Age of current top-10

[Razer]

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?

Because you have to understand that talent appear randomly every 10 years, there need not a linear pattern. The 28+ people are mostly people born between 1988-1994 now, the non djokodal crowd, so obviously they are a bit less talented than the 1995-1999 born crowd who will remain longer in the top 20 than them.
Anyway, here are more stats on the top 100 vs top 1000, the top 1000 doesnt show any change but the top 100 has seen a constant rise. Age shifts are a real thing,

 

[TheNachoMan]

I don’t like looking at graphs/charts. Makes me feel like i’m back at school.

 

[The Fedfather]

Because you have to understand that talent appear randomly every 10 years, there need not a linear pattern. The 28+ people are mostly people born between 1988-1994 now, the non djokodal crowd, so obviously they are a bit less talented than the 1995-1999 born crowd who will remain longer in the top 20 than them.
Anyway, here are more stats on the top 100 vs top 1000, the top 1000 doesnt show any change but the top 100 has seen a constant rise. Age shifts are a real thing,

Age shift is real and I'm not denying it. But it's not anywhere near as significant at the very top of the sport as you argue

 

[Razer]

Age shift is real and I'm not denying it. But it's not anywhere near as significant at the very top of the sport as you argue

The Big 3 would have much shorter careers in the 1990s or before, so definitely even at the top there has been an age shift of 5-6 years as noted by Ivan Lendl. He is an ATG, he won't speak BS, maybe fanboys would but he won't, so we better believe him.

 

[The Fedfather]

The Big 3 would have much shorter careers in the 1990s or before, so definitely even at the top there has been an age shift of 5-6 years as noted by Ivan Lendl. He is an ATG, he won't speak BS, maybe fanboys would but he won't, so we better believe him.

And we're back to the stats in the OP. Is the age shift in the room with us right now?

 

[TheNachoMan]

And we're back to the stats in the OP. Is the age shift in the room with us right now?

Grandpa Tiki would probably beat me at any sport. So that’s enough proof for me.

 

[Razer]

And we're back to the stats in the OP. Is the age shift in the room with us right now?

Age shift is still in the room !

The avg age of the top 10 now is around 24. In another 3 years these same guys will be in the top 10, just older, then their average will be 27 which will be same as 2010/2012. In 2007-2008 the top 10 average was 24, now we are again at a same phase when a new set a talented players (who will be around for next decade hovering the top 20) have started their run in the top 10, they are here to stay and the average will only increase.

 

[socallefty]

If you apply the theory that the big 3 are much better than any other tennis players ever, then you don’t need theories like weak eras, prime/post-prime, age shift etc. to explain the results of the last 20 years. And it will match what your eyes saw if you have been attending pro tournaments in person annually for decades.

 

[Razer]

If you apply the theory that the big 3 are much better than any other tennis players ever, then you don’t need theories like weak eras, prime/post-prime, age shift etc. to explain the results of the last 20 years. And it will match what your eyes saw if you have been attending pro tournaments in person annually for decades.

That is what I too have maintained, Big 3 have had longer careers at the top than previous eras, this means they are maintaining their average athleticism, their body shape all better than previous eras. So we should not expect 19-20 year old to smoke early-mid 30s Big 3 based on youth alone, those days are long gone when raw athleticism was enough to smoke top players who are 30+. Plus skillwise indeed the big 3 are better and better and better, Novak has taken things to a new level now. No 35 year old has been as fast and in good shape as he has been, he is the first of a kind.

 

[The Fedfather]

Age shift is still in the room !

The avg age of the top 10 now is around 24. In another 3 years these same guys will be in the top 10, just older, then their average will be 27 which will be same as 2010/2012. In 2007-2008 the top 10 average was 24, now we are again at a same phase when a new set a talented players (who will be around for next decade hovering the top 20) have started their run in the top 10, they are here to stay and the average will only increase.

Well, when it increases you can talk about the age shift. Now there's none to see in the top 10

 

[Razer]

Well, when it increases you can talk about the age shift. Now there's none to see in the top 10

Strong eras, Weak Eras are all correlated. A strong era is like a class of students in college where you have 3-4 really intelligent students, those intelligent students raise the overall IQ of the class collectively because even the average ones study with them during the exams and score more marks than they otherwise would have in other classes where toppers were not this good. This is what happened in Tennis a well, the Berdychs, Tsongas, Stans, Murrays, even the Roddicks have played with Big 3 all their lives and they became better due to the same exposure of growing up together, but the poor Instagram boys of 1990s they never had Big 3s in their gen, so they all struggled. Growing up together matters.

