball wherever he wanted. Plus, it was very hard to read Pete's serve.
@@greatone33j they also place the ball wherever he wanted,they make more aces than Pete,and they have to play on slower serfice vs better return players.They make 2 times more aces than Peter.without placement it is not possible to make so many aces
@@greatone33j the problem is,that it is not enough to win gs now,if you have a great serve.25 years ago only Agassi was able to play great passing shots from every side.Now everybody from top100 is able to play like agassi.you here you can see stata if you dont believe eme : www.atptour.com/en/stats/aces/all/all/all/ . www.atptour.com/en/stats/aces/2020/all/all/
Thank you for uploading this. This is a historic match. Sampras playing the young gun who would go on to win it the following year. This is the matchup of the teacher vs the student, you might say.
I wouldn't say that at all because their styles aren't even remotely similar. If anything, it's Federer who's emulated the some of the techniques of Sampras even without having as good of an serve as he did.
@@mikehipparchusnewton7436 I agree. Sampras has the best serve ever. There are many great servers in the history of tennis. Goran, John Newcombe, Wayne Arthurs, Boris Becker, etc. But most people would agree that Sampras' delivery is rated the best.
Remember watching this match live. Stellar from Pete. To this day Sampras still has the best serve period. First and second serve. It wasn’t just the serve technique wise but his absolute unwavering confidence and faith in it in the big moments and clutch points. You can’t teach that.
I was more an Agassi fan but respected them both, and totally agree Sampras' serve was his ace in the hole. Agassi was a fantastic returner of serve, and he can be up 0-40 on Sampras and every person in the building fully expected to see 5 aces coming right up.
Pistol Pete was the greatest player of all time. The most impressive service technique, he also possessed the best second serve in the game. He was confident at the net and had an accomplished baseline game. Just a legend in every way.
You are wrong.The Pistol was definitely the greatest American tennis player of all time; not the greatest of all time. That honor has yet to be established, but it is either Fed, Joker, or Rafa. Pete comes in fourth or fifth depending where you rank Laver. Personally I think that Pete would destroy Laver.
@@juanestebankruhsanmguel1960 So 7 Hard Court Grand Slam Titles were won from just serve & volleying were they? If you followed his career during those slams you'd know he wasn't one dimensional, In fact he only became more aggresive to the net in the later part of his career. Agassi smoked Serve and Volley players in his prime to beat him you needed a formidable ground strokes as well.
@@stk6mkt he is better probably than all 3 except perhaps for Fed although a trained Sampras would probably beat Fed. He wasn't even trained in the Wimbledon game.
Pete was unfortunate to have the the back issues plaguing him far to frequently with which he played far too often ... when healthy I sincerely believe he was the best !!!
Peak Sampras would still be a top 5 player today. That serve is sick, and he has no problem outhitting the modern strokes as he showed against Roddick.
only because Roddick no-showed for the match... you can't blame him much for that though, as he was only 19 at the time and it was by far the biggest moment he had ever come up against... Andy came back the next year and handled the pressure a lot better. And he also had the luxury in 2003 of not facing Sampras, who hung up his rackets at the young age of 31, thinking his 14 GS total would be safe in the record books for a long time...
@@willritter4076 he didn't think that. He had nothing else to prove. He will forever be the best ever. Pete would smoke fed on fast hard courts and grass in his prime. Hell old pete have fed a run for his money at wimbledon. Pete got married to veronica vaughn and lost interest in tennis. Federer and nadal and joker can win all the grand slams they want they won't ever be better then prime Pete. Back when courts played fast. Back when men played tennis. Back when racquet technology wasn't ridiculous. Pete won all his grand slams with a 85 square inch heavy kevlar wilson racquet. He beat lendl at a young age. He beat agassi. He had superior competition then today. Nadal wouldn't win a set vs pete on fast hard courts or grass. Pete's more athletic then federer. Only thing federer is better at is his backhand.
@@frankmclain3634 Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal, and Novax Djokovic are all substantially superior players to Sampras on the modern court surfaces. Even Murray and Wawrinka are clearly superior to Sampras. Sampras was the world's best player in the early/mid 90s. That's a quarter century ago, the game has evolved. Feds is the undisputed GOAT.
