Age of current top-10

[mattennis]

19, 19, 21, 22, 24, 24, 25, 25, 27, 35.

Age Shift or not, this top 10 set is quite young, almost 90s-like young.

Just a year ago it was almost an undisputed truth that no young player could have success in today's "physical" tennis (were players supposedly reached their prime at around 27-32).

That was at least the explanation (for many people) of why there weren't young players in the top 10.

What happened?

 

[mike danny]

There was never an age shift to this extent. The young players were just non-existent a few years back which allowed some older players in the top 10 like Isner and Anderson. Things since then have returned to normal.

 

[AO13]

And that 35 years old guy (soon 36) is physically stronger and more in shape than everyone else in the top 10.

He defies laws of mother nature and father time with his training regime and diet.

 

[tennis_pro]

Medvedev is 2nd oldest in the top 10?

Damn

 

[mike danny]

And that 35 years old guy (soon 36) is physically stronger and more in shape than everyone else in the top 10.

He defies laws of mother nature and father time with his training regime and diet.

He's not the first one to be great at an advanced age.

And besides, the younger ones just have pretty bad physicality. Even Nadal was able to outlast Medvedev physically.

 

[James P]

This looks normal. We're back to normal.

 

[travlerajm]

This looks normal. We're back to normal.

But it’s not the old high level normal. It’s the new low level normal where Taylor Fritz is a top 5 player.

 

[AO13]

He's not the first one to be great at an advanced age.

And besides, the younger ones just have pretty bad physicality. Even Nadal was able to outlast Medvedev physically.

Does Medvedev look like a physically in shape player?

Sure, you can't judge book by its cover, and he's obviously suitably physically prepared for top 10 player, but Novak's physicallity is one of the best ever in every sport. He's probably the fittest tennis player ever.

He's right there in the top with Jordan, LeBron, Brady, Ronaldo, who all dominated almost easily their competition post 30s.

 

[The Fedfather]

You never see the "35 is the new 25" crowd give commentary on stats like this. Strange

 

[RaulRamirez]

Forgetting their ages for a moment, it's really not a bad group at all - and that's without Rafa: one of the Goats at #1, at least three young players with great potential (Alcaraz, Sinner and Rune), consistent, if flawed perennial top-5 types in Med and Tsit, and others still young enough to improve.

 

[Razer]

A new era is beginning, thats why avg age is young. At the end of every era old players exist top 10 and new take over

 

[travlerajm]

A new era is beginning, thats why avg age is young. At the end of every era old players exist top 10 and new take over

We kind of skipped a few eras.

 

[Razer]

We kind of skipped a few eras.

Big 3 were too great for even those 10 years younger, so I dont think it did skip since players great every 5 years is not a norm. 2000s has produced athletes freaks, they are all coming. The 1990s is 1 gen of losers.

 

[travlerajm]

Big 3 were too great for even those 10 years younger, so I dont think it did skip since players great every 5 years is not a norm. 2000s has produced athletes freaks, they are all coming. The 1990s is 1 gen of losers.

But it wasn’t a big3 thing. The lost Gen and next Gen were unable to supplant the rest of the second and third tier guys from Fed and Djokodal gens.

 

[The Fedfather]

A new era is beginning, thats why avg age is young. At the end of every era old players exist top 10 and new take over

But what happened to all the about 30-year-olds who are supposed to be in their peak years now? Since the narrative propagated by some, including yourself, is that the modern medicine, improved nutrition, coaching and all that mean that athletes on average age significantly slower, and then they also have the experience accumulated over the years. So how come 30-year-olds were practically all pushed out by teens and mid-20s guys? Aside from Djokodal, the highest ranked 28+ player is Busta at #17, and then it's Cilic at #23.

 

[Razer]

But it wasn’t a big3 thing. The lost Gen and next Gen were unable to supplant the rest of the second and third tier guys from Fed and Djokodal gens.

We should club them as 1 IMO, they are 1 lost generation of 1990s, just nonsense players. Thiem, Stef, Tsitsi, Med are the best of these lot and Kyrgios + Zverev the most talented of the lot. But it is not 2 generations, it is 1 bad group of boys.

Samway we should not club Fed & Roddick in 1 while Djokodal in another, they are both 1. Roddick has been around since the time Nadal was rising and yet he was unable to curb roger's rise, Rafa could, so a few years here and there won't matter.

