24 thoughts on “Tennis – US Open Finale 1990 – Pete Sampras Vs Andre Agassi”

  1. it wouldnt matter these 2 guys played again at the us open in 2000 and again in 2002 i believe and sampras still beat him.so what you are saying is a weak arguement.

  2. Agassi’s footwork was pretty bad here compared to later on in his career. Look at his footwork in the 2004 match against Roddick in Cincinnati compared to this match. It’s like night and day.

  3. Pete was 20-14 against Agassi and beat him more in majors.

    All Matches: Sampras 20–14
    Grand Slam matches: Sampras, 6–3
    Grand Slam finals: Sampras, 4–1

  4. Hmm okay….point taken. Damned clay! I wish federer played in queens instead of halle for the wimby tune up. That way we’d have more fedal grass court matches. Federer should never have signed that stupid commitment to play in halle for so many years. Had he got a few more wins on a nadal on that grass during the early years, nadal would not have had such a psychological hold on him in the grand slams.

  5. Here’s something that isn’t hypothetical: on all surfaces but clay overall, Federer leads Nadal in their head-to-head. Saying that Federer is Nadal’s bitch is not exactly true when you get down to the specifics.

  6. I agree. With today’s racket tech, Nadal would have destroyed sampras on all surfaces. And if the grass was anything like 2001 wimby, Fed would have destroyed Nadal. Had fed been left handed, he would have destroyed nadal. Had fed had a double handed backhand, he would have destroyed nadal. With 90s racket tech, Fed would have destroyed Nadal. You see where this discussion is going? We must not talk of hypothetical situations. The discussion is about rivalries, not Fed Vs Sampras.

  7. Actually, the reason that Federer has a bad record against nadal is two fold. One, that Nadal’s left-handed forehand topspin is just the right shot to take advantage of federer’s single handed right handed backhand. Second, racket technology has advanced to the point that it is much easier to hit a passing shot and leave the volleyer gasping. So volleying has all but disappeared. Had any of these factors not been present, federer might have dominated Nadal. But I don’t discuss ifs and buts

  8. Yes, I think Borg would have been able to hang with Nadal on clay much better given his patience, anticipation and precision, and they would have had a much more even rivalry. However, I think if there were players like Federer and Sampras around to challenge Borg on grass it wouldn’t have been much of a competition. If McEnroe gave Borg a good run for his money on grass with his serve and volley game, Sampras and Federer would have taken it a step further and absolutely annihilated him.

  9. Nadal is up 18-10 against Federer. 11-2 on clay, 1-2 on grass and 6-6 on hard courts. I would say Nadal and Federer have a good rivalry on hard and grass. What I meant was stylewise speaking, Pete vs Andre and Borg vs McEnroe are definitely more contrasting than Roger and Rafa.

    And yes… Sampras would have had a negative h2h against Nadal on clay, but then again anyone else with the exception of Borg would have had it.

  10. Though I agree that Federer/Nadal are not much of a rivalry overall, Federer is not Nadal’s bitch on anything but clay courts. Take away the clay and Federer leads Nadal 8-6 on all other surfaces. If Sampras (who was far weaker on clay than Federer) had Nadal to contend with, his overall winning percentage would have been a joke as well.

  11. Aye, come on! Sampras Agassi was an 18-14 record. That’s agassi winning over 40% of the time. The way you say it, it seems like agassi was sampras’ bitch. Not true. Ofcourse they had contrasting styles. Agassi is a baseliner and Pete is a S&V player always trying to get to the volley.

  12. this elsrdick fellow speaks the truth. Why did his comments get so many negative votes? I mean there definitely is a contrast in Fedal. But compared to pete-andre, not so much. And compared to McEnroe-Borg, Fedal matches are really dull and repetitive.

  13. What contrasting styles? Agassi’s fruitless attempts at baseline passing shots which are cut off by Sampras’ volleys close to 100% of the time? Borg/McEnroe was the best rivalry of all time, I’ll agree. The Federer/Nadal rivalry is more a rivalry for majors.

  14. yeah, that’s why he’s the greatest of all time. It’s a mystery how he did with just a forehand…

  15. there isn’t much contrast in Nadal vs Federer. It’s just: “Guy who will likely get every ball back, vs Guy who won’t be able to keep more than 4 topspin balls on a backhand to backhand rally”

  16. sure, but not more contrasting than Andre Vs Pete. And even less contrasting than Johnny Mac Vs Borg.

  17. Federer vs. Nadal are very contrasting matches in my view, it’s the magician against the warrior


  19. Say what you want about Fedal matches. According to me the Sampras-Agassi matches were superior because of their contrasting styles of play. It was a real fire and ice battle and no one was anyone’s bitch. Can you honestly say that about Fedal? Ofcourse the greatest rivalry was Borg Vs JohnnyMac. Both metally tough. Both evenly matched. But contrasting persoanlities (Fire Vs Ice). And contrasting styles (S&V Vs Baseline). Can you really say that about Fedal. Time has a way of dimming memories

  20. It’s amazing how Sampras’ serve has developed into the biggest weapon in tennis over the years. In this match, his serve is still in the development process, and he still won with his developing game…

Comments are closed.