Big 3 raised the level of play in ATP so much that avg age of top 10 became 30 in 2015 and it continued, even in 2018 the avg age was 30. This same trend seen in WTA as well, average age of top 10 was 28.7 in WTA but it came down after that, if there were 2 more serenas 5-6 years younger then WTA average would have remained same as 28.7 for some more years just like ATP did.

Big 3 + Serena reduced 90s born players to weaklings, it is their greatness.

 

[travlerajm]

Because you have to understand that talent appear randomly every 10 years, there need not a linear pattern. The 28+ people are mostly people born between 1988-1994 now, the non djokodal crowd, so obviously they are a bit less talented than the 1995-1999 born crowd who will remain longer in the top 20 than them.
Anyway, here are more stats on the top 100 vs top 1000, the top 1000 doesnt show any change but the top 100 has seen a constant rise. Age shifts are a real thing,

But the gold colored line in the chart is starting to roll back down the mountain over last few years.

What it tells us?

 

[Razer]

But the gold colored line in the chart is starting to roll back down the mountain over last few years.

What it tells us?

Even if it rolls back it might limit at 26, I dont think it will go below that, those days of top 100 being 23-24 are all over...Remember Tennis is not a 100M race or a 50M Swimming contest for the early 20s athletes to always beat older ones, here people in mid-late 20s are at their best. I am not surprised at how dominant Djokovic was in 2015, he can beat his 2011 version. If instead of 23 the top 10 has an avg of 27 then there is nothing wrong in it. 27 is a very dominant age in all sports, lot of people are at their peak at 27-28 when they have the proper balance of skill and athleticism to dominate the most.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

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.

lol. Training and diet. Whom'st'd've thunk it?

 

[fedfan24]

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.

federer faced a strong nishikori, wawrinka and Nadal.

Yes he certainly would beat down mugs like Tommy Paul and rublev, it would be a lesson in tennis

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

It’s looking more normal where it should be but these guys need to start winning at least most of the slams

 

[AO13]

lol. Training and diet. Whom'st'd've thunk it?

Guess you're training like him in the last 20 years eating grass and stuff and not getting the same results so you think he's on roids. Yeah.

 

[SonnyT]

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

I dispute that Sampras faced tough competition. His only rival was Agassi, who was always inferior because of the playing style at the time (S&V).

 

[Razer]

I dispute that Sampras faced tough competition. His only rival was Agassi, who was always inferior because of the playing style at the time (S&V).

Sampras had more same aged Rivals in his era than Novak had, that means if you keep a range of from 2&1/2 years older to 2&1/2 younger as a range then you find more people in that range making Grand Slam Finals in the same period of 90s during Pete's era and are physically always going to to toe with you in your prime years..


2010s

Djokovic - 23 Finals
Nadal - 19 Finals
Murray - 10 Finals
Wawrinka - 4 Finals
Cilic - 3 Finals
Anderson - 3 Finals
Berdych - 1 Final
Nishikori - 1 Final
Del Potro - 1 Final

2000s

Federer - 21 Finals
Roddick - 5 Finals
Hewitt - 4 Finals
Safin - 4 Finals
JCF - 3 Finals
Nalbandian - 1 Final
Coria- 1 Final
Gonzales - 1 Final

1990s

Sampras - 14 Finals
Agassi - 10 Finals
Courier - 7 Finals
Stich - 3 Finals
Chang - 3 Finals
Bruguera - 3 Finals
Ivanisevic - 3 Finals
Rafter -2 Finals
Kafelnikov - 2 Finals
Todd Martin - 2 Finals
Pioline - 2 Finals
Krajicek - 1 Final
Washington - 1 Final
Rusedski - 1 Final
Berasategui - 1 Final

Novak 23 finals in 2010s up against his peers who have 42 Finals
Federer 21 Finals in 2000s up against his peers who have 19 Finals only.
Sampras 14 Finals in 90s up against his peers who have 41 Finals

So it is not Agassi alone, there were others too who used to reach finals, Fed's same aged rivals could not even reach as many finals as him while Novak's did 2X times and Pete's did 3X times. So Sampras had more rivals. In 2010s if you include a 6 years older Federer in this mix for Novak, that still doesn't change the fact that Pete had tremendous rivals at different point in his careers.

