Pete Sampras vs Andre Agassi US Open 2002 Final Highlights HD

49,314

Download video

Published by Federerkooora at 12/27/2011 22:05 Like

104

http://www.facebook.com/Federer.kooora

* If you are new to TubeEncore, please refer to instruction to find out all the features of this website.

Latest comments

Simon H, at 05/11/2013 18:15, says:
And your reasoning is... I bet sampras wouldn't have 14 grand slams if he were competing with the guys playing today; there is a reason why many people, such as mcenroe, describe today as the golden age of tennis. Sports go on upward trend in terms of skill level of the pros for several reasons,. Players now have better fitness, footwork, serves, groundstrokes, form on their strokes etc. Sampras is great, but serve and volley would not dominate the incredible ground strokers and defenders today.
Simon H, at 05/11/2013 17:25, says:
That is true, but there are many other important features of tennis players too.
chucho porkusmag, at 05/01/2013 17:56, says:
Thanks for the effort!!! :D
TheOrderOfThePoodle, at 04/29/2013 07:37, says:
Thank god courts are slower now. Serve and volley was beginning to bore everyone, why do you think there's so few grass court tournaments nowadays?
quest8899, at 04/10/2013 14:00, says:
sampras serve is so good
rroscop, at 04/07/2013 20:58, says:
That may be true but it goes both ways. Say Nadal had played 20 years ago, he would have zero chance against Sampras except on clay. There's a reason why none of the good clay courters back in 90's could win any other Grand Slams (except Agassi). Fed could have competed back in that time period, maybe Tsonga, but Rafa, Novak would have had only a couple Grand Slam titles each.
Vikram Vs, at 03/07/2013 19:16, says:
One Stunning reminder
arzoo82, at 02/21/2013 04:53, says:
jap commentators sound like theyre blowing their load over each point..
quest8899, at 02/13/2013 15:57, says:
Agassi had a lot of chances to break serve in the 4th set
criticalmass500, at 12/19/2012 08:54, says:
personally i would like to see faster courts..bit more serve and volley..too much baseline game nowadays..
criticalmass500, at 12/19/2012 08:02, says:
as much as one would like to, but i don't think it is fair to compare...all are great..if you can dominate the competition..that is enough...
funkrafty, at 12/13/2012 00:04, says:
You are absolutely right...i ve been watching a lot of Sampras games recently to compare to Federer...Sampras was like the terminator lol...he would coldly execute his game and completely thwart the opponent's game and rhythm.
quest8899, at 12/12/2012 20:00, says:
nice match but the courts were way too fast back then, there was hardly any rallies and easy errors, thank goodness most pros use poly strings now
Michael Clark, at 11/30/2012 15:05, says:
For 25+ years I have made a living uncovering, explaining and making sound decisions based important overlooked data, and when you dig deeper than 17 vs. 14 and subjective opinions on era strength, there is a compelling story to be told. I actually like Roger better than Pete, so the ebook is not a matter of Sampras-fan insecurity, but an effort to look beyond the "blatantly obvious" to see that comparing across eras is an "oranges versus apples" proposition. Read it. You might be surprised.
89Pleasek, at 11/30/2012 12:17, says:
maybe because a) the players defend 10 times better than anyone in sampras' era? b) all the surfaces are 10 times slower than what they were 10-20 years ago? I dare prime Sampras to win 14 majors with his style in this era. There's a reason why there are no good serve-and-volleyers left and the top 5 contains of the best defenders/movers in the game today
89Pleasek, at 11/30/2012 12:26, says:
hilarious, somebody has to feel really insecure on the other hand, federer fans dont need any proof why federer is better than sampras, its just blatantly obvious, sampras has nothing on federer, lawl poor pete every single record he had has been taken away from him from fed
Michael Clark, at 11/29/2012 22:39, says:
The game is different now, and as Federer recently said, the slow courts "protect" the top guys. Today's baseline play (slow courts, better rackets) makes it too difficult for lower seeded players to upset the top players. That's why there are never any breakthrough Grand Slam winners like Becker, Sampras, Krajicek, Cash, etc., when they broke through. Sampras won his slams in a much more volatile and difficult era. Read all about this in "Why Pete is Better than Roger" ($2.99 Amazon ebook).
Michael Clark, at 11/29/2012 22:02, says:
If you want some compelling, overlooked data and analysis to support your assertion, to give you ammo against Federer fans, I invite you to pick up the little $2.99 ebook entitled "Why Pete is Better than Roger."
cdt5074, at 11/26/2012 02:18, says:
Don't dismiss Sampras so readily. That's craziness. Pete played a particular brand of tennis that was very effective in the 90's but that we don't see anymore. It's quite difficult to play against someone who comes at you with an enormous serve and puts pressure on you immediately with court positioning. Pete isn't interested in long rallies, and is effective at ending points decisively. He didn't let you hardly play any shots at times. That's one tough opponent.
Alexander Pushkarev, at 11/22/2012 10:54, says:
CBS is broadcasting US Open in 1080i HD format since 1999
Everton A. dos Santos, at 11/17/2012 23:42, says:
Sampras set 3 x 2 !!!
maydengarNSBHS, at 11/06/2012 09:57, says:
holy fuck.. how did you get such good quality? not even atp has this good quality lol