Age of Grand Slam champions

[Oceans II]

for the previous decade:

RG22 - 36 years 0 months
AO22 - 35 years 7 months
USO21 - 25 years 7 months
W21 - 34 years 1 months
RG21 - 34 years 0 months
AO21 - 33 years 8 months
RG20 - 34 years 4 months
USO20 - 27 years 0 month
AO20 - 32 years 8 months
USO19 - 33 years 3 months
W19 - 32 years 1 months
RG19 - 33 years 0 months
AO19 -31 years 8 months
USO18 - 31 years 3 months
W18 - 31 years 1 months
RG18 - 32 years 0 months
AO18 - 36 years 5 months
USO17 - 31 years 3 months
W17 - 35 years 10 months
RG17 - 31 years 0 months
AO17 - 35 years 5 months
USO16 - 31 years 5 months
W16 - 29 years 1 months
RG16 - 29 years 0 months
AO16 - 28 years 8 months
USO15 - 28 years 3 months
W15 - 28 years 1 months
RG15 -30 years 2 months
AO15 - 27 years 8 months
USO14 - 25 years 11 months
W14 - 27 years 1 months
RG14 - 28 years 0 months
AO14 - 28 years 9 months
USO13 - 27 years 3 months
W13 - 26 years 1 months
RG13 - 27 years 0 months
AO13 - 25 years 8 months
USO12 - 25 years 3 months
W12 - 30 years 10 months
RG12 - 26 years 0 months

"bUt PeAk AgE iS bEtWeEn 22-26"
"tErMiNaL dEcLiNe AfTeR 26"

Think about this logically. What is more likely?
Every single player from a couple of generations somehow being a "mug" or the Great Age Shift (improvement in technology, sport analytics, training methods, medicine + nutrition, gained knowledge + experience, etc etc) as evidenced by other sports as well.

Discuss.

 

[Oceans II]

Plus, arguably the 3 greatest players ever with incomparable talent fighting tooth and nail for ultimate greatness, along with Murray and Wawrinka. Would the TTW only narrative be different if Djokodal didn't win all these slams?

 

[The Blond Blur]

I’m a fan of the guy that just won the first 2 schlems of the year. #LostGen and #NextGen just suck that bad. And 2008-2013 RAFA would rekt the current tour to the point that the field would look like WTA players in comparison.

 

[Oceans II]

I’m a fan of the guy that just won the first 2 schlems of the year. #LostGen and #NextGen just suck that bad. And 2008-2013 RAFA would rekt the current tour to the point that the field would look like WTA players in comparison.

You're only one poster on TTW. You don't represent the whole Nadal fanbase.

 

[ForehandCross]

Lol no. One look at Alcaraz, and the entire hypothesis fails, that guy looks and feels like a real top talent, if a 19 year old can beat Nadal and Djokovic back to back, that tells you that 19 year olds should have been doing that.

Also just watched 2012 RG F, Novak and Nadal aren't 5% of what they were. Heck was watching 2019 F highlights and Nadal from that year will murder his present version.

 

[The Blond Blur]

You're only one poster. You don't represent the whole Nadal fanbase.

I just talked to the rest of the RAFANBASE. They agree with me. Vamos. Bamos.

 

[Sudacafan]

Last ATP slam champion younger than 21, Del Potro USO 2009, 20 years 11 months.
Last teen champion, Nadal at RG 05 (at 06 he had already turned 20 several days ago).

 

[ForehandCross]

I laugh at the disregard for actual visual experience, you can't for the life of it watch 2011 Rome final and tell me that Djokovic plays anywhere near that these days, if you do, then really your tennis knowledge needs to be questioned.

 

[Oceans II]

Lol no. One look at Alcaraz, and the entire hypothesis fails, that guy looks and feels like a real top talent, if a 19 year old can beat Nadal and Djokovic back to back, that tells you that 19 year olds should have been doing that.

Also just watched 2012 RG F, Novak and Nadal aren't 5% of what they were. Heck was watching 2019 F highlights and Nadal from that year will murder his present version.

Djokodal both coming back from time off vs Alcaraz at home. See Alcaraz vs Zverev Bo5 RG22. One of rare few who backed Zverev to win and would again tip Zverev, Medvedev, etc.

 

[ForehandCross]

Djokodal both coming from time off. See Alcaraz vs Zverev Bo5 RG22. Tipped Zverev to win and would again tip Zverev, Medvedev, etc.

Alcaraz already has two masters, from this year he has been pushing Nadal and Djokovic harder than 99% of the tour. Those aren't fluke. Zverev essentially played the slam match of his career to get the win, and even he was struggling to close out the last two sets after Alcaraz woke up properly and had to play a very long TB with his best tennis to close it out.

And Z, who knows more Tennis than us, categorically said he and others needed to win before Alcaraz starts winning everything under the sun.

Either concede that he is once in century talent that is completely against the tide of aging and experience, OR that he is the kind of talent that has been missing on tour.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

The trend will continue in the Wimbledon finals with these two

 

[Oceans II]

Alcaraz already has two masters, from this year he has been pushing Nadal and Djokovic harder than 99% of the tour. Those aren't fluke. Zverev essentially played the slam match of his career to get the win, and even he was struggling to close out the last two sets after Alcaraz woke up properly and had to play a very long TB with his best tennis to close it out.

