The very "veteran" top five

[Surecatch]

Maybe this has been covered, but I for one think it's pretty awesome....the top five, in about a month's time, will all be thirty years old: Andy (29y,11m), Novak (29y, 11m), Stan (32y, 2m), Rafa (30y, 10 m), Roger (35y, 7mos).

Also, those five players have, since the time of the first victory (by the group) in each level event, have won 50 of 55 slam tournaments, 99 of 133 Master1000s, and have spent 688 weeks at #1.

 

[Mainad]

Maybe this has been covered, but I for one think it's pretty awesome....the top five, in about a month's time, will all be thirty years old: Andy (29y,11m), Novak (29y, 11m), Stan (32y, 2m), Rafa (30y, 10 m), Roger (35y, 7mos).

Also, those five players have, since the time of the first victory (by the group) in each level event, have won 50 of 55 slam tournaments, 99 of 133 Master1000s, and have spent 688 weeks at #1.

Well, 4 of them anyway.

 

[DismalFuture]

Sad times for tennis

 

[Silverbullet96]

LOL @ Tennis

 

[SinjinCooper]

Well, 4 of them anyway.

And three of them earned it.

 

[NatF]

Well, 4 of them anyway.

Murray is an asterisk for those 688 weeks man don't get too arrogant

 

[Mainad]

Murray is an asterisk for those 688 weeks man don't get too arrogant

Half-Empty Nat F strikes again, eh? He worked and earned his way to the #1 ranking towards the end of last year as you well know. It didn't magically fall into his lap. The fact he is still #1 is because of the huge amount of ranking points he gained last year. That's how the ranking system works. Sorry if it annoys you but there it is. I know it's hard for you but try and deal with it.

 

[NatF]

Half-Full Nat F strikes again, eh? He worked and earned his way to the #1 ranking towards the end of last year as you well know. It didn't magically fall into his lap. The fact he is still #1 is because of the huge amount of ranking points he gained last year. That's how the ranking system works. Sorry if it annoys you but there it is. I know it's hard for you but try and deal with it.

I've backed Murray as the #1 player since December man He's contributed marginally more weeks at #1 to the total than Wawrinka. Right now his time at #1 is just a footnote between Djokovic and Federer

 

[Mainad]

I've backed Murray as the #1 player since December man He's contributed marginally more weeks at #1 to the total than Wawrinka. Right now his time at #1 is just a footnote between Djokovic and Federer

Spending time at #1 lasts as long as the ranking points support it. Therefore there are no qualifications or asterisks required so long as that situation lasts. What do you mean he contributed "marginally" more than Wawrinka did? Murray won a Slam, made 2 other finals, won the WTF and 3 Masters titles to gain the #1 ranking last year. Wawrinka won 1 Slam and nothing else of significance. If that's a marginal difference, I hate to imagine what a big difference is in your book!

Now come on Nat F. Stop trying to get a rise out of me. We don't really need to keep doing this, do we?

 

[tennisaddict]

When was the last time the current No 1 beat the 35 year old Fed ? LOL

 

[tennis_pro]

This is the reason I laugh when people say that players who are 19-25 years old won't achieve anything.

 

[Chanwan]

Maybe this has been covered, but I for one think it's pretty awesome....the top five, in about a month's time, will all be thirty years old: Andy (29y,11m), Novak (29y, 11m), Stan (32y, 2m), Rafa (30y, 10 m), Roger (35y, 7mos).

Also, those five players have, since the time of the first victory (by the group) in each level event, have won 50 of 55 slam tournaments, 99 of 133 Master1000s, and have spent 688 weeks at #1.

has this ever happened before? The top-5 all being 30+? Early 70's? @Mustard ?

 

[NatF]

Spending time at #1 lasts as long as the ranking points support it. Therefore there are no qualifications or asterisks required so long as that situation lasts. What do you mean he contributed "marginally" more than Wawrinka did? Murray won a Slam, made 2 other finals, won the WTF and 3 Masters titles to gain the #1 ranking last year. Wawrinka won 1 Slam and nothing else of significance. If that's a marginal difference, I hate to imagine what a big difference is in your book!