 

[Razer]

But what happened to all the about 30-year-olds who are supposed to be in their peak years now? Since the narrative propagated by some, including yourself, is that the modern medicine, improved nutrition, coaching and all that mean that athletes on average age significantly slower, and then they also have the experience accumulated over the years. So how come 30-year-olds were practically all pushed out by teens and mid-20s guys? Aside from Djokodal, the highest ranked 28+ player is Busta at #17, and then it's Cilic at #23.

My stand has always been the same, in the modern era great age shift has enhanced the fitness and longevity of men by 5-6 years

18-21 is a BABY
22-31 is Prime
32-35 is post prime but the great players are still very good here, not unbeatable in any way, great young players can beat them.
36+ is geriatric for everyone.

But great age shift is real

Pete was an athletic freak in his time but he was on fumes by 31 and Nadal (athletic freak in our era) is now on fumes at 36, so with modern medicine Pete would also have played till 36. Andre's longevity was always gonna be higher to Pete as was Roger's to Nadal's, Fed and Andre are similar, give Andre some modern benefits and he too goes till 40. Connors actually played till 39, he too was an outlier in his era.

Novak is probably a real freak of nature, He is defying all sorts of logic by playing with hamstring problems, he has not slowed down much from his peak years and he is almost 36 , I have no idea what is going on with Novak, he seems to a true outlier.

 

[The Fedfather]

My stand has always been the same, in the modern era great age shift has enhanced the fitness and longevity of men by 5-6 years

18-21 is a BABY
22-31 is Prime
32-35 is post prime but the great players are still very good here, not unbeatable in any way, great young players can beat them.
36+ is geriatric for everyone.

But great age shift is real

Pete was an athletic freak in his time but he was on fumes by 31 and Nadal (athletic freak in our era) is now on fumes at 36, so with modern medicine Pete would also have played till 36. Andre's longevity was always gonna be higher to Pete as was Roger's to Nadal's, Fed and Andre are similar, give Andre some modern benefits and he too goes till 40.

Novak is probably a real freak of nature, He is defying all sorts of logic by playing with hamstring problems, he has not slowed down much from his peak years and he is almost 36 , I have no idea what is going on with Novak, he seems to a true outlier.

You didn't answer the question that I posed to you. Typical

 

[TheNachoMan]

You didn't answer the question that I posed to you. Typical

The chewbacca defense is a TTW favorite.

 

[Razer]

You didn't answer the question that I posed to you. Typical

I never said 30+ is peak. So why should a lot of 30+ players be in top 10 now ? 30 year olds like Thiem are not longer relevant because even in mid 20s his level was not too high, so why would he be high in 30s when stefanos, med, zverev and even freaks like alcaraz are peaking now ? Nishikori, Rao and others were never great in 20s, why would they be in 30s ? To be dominant in 30s you need to be great in your 20s. It is all correlated.

Modern day nutrition, training, medicine all can lower your decline rate, but nobody ever said athletically athletes are peaking in 30s.

 

[The Fedfather]

I never said 30+ is peak. So why should a lot of 30+ players be in top 10 now ? 30 year olds like Thiem are not longer relevant because even in mid 20s his level was not too high, so why would he be high in 30s when stefanos, med, zverev and even freaks like alcaraz are peaking now ? Nishikori, Rao and others were never great in 20s, why would they be in 30s ? To be dominant in 30s you need to be great in your 20s. It is all correlated.

Modern day nutrition, training, medicine all can lower your decline rate, but nobody ever said athletically athletes are peaking in 30s.

Right. So on the current tour, apart from Djokodal, nobody currently over the age of 28 played at a high level in their 20s. That's what your saying?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

And only one of the top 10 aged under 35 holds a slam... Sure says something..

 

[Bambooman]

And only one of the top 10 aged under 35 holds a slam... Sure says something..

2, which any fan of tennis knows.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

There was never an age shift to this extent. The young players were just non-existent a few years back which allowed some older players in the top 10 like Isner and Anderson. Things since then have returned to normal.

Yes, the age shift theory is purely wrong, gentleman.

 

[Razer]

Right. So on the current tour, apart from Djokodal, nobody currently over the age of 28 played at a high level in their 20s. That's what your saying?

People aged 30+ (outside of Djokodal) are not great enough to be in top 5 or top 10 anymore when younger men are peaking in their early-mid 20s but they were in top 20 for as long as they could, infact longer than previous eras of athletes.

In simple words - Previous era ATGs were NOT kicked out by younger ATGs or even younger greats, they were kicked out by lack of Great Age Shift as they were unable to even be in the top 20 after a certain age.