Not to mention the 16 seed system in 90s make it unpredictable in 1st week as anyone ranked between 17-32 can be your rival in those rounds, the Big 3 are ensured of soft bums till the QF due to their 32 seeds system. No wonder Murray reached so many SFs and then proved not good enough after that when he met good rivals.

 

[duaneeo]

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

I only see one under 35 there babe.

Yes, and when only 1 of the reigning slam champions is under 35, there's been no age-shift in men's tennis.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Guess you're training like him in the last 20 years eating grass and stuff and not getting the same results so you think he's on roids. Yeah.

Christ, you're a special one.

 

[AO13]

Christ, you're a special one.

We are all special in our own way.

 

[mike danny]

So it is not Agassi alone, there were others too who used to reach finals, Fed's same aged rivals could not even reach as many finals as him while Novak's did 2X times and Pete's did 3X times. So Sampras had more rivals. In 2010s if you include a 6 years older Federer in this mix for Novak, that still doesn't change the fact that Pete had tremendous rivals at different point in his careers.

With all due respect to Pete, he had by far the easiest competition among the GOAT candidates.

 

[Razer]

With all due respect to Pete, he had by far the easiest competition among the GOAT candidates.

Easiest ? It is the opposite

Aus open - Best returner of all time blocked him throughout his career
FO - The most diverse era when playing styles are opposite to his style of play, so many clay court experts, he could never have won - The string tech was also not forgiving to hit big shots
W - Most Grass Courters in a single decade, the entire field was big servers, it is like today's competition on HCs when entire field is hard courters, so max competition on HCs now and back then on Grass
US - So much competition that even Edberg beat him in the beginning, in the last years Safin/Hewitt all emerged, in his own prime Agassi-Rafter and co were there.
Indoors on Carpets some big beasts were there

16 seed system which made it unpredictable with early losses unlike Big 3 era where they get trash rivals till qf.

Also statistically 1987-1997 is the phase when least number of teens and least number of 30+ men were in the top 100, so this means everyone was in their 20s, so without the age shift no sooner do you reach the late 20s you are toast

and you are saying he had easiest competition ? Dude Roger is the man with the easiest competition ever, the only person who had it easier than roger was borg.

 

[mike danny]

Easiest ? It is the opposite

Aus open - Best returner of all time blocked him throughout his career
FO - The most diverse era when playing styles are opposite to his style of play, so many clay court experts, he could never have won - The string tech was also not forgiving to hit big shots
W - Most Grass Courters in a single decade, the entire field was big servers, it is like today's competition on HCs when entire field is hard courters, so max competition on HCs now and back then on Grass
US - So much competition that even Edberg beat him in the beginning, in the last years Safin/Hewitt all emerged, in his own prime Agassi-Rafter and co were there.
Indoors on Carpets some big beasts were there

16 seed system which made it unpredictable with early losses unlike Big 3 era where they get trash rivals till qf.

Also statistically 1987-1997 is the phase when least number of teens and least number of 30+ men were in the top 100, so this means everyone was in their 20s, so without the age shift no sooner do you reach the late 20s you are toast

and you are saying he had easiest competition ? Dude Roger is the man with the easiest competition ever, the only person who had it easier than roger was borg.

Well, considering that Pete never competed with a single 10+ slam winner in his entire career and his only rival was missing for half of his prime, he had the easiest competition by far.

Your conclusion is highly flawed since the guy who's won 10 majors after age 31 is a better candidate for easiest competition ever.

 

[Razer]

Well, considering that Pete never competed with a single 10+ slam winner in his entire career and his only rival was missing for half of his prime, he had the easiest competition by far.

Your conclusion is highly flawed since the guy who's won 10 majors after age 31 is a better candidate for easiest competition ever.

10+ slam winners ? That makes no sense.

Nadal had 6 slams at the time when Roger won his 16th grand slam while Agassi had 7 slams at the time when Peter won his 14th grand slam.