@@willritter4076 all I can do is tell you what my eyes see. Boris Becker and other players have said Pete is the best Fast Court player of all time. That is Undisputed just like your goat claim about Federer. I like Roger, he's probably my favorite player besides Pistol Pete. I will say this though, it is hard to name Federer the goat when Nadal has a winning record against him and has just as many slams. I get it Roger has more Wimbledon titles, way more Australian Open titles and 1 more US Open title. Nadal does have a gold medal in singles that Federer does not. And obviously Roland Garros. I don't think you can clearly call Federer the goat. I think Djokovic has a very good shot to break most of Federer's records especially the Grand Slam number. You have to go by Era's when you are talking about the greats! Technology, training and even Court surfaces have changed. Rod Laver would undisputedly be the goat had he been allowed to play for the 7 years he couldn't. If Bjorn Borg hadn't retired at 25 he would have won several more slams. Let us not forget the reason we count how many slams you have is because of Pete Sampras! He is the goat of his era. Roger is by far the goat of the 2000s and Djokovic and Nadal after that.
Amazing how Americans dominated Tennis throughout the 90s and early 2000s, fast forward 20 years I would be shocked if we see another American male win a major in the next decade
im guessing a lot wanted to be like Pete, but it was Agassi's way of play that translates better to current tennis. Tho Pete was an underrated baseliner
It was such a big thing when Sampras beat Roy Emerson's all time Grand slam record. And yet within the next generation after him, we had no fewer than three players overtake him.
@eoe123321 The answer lies in the original comment. Yes we will see someone eventually breaking the Big 3's GS records. May be not in the near future but within 2 or 3 decades I can see it as a possibility.
Think about it... if not for the other 2, a lone member of the Big 3 could conceivably have racked up more than FIFTY Grand Slam titles over the past 16 years... wrap your head around that for a minute.
@@willritter4076 That's what court homogenization brings. You can essentially play the same game everywhere and win on all surfaces. Not like the older days when clay and grass were polar opposites, and you'd get dangerous clay and grass court specialists.
@@willritter4076 that wouldn't happen. Federer would have retired years ago if Djokovic or Nadal were not there. Nadal and Djokovic would not have won anywhere near the amount they have won if they didn't have the other one forcing them to constantly improve and evole to keep up.
@@seruresto1386agree, but we still wait for the calendar GS winner since the homogenization. Laver won calendar GS twice when the surfaces were the polar opposites. Just proves how amazing player he was. Cheers.
You could tell at this point roddick was used to beating all the juniors with just his serve. Sampras made him play out points and roddick just couldn’t volley or win rallies.
It's the problem Roddick would have for the rest of his career to one degree or another - he had big weak spots in his game that he never managed to remedy, and the great players could really expose that.
Sampras beat Roddick like he was a child in this match. A few years earlier, he beat Becker the same way at Wimbledon. At one point, his serve had so flummoxed Becker that Becker covered his eyes with his hand and started tapping his racket like a blind man with a cane, as if to say, "I might as well be a blind man against this serve!"
@@GoDawgs18 Mostly because Europe and US were developing big servers because mostly they played on hardcourts, carpet and grass courts. Most other warm countries were playing on claycourts which were much slower and they developed more heavy spinners with groundstrokes. Later on Europe took away all their carpet courts and changed them with hard courts due to economic reasons. Another reason for change is that big servers lets say ivanesvic and sampras would just be serves the whole match, the average count of rallies would be 2 strokes, and the crowd wouldnt see the finess in that, and the crowd would only fire up every now and then when the rally would go on 3+ strokes. So to create more depth in players in the game on a international stage they slowed down the courts and balls. Which i think was ridiculous cause now every player shits their pants if they catch themselves past the service line. I think Marcelo Rios was one of the best all round player that could shake any baseliner or big server regardless. And that sort of dynamic talent development is what tennis has lost in the past 20 years.