Last age at which a player was seen in top 20

Connors - 37 years 5 months (Outlier like Novak)
Agassi - 36 years 2 months (Outlier like Fed)

Wawrinka - 36
Monfils - 35
Ferrer - 34 years 6 months
Batista Agut - 34 years 6 months
Cilic - 34 years 3 months
Lendl - 34 years (This guy was a freak himself and even his body broke down - outlier but even he went down to health issues)
Fognini - 33 years 10 months
Anderson - 33 years 4 months
Tsonga - 32 years 9 months
Berdych - 32 years 9 months
Michael Youzhny - 32 years
Busta - 31 years 8 months
Sampras - 31 years 6 months (this is a guy who had 12 years between his 1st and last slam and was second to agassi in longevity in his own era)
Edberg - 31 years 3 months (this guy has 8 years between his first and last grand slam final, so his level should not dip lower than modern players, right ? but it did)
Gasquet, Delp, Nishi, Raonic etc etc - 30 years
Becker - out of top 20 before he turned 30 (This is a guy who has a 10.5 years gap between his 1st and last slam and was an athletic + longevity freak in his own era)
Grigor - 31 years 3 months


Sampras, Becker and Edberg were out of Top 20 before 32 because they were all pre age shift athletes, their exodus from top 20 not because of 20 ATGs kicking them, their bodies declined, thats it, otherwise hewitt, safin, roger would not have beaten Pete until 2005. Maybe Roger would have come close to beating Pete in 04 but certainly not Roddick, Hewitt and the other fellows. It would have been a Nadal beating Med situation when Pete is beating Roddick-Hewitt

 

[Razer]

At the Trophy Ceremony of 2001 US Open Final I remember Pete Sampras saying "I wish had the young legs of this Kid "

This is how he described 20 year old Hewitt at that time when he was 30, now can you imagine Nadal/Novak call Medvedev/Zverev as Kids? Did they do that even 5 years ago ? They don't because now 10 years age gap is no longer senior guy vs kid scenario. Today minimum 15 is needed to be called Kid.

Novak will call Alcaraz a kid but he wont call Zverev a kid - Great age shift is real.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

2, which any fan of tennis knows.

Nadal 2022 RG
Djokovic 2022 Wimbledon
Alcaraz 2022 US Open
Djokovic 2023 Aus Open

I only see one under 35 there babe. Medvedev is a former champ, not a reigning one. He doesn’t hold one of the slams. Any fan of tennis knows that.

 

[nolefam_2024]

The stat is misleading. It's not like middle aged players were overcome, they stopped being good on themselves. It's not like Alcaraz Sinner and rest had to beat Thiem, who was 28 at the start of us open, Zverev who is top hanging around top 4 since 2017. Thiem himself went down mentally since 2021, Zverev got injured. Medvedev got injured last year. It was really bad year by established players.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Young gen is better than Raonic Dimitrov for sure. But they have reduced competition. Which is why they are winning. Guy like fritz/hurkacz don't win masters if there is enough depth on the tour.

 

[mike danny]

Does Medvedev look like a physically in shape player?

Sure, you can't judge book by its cover, and he's obviously suitably physically prepared for top 10 player, but Novak's physicallity is one of the best ever in every sport. He's probably the fittest tennis player ever.

He's right there in the top with Jordan, LeBron, Brady, Ronaldo, who all dominated almost easily their competition post 30s.

Well, that's not because of Novak's fitness

 

[Razer]

Well, that's not because of Novak's fitness

Keep on crying and living the past buddy, meanwhile Novak will break more records and history will always remember him as better than Roger since he has more slams/records and this is the truth as well.

 

[mike danny]

Keep on crying and living the past buddy, meanwhile Novak will break more records and history will always remember him as better than Roger since he has more slams/records and this is the truth as well.

Did I say he's not greater as of now? I just disagree that he's dominating because of his supposed otherwordly fitness.

 

[Razer]

Did I say he's not greater as of now? I just disagree that he's dominating because of his supposed otherwordly fitness.

If dominating AO23 at 35.5 in such a way (despite being injured) is not a testimony of outwardly fitness then I don't know what is. Sure Roger AO2017 would probably have also won the tournament but would he be beating everyone in straight sets and dominating like Novak did ? I dont think so.

Novak at 35.5 is probably operating at a higher level of play than Roger. Nadal's level at 35 were clearly below Roger's, not much doubt there.

 

[Razer]

@travlerajm - That day you asked me for the youth vs youth graph, here is the Graph you were looking for.

