A decade decorated in Wimbledon silverware. The Pete Sampras era, narrated by Andy Roddick. This is the official Wimbledon RU-vid page. To keep up with Wimbledon throughout the year, visit wimbledon.com/mywimbledon
With Roger, Rafa and Novak being around for so long and playing at the levels that they have and still are, sometimes we forget about the likes of Sampras and Agassi. But they were legends in their own times as well.
Pete and agassi are barely ever mentioned. Agassi won all four slams when all surfaces were indeed very different. Winning fast Wimbledon as a baseliner is a hell of an accomplishment. In my view, agassi was 95% of the player Novak is today. Had he developed with the modern baseline game, he'd be an even greater champion.
Everything about Sampras oozed class. The man won every final he played in. Serve, forehand, backhand, serve and volley and ahhh those basketball-inspired smashes. I have so much respect for Djokovic and Nadal and what they've achieved, but at his best, Sampras was a monster with the most gentle persona. He carried himself so gracefully.
14-0 Rafa (in finals) at Roland Garros. 2008 Rafa would beat prime sampras in Wimbledon irrespective of a slow/fast grass court. Pete could never change his game and adapt to win a Roland Garros whereas Rafa and Novak did it to excel across all the surfaces.
@@ruckfules9441 2008 Rafa barely beat a prime Federer in the slowest grass court ever. To think he would beat prime Pete on a fast true Wimby court...wow...!!!! Nice.
Sampras also is quite a story, coming from nowhere to win US Open, facing tragedy to his coach, breaking down in tears on court, bouts with mononucleoensis, rivalry with Agassi, being counted out and then had that last Us Open amazing run. Its interesting he was first dubbed as boring but his career was so interesting
@@cryptokid1021 he would have destroyed them in the fast courts . And of course the year he played fed he was in terrible condition he had stopped training 2 years
this is what i think every year when the tournament comes up. Id give all i have to switch back to 90s and re-live his game. Never saw him live on grass.
Well he always had great recognition and the majority generally used to pick him as the greatest(despite lack of French Open)..It's only with the whole big 3 and social media that past players seem to get overlooked and inflated records seem to be the norm and GOAT debates more vicious
Sampras had a serve that combined a lot of pace and spin (similar to the Nadal forehand), brilliant placement of serve, phenomenal athleticism, brilliant net play, tremendous forehand, a backhand that can produce winners, deadly passing shots, Slam dunk smashes, excellent touch, tenacity, heart, nerves of steel etc. One of the very greatest players, ever.
@@capitanfuturo594 I think they both looked up to him and his game and also have a lot of respect for him as a player, as a person and specially for his legacy.
Pete was my idol before Federer came on the scene. I still remember that 99 final against Agassi. It was the best I ever saw him play. Pistol is one of the greatest to ever do it, but he gets overshadowed now because of the big 3, which is unfortunate, because he was truly great.
Sampras steht in niemandes Schatten,vor allem nicht bei jenen,die die 90er jahre mitverfolgt haben!Das heutige Tennis ist Mist,jeder hat den gleichen Stil,es geht nur mehr darum,wer die Filzkugel am öfteren übers Netz drischt!Schönes und ökonomisches Angriffstennis ist völlig von derBildfläche verschwunden,grauslich zum anschauen,was ich schon lange nicht mehr tue!
I had the pleasure of meeting Pete in Indianapolis, early 1990’s. He was a very humble, nice young man, and his coach, Tim Gullickson, was a class act also.
My favorite player of all time. Retired as the best ever. The three guys that followed him may have better arguments to that claim now, but Pete is still certainly the best grass court player of all time. Just a pleasure to watch, he was. Great athlete, great gentleman.
@@fabiennefertiti3017 While I do believe that Novak is well on his way to finishing his career as the GOAT (although this is a subjective term because fairly comparing players from different eras of tennis is impossible), I must give Federer credit here. Despite being past his prime, 30-year-old Federer beat prime 25-year-old Djokovic in the 2012 Wimbledon semifinal. Their other 3 matches, which Djokovic won, are not an accurate representation of Federer's full grass-court abilities because they came when he was well into his 30s and therefore already long past his prime, which was approximately from age 22 until age 27. By the time of their next meeting after 2012 (2014 final), Federer was 32. In 2015, he was 33. And in 2019 he was 37.