Sampras is my all time favourite tennis player. Not just because I like the 90s and the early 20s tennis era (my era) but also because of his serve and volley game. You do not see this anymore in today's modern game. Perhaps due to advancement in racquet and string technology and the modern strokes came a time when players find it more difficult to come to the net as often as Sampras did for fear of getting passed (by passing shots). Not that I dislike today's modern game. For sure there are great and entertaining players in today's game. I just have a liking for the way Sampas played back in that era. In fact I like to play with old models of tennis racquets even today.
The players are also bigger--my last tourney I played I was against a dude that was 6ft6 and i could not get many shots that i would have against someon of nor mal size--average ten player in the top ten is 6ft2 or over.If u r over 6ft2 you are htiing down on serves which makes it way easier and the racquets--I race cars now--its easier.
Sampras is virtually unbeatable on fast grass and hard courts of the 90s. Even Novak and Rafa would be overwhelmed. Fed would have the best chance with his aggressive game.
@@SaskobestRemember that match at Shanghai against Federer, remember that aggressive tennis by Federer, up that by 3x, that's how Sampras would dissect everybody on hard courts, he was super aggressive, only ones that could even manage against him would've been Roger with his shot selection and mix-up play.
@@GoneBoi99Federer took the ball earlier than Sampras(Who had late swing on the forehand), hit harder on both sides and was much faster to run around or defend from Novak than Sampras would
This tournament, as Pete has said multiple times, was the only time he trained to be fit in 3 years. Because he had dscided ut might be his last run. He was not training seriously 3 years. Had been bored. Hired an old coach back, git back to fit, and played this tournament, to thrb think about retirement. He was thinking of retirement since 28 or 29 years. So here Andy was playing a Aampras back to good level.
Pete turned more into serve&volley since his back injury in 1999,he was probably playing his tennis during that year,and prior to that injury his game had more variety,especially his baseline game, even this way he still was capable of winning some Slams.
Think a lot of people are skipping over the fact that sampras beat roddick, who uses a 98-100 (?) square inch racket, using his wilson pro staff which only had a 85 sq. inch head!!! That's what amazes me the most
Watching the match, particularly in the third set, one thing that stands out is just how much Roddick had a tendency to rush through points. Never seeming to slow down just for a second and try and figure out what was going wrong.
Not sure Pete gets enough credit for being a spoiler. He spoils the opponent’s game. Never allows any sort of rhythm or consistent pace to the match unless of course it’s Pete who’s serving. Mixes up his ground strokes constantly. Throws in the occasional junk ball. Pete is the world’s best spoiler.
I think Agassi explained it best in on of the documentaries on Pete. "Great players tend to rise above their opponents. Pete had a second option. He could pull his opponent down. We'd play matches where we would have no rallies for the longest period of time. Next thing you know, you're serving 4-5 30-all, and you're having to hit a backhand, and you felt like you haven't hit a backhand in 20 minutes."
Really Kids on grass Sampras would eat Nadal alive but Nadal would do the same on clay. He would hold his own against Fed and Joker on everything but clay but I do think prime for prime they all are better than Sampras
I think that one mistake Sampras made was not to change with time and adopt a more technologically advanced racquet. I would imagine the couple of finals he lost in US (Safin/Roddick) would have been his and would likely could have continued to play professionally for more years - had he upgraded his racquet. Given that he kept his racquet, he was exceptional in the later years.
@@vivahernando1 'he would hold his own against Djokovic on grass and hard'? Get out of here man, a prime Sampras would destroy prime Djokovic at Wimbledon and USO and any fast surface in the fall indoors swing. I think people forget how destructive Pete's game was for the opponent.
Sampras really only cared for Wimbledon and US Open. French Open is about out grinding your opponent physically and Australian Open was just horrible conditions to play in. Historically speaking for most of Open Era players skipped the Australian more often than other Majors
No it's because the Australian Open is a slower court and favours baseliners, it may have been skipped in the past but since the 90s everyone took it seriously. He couldn't win the French Open because his serve was nowhere near as effective on the slow clay and although he had very good baseline shots they were not good enough compared to the clay court specialists and even the likes of Agassi and Courier. He was a fast court master but not as good on the slower courts.
