When Roger Federer & Pete Sampras Entertained Tiger Woods || 3 GOATs 

Quite nice indeed!

And his Dunk Smash is unique too.

For sure!!

Enorme placer ver a ESTOS GRANDES.

@@gladysmerched2051 si señor!

It definitely is!

As is Federer’s

@@Reuben_95 yessirr

There’s no way Sampras lost his service game serving for the match (never happened in his career). He clearly gave the match away to Federer.

Best serve ever!

Beautiful game!

@@RogerThatTennis was the court accelerated for this special occasion?

@@user-cy6xl3vd3f it was slowed down after the discussions in 2000 - 2002. It was way too boring and fast as the players couldn't really get pass the 3-5 ball rallies and it was hugely advantageous for aggressive players like Federer. They apparently changed the surface material for less bounce and slower kickback from the ground.

@@OneCrazedSniper1I disagree. Slowing down all courts virtually makes serve and volley tennis obsolete. THAT is boring.

Yessirr

Glad you liked it!

Federer seemed to be taking it lightly in the third set but when Pete went ahead he brought back his A game and blasted 4 aces in a row!!?

@@spideyocd yeah, the aces moment just outstanding, demolarizing, astonishing... beast!!!

Pete didn't want to beat him either. Pete was already retired. They both just wanted to give the crowd an exciting game

Unbelievable how good Sampras was.. At his prime he would beat Federer without any doubt... Sampras was 37 and didn't touch a racket for 5 year... And you saw at Federers face how surprised he was about Sampras.. And he didn't give him any gifts... But short after this match he lost one... Unbelievable Sampras at his prime Was the best player ever

Yessir!!

Too good haha

Yesss

Good list!

Becker????? 😃

DJOKOVIC numero uno di sempre !

Goat nadal

0ㅔㅜㅗㅎ ㅎ

It's hard but every now and then it can happen haha

Yes you can - if you watch him retire.

Simply beautiful!

Novax will never be loved like this even if he wins another 5 slams.

Couldn't agree more!

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it.

Glad we got to see both of them!

He does indeed!

Amazing player :)

Si amico.

Prime Pete can beat Fed on grass and fast hard court. Federer owns him on slower courts.

That would have been amazing to watch.

@@worawatsr9803 I would say 50-50....like this court was made of carpet surface fastest there is.....as fast as courts Pete played..........

@@worawatsr9803 for you ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pEPdLJhq6-k.html

Federer with only 19 years old was already a monster, the best, defeating Sampras on his 30's. What else??? Best tennis ever, this two playing against each other.

They are up there!

Stop. Everyone knows who the top 3 are of all time and Sampras is not among the top 3

@@philonetwentyseven5308 yes only if grand slam remains the only yardstick for measuring players which statistically can work but logically and realistically it is not you have to consider other criteria too. Rod laver and Pete sampras in their primes were no jokes just like Federer or Djokovic.

@@marvellover2359 true, also the rackets at the time were not as much evolved. Especially for Laver, before the late 80s all you had was basically a stick and you had to get by with it. Nowadays players have super technological weapons and still complain because "that one's too heavy" or "this one doesn't get enough spin". The skill cap was way higher in the 60s.

Yesss

Amazing players!

Yess my guy!

on older faster hard and grass Pete for sure, but on modern courts Federer

@@benparsons4979 agreed. 100% Pete never faired well on slow courts.

@@benparsons4979 "on older faster hard and grass Pete for sure"-----:D what a dumb comment

@@airkuna in what way?

@@benparsons4979 on older????? :D

That's right!

Really good!

Right! Wish he had retired a little later.

Boris Becker was the king of Wimbledon, but he stepped down when he said that he felt like he has met his match in the next king Pete Sampras. Each legend is different, but maybe Pete felt so fortunate that he could win one last U.S. Open a couple years after his last Wimbledon win, but then lost to federal in the following Wimbledon. Yes it would’ve been great to see how many more major wins Pete could’ve gotten, but I think he wanted to be a little bit like Bjon Borg retired also after just having won his last major? And until Federer did the unthinkable to have such a resurgence later in his career at a high age due to his love for the sport, I think no one could conceive of being able to have such success late in a Legendary career (Maybe with the exception of Andre Agassi, although he could not accomplish the great feat to win a major it is last extended years)since the days of the great Aussie stars.