Mid 80s-1997/99 - Most people in Top 100 were in the 20s - The era which Sampras dominated

 

[Wander]

Father time stays winning.

 

[travlerajm]

@travlerajm - That day you asked me for the youth vs youth graph, here is the Graph you were looking for.

Mid 80s-1997/99 - Most people in Top 100 were in the 20s - The era which Sampras dominated

When you see a change in age with an upward slope, like you see from 2008 to 2018, it is indicative that the strength of the Top 10 in 2008 is much stronger than the Top 10 in 2018.

That’s the key take home point from the chart.

 

[Razer]

When you see a change in age with an upward slope, like you see from 2008 to 2018, it is indicative that the strength of the Top 10 in 2008 is much stronger than the Top 10 in 2018.

That’s the key take home point from the chart.

Yes after 2016 definetly competition is a bit weak, the fact that Fedal return in 2017 after the downfall of Novak to take slams signifies the beginning of a relatively weaker era.

What I concluded is that

Toughest competition in their peak - Lendl, Sampras and Djokovic
Easiest competition in their peak - Connors, Borg and Federer.

The easy guys faced hell later on against superior men, Borg ran away whille Connors and Federer fought till late 30s but in vain.

 

[lordkarim]

And that 35 years old guy (soon 36) is physically stronger and more in shape than everyone else in the top 10.

He defies laws of mother nature and father time with his training regime and diet.

ofc because he is 10-15 years older, which means he could work on his physique for 10-15 more years than the others!!!!

 

[nolefam_2024]

ofc because he is 10-15 years older, which means he could work on his physique for 10-15 more years than the others!!!!

Lol

 

[Bambooman]

Nadal 2022 RG
Djokovic 2022 Wimbledon
Alcaraz 2022 US Open
Djokovic 2023 Aus Open

I only see one under 35 there babe. Medvedev is a former champ, not a reigning one. He doesn’t hold one of the slams. Any fan of tennis knows that.

Of course you have your own definition of holds, sweet cheeks.

 

[AO13]

Did I say he's not greater as of now? I just disagree that he's dominating because of his supposed otherwordly fitness.

Honestly Mike, for a tennis player, it is an otherwordly physique. Just like Arnold had it for bodybuilding, or Jordan for basketball.

ofc because he is 10-15 years older, which means he could work on his physique for 10-15 more years than the others!!!!

That is a valid point, but for strength. The flexibility, speed and stamina gradually weakens after 30s, but Novak's mentality about diet and fitness training is exceptional.

 

[mike danny]

Honestly Mike, for a tennis player, it is an otherwordly physique. Just like Arnold had it for bodybuilding, or Jordan for basketball.

That is a valid point, but for strength. The flexibility, speed and stamina gradually weakens after 30s, but Novak's mentality about diet and fitness training is exceptional.

True, but normally it wouldn't be enough if the others were fir themselves.

 

[mike danny]

If dominating AO23 at 35.5 in such a way (despite being injured) is not a testimony of outwardly fitness then I don't know what is. Sure Roger AO2017 would probably have also won the tournament but would he be beating everyone in straight sets and dominating like Novak did ? I dont think so.

Novak at 35.5 is probably operating at a higher level of play than Roger. Nadal's level at 35 were clearly below Roger's, not much doubt there.

Tough to assess since his opponents were just cheeks.

And yes, I do see 2017 Fed dominate Rublev and Paul. At worst he'd lose a set against Tsitsipas but it wouldn't be a close match.

 

[Bambooman]

Honestly Mike, for a tennis player, it is an otherwordly physique. Just like Arnold had it for bodybuilding, or Jordan for basketball.

That is a valid point, but for strength. The flexibility, speed and stamina gradually weakens after 30s, but Novak's mentality about diet and fitness training is exceptional.

Stamina does not weaken after 30.

 

[ghostofMecir]

There was never an age shift to this extent. The young players were just non-existent a few years back which allowed some older players in the top 10 like Isner and Anderson. Things since then have returned to normal.

This. The Great Age Shift….LMAO

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Of course you have your own definition of holds, sweet cheeks.

Lmao, Stosur doesn’t hold the US Open because she won it 12 years ago. Swiatek does. Mark Edmondson doesn’t hold the Australian Open, Novak Djokovic does. Everyone knows that. Or apparently not? lol.

 

[Bambooman]

Lmao, Stosur doesn’t hold the US Open because she won it 12 years ago. Swiatek does. Mark Edmondson doesn’t hold the Australian Open, Novak Djokovic does. Everyone knows that. Or apparently not? lol.

