Sampras vs Courier 1996 Men's quarter-final Full Match | Roland-Garros 

It's not really over looked, but this is a what have you do for me lately world.

what is RG??

airkuna Roland Garros, the place the event is held.

Best tennis period.

@gehteuchnichtsan8306 Sampras' ground strokes were not consistent enough to carry him through 7 rounds of the French Open. There were too many clay court artists who could withstand Sampras' attacking style on clay.

I think it would be silly if they did, especially if their uploads are monetized. If we lose this by them taking these down, so do they.

you can get Realplayer and record videos from RU-vid.

@@bruceliebman698 ที่. ดู ทำแทนฝใจผมก็

I totally agree, Roland Garros have doen a tremendous job. Its like being at the matches and you make own decisions about how the match is going without being "guided" by a commentator.

You are so right !!!!

I prefer commentary nbc is best.

So true, most commentators are a disgrace except McEnroe

The perfection of Pete's movements always leaves me shocked

The 1990s players had a different mentality and approach. A bit less cautious and cagey than it ended up the last 10 years.

It’s because back then they didn’t have poly strings which give the player more margin for error, and makes it easier to hit passing shots.

The 1996 french open was incredibly fast due to the heat. It played more like a hardcourt. Sampras, stich and rosset made the semis

Don't forget you're watching Sampras and Courier 😉 they were fucking good

It’s because there weren’t that many great groundstrokes in the 90s. If you were Michael Stich or Kraijeck, would you rather be at the net or baseline???

Well, you haven't seen me play then!

Especially against Sampras against whom he had a very bad record...he had some kinda inferiority complex against him...

@@jeremie2020 I think it was just a matter of Pete being better.

@@uncletony6210 yeah but he souldnt have so much problems against sampras on clay, courier had the game to overcome samprass in that, grass and fast court i get it would be 9/10 for Pete tho

@@diegosotomiranda4107 I think when Pete serves like that there's not much you can do (unless you can return like Andre, which Jim couldn't). In fact, I think Pete also beat clay-court champ Bruegera earlier this tournament. I think he beat Tommy Moo at RG before also.

Jérémie actually Sampras knew of couriers weakness which was his change of grip from his forehand to backhand. Sampras took great advantage of this

He would not have been save in the final though, bc Michael Stich played like a magician in this tournament, kicked out the huge favourite for the title Thomas Muster before.

3 FO champions in a row. Muster was the defending champion! Courier, Bruguera and Muster were the last three winners in RG. Yes, Sampras has really tried hard. Thalassemia was partly the reason why he couldn't recover after exhausting games. He would deserve one title in RG. But this is a competition, a lot of players are very talented, work and try hard, and Stich deserved the title.

I never liked Courier , Pete was a much nicer guy on and off court

I can kind of understand Jim Courier. It was just sheer frustration on his part. He had lost close matches to Sampras so many times. Australian Open 1995 after leading by 2:0 sets as well and to Agassi at the Australian Open 1996 for example. And Sampras often looked dog-tired and still served many aces. Alex Corretja can tell you the same story (US Open 1996)...

@@MultiStar83 Yeah but Pete never faked. He had Thalassemia minor which severely limited his fitness. He threw up on court in the Corretja match. His ability to get up and serve aces was as much about survival as it was his clutchness. He didn't have a panic button.

@@farid1406 Okay, Pete probably did not fake, but he had a history against Jim Courier when he was not feeling good, but in the end blew Courier more or less from the court. I think it started at the 1992 US Open semifinal when at the end of the match he had a lot of trouble with dehydration or a virus (in a rather quick match on a cool evening). Then the story with his coach Tim Gullikson at the 1995 Australian Open where he came bake from 2 sets to 0 down to beat Courier and then here at the 1996 French Open quarterfinal. So, I can more or less understand that Courier was a bit frustrated, because that happened quick often against Sampras.

@@MultiStar83 Yeah, I can get that too. Again though I think the reason Pete would snap out of it and bomb aces was because he had to. He wasn't going to last very long if he kept trying to play long points or rallies with Jim. Blowing him off the court was the only option left.

Due to the hot and dry conditions

Yup, complaining of gamesmanship from Pete. And I think he is right. On a few occasions Pete did hustle his opponents into thinking he was down for the count only to produce winners out of nowhere.

@@dramamur Yup.

