Stefan Edberg vs Pete Sampras Extended Highlights | 1992 US Open Final 

And in 1992, he went 5 sets with players who all had at least one grand slam. Edberg simply refused to stop fighting. Edberg then beat Sampras at the next slam 93 Aussie Open in the semi finals. Only player to beat Sampras in two consecutive Grand Slams.

​@@whyaskwhy000yes, that's a great achievement

Chang said Edberg was on fire that year and he really was. Edberg's match against Courier in the final was remarkable. Sampras and Edberg are in my top three fav players.

He was not my fav but in my top 5 all time along with Agassi and Federer and maybe Connors

Edberg had one of the most beautiful games in tennis history and was one of the elite players of the 1980s and early 90s.

Almost extinct today, once Dimitrov and Tsitsipas quit, its over.

@@BlueberrySwede yeah f modern coaches who just want to be lazy and copy cat everyone into the same type of player. Also the tennis associations are to blame for not setting certain regularies of how tennis rackets have to be constructed, so that the game could have been open to all styles of play... without the new rackets and proper courts, players could still play serve and volley just as much as baseline, but all these changes in the past 10-15 years have created a mono culture of baseline tennis being the only option for every player.

obviously the USTA, the commentators and presenters were crestfallen with the outcome.. awful selection of highlights package

I believe one of Pete's winners was shown twice.

exactly. looked like they showed all of Sampras' winners

Exactly what I felt, so weird..... I thought if I had remembered the result wrongly until the end of the video.

​@@ladcameo You got that straight! I have nothing against Sampras but the U.S. Open should have entitled this collection of video clips the Pete Sampras highlights package.

I hate Mr. Foot fault and this loss really stung as a huge Sampras fan. If Sampras had serve and volleyed all his first serves, he would have had a much better chance.

Why have you called your favourite player Stephen?

@@sanjaygandhi7962 This 1992 US Open Final and the subsequent 1993 Aussie Semi proved that Edberg's volleying was far defter,more natural and more instinctive than Sampras's. Granted we are splitting hairs here.....but when it comes to the art of volleying, Edberg had no equals in his era......yes that includes McEnroe(who Edberg defeated at the 1989 and 1991 Wimbledons).

@@BurnsTennis besides what I have mentioned, he has the attitude, in my opinion, of a true Champion.

@@birdoffire983 Sampras tried to emulate Edberg later in his career. But in 1992 and 1993 Sampras was still in the like to play from the baseline mode, which Edberg exploited. Sampras took note although I think Sampras went to net way too much between 2000 and 2002.

Dream story for Chang and a great frustration for Edberg but overall Edberg will be remembered as a better player than Chang that I like...

​@@SainyaHokageyes strange that Chang was never able to follow that freach oper up with more slams.

well chang can thank becker for that, becker took edberg to 5 sets in the semifinal, edberg was tired by the 5th set vs chang and it cost him the match.

I was a big fan of Edberg as a little kid but my fav all time was Agassi then Federer

Hurts me still too

Tennis had a lot of flavor in the 70s, 80s and early 90s until it became a POWER serve game with Pete and others.

​@@quasar4601 so true. If Edberg wanted to, he could've served bombs like Sampras but he chose a weaker serve to appeal to boomers like you and I. He also intentionally hit low paced forehands to keep the game interesting. What a hero!

yeah the racket tech has changed so much (lighter, bigger head) that it's more productive to focus your time on the power pass.

Maybe the old School and Volley come back within our lifetimes.

@@gazlives Don’t forget the polyester strings and the slowing down of both hard and grass courts

@@vitogirardi7477 This.

@@vitogirardi7477 seriously, the tennis associations should do the right thing and pass rules that only allow for certain types of rackets and bring back fast courts. Every other sport does rules to keep the integrity and beauty of the sport intact and not create monoculture style of play. But for some reason, in tennis they basically destroyed the beautiful game by allowing manufacturers to create rackets that completely tilt the game one way towards baseline rally and crazy high serve speeds. It is not the players all of a sudden hitting bombs because they are such better athletes, it is all about the rackets allowing them to hit the ball that fast that it makes serve and volley less appealing to play when you want to have success.

Today's players stand 15 feet behind the baseline to return serve. Sampras and Edberg would have a field day punishing them with their volleys!

@@seveglider8406 The speed of the ball is so much higher today than 30-40 years ago. An Edberg style of play would be suicide no matter the quality of the volleys.

Agreed .... classic match.