Now come on Nat F. Stop trying to get a rise out of me. We don't really need to keep doing this, do we?

I mean the vast majority of those 688 weeks at #1 are from the Big 3, Murray's contribution to that total is hardly meaningful.

And I don't know what you mean 0

 

[Mainad]

I mean the vast majority of those 688 weeks at #1 are from the Big 3, Murray's contribution to that total is hardly meaningful.

Well, without them, the others would only be on 666 and that's a very inauspicious number indeed! Besides, Murray's weeks at #1 will almost certainly take them to the 700 mark and counting. So don't knock them!!

And I don't know what you mean 0

Cue pair of whistling emoticons.

 

[Terenigma]

And three of them earned it.

Are you implying Murray didn't earn his #1? How exactly? Please explain to me how he did not earn to be ranked at #1 in the world? Please be detailed. Also i'm not going to let this go because this statement genuinely makes me laugh at how pathetic some of you nobody posters are when you say things like this.

I'm not feeding the troll, i am seriously wanting you to explain why you think this. I'll be looking forward to reading your reply later. Maybe you'll have a few more "internet point" likes by then too. Go you! Maybe you should tell your parents, they'll be so proud and then you can message Murray in his mansion, with his gorgeous wife and child sat with his millions of "unearned" tennis paychecks about how you insulted him. I'm sure he'll be proud too!

 

[NatF]

Well, without them, the others would only be on 666 and that's a very inauspicious number indeed! Besides, Murray's weeks at #1 will almost certainly take them to the 700 mark and counting. So don't knock them!!



Cue pair of whistling emoticons.

Djokovic would have been #1 in Murray's absence, hence the asterisk

It's great that Murray reached #1, he earned it - it's a shame he's not actually played much as #1 though. Feels like a number on the computer only for the last few months - of course due to his injury issues. We'll see if he reasserts himself on the clay.

 

[Mainad]

Djokovic would have been #1 in Murray's absence, hence the asterisk

Doubt it. He's too busy being absent himself.

It's great that Murray reached #1, he earned it - it's a shame he's not actually played much as #1 though. Feels like a number on the computer only for the last few months - of course due to his injury issues. We'll see if he reasserts himself on the clay.

He doesn't seem to have been too well this year (shingles, a bout of flu according to Jamie, elbow injury etc.) which is wretchedly bad timing just as he went into the new season ranked #1 for the first time in his career. Fingers crossed he will get back to full fitness soon. That's all we can hope for.

 

[mikeeeee]

I think this shows that nutrition, training, and tactics have evolved to allow players to be successful into their 30's which was unheard of in the past. I know there's a lot of weak era trolling and some of the posts are actually serious. You would be hard pressed to find an era where you could name the top 5 players with the same success that these guys have had. There's actually a lot of parody in tennis right now which is good, and then you add in Fed being unbeatable out of nowhere and it's really fun to follow.

 

[BHud]

These guys DESTROYED the generation behind them...

 

[mike danny]

It's interesting that early 2013 was the last time all of the Big 4 occupied the top 4 spots. Since then, there has been at least one memmer missing.

Currently, they still don't occupy the top 4 spots as Nadal is no.5, while Stan in no.4.

 

[Fedfan34]

Well, without them, the others would only be on 666 and that's a very inauspicious number indeed! Besides, Murray's weeks at #1 will almost certainly take them to the 700 mark and counting. So don't knock them!!



Cue pair of whistling emoticons.

Get a room, mugs. This is a TENNIS forum. Either troll, or troll.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Geez, I remember a time when there were probably only five 30 year olds in the entire top 100. I know it's been building to this for some time, but it's still rather shocking to see. All I ever heard from the media during the 80s/90s was that the game was too physical for 30+ year olds not named jimmy Connors to have much success and that tennis was a game for 'young legs.' Now the media says it's too physical a game for even 23 year olds to win majors. Weird.
@Chanwan
I haven't looked at the rankings for every week since the ATP started them, but did look at all the year end rankings, and this seems to be a first. The game was pretty old as far as top 50 goes for 1973 to 1976, but you had young guys like Connors, Borg, Vilas breaking into to the top five and staying there, so I don't see how it's possible that there were five 30 year olds in the top five during that time. And after that time there seemed to be someone between the ages of 18 to 22 consistently breaking into the top five for like the next 30 years. By 1985 the average age of the top 100 was 24 and it stayed around that age until around 2013. Now it seems to be 28 and getting higher(the handful of 'next gen' don't really balance out the majority of the tour)