@@dramamur Having watched Pete his whole career I really don’t think it was gamesmanship. The fact is his serving technique was so good he could serve bombs regardless of what physical state he was in. He often would serve like that when genuinely fatigued

Jim won RG twice

@@dramamur Pete did not want to be down TWO sets - he just dug deeper when needed

And to beat 2-Time French Open Champion on clay was a huge feat!

I appreciated them both.. Courier was always highly underrated.. dude was a fighter like Jimmy Connors was... I was always rooting for Sampras because he was my idol but nomatter who won the match.. the Fans won tickets to a great match.

I’ve always admired courier for his work ethic and fighting spirit. In some ways I felt it was more relatable than the superhuman talents of Sampras and Federer

Do you remember the reason why Courier didn't give the handshake to the chair umpire at the end of the match?

@@ermattia he thought that the line judges were helping Sampras on critical points

@@coinrotator Thank you Mark

he won a title, and was 1 of the best ..don't be silly

@@airkuna He never won the French Open which is what I was talking about.

Yes show pete sampras how to volley

@@warcraft-px5zq I'm one of the biggest Sampras fans around. I can also make a simple observation about his game.

He wasn't showing him how to volley, he was commenting about a change of tactics.

For courier and anyone else on the other side of that net. Pete has got to be top four all time I would think. If not better.

@@JK-vc7ie Krajicek, Ferreira had very good H2H against Sampras

In fact, Pete was very difficult match-up for a lot of guys

Solid case for the 4th best ever. It's a shame he didn't play longer

I think you downplay how good of a player Kafelnikov was, especially tactically. He participated in the French Open 11 times, and out of those 5 times when he reached the quarter final or better, he won the title once, and lost to the eventual champion the other 4 times. Kafelnikov had a terrible head to head ratio against Pete, granted, but out of the two times he won against him (out of 13!), both were on clay in 1996, and the total head to head on clay ended up 2-2. So there was really no shame in losing to Kafelnikov on that day.

@@Apanblod tactically he was not that great.he attacked al most every ball and if he had a good day,he was able to win vs everybody.but on bad day ,he was useless and he lost to Nr.190 with 61 62.

@@thebigmonstaandy6644 I just don't agree. I definitely don't think he 'attacked almost every ball', and he possessed a huge variety of shots and had great tactical awareness. You're right that he was uneven and inconsistent though, he could sometimes lose matches that he should have won in his sleep.

@@Apanblod he was one of the most agressiv players ever.Only Engvist was more aggro.if he would able to change sometimes his tactic ,he would be much better.that why he had no chance vs Hewitt : with Hewitt you need to go long rallys before you make winner.i am from Russia,but i dont like Kafel : he was not sympatic

In fact, Sampras lost to Kafelnikov in the 1996 Roland Garros semifinals 6-4, 6-0, 6-2

True story I found a Wilson 6.0 85 Pro Staff in a used sporting good store in Vancouver for $20.00. This racquet had the best sweet spot IMHO. That why a lot of pros played with it.

Federer used the same racket up until 2003

I have two 85s and they are brilliant - I call each 'Excalibur' :) I've added lead tape, like Sampras, because I wanted to make them even heavier :)

Moi j'étais dépité.....:(

@@jeremie2020 vous étiez fan de Jim alors ? Moi aussi je l'aimais bien, c'était un type super attachant. Mais je voulais tellement que Pete gagne son Roland cette année-là...

what is AO and FO?

are you kidding, he got destroyed next round 7-6, 6-0, 6-2

@@airkuna Australian open and French open respectively

Not good enough to win the French Open sadly.

True. But I think Pete would have had a lot more chances if he made little adjustments like switching to a slightly bigger racket like a 90 square inch and putting more time in training on the clay. Pete himself admits this.

I was sad Sampras lost, but I was happy for Kafelnikov. He was playing amazing tennis. When he beat Stich, I think Stich told him he must learn French so that he could speak to the crowd. Stich, like the rest of us, probably felt Kafelnikov would win many more French Opens.

@@jgamez5023 Sampras was my absolute favorite player but Yevgeny was like a machine out there... I had a TON of respect for him.. Stich also had one of the prettiest techniques ever... he was also underrated..

Kafelnikov didn't destroy Sampras; he even referenced the fact that Pete had been through multiple five-setters. Stop disrespecting such a great champion.

That was because kuerten was his nemesis he lost 3 times against him at roland garros

Was a huge Kafelnikov fan, back in the day..very very closely followed him..I remember a 1994 news article that nicknamed him Kalashnikov coz of his firepower and he sort of delivered.. He was very very talented,great backhand,smooth forehand, very good in baseline and very good volleyer but was bit of a mental midget..His duels with Kuerton and Agassi testify that.. Should have won the matches against Kuerton in FO but choked...

