Age 35...

[DSH]

I'm just saying that there is no such thing as schedule fairness.

Regardless, playing both semi-finals on the same day was the best decision Tennis Australia could have made.
It was late, but it came!

 

[mike danny]

Don't worry if someone has a different opinion than you, after all what would sites like Tennis Warehouse be used for.

Having a different opinion is one thing, completely asterisking everything Fed did after age 35 is just being pressed and salty

 

[TennisLurker]

Djokovic wasn't injured when Federer won those 3 majors, but he was in a self caused slump caused by following a Spanish guru that made him follow a diet that made Djokovic look like Karen Carpenter. It wasn't a very strong period in tennis, that's why Anderson and Cilic made multiple slam finals. Djokovic was in that weird slump, Murray and Wawrinka broke themselves, Del Potro was coming back from injury and broke himself again after becoming a top 5 player again.

It's stuff like that that makes me think Djokovic may be the goat, even if I think the highest peak ever of tennis was Federer from the year ending masters of 2003 to the Australian Open of 2007. He has 20 majors, but he should have won even more if not for freaky situations, like the spanish guru period, the lineswoman ball choke, or the australian deportation.

edit: it was a weak period when federer won those 3 majors, but the same applies to the majors of djokovic since 2018

 

[Jonesy]

I know most people here are not ready to accept the truth, but Fed was right, the big 3 are all better post 34 years young. 10+ slams of Djokodal incoming.

 

[BGod]

Both Nadal and Djokovic have already won slams at 34 - Djokovic actually won two slams at 34 - and before them, the only open era players to win slams at 34+ were Federer, Rosewall, and Gimeno. So I think that Nadal and Djokovic are more likely to emulate Federer than was anyone before them. However, they definitely both have limited time. If Nadal doesn't win this Australian Open, I think I'd be at the point of betting he wouldn't win any more other than at Roland Garros. How long he can go on at Roland Garros is a different question. As for Djokovic, so much of it will depend on his vaccination status and the vaccine requirements at slams in 2022. If he has to skip the whole of 2022, it will be really hard for him to come back from that long an absence at his age. It just seems like an incomprehensible hill to die on, but he seems determined to do so. I hope he isn't.

Yeah but there's some margins for whatever reason. In the NFL it's age 39 but people look at Brady thinking mold is broken. In tennis look at wins at 28, 29, 30.

History doesn't repeat on a dime but it's enough to make me think 3 Slams each might be the peak. Which is why poll option is 5+

 

[helterskelter]

Yeah but there's some margins for whatever reason. In the NFL it's age 39 but people look at Brady thinking mold is broken. In tennis look at wins at 28, 29, 30.

History doesn't repeat on a dime but it's enough to make me think 3 Slams each might be the peak. Which is why poll option is 5+

I'm not sure I follow your first line.

Given that neither Nadal nor Djokovic has a single slam after turning 35 yet, I agree that betting on either of them to get four slams after 35 would be premature!

 

[BGod]

I'm not sure I follow your first line.

Given that neither Nadal nor Djokovic has a single slam after turning 35 yet, I agree that betting on either of them to get four slams after 35 would be premature!

Yeah. I personally think Rafa has 1 in him. Ironically if he musters AO and doesn't win the French. Djokovic might win 1-2 this year but he's not coming back to Australia so for logistics reasons he gets cut down.

Gun to head I go Rafa 21 and Novak 23

 

[MiamiWeekendWarrior]

Depends purely on luck.

Fed managed it only because half the top 10 was decimated by injuries.

As soon as Novak cameback to form, he stopped winning.

So to answer your question, Rafa can win this week provided Medvedev doesn't make the final.

But Fed also did it while being a geriatric and essentially decimated by age and his own set of injuries.

 

[ibbi]

30 was absolutely a stopgap. Accomplishments after 30 were not an impossibility, but they were a rarity. Agassi and Connors runs were historic. That bar has obviously been raised ridiculously in the past decade.

Of course, anyone can conjure up whatever arbitrary number they want. Remember that old chestnut about how nobody had ever won more than 5 majors after turning 27? That one got buried long ago.

 

[King No1e]

A reminder the only male players to win Slams after turning 35 were Federer & Rosewall with 3 each and Rosewall's last AO at 37 was against less than top competition.

30 was never the stop gap it was played out to be. Prior to the Big 3, Agassi, Pete, Gomez, Connors, Gimeno, Ashe and of course Calendar Slam by Laver at 31.