Now with the USTA be able to do a few from the Forest Hills era, included highlight vids on 1968 finals - Ashe vs Okker and Wade vs King? Now these are significant as they're amongst the first finals of Open Tennis.
@@codygainz6981 I don’t think so, I think his style of play was outdated. The Fed era was just months away and the next crew (Fed, Safin, Hewitt) coming up was already beating Pete in the majors. He left just in time.
I agree with you sampras left just in time. He was no way gonna win Wimbledon 2003. Or any other slam in 03 for that matter. Federer era was around around corner. I think they were two reasons only why dampras retired. One he had the major slams at 14. And two he said he couldn't motivate himself to the training programme anymore. If you can't get motivation to train them it's only right to call it a day.
@@RossBayCult but keep in mind if he would have switch to a 97 head sz and it was working out he could have been winning slams for two or three more years
Pete Sampras body movement showed that age was catching up & Roddick sublime game added it up. Sampras lacked what Roger had.Roger was lucky to have Mirka as his wife who wholly supporrted him in improving his game. Amen
@dpistons 149 Roger has publicly acknowledged the significance of Mirka in his Game. Remember dude Behind the success of the man there is always a woman.
@Logic m bro do you remember US Open final 2005 between Federer & Agassi. I was rooting for Agassi to win the tournament. Regarding loyalty Federer has made the TENNIS game more popular & Global. Nadal & Djokovic do not have the same fan following nor did his predecessors Sampras, Agassi etc had. Now hope you get the logic.A men.
Actually it’s really quite a spectacle if u observed their forehand techniques. Sampras forehand wasn’t “modern” as he didn’t strike his racket across his shoulder but yet he could generate such power and accuracy. If you’re on the baseline’s camp against Sampras, it can get a little depressing as very little got past him.
I hope USTA might consider uploading any of these Sampras matches: Edberg v Sampras - 1992 final Sampras v Lendl - 1990 quarterfinal Sampras v Chang - 1993 quarterfinal Sampras v Chang - 1996 final Sampras v Rafter - 2001 rd 16 Sampras v Hewitt - 2000 semifinal Sampras v Agassi - 1995 final Sampras v Schalken - 2002 semifinal
@@th8257 Erm, thanks for that. But no. The 1980s and 1990s were lost decades. DVD recorders came into its own around 2004. Before that most people were using very cheap video recorders and too many matches have been uploaded where the picture quality is diabolical (no other word to use). It would be nice to see these matches in very good picture quality directly from the source tape. Only the various Federations can do that so its nice to see they are making a start. Hopefully we get more over the coming months.
I think Sampras would play more at the baseline today. He had great forehand and during his prime also good overall game, speed and decent backhand. I think he would go to the net sometimes after his serve, especially on grass.
Kind of the same sort of tennis federer would use to best roddick , chip return short roddick comes in passed and just stay solid from the back of the court , Sampras such a all round player
@@fariddamasio7880 Agreed. People forget the 2004 Wimbledon final match was very close. His best chance was to play like that, and play the big points a bit tighter/better. Would not get the win everytime of course, but that was his best chance to be competitive.
I dunno, this was the only title Sampras won at any level in all of 2001 and 2002, and as the announcers said at 19:26, this tournament was the first time in 5 months he won more than 2 matches in a row. Add in the fact that Federer emerged the following season and I don't think Sampras was winning anything anymore.
Sampras lost his passion earlier because he broke the biggest records and had no rival who could've matched that at that time. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic kept each other motivated.
It both has its pros and cons. I sometimes get tired of all the back and forth baseline play and sometimes I just wish more people would end the point earlier with smart volleying. Sampras wasn't actually a S+V guy, he was just so good at it he got that label. He was really more of an all court player. His baseline play is vastly underrated as hell.
Best first serve ever. Best second serve ever. Best serve and volleyer ever. Best player ever. Best jumping overhead ever. Best running forehand ever. Federer couldn't compete vs prime sampras on grass or fast hard courts only surface fed would win is clay.