Out of 6 slams of Nadal just 2 were outside clay, infact Nadal only made 4 grand slam finals outside clay.
Out of Agassi's 7 slams, 6 were outside clay and Agassi played a total of 10 GS finals outside clay
Reason why I am stressing non clay here is because bulk of Rodger and Peter's slams are outside clay, so the competition was much higher from Agassi outside clay than Nadal outside clay because Nadal was still a baby until 2007 and he had his injury phase in 2009. .

So why should I look at Nadal's 22 slams /10+ slams when clearly Roger faced the worst competition in history in 2000s decade? the worst decade of all time, the worst set of rivals.

The competiton strengthened for Novak but Roger had a clear road and had already won bulk of his resume by then.

 

[Razer]

@mike danny

If you doubt me on Pete facing super tough rivals like Lendl/Novak then ask neutral people like @Mustard / @Martin J, these people have no horse in the race, they would agree that Pete's rivals were toughest. . You don't even have to ask Pete fans like @Holmes or someone else, just ask neutral crowd. Nobody will say Pete had easy rivals, it is a joke to suggest that.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Current top 10 skipped Zverev Thiem. But ok. I don't trust these guys and neither should you. Alcaraz is obviously the one who we now can count on. But let's NOT overhype others until they have proven something. Are you guys seriously thinking FAA Sinner Ruud Rune have taken over? Because we had Rublev Tsitsipas forever in top 10 now. I think these guys have been a bit lucky in last 52 weeks.

 

[mike danny]

@mike danny

If you doubt me on Pete facing super tough rivals like Lendl/Novak then ask neutral people like @Mustard / @Martin J, these people have no horse in the race, they would agree that Pete's rivals were toughest. . You don't even have to ask Pete fans like @Holmes or someone else, just ask neutral crowd. Nobody will say Pete had easy rivals, it is a joke to suggest that.

He had easier rivals than Federer, that should go without saying.

Now if he kept on playing and faced Federer as well, it would be a different story.

 

[mike danny]

10+ slam winners ? That makes no sense.

Nadal had 6 slams at the time when Roger won his 16th grand slam while Agassi had 7 slams at the time when Peter won his 14th grand slam.

Out of 6 slams of Nadal just 2 were outside clay, infact Nadal only made 4 grand slam finals outside clay.
Out of Agassi's 7 slams, 6 were outside clay and Agassi played a total of 10 GS finals outside clay
Reason why I am stressing non clay here is because bulk of Rodger and Peter's slams are outside clay, so the competition was much higher from Agassi outside clay than Nadal outside clay because Nadal was still a baby until 2007 and he had his injury phase in 2009. .

So why should I look at Nadal's 22 slams /10+ slams when clearly Roger faced the worst competition in history in 2000s decade? the worst decade of all time, the worst set of rivals.

The competiton strengthened for Novak but Roger had a clear road and had already won bulk of his resume by then.

Dude, Agassi was a non-factor for half of Pete's prime. Fed faced Hewitt/Roddick/Nadal much more often than Pete faced Andre in 1995-1998. Baby Nadal or not, at least he was present, Andre wasn't.

Djokovic has won 10 slams after turning 31, he has had the easiest competition in history, no contest.

 

[Razer]

Dude, Agassi was a non-factor for half of Pete's prime. Fed faced Hewitt/Roddick/Nadal much more often than Pete faced Andre in 1995-1998. Baby Nadal or not, at least he was present, Andre wasn't.

Djokovic has won 10 slams after turning 31, he has had the easiest competition in history, no contest.

Dude, Agassi was a non-factor for half of Pete's prime. Fed faced Hewitt/Roddick/Nadal much more often than Pete faced Andre in 1995-1998. Baby Nadal or not, at least he was present, Andre wasn't.

Djokovic has won 10 slams after turning 31, he has had the easiest competition in history, no contest.

2nd Week Opponents beaten by Rafael Nadal en route to his 22 Slams who have won at least 1 Grand Slam = 35

4th Round - 1*Cilic + 2*Hewitt
Quarter Finals - 2*Djokovic + 1*Wawrinka + 1*Murray + 1*Moya
Semi Finals - 2*Federer + 3*Djokovic + 2*Del Potro + 3*Murray + 1Thiem
Finals - 2*Medvedev + 5*Djokovic + 2*Thiem + 6*Federer + 1*Wawrinka

2nd Week Opponents beaten by Novak Djokovic en route to his 22 Slams who have won at least 1 Grand Slam = 33