Sure Novak might break the mold but I wouldn't hold my breath.

30 was never a stop gap, but it was the end of most players' prime. Winning a Slam post-30 was like winning a Slam under 21; it happened but it was a pretty big achievement for anyone.

 

[King No1e]

30 was absolutely a stopgap. Accomplishments after 30 were not an impossibility, but they were a rarity. Agassi and Connors runs were historic. That bar has obviously been raised ridiculously in the past decade.

Of course, anyone can conjure up whatever arbitrary number they want. Remember that old chestnut about how nobody had ever won more than 5 majors after turning 27? That one got buried long ago.

It's mostly Fedalovic who defied that trend, though. You don't see LostGen staying in their prime through their 30's. I'd contend there's no major shift ("30 is the new 25" type stuff) if you take out those 3. Partly because they were that good, and partly because the field was that bad.

 

[ibbi]

It's mostly Fedalovic who defied that trend, though. You don't see LostGen staying in their prime through their 30's. I'd contend there's no major shift ("30 is the new 25" type stuff) if you take out those 3. Partly because they were that good, and partly because the field was that bad.

I don't think that's true. Forget the LostGen, who earned their name for reasons. Stan is another one to throw on the pile (maybe THE primary setter of the trend), Murray obviously had his 2016 resurgence, though that's obviously aided by others falling off, 2018 was Isner's best year, Anderson's career didn't even get going till he was 27/28, 2016 was arguably Monfils best year, Ferrer almost literally hit his peak around the 30 mark, Berdych's second half of his 20s were much better overall than his first half.

I wouldn't say 30 is the new 25 necessarily, but as guys are clearly staying healthier longer it is much harder for younger guys to break through. It used to be the physical gap between young and old was massive and thus the equally massive mental gap, all the experience the old guys had, barely mattered. Now the physical gap is much smaller (just look at Monfils out there today!) the mental gap means that much more, and a lot of guys are only in fact playing their best stuff when they mature between the ears.

Historically, guys like Berrettini and Medvedev are at the age now where the slow decline starts to kick in, and they're both of them (presumably) just getting going!

 

[King No1e]

I don't think that's true. Forget the LostGen, who earned their name for reasons. Stan is another one to throw on the pile (maybe THE primary setter of the trend), Murray obviously had his 2016 resurgence, though that's obviously aided by others falling off, 2018 was Isner's best year, Anderson's career didn't even get going till he was 27/28, 2016 was arguably Monfils best year, Ferrer almost literally hit his peak around the 30 mark, Berdych's second half of his 20s were much better overall than his first half.

I wouldn't say 30 is the new 25 necessarily, but as guys are clearly staying healthier longer it is much harder for younger guys to break through. It used to be the physical gap between young and old was massive and thus the equally massive mental gap, all the experience the old guys had, barely mattered. Now the physical gap is much smaller (just look at Monfils out there today!) the mental gap means that much more, and a lot of guys are only in fact playing their best stuff when they mature between the ears.

Historically, guys like Berrettini and Medvedev are at the age now where the slow decline starts to kick in, and they're both of them (presumably) just getting going!

Monfils is n outlier at his point. Yes, the average ages at the top went way up between 2016-18, but since then it's been back to early and mid-20's except for Fedalovic.
Maybe we've seen a shift of a couple years (27 being the new 25 or something) but I'd be surprised if we see Med and Berrettini still at the top in their 30's.

 

[mike danny]

I don't think that's true. Forget the LostGen, who earned their name for reasons. Stan is another one to throw on the pile (maybe THE primary setter of the trend), Murray obviously had his 2016 resurgence, though that's obviously aided by others falling off, 2018 was Isner's best year, Anderson's career didn't even get going till he was 27/28, 2016 was arguably Monfils best year, Ferrer almost literally hit his peak around the 30 mark, Berdych's second half of his 20s were much better overall than his first half.

I wouldn't say 30 is the new 25 necessarily, but as guys are clearly staying healthier longer it is much harder for younger guys to break through. It used to be the physical gap between young and old was massive and thus the equally massive mental gap, all the experience the old guys had, barely mattered. Now the physical gap is much smaller (just look at Monfils out there today!) the mental gap means that much more, and a lot of guys are only in fact playing their best stuff when they mature between the ears.

Historically, guys like Berrettini and Medvedev are at the age now where the slow decline starts to kick in, and they're both of them (presumably) just getting going!