@@fabiennefertiti3017 that's the thing about federer. He is goat but somehow fellow players do better than him in head to heads. For example nadal. Novak should equal slams today and rightfully claim the goat.
"played the game the way it should be played" ... It's actually more likely that he played it the way it WASN'T meant to be played when serve and volley started becoming dominant in the 50s, tournament organizers actually tried to kill it by changing rules... they just failed if anything, the true old school tennis players actually prefer baseline players over net players
@@lotus630 Old school tennis players prefer attacking tennis and trying to win the point, especially on grass. Not just rallying to try to wait for the other guy to miss.
1-2 punch rallies and one minute service games is definitely not the way tennis was meant to be played. Racquet technology in late 80s-early 90s made tennis too serve-oriented. Slowing down surfaces was a good decision, but a bit late
@@lotus630 I think He meant Pete played the game the way it should be as a champion and a gentleman! We can discuss styles of play and Eras later. But Pete was a professional on and off the court. Hard work, dedication and he let his tennis racket do all of the talking! Pete is a true legend have the game of tennis!
That title belongs to Djokovic. (Despite when he gets angry at himself sometimes.) Novak needed to go to Pete for overhead lessons tho, and Pete to him to learn to return at the highest level instead of being overreliant on serve and fast courts.
People today are saying Federer is the greatest grass court player ever, but let’s be real. Sampras wouldn’t lose to pure baseliners like Djokovic and Nadal so many times. He absolutely domolished all baseliners at Wimbledon.
@@worawatsr9803 Djokovic is not a pure baseliner, he is literally an all court counter puncher. Nadal is a baseliner, but he literally made grinding viable because of his unique style and execution. This is a BS statement.
People don't realise what a worker Sampras was. He was a natural baseliner who became the most dominant serve-volleyer of the 90's. That takes commitment and belief only worthy of a champion. Also, the greatest clutch server of all time, no question.
Yep. He struggled at Wimbledon in his first few years because, funny enough, he couldn't handle the fast speed of grass with his strokes. He had to work with his coach to shorten up his backswing on his strokes so he could time the ball better. And once he figured that out, he became almost unbeatable at Wimbledon.
@@cryptokid1021 impossible to tell i think .. so many factors.. i dont think Sampras would adopt a pure serve and volley game if he was the same generation as djoker.. racquets are bigger strings give more spin courts are slower .. serve and volley wouldn't be best option so i doubt Sampras wouldn't figure that out
@@cryptokid1021 Sampras was all-round class player, but serve-volley approach worked the best in the era of fast grass courts. He often dominated opposition players from the baseline when they were serving, and usually used more patient approach on his serve when playing on slower surfaces, although he was a player favoring shorter rallies with going for the winners when a decent opportunity arose, taking risks. That era knew players who were successful playing more aggressively, going for winners, on all courts except clay. And so, Sampras could be in trouble playing Djokovic. However, at least from the last US Open that Sampras won in his 30s, I remember that he could stand his ground in rallies.
A lovely guy. When he stayed in London for Wimbledon he stayed at the St James Court Hotel. Popped into gym to train a few times. A polite modest guy who was courteous to everyone he met.
Nobody can perform the slam dunk smash like Pete Sampras. The height that he gets off the ground is inhuman. I saw Federer attempted it a few times, but it was not as great as Sampras dunk smash.
Contrary to the Big 3 today, Sampras has always been extremely private and low-key especially since his retirement at the end of 2002. But, then again, in the 1990's there wasn't any social media to contend with.
Pete was very popular during the 90’s,all my family and friends were supporting him,still half of today’s top-players having him as an Idol(Nole,Roger,Raonic,Del Potro,Tsitsipas)
Like Lendl? Que nada! Admiringly, Ivan was an EXCEPTIONAL overachiever by total dedication, hard work, and personal discipline; whereas Pete definitely was (and will certainly remain) the MOST INNATELY COMPLETE tennis player of the modern era. Only Roger Federer (gracefulness) and Novak Djokovic (skills and mind power) come close (speaking of completeness vs. mere games or trophies winning).