That may be applicable to Sampras, but not that much to Edberg… To even mention Edberg in the same sentence as Sampras is a mockery to the great american! 14 grand slams to 6…not in the same league…Edberg isn’t even in the top-10 list of open era players, let alone all-time one! While Sampras is always ranked top-5 regardless whether open era or not!…

Same here... great match. Both of them are among the legends. Thanks for the upload 😁👍🏻

​@@Summon256 Their head to head was almost even: 8-6 to Sampras. Edberg also won both of their grand slam meetings. Whatever you think of their respective overall records, Edberg clearly gave Sampras a lot of problems. Sampras himself was on record saying how much he respected Edberg.

@@zeddeka I fail to see how any of this have to do with how greatness of each compares to one another...i can respect someone too without that person having track record full of achievements...there is gigantic hole between Sampras and Edberg and it's not even close!...At the time they played each other this wasn't the case, but Sampras started surpassing Edberg more and more and by the time 1997-1998 came around they were no longer in the same league!

There were even better volley experts before him I am sure with the likes of Laver

​@@quasar4601😂😂😂😂

Totally agree, a combination of skills and athleticism that we've never seen since then. I miss this time when it was not all about power and they were coming at the net

​@@bluecolor1600John McEnroe. The softest...

The highlights must have been put together by a big Sampras fan. Who won the final...?

Thats Correct

You see these types of comments about every sport. You will see them in 30 years about today, too.

Look at the baseline play from Edberg from 2:50 to 3:05, it looks even lighter than a modern player’s warm up lol. And it’s not just the racquets

@@mikemoggerson6651 Everything you said was 100% incorrect. First tennis was supposed to be part art form and part ballet and part chess match, when the ball is struck with control and set up there was a reason for that, the court is only 82 feet, it's tiny, the intrigue in the game increased the slower the ball was placed on the surface, it gave the fan a chance to see how the player was setting up for the next move, secondly, the rackets they used in this video are the same racket I use, there is nothing given to them, they had to create there own top spin, their own control, their own power, todays rackets and strings GIVE the player the top spin, the control and the power, there is no requirement of the player today to develop them, the technology essentially plays the game for them, third, why do you get excited that these advanced rackets can generate more power, where is the excitement in seeing a ball fly across the net faster ??? it doesn't make any sense, a MLB breaking ball and the greatest pitchers were the ones with the best curve ball, it takes more ability to control a slowly hit ball than to just smash it, there is no excitement in watching a ball hit so hard it just goes straight across the net, I think you are getting excited over something that is not only unexciting but there is a lack of personality, charisma in just hitting a straight shot for power, tennis was not created for speed, it is a thinking persons game, a game of strategy, control, shot making, net play, drop volleys, serve and volley, mid court volleys, it was never designed as a boring robotic baseline only pass the ball back and forth and using that silly 2HBH.

@@TimTheMusicMan yea, because running to the net every single time after you serve is a genius and thrilling strategy 😂 it would be so funny to see any modern star humiliate these slow and unathletic players. Their ground strokes were abysmal

Tennis was more fun to watch back then. Modern era with 3 players with a combine record of more than 60 slams is just sad.

​@@GalimahThat's gonna change now cause Federer is out, Nadal is on the way out and Djokovic is getting old. Let's see who steps up. Hopefully it's not Alcaraz winning everything. That would be boring.

What is so "boring" about the best players winning a lot? That is what is going to happen, but I sure would not call it "boring" lol.

Today's tennis is BORING! Every player played the same way on every surface. Very few can volley effectively.

​@@seveglider8406 Is that "boring" tennis to you? Not much of a fan?

The highlights must have been put together by a big Sampras fan.

Agree. We're in the dark ages of tennis now of 2HB baseline robots.

Hey, at least now you can be n°32 😉

More like when you played attacking tennis instead of just slugging from the baseline waiting for the error, you could be #1. Though this point in time, Jim Courier, an offensive baseliner, was the #1.

Until Federer

Pat Rafter?

@@krogdog Yes. Pat Rafter was great. He won 2 US opens with his uncompromising Serve and Volley game.

Stephan Edberg won 59 titles in total He have 9 major titles total singles and doubles combined in open era He won 1 atp finals title in singles and 2 atp finals titles in doubles also he is best serve and volley player like John McEnroe In open era actually

You should watch agassi in early 90-tis ...😅😂😂😂

ping pong is about right, it's that much faster! Edberg would have been dismantled by a modern player if he tried that chip-and-charge stuff.

@@racketman2u modern player wouldn't know what to do with 1992 tech.