Except Djokodal, every other top 10 player is 25 or younger.

 

[mike danny]

I don't think that's true. Forget the LostGen, who earned their name for reasons. Stan is another one to throw on the pile (maybe THE primary setter of the trend), Murray obviously had his 2016 resurgence, though that's obviously aided by others falling off, 2018 was Isner's best year, Anderson's career didn't even get going till he was 27/28, 2016 was arguably Monfils best year, Ferrer almost literally hit his peak around the 30 mark, Berdych's second half of his 20s were much better overall than his first half.

I wouldn't say 30 is the new 25 necessarily, but as guys are clearly staying healthier longer it is much harder for younger guys to break through. It used to be the physical gap between young and old was massive and thus the equally massive mental gap, all the experience the old guys had, barely mattered. Now the physical gap is much smaller (just look at Monfils out there today!) the mental gap means that much more, and a lot of guys are only in fact playing their best stuff when they mature between the ears.

Historically, guys like Berrettini and Medvedev are at the age now where the slow decline starts to kick in, and they're both of them (presumably) just getting going!

Stan peaked after 27 because he never had a consistent prime beforehand.

Isner is a servebot and the serve doesn't go away with age.

Anderson became a pro late.

Ferrer also didn't have a consistent prime in his 20's, but even he was done after 32.

Berdych became everyone's pidgeon after age 29.

Monfils has been irrelevant for the last few years.

 

[MiamiWeekendWarrior]

Except Djokodal, every other top 10 player is 25 or younger.

Simply by attrition because there's really no one left. All of the really great and really good players of the past 10 years are relatively ancient. The young'uns didn't dethrone anyone. They just made it into the top 10 because the top guys got decrepit.

 

[King No1e]

There were always a few top 10-20 players who hung around for a bit past 30, so Monfils isn't in any way indicative of anything (apart from being a f***ing legend)

 

[travlerajm]

A reminder the only male players to win Slams after turning 35 were Federer & Rosewall with 3 each and Rosewall's last AO at 37 was against less than top competition.

30 was never the stop gap it was played out to be. Prior to the Big 3, Agassi, Pete, Gomez, Connors, Gimeno, Ashe and of course Calendar Slam by Laver at 31.

Sure Novak might break the mold but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Results from past eras are misleading, because this is the first era in history where the over-30 guys have been utterly dominating the under-20 weaklings.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Djokovic if he’s allowed to play, can win 3-4 more.
Nadal wins 1-2 more. Regardless if he wins this AO or not. That’s why it could be huge

 

[BGod]

Nadal makes the count 1.

 

[terribleIVAN]

Which top 10 player was injured ??.Federer won by beating Nadal,Cillic,Stan,Raonic,Nishikori,Berdych. They all were playing fine during 2017-18.

Djokovic couldn't manage to make deep runs to face Federer so its not Federers fault.

All 4 players who could have beaten him (Del Potro, Rafa; Novak and Murray) were either out of form, comebacking from injury, or absent.

But kudos to Fed for seizing the occasion when it presented itself. That's part of the game too.

 

[abmk]

All 4 players who could have beaten him (Del Potro, Rafa; Novak and Murray) were either out of form, comebacking from injury, or absent.

But kudos to Fed for seizing the occasion when it presented itself. That's part of the game too.

LOL, Djoko and Murray had played a pretty good match in Doha 17 final. Hardly out of form. They were the 2 outright favorites for AO 17. They just got upset by Istomin and M.Zverev respectively
Rafa was in pretty good form and got beat at AO 17.

the delpo at AO part is desperation max given he's never been that good at the AO. Cilic is better at AO than delpo and fed beat him in AO 18 final (though pre-final draw was pretty easy)

Wim 17: Murray had got wallopped in Wim 15 by a similar form fed. Nadal got beat in Wim 19 by a worse form fed and of course was getting beat by fed throughly in 17.
Delpo is a stretch. Djoko is the only realistic one and he'd need to be in top form to beat fed of Wim 17. Not like Wim 16 where he got upset by Querrey or Wim 19 or Wim 21. vs Wim 18 djoko would be close, yeah.

 

[jm1980]

Slams won after turning 35:

Federer (3): '17 AO, '17 Wim, '18 AO
Nadal (2+): '22 AO, '22 FO (and counting)
Djokovic (2+): '22 Wim, '23 AO (and counting)