Would have loved to see Sampras at his prime against the big 3 in theirs.

@@toddpurvis9621 In his own words .........." I would have stood my ground."............ i believe him 😊

@XRP Heist Agree, Federer upped his game when he got his calculations wrong (and in my view misread how serious Sampras was taking it) and was down 2-5 in the third. He then got it back to 5-5 and let the entertainment go to the tie-break. What I suspect rattled Federer a little bit is he could feel Sampras was not there to entertain but to win it, which made it all much more difficult for Federer, he did not want to show us how easily he could destroy Sampras from a 5-2 lead in the third.

Roger's backhand used to be amazing!

Well with a serve like Pete’s, you’d have a close game against anyone.

@@nicholas6870 great server indeed

Quite a while? He didnt even reach his peak he stopped training seriously at 28.

Fed's backhand passing shot has always been one, if not his most lethal shot against net rushers. I think it's what made the difference in this match.

I am sure he was!

Also serve was not at good level for Sampras. His serve is 10 times bwtter . And his vlley game and the shots

Yessirr

Exactly

Beasts

Oh... :o

Great players!

Yessirr

Beautiful!

Hahaha

Great player only

Hope you liked it!

It wasnt old age as mich as no practice

Imagine that!

Y agreguemos que no se cambien las superficies como en el caso de Wimbledon. Ah, y me gustaría agregar a Agassi, ya que ganó Wimbledon en aquellos tiempos. Muchos han derrotado a Federer en esta superficie pero por los cambios que le hicieron. En fin, que lindo sería! En mi caso disfrute y disfruto de éstos jugadores actuales en sus últimos años

@@laudrup2012 a Agassi no lo considero en el grupo, eso no quita que fue un tremendo jugador, pero estamos hablando de los mejores, entre los mejores.

Galera fera!

Yessirr

Yesss

True, the same thing happens to tennis as to music, any time in the past was better.

Si señor

That would have been amazing

@@RogerThatTennis ya

He was declining fast the year he retired, had a herniated disc and back problems during that year as well. He could have been a professional but he decided to quit while ahead. Who wants to see the great Sampras just hanging on while he had been dominating his whole career. He made the right decision.

@@bifftannen66 thanks for sharing!

@@bifftannen66 Well he won the last slam he ever played so he def could have gone on. He was only 31 when he retired. I think he would have been a threat at Wimbledon at the very least.

Amazing player!

Pete still had it right?

@@RogerThatTennis Pete could still play, don't know why he quit, I'm not a Pete fan but I gotta give it to him he beat the pulp out of his competition even Agassi couldn't beat him, Agassi could win the big 1 if Pete wasn't there that's how good Pete is.

Thanks!

Hahaha imagine

He did actually.

Miss Pistol man

@@RogerThatTennis So much...❤ Miss faster surfaces too...

yessirr

Two of the greatest in the game!

Whut

Yessir Pablito

Yessirr haha

Correct. Pete was long retired too

Correct man!

Playing against Becker?

Pete retired early because of his injuries as he wasn't able to continue playing at the standard he set for himself else would have played the game longer

@@muzammilmohsin7259 PS GOAT

It is not about age it is about what you want. sampras wanted to retire from tennis at 28. He stopped training at end of 1999. So , yeah he didnt even reach his prime. Prime Sampras would be a well trained 2000-2005 but he stopped training at 1999. Plus he had back injury and because he didnt want to continue trainjng he didnt do the physios and rehabilitation to fix the issue. So yeah with good trainjnt Sakpras would have 26-27 grand slams or so.

You know thay Sampras was with 2 years no training, with deciding to retire from tennis alrwady 2 years prior , with playing in the year Wimbledon changed the soil to make it a slow court which requires to adapt to slow play and especially if uou dint trajn 2 years and with back injury additionally? Plus you know that he referee made mistake right? It was 6-3 Sampras was ahead in last tie break and ref made mistake. Then one point and Sampras would win even eith all the factors above.

I think Roger is 27 and Pete 36.

Yessirr