4th Round - 1*Medvedev + 1*Wawrinka + 2*Hewitt
Quarter Finals - 2*Cilic
Semi Finals - 2*Nadal + 5*Federer + 1*Murray + 1*Wawrinka + 1*Cilic + 1*Thiem
Finals - 1*Medvedev + 1*Thiem + 4*Federer + 4*Nadal + 5*Murray + 1*Del Potro

2nd Week Opponents beaten by Roger Federer en route to his 20 Slams who have won at least 1 Grand Slam = 31

4th Round - 2*Hewitt + 1*Djokovic
Quarter Finals - 1*Roddick + 1*Ferrero + 1*Hewitt + 1*Agassi
Semi Finals - 1*Wawrinka + 2*Djokovic + 2*Hewitt + 2*Roddick + 1*Del Potro
Finals - 2*Cilic + 3*Nadal + 3*Murray + 1*Djokovic + 4*Roddick + 1*Hewitt + 1*Agassi + 1*Safin

2nd Week Opponents beaten by Peter Sampras en route to his 14 Slams who have won at least 1 Grand Slam = 27

4th Round - Lendl + Muster
Quarter Finals - Roddick + Becker + Costa + 2 Chang + Agassi + Lendl
Semi Finals - 2*Ivanisevic + 1 Muster + 2*Courier + 1 Mcenroe + 1 Becker
Finals - 4*Agassi + 1 Rafter + 2*Ivanisevic + 1 Moya + 1 Chang + 1 Becker + 1 Courier




Once again these numbers prove that Sampras faced more competition to win his slams.

His number 27 is almost twice his slam count of 14 while Big3's are just 1.5 times each.

I found these stats somewhere, maybe @Holmes / @NonP could verify if I missed anyone from the tallies of these 4 players.

 

[Holmes]

2nd Week Opponents beaten by Rafael Nadal en route to his 22 Slams who have won at least 1 Grand Slam = 35

4th Round - 1*Cilic + 2*Hewitt
Quarter Finals - 2*Djokovic + 1*Wawrinka + 1*Murray + 1*Moya
Semi Finals - 2*Federer + 3*Djokovic + 2*Del Potro + 3*Murray + 1Thiem
Finals - 2*Medvedev + 5*Djokovic + 2*Thiem + 6*Federer + 1*Wawrinka

2nd Week Opponents beaten by Novak Djokovic en route to his 22 Slams who have won at least 1 Grand Slam = 33

4th Round - 1*Medvedev + 1*Wawrinka + 2*Hewitt
Quarter Finals - 2*Cilic
Semi Finals - 2*Nadal + 5*Federer + 1*Murray + 1*Wawrinka + 1*Cilic + 1*Thiem
Finals - 1*Medvedev + 1*Thiem + 4*Federer + 4*Nadal + 5*Murray + 1*Del Potro

2nd Week Opponents beaten by Roger Federer en route to his 20 Slams who have won at least 1 Grand Slam = 31

4th Round - 2*Hewitt + 1*Djokovic
Quarter Finals - 1*Roddick + 1*Ferrero + 1*Hewitt + 1*Agassi
Semi Finals - 1*Wawrinka + 2*Djokovic + 2*Hewitt + 2*Roddick + 1*Del Potro
Finals - 2*Cilic + 3*Nadal + 3*Murray + 1*Djokovic + 4*Roddick + 1*Hewitt + 1*Agassi + 1*Safin

2nd Week Opponents beaten by Peter Sampras en route to his 14 Slams who have won at least 1 Grand Slam = 27

4th Round - Lendl + Muster
Quarter Finals - Roddick + Becker + Costa + 2 Chang + Agassi + Lendl
Semi Finals - 2*Ivanisevic + 1 Muster + 2*Courier + 1 Mcenroe + 1 Becker
Finals - 4*Agassi + 1 Rafter + 2*Ivanisevic + 1 Moya + 1 Chang + 1 Becker + 1 Courier




Once again these numbers prove that Sampras faced more competition to win his slams.

His number 27 is almost twice his slam count of 14 while Big3's are just 1.5 times each.

I found these stats somewhere, maybe @Holmes / @NonP could verify if I missed anyone from the tallies of these 4 players.

And Big 3's numbers are accrued over much longer careers.

 

[accidental]

This is the new world order the covid conspiracy theorists warned us about