I'm not sure if I'm more shocked by federer's resurgence or by the fact that guys like Verdasco, Lopez, Ferrer, kohlschrieber are still on tour and not having to play qualies. an all time great having that kind of longevity is one thing, but 2nd tier guys? It's simply never happened like this before. Maybe ljubicic and roddick should give it another shot.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I'm not sure if I'm more shocked by federer's resurgence or by the fact that guys like Verdasco, Lopez, Ferrer, kohlschrieber are still on tour and not having to play qualies. an all time great having that kind of longevity is one thing, but 2nd tier guys? It's simply never happened like this before. Maybe ljubicic and roddick should give it another shot.

It's the latter point that concerns me more. As you say, there's been the occasional ATG who plays really well into his late 30s/early 40s (Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Connors, Agassi and now Federer). But to have a large proportion of Federer's generation, and those even older than him (Haas, Stepanek, Karlovic et al) still playing on the tour is rather concerning.

 

[H_Richardson]

It's interesting that early 2013 was the last time all of the Big 4 occupied the top 4 spots. Since then, there has been at least one memmer missing.

Currently, they still don't occupy the top 4 spots as Nadal is no.5, while Stan in no.4.

Stan is #3, Fed #4 and Nadal #5. Not for long, mind you.

 

[JRAJ1988]

Still this Murray hyperbole exists. Like there was some grand Royal conspiracy to give him the Wimbledon Championship in 2013.

He's earned his ranking due to being consistent, he was never a World beater, I'd like to think in your lives you've had your accomplishments just made to look like naught and felt a sense of injustice.

 

[pc1]

Murray is an asterisk for those 688 weeks man don't get too arrogant

Come on NatF, he's not that bad. LOL. I would favor him over Serena at her peak.

Seriously I do think he's a great talent.

 

[NatF]

Come on NatF, he's not that bad. LOL. I would favor him over Serena at her peak.

Seriously I do think he's a great talent.

She has a better second serve jk

Yeah Murray is clearly a great player, we don't see quite eye to eye on how great he is. Some claim he'd be a 5 major champ in any era which is too much for a guy with second serve and forehand IMO.

 

[chrisb]

Maybe this has been covered, but I for one think it's pretty awesome....the top five, in about a month's time, will all be thirty years old: Andy (29y,11m), Novak (29y, 11m), Stan (32y, 2m), Rafa (30y, 10 m), Roger (35y, 7mos).

Also, those five players have, since the time of the first victory (by the group) in each level event, have won 50 of 55 slam tournaments, 99 of 133 Master1000s, and have spent 688 weeks at #1.

They have the money and motivation why not. Their training is different now, Male reaches phical peak around 28 say the experts. But there are no stats on how fast the slide down is. Add to it they are getting smarter too

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Murray is an asterisk for those 688 weeks man don't get too arrogant

hot babe on your avatar !
(is that a tribute to 60's weed ?)

 

[NatF]

hot babe on your avatar !
(is that a tribute to 60's weed ?)

I'll never forget the nights I spent smoking 60's weed

 

[BeatlesFan]

He worked and earned his way to the #1 ranking towards the end of last year as you well know. It didn't magically fall into his lap.

All true. Murray chased the YE #1 much harder than any player had since Pete. His fitness really paid off down the stretch and he beat Djoker at the YEC, no easy feat.

 

[Druss]

Weak era!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fedeonic]

It's interesting that early 2013 was the last time all of the Big 4 occupied the top 4 spots. Since then, there has been at least one memmer missing.

Actually the last time the Big 4 occupied the top 4 spots were on July the 25th of last year:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles?rankDate=2016-07-25&rankRange=0-100