Today's tennis is BORING!

The BIG 3 are hard to beat

You clearly forgot what it was like to watch two serve and volleyers play 3 shot points for 2 hrs 😂

@@oberdot Ha? Even if those were "3 shot points" for 2 hours, it beats watching boring 20 shot points from the baseline for 4 hours.

Until Federer arrived.

@@bugynites09 arrived?

Edberg's backhand was better by miles. Everybody knows that. This highlight reel just shows all Sampras' best shots.

I have only be a HUGE HUGE mega of fan of a few players and Edberg was one of them. I also was huge fan of Agassi and then Federer.

Fed would have done better with Becker, who set Novak on the path to dominance. A true tennis genius is Becker.

It's a beautiful style to watch! We could add Patrick Rafter to this mix, as well, strictly serve a volley!!

@@braddakimo1954 yeah rafters peak years were 97 and 98

....And bigger, faster, & stronger players today.

​@@vandrive5687 They aren't big

Agreed, 80% of the points won by Sampras in this video. Fully biased approach in favor of the american

It could be that Sampras won the spectacular points but Edberg won the important ones, if that makes sense. Sampras is a shotmaker so naturally his shots will make more highlight reels.

​@@BurnsTennis Edberg also had many spectacular winners in this match. Maybe not that many as in their other encounetrs since the swede was struggling after his epic 5-setters en route to the final. But they are not pictured here at all

Both Courier and Sampras were still evolving in terms of their game. Courier got the better of Edberg quickly in the later finals, as did Sampras post this one.

great experience and story!

If I remember correctly, Edberg was down a break in the fifth set to both Chang and someone else....Lendl? And he came back and won both matches.....then Pete in the final....His conditioning was unequaled.

@@joemarshall4226 Yes, down in the fifth to Krajicek, Lendl, and Chang - unbelievable... All three are excellent matches with a beverage - relive when tennis had variety and contrasting styles...All gone, now...

@@frankcarbo6622 Yeah, we miss the serve and volley, although Maxime Cressy still uses it. Ivo Karlovic was the most successful S and V player ever, in terms of holding serve...something like 92% for his career. HIs chances of holding serve when he was down 0-40 was 51%! The amazing thing about today's player is that they cand do everything. Serve, return baseline, counter-punch, volley, drop shot. Their skills are amazing. The technology has made Serve and volley more difficult, but it's still a viable strategy to mix in.

The highlights must have been put together by a big Sampras fan.

The highlights must have been put together by a big Sampras fan. You see mostly winners by Sampras. Who won the final...?

Mats was crying....

@@joemarshall4226 No,Mats got Sonya after Anette .

@@suatkayatennis After he stopped crying

@@joemarshall4226 😂

Stefan Edberg even kissed "a net" during his quarterfinal match against Lendl - when he won the point (let-cord) at 2:2 in the fifth set tiebreaker...😉😉

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 only thing McEnroe leads in is assholeyness

Sampras and Federer were no slouches in that dept!

Don't talk such utter tripe.

@@stevefowler3398 This has been the truth since the 1960s. Unless you are blind Tennis has degrees of hardness and Complexities.

The US Open became the toughest tournament to win in the late 1970s when it switched to hardcourt. As Tony Trabert nicely put it, it was a neutral surface. Those who wanted to attack could attack, those who wanted to defend could defend. Consequently everyone played the US Open every year unless injured. Agassi missed his first 9 Australian Opens on rebound ace! Sampras missed 3 Aussie Opens. People like Muster and Moya didn't even bother turning up to Wimbledon. Another commentator Bill Threllfall once said only the best players win the US Open, they can be no one time wwinners like at the French and Wimbledon during that era. However, I think its true to say since the Majors have forced mandatory participation, increased points considerably and made surfaces all play at a similar speed, the US Open is still great to win but maybe doesn't quite have that elite prestige it did from the 1970s to 2000s. With Australian Open switching from rebound ace to plexicushion, they have closed the gap. Also, there is no Super Saturday anymore which really tested one's ability to win the US Open having best of five semifinal and final within a 24 hour period. That really helped with the satisfaction stakes if you won, especially playing the 2nd semifinal on Saturday evening.

Hard court players can do well on Grass courts and clay courts more than grass court specialist and clay court specialist as it is only 2 weeks between French open and Wimbledon

This channel is called US Open Tennis Championship, not Swedish Open . . .

@@cuongtkong58 so? In this case, only post victories of american players...

@@damianotero2511 They should, but there aren't any after Roddick retired.