A nine minute video narrated by Andy Roddick. 98,000 views in just three days. And yet Wimbledon still have not premiered a single Sampras match since they started showing archives months ago. It is about time they premiered a Sampras match! There is plenty to choose from.
Sampras was never given the credit for his sheer dominance at Wimbledon. Seven titles in eight years and the unexpected loss in 1996 to Richard Krajicek stopped his unbeaten run. I am not the one to take anything away from Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, but if the surface and balls were of same quality, I fear Federer would have found it difficult to win eight. If Sampras had played for 20 years at Wimbledon, he would have collected at least 15 trophies.
Paresh Mokani Unfortunately, the era that followed Pete arrived early and he was essentially eclipsed in history by the big 3: Fed, Novak, Nadal. Compound that with style that didn’t exude a lot of personality, or endorsements, Pete’s star has dimmed somewhat over the years.
Running forehand, serve and slam dunk were exceptional , on grass the net game was fantastic.still the loss in 96 and 01/02 were tragic..Sampras was my hero, love him!
Seriously Tragic. If ever Sampras lost at Wimbledon....It borders on Tragic. Seriously who can beat him? huhh? Krajicek and Federer....Not Goran though :) after 92 :) lolol....Agassi won then and escaped. Goran got screwed until Federer helped him in 2001 :) oh my God. What a Heart Breaker is Sampras. Goran's got no chance :) lololol
He's a legend!!! Who could imagine that someone like Novak,and fed will do even better here. I feel sorry for Pete,when he was playing fed,they stole important point from him by mistake,and he lost that match. It was crucial point.
And funny enough, he actually struggled there his first few years because he couldn't adjust to the speed of the grass. It wasn't until he worked with his coach to help shorten up his backswing on his strokes to time the ball better, that he finally figured out the key to winning there.
@@DrMrPersonGuy I dont think the court is slower. The ball bounces higher than in Sampras' era which is a good thing. Before the ball was often below the waist.
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 The courts are slower. And the bounce should not be higher, this is grass, not clay. Tennis has been slowed and homogenized for baseliners.
It was not the end. Agassi achieved some major titles In Melbourne after Sampras resign and Roddick won New York and both of them became Nr. One. Soon there will be another US American number one. I am pretty sure. Greetings from Berlin.
@@LinusFeynstein america also had jack sock and the other the very tall guy with great serve, but both were not workers, they dont work to play better.
Andy is to Roger.....what Goran is to Sampras. if only Andy waited a little.....Nadal or Djoker wud have defeated Roger at wimbledon and Andy could have gotten one :) like Goran got in 2001 when Federer helped. :)
Sampras is my all time tennis idol, aside from the big 3, Andy and Stan, there is something special about Pete not just his agility and strength, he is also a humble man, I never saw him getting angry or arrogant on court, he just go with the flow, if he wins, he's thankful if he loses better luck next time, that's what i saw with Pete
Que hermoso revivir las victorias de Sampras! Fue un campeón enfocado y muy educado en la cancha y sobre todo una calidad humana humilde y de buena voluntad. Características de excelentes de campeones como Laver,Navratilova,Seles,Nadal y Federer! y otros! Sampras era tranquilo y determinado a ganar. Excelente video Wimbledon y que bonito escuchar a Andy Roddick narrar la historia...una persona me quede con las ganas ganase Wimbledon! Sampras forever! :)
By far my favorite player,champion’s attitude on and out of court,14 Grand Slams,7 Wimbledone titles(hasn’t lost a final)despite having the disease called thalassemia B.
for me, Pete Sampras is the best player of all time, I have always thought that he could have achieved more grand slam titles, but he felt alone at the top, and that affected him, he lost games, if I remember correctly, with players not in the top ten
Pete moved like a crouching cat and attacked like a tiger... the best player of the 20th century with the best personality, for me Pete always the best :)
funny how all the great champions of the 90ths , Steffi Graf and Pete Sampras have stayed away from the sport after retirement. I watched all those great victories by Pete. Still one of the greatest champions ever.
