Given that fitness and nutrition are reaching new levels that have never been seen before in tennis, and the lack of being able to compete much anymore at the highest level when under 21, would we expect to see more dominance between 23-30 rather than 20-27 like it used to be?
I do realize DelPo and Djoker won titles when they were just 20, and that Nadal was winning titles as a teen....
So... is it that we have a lack of ultra premium players in the pipeline right now? or should we expect the ages for title contenders to rise?
I expect Djoker and Murray and Delpo to be winning titles for the next 3-4 years, with a Federer title in there somewhere and a Nadal French or 2.
I think looking at the graph, the 'normal' age range is 17-31, with 24 being the mid- (and high) point. A number of greats i.e. Federer, Sampras, Connors are still good enough to win and reach slam finals at 31.
Men reaching slam finals at 32 or older are very rare in the Open Era (in fact I think it's only Rosewall, Agassi and Gimeno).
Thus if Federer continues to do so from now on, he can be considered one of the 'longevity greats' as well as the 'dominance GOAT'.
You should be a researcher.
falstaff78,
Great work in putting all this data into graph form.
Is there a graph here for Grand Slam wins only? Not finals? I may have missed it somewhere.
Haha yeah post #2 has a distribution for winners of majors and season finales.
here is a distr for only winners of majors. can't believe I didn't think of doing it before....
Facts and examples.
cant beat it.
Thanks! This, for me, is perhaps the most important graph of all. Interesting looking, too.
Great thread probably one of those rare ones free from trolls
Don't you think it's a little boring though? Everyone's commenting on what a great job the OP has done (and he has), but nothing much more than that except for "it makes Fed's 2012 WIM EVEN MORE impressive" or some variation of that.
nitish put out the bait,, and the troll responded.
WOW and you find it necessary to quote everything I say only to call me a troll or *******. Having fun?
I like trolling trolls, sue me.
I posted before Nitish and it wasn't a troll post like you claim.
Funny how I'm a troll because I say Fed racked up a lot of majors during a **** poor era. Does the truth hurt?
Well nadal is part of the same era so....
Don't turn this thread into an era war. We've got plenty of other threads for that.
what era war. Nadal is part of fed's era, thats a fact.
dont open doors you cant close.
I've already embarrassed the crap out your fellow *******s regarding era's.
I just don't want to send this thread into an era war.
the only one you have embarassed is yourself.
Nadal won his first major in 2005, how in the world is he in a different era from Fed? Nadal was the longest number two in history behind Fed...how are they different eras again?
No fool, the argument is that the field from 04-07 is far weaker than the field from 08-present.
Fed took advantage of weak opponents and a teenage Nadal who was only consistent on clay and hadn't yet developed his HC and grass game. Only WIM 07 was when Nadal grass game was pretty good.
Rafa is going to create a spike in these results I believe. When he is 30+ he will still be winning RG.
When he is 30+ he will still be winning RG.
Umm...nobody is saying Rafa and Fed had the same peak.
But they are a part of the same era.
Just because Rafa wasnt good enough outside of clay for years doesnt mean he wasnt the same era as fed.
or wait, he isnt in the same era just because he didnt win non clay majors?
Oh..ok then. By that logic, Hewitt is a different era from Fed since he didnt win any majors after 2002.
Rofl.
And wait, wasnt Rafa a playing pro during 2004-07..so he was part of that **** poor competition fed faced?
Rafa was playing pro in 04-07, but he was only a teen-20. \y
Interesting stats and nice analysis, thanks for taking the time to put it all together.
I guess the question is:
Is Federer an outlier because his level has continued into his 30s...
or...
has he followed the normal path of decline, but his mid-20s level was so high that he is still a slam contender.
Interesting spike at 29 yrs old.
what era war. Nadal is part of fed's era, thats a fact.
dont open doors you cant close.
Hey Colin -
Thanks for the kind words! By the way I spend about half the week in Cambridge - are you a student?
Hey -
Great analysis! You may be onto something....sample sizes for the over 30s are a little small but I think there's an effect. If I stop being lazy at some point I'll eventually take a look at confidence intervals to see if this effect is statistically significant. in the meanwhile I ran the numbers by decade - here they are.
This thread attempts to provide a quantitative basis for answering questions like these with the Agressive Margin statistic.
Really nice work. One of the best threads I've ever seen started, here.
No problem. I'm not actually from Cambridge, but I live nearby. I work in software & web development.
What would be interesting would be to look at matches won per major by age.
So, for example, if we looked at all of the players with 5+ majors and for each major of their career gave a 7 for a win, 6 for a final, 5 for a semi and so on. If this was then aggregated by their age (or age groups) then we could get a picture of how far into tournaments older and younger players would generally reach.
I would find this particularly interesting as it would show where we should expect Federer (and later, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray) to reach in major tournaments, and also the younger guys like Tomic, Raonic etc.
It might even be possible to create a model for performance in majors, where we could input players' results to date and see what we could expect if they follow an average age profile (plus an early and late bloomer version)... even if they haven't won a major yet.
I'm rambling now, but this could also work in reverse for the very top players: if they are exceeding their age profile by some margin, say 5-7s at 30+ then how many could they theoretically have won during their peak? It would likely show 8, 9 or even 10. This could be used as a kind of index for their peak level.
I don't really have the time to do this, but then again next time I find myself reading a GOAT debate or doping speculation thread I'll try to remember to do something more constructive, like this.
Is there a graph here for Grand Slam wins only? Not finals? I may have missed it somewhere.
By 26-27, players decline big time. Djokovic winning many slams from now on is not a foregone conclusion. Between 22-25, Federer won 10 slams while Djokovic won only 5 slams, half of what Federer won. From 26 and beyond, Federer only won 6 slams. Djokovic winning just another 3 slams, half of what Federer won from 26 and beyond, might happen.
From 22-25, Nole was playing prime Nadal and Fed slam after slam.. From 22-25, Fed was playing diaper rash Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Davydenko, 50 year old Agassi
Here you go sir. Frequency of reaching MAJOR finals ONLY, lumped in (1) 68-79, (2) then 80-89, (3) then 90-99 and (4) then 00-13.
I was a little surprised to see these numbers as I'm sure you will be. Essentially, reaching a major final as a teenager was a 1980s only phenomenon. It has happened 11 times in the open era - and 7 of those were in the 80s!
Hey Sbengte - thanks a lot for the kind words.
Totally agree with your post - with one small exception - I think Murray will be a late bloomer. It's funny how history repeats itself - e.g. Nadal and Borg. I think Murray will end up falling more into the Lendl / Agassi mold where he will likely sneak out another 4-5 majors after turning 25.
Anyway here is the analysis you requested.