Courier was so unlucky he was up two sets in Aus 95 was up a break in the 4th set but still lost and after this fiasco he could never come back mentally again.

Oops. Lol.

LOL!!!

no let, but net!

@@airkuna still all the time , it sounds like let.

@@ediccartman7252 well definitely.. it's called a Let but all they are announcing is that the ball hit the net. then the linejudge would say "Out" if it wasn't a let. But yeah I get it.... Net and Let sound similar especially on the older recording equipment

He wouldnt get the past the qf in today's era aggasi would fare much better

@@sharifs649 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@GGGinJe How many serve and volleyers are in the top 10 compared to baseliners today?​

Exactly

A have one. When you hit the sweet spot you feel like Pete Sampras/Jim Courier. Federer, Edberg and Mary Pierce used the same racquet. I wish Wilson would re issue it.

Yeah, so so easy to do. If your are Pete Sampras.

even on clay he still plays at volley....he got some b***s

Notes taken

Clearly pure talent, done with an old 85 racket .

Jim was a talented player. His inside out forehand is one of the 5-10 best in the open era. He wasn't on the Agassi/Sampras/Big 3 level of talent but I mean who is? He was much more talented than the Roddick and Hewitts of the world though.

Haha yah.

I* love.

It's called Sampras running forehand

@@srees9874 the best in tennis history, hands down

Go and watch the 92 US open quarter final between Agassi and Courier, thats the real Jim Courier, the true no1....unfortunately he played terrible against sampras in the semi's. Courier shouldve won the 92 US Open, sampras wasnt the 94/95 version, and courier was able to deal with Edberg.

@@TheKwod no disrespect.. Courier is one of my all time favorite players of all time.. dude is often wildly underrated and underappreciated... but it wasn't that he played terrible against Sampras... Sampras was a horrible matchup for Courier... he says so himself... there were many many matches where they played and he was like "The 1st 2 sets were probably the absolute BEST tennis I was capable of.... You can be as mentally tough as you want......... you just can't handle that serve"

@@Eliath1984 I tried watching sampras vs courier us open semi 92 after watching aggy vs courier in the quarters. I gave up watching cause courier was playing poorly, it wasn't sampras doing anything amazing, and remember that the sampras of 93 was a far better player than before.

...and alsobaggravated Pete's thalassemia condition, making his run to the semis by beating 2 former champions in 5 sets all the more legendary

fastest? how? also this match was 5 sets man...

airkuna he means the speed of the court

That year Marc Rosset played against Michael Stich in one Semi-Final, Sampras vs Kafelnikov in another. Clearly fast court players.

@@isvanmartinezcadavid8136Kafelnikov was a Clay specialist... dude had a great all around game but he was a grinder on clay..VERY underrated player

Chang got it though... and that still makes me happy

Moi je recherche Pecci Vilas quart 1979,Lendl Clerc demi 1981,Vilas Noah quart de finale 1982

What do you mean?

@@ermattia He was yelling "fuck" on numerous occasions. It's surprising considering how eloquent he is as a commentator, but I guess it makes sense considering he was playing his rival in a grand slam QF.

@@kifinov1239 Plus I don't think he liked losing to PETE on clay, as it was well-known clay was Jim's best surface and Pete's worst.

@@farid1406 Exactly, i think Courir realized he is no elite anymore. In shape, Sampras couldnt have beaten Courir on clay.

@@farid1406 honestly Courier didn't like losing against ANYONE.... that's what we call Highly Competitive personality... Jimmy Connors was the same way.

The way clay court tennis should be played LOL More seriously its always been possible to hit aces on clay.

You are so funny

I think he ate pizza the night before the semis, smh

He was cooked when he arrived in the semi. And they play early afternoon against Kafelnikov, at the warmest time of the day.

No he couldnt win the french open 1996. Thats why he lost in the semis

twain27 plus playing bruguera early on didn’t help , 5 sets

@@spirg WHY did it take Pete 5 sets to beat Bruguera? Wasn't he up 2 sets to love? *sigh*

it's been uploaded!

God - all that unbearable shrieking. Why on earth would you put yourself through having to listen to that?? Also: nothing interesting - just flat out thumping into corners (with unbearable shrieking). Coupla complete nobodies making a god-awful racket.....

yes reprise = time to play