Sampras the real king of Wimbledon. 7 titles (7-0) in an 8 year span. 14 slams and retired at 31 years old. It was an era where polyester strings did not exist, grass and balls were much faster, and players did not have access to the training/nutrition/physio/surgery/scouting technologies that players have now.
I think as well, players of his generation still were brought up much more to have a specialism (e.g. clay courts, faster courts). Much more difficult to translate that across surfaces in those days.
Sampras was a beast, especially on grass. I think in the '90-s he was as dominant on grass as Rafa on clay nowadays. Although i know Rafa's dominance on clay is longer (with 12 titles at RG and still counting) Sampras was just unbelievable, and unbeatable on grass in that era. Also i have to say that on a really fast court which was Wimbledon CC back then, it is really hard to make winning streaks like that, so it is simply fantastic what Sampras has achieved in Wimbledon.
I grew up watching this man at Wimbledon, it was the highlight of the season for me. He was beautiful to watch. Serve and volley baby! I was lucky enough to watch him play a match on an outside court towards the end of his era.
I remember thinking that when Agassi and Sampras' careers were drawing to a close that there were really no men's up-and-comers to carry the sport on. Boy, was I wrong.
Rohan I must respectfully disagree. Sampras is the only player from the 90s that had the athletic gifts of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and others. There were many FIT players, but the only one blessed athletically like today’s players was Sampras. Nadal and Djokovics talent is rivaled by some in the 90s, but not their athleticism. Federer of course is another level in all ways. Not to mention this era had genetic freaks like we’ve never seen, eg Del Potro, Isner, Tsonga, Monfils. The athleticism of Kafelnikov, Muster, Korda, Stich is almost laughable by comparison to the big 3, as is their talent.
Aaron Mychal Ruiz today’s players benefit from the modern technology of racquet strings, training, nutrition, and recovery. it’s a no contest for sure. but if the 90s players had the same technology, i think they will be on par.. the downside in today’s players are there are so many distractions (phones, social media, internet etc). that’s why they can’t reach their true potential. i think this is the reason why the big 3 have been dominating for so long because they know how to manage their distractions.
@@YolandaSaldivar4eva "Sampras is the only player from the 90s that had the athletic gifts of" I would throw in Agassi, sure Sampras was overall more athletic than him, but Agassi was the more complete player and had the endurance to succeed at RG in contrast to Pete.
Great great great pete samprass he was poetry in motion really nice to see wimbledon recognising the man who ruled center court for nearly a decade in the 90s
Indeed - I don't want to take anything away but 1996 was difficult for Pete without the guidance of his shining star who taught him to believe and 'put his blue collar on' that Wimbledon is his kingdom.
@Kevin Smith Krajicek had an insane 14-12 in the 5th loss to Ivanisevic in the '98 semi's... pretty sure Rich would have taken care of business against Sampras in that final and beaten him again. He had a very good record against Sampras (but an awful one against Ivanisevic).
@Kevin Smith don't think Krajicek had it mentally, imo. Whether it was lack of concentration, or nerves, or fighting spirit, it was a mental issue, and I think the fact he never even got to another GS final, letting alone winning another one, shows there was a problem somewhere.
It's interesting just how much Sampras has almost been forgotten, and so quickly. After waiting decades for someone to beat Roy Emerson's grand slam record, I don't think anyone really expected Sampras's new grand slam record to be beaten so quickly, and by three different players, or his Wimbledon record to be beaten by Federer.
@@stevencoardvenice it's called proper diet, training, and conditioning. The big 3 have a whole team of people to take care of them and keep them in shape.
Pete Sampras one of the greatest Tennis players of all time, maybe the greatest all-round player on all courts, and very humble! If he was around today, he would with ease take on the great three!
He had a good game for grass - big serve, excellent volleying ability, good footwork, good temperament, smooth, and somehow an eerie absence of drama. Perhaps he was just too good.