You're holding your own, girlfriend.

 

[The Fedfather]

People aged 30+ (outside of Djokodal) are not great enough to be in top 5 or top 10 anymore when younger men are peaking in their early-mid 20s but they were in top 20 for as long as they could, infact longer than previous eras of athletes.

In simple words - Previous era ATGs were NOT kicked out by younger ATGs or even younger greats, they were kicked out by lack of Great Age Shift as they were unable to even be in the top 20 after a certain age.

Last age at which a player was seen in top 20

Connors - 37 years 5 months (Outlier like Novak)
Agassi - 36 years 2 months (Outlier like Fed)

Wawrinka - 36
Monfils - 35
Ferrer - 34 years 6 months
Batista Agut - 34 years 6 months
Cilic - 34 years 3 months
Lendl - 34 years (This guy was a freak himself and even his body broke down - outlier but even he went down to health issues)
Fognini - 33 years 10 months
Anderson - 33 years 4 months
Tsonga - 32 years 9 months
Berdych - 32 years 9 months
Michael Youzhny - 32 years
Busta - 31 years 8 months
Sampras - 31 years 6 months (this is a guy who had 12 years between his 1st and last slam and was second to agassi in longevity in his own era)
Edberg - 31 years 3 months (this guy has 8 years between his first and last grand slam final, so his level should not dip lower than modern players, right ? but it did)
Gasquet, Delp, Nishi, Raonic etc etc - 30 years
Becker - out of top 20 before he turned 30 (This is a guy who has a 10.5 years gap between his 1st and last slam and was an athletic + longevity freak in his own era)
Grigor - 31 years 3 months


Sampras, Becker and Edberg were out of Top 20 before 32 because they were all pre age shift athletes, their exodus from top 20 not because of 20 ATGs kicking them, their bodies declined, thats it, otherwise hewitt, safin, roger would not have beaten Pete until 2005. Maybe Roger would have come close to beating Pete in 04 but certainly not Roddick, Hewitt and the other fellows. It would have been a Nadal beating Med situation when Pete is beating Roddick-Hewitt

You said that active players who are 28+ didn't play at a high level in their 20s. So then why do you correlate older players (who are now either retired or are close to retiring) staying in the top 20 longer with some great age shift but not with the 28+ players not being good?

 

[Razer]

You said that active players who are 28+ didn't play at a high level in their 20s. So then why do you correlate older players (who are now either retired or are close to retiring) staying in the top 20 longer with some great age shift but not with the 28+ players not being good?

Because a generation is 10 years and not 5 years like you and people here believe. You have to start looking at 10 year spans as a whole instead of this 5 year thing, you are now wondering why 28+ have reduced when a new set of youngsters are soon going to be 28+.

In 1970s decade of birth you had a lot of good talent in first half of the decade but not in second half.
In 1980s decade of birth you have less greats in 1st half but lot in second half
In 1990s decade of birth the talent pool is more dense in second half of the decade, so all those 28+ players whom you want in top 20-25 ranks and cannot find will soon appear in a few years when guys born in mid-late 90s will touch 30, they shall be in top 20-25 ranks in their early 30s as well, nobody is eliminating them so easily.

Age shift is quite real, those ancient days of people retiring at 30 is long gone, even the likes of Dominic Thiem have some years ahead, if he was in the early 2000s then he would be retired at that time.

 

[The Fedfather]

Because a generation is 10 years and not 5 years like you and people here believe. You have to start looking at 10 year spans as a whole instead of this 5 year thing, you are now wondering why 28+ have reduced when a new set of youngsters are soon going to be 28+.

In 1970s decade of birth you had a lot of good talent in first half of the decade but not in second half.
In 1980s decade of birth you have less greats in 1st half but lot in second half
In 1990s decade of birth the talent pool is more dense in second half of the decade, so all those 28+ players whom you want in top 20-25 ranks and cannot find will soon appear in a few years when guys born in mid-late 90s will touch 30, they shall be in top 20-25 ranks in their early 30s as well, nobody is eliminating them so easily.

Age shift is quite real, those ancient days of people retiring at 30 is long gone, even the likes of Dominic Thiem have some years ahead, if he was in the 2000s then he would be retired now.

Why are you switching up on the talk about generations now? Lol We were talking about why 28+ year-old now we're pushed out by younger crowd, to which your reply was that those 28+ guys were never good enough in the first place. So then you demonstrate that there was a lot of old players in the top 20 recently. I'm asking why you don't tie that in with what you previously said about 28+ folks never being good in their 20s?