And Z, who knows more Tennis than us, categorically said he and others needed to win before Alcaraz starts winning everything under the sun.

Either concede that he is once in century talent that is completely against the tide of aging and experience, OR that he is the kind of talent that has been missing on tour.

I'll give Madrid but that's only once against Djokodal who were coming back from time off and playing at home in favourable conditions. I think North American HCs and Madrid + RG are Alcaraz's best conditions. IW was against Ribdal struggling through Korda, Opelka, Kyrgios. RG22 Nadal is a total different kettle off fish to IW22 Nadal.
I don't think that was remotely close to Zverev's best slam performance. He's been bubbling for a while after near misses against Djokovic at AO21 + USO21, Thiem USO20, Tsitsipas RG21, etc.
What's your current prediction for Alcaraz at Wimbledon?

 

[ForehandCross]

What's your current prediction for Alcaraz at Wimbledon?

Grass is either very kind to the young or very very difficult , I see Alcaraz's weak serve as a huge obstacle, and remembering his last year's match against Med, it seems even his timing on the ball isn't good on grass yet. Not beyond R3 I will say.

But I suspect he will win a masters before the year's end and will go deep in USO.

 

[Oceans II]

Grass is either very kind to the young or very very difficult , I see Alcaraz's weak serve as a huge obstacle, and remembering his last year's match against Med, it seems even his timing on the ball isn't good on grass yet. Not beyond R3 I will say.

But I suspect he will win a masters before the year's end and will go deep in USO.

+1. Unsure if he will be able to keep the ball in court especially on the return. Putting my head out there without seeing the draw and will say R3-QF.

 

[ForehandCross]

+1. Unsure if he will be able to keep the ball in court especially on the return. Putting my head out there without seeing the draw and will say R3-QF.

I just watched the short highlights of the Med match from last year, not enough footage to make any strong assumption but it seems his explosiveness is actually effective on the surface .He hit several dumb founding winners. But the point is whether these flashes of brilliance can turn into something consistent, and I really don't think so for now. His serve will definitely be liability.

But again I think we should wait for his first few matches there.

 

[ChrisRF]

Think about this logically. What is more likely?
Every single player from a couple of generations somehow being a "mug" or the Great Age Shift (improvement in technology, sport analytics, training methods, medicine + nutrition, gained knowledge + experience, etc etc) as evidenced by other sports as well.

Discuss.

I think neither is totally correct. It's just about the Big 3 being by far the best players ever. The age of Slam winners increases as THEY get older, as simple as that. It's also mainly just about THEM getting older and not declining because they are anomalies.

Yes, the Age Shift is real, but it won't be that extreme in the future without the Big 3. Look at Wawrinka and Tsonga who couldn't sustain their levels in their mid-30s.

But also it's nonsense that young players "should" beat the Big 3 now, because THEY didn't decline (or made up for SLIGHT physical decline with even better technical skills, tactics and experience).

 

[King No1e]

Average age of top players hasn't really changed much. There was a period when it was almost exclusively 30+ mugs (2017-18) but now we seem to have recovered from that

 

[InsideOut900]

Think about this logically. What is more likely?
Every single player from a couple of generations somehow being a "mug" or the Great Age Shift (improvement in technology, sport analytics, training methods, medicine + nutrition, gained knowledge + experience, etc etc) as evidenced by other sports as well.

Discuss.

Murray got Slam wins when Djokovic was in his prime. These guys don't get wins against old Djokodal.

When the best best player of a generation is considerably worse than Murray, that generation sucks. Last and only time this happened in the past was with the Moya/Corretja/Kuerten/Rafter gen.

It's one thing for old Djokodal to win Slams and another to win every single Slam

 

[InsideOut900]

Alcaraz already has two masters, from this year he has been pushing Nadal and Djokovic harder than 99% of the tour. Those aren't fluke. Zverev essentially played the slam match of his career to get the win, and even he was struggling to close out the last two sets after Alcaraz woke up properly and had to play a very long TB with his best tennis to close it out.

And Z, who knows more Tennis than us, categorically said he and others needed to win before Alcaraz starts winning everything under the sun.

Either concede that he is once in century talent that is completely against the tide of aging and experience, OR that he is the kind of talent that has been missing on tour.

I don't think Carlos would be anything special if he peaked 10-15 years ago, but he is what the tour needs right now.

Very flashy and very entertaining, the actual level probably takes a backseat here.

 

[NatF]

Poor OP I remember when he had an army of bots sharing his delusions

 

[Oceans II]

I think they have nothing left to prove and are quite content with the current tennis landscape. Unsure about Djokovic vs Nadal but that's a totally different story.

 

[reaper]

for the previous decade:

RG22 - 36 years 0 months
AO22 - 35 years 7 months
USO21 - 25 years 7 months
W21 - 34 years 1 months
RG21 - 34 years 0 months
AO21 - 33 years 8 months
RG20 - 34 years 4 months
USO20 - 27 years 0 month
AO20 - 32 years 8 months
USO19 - 33 years 3 months
W19 - 32 years 1 months
RG19 - 33 years 0 months
AO19 -31 years 8 months
USO18 - 31 years 3 months
W18 - 31 years 1 months
RG18 - 32 years 0 months
AO18 - 36 years 5 months
USO17 - 31 years 3 months
W17 - 35 years 10 months
RG17 - 31 years 0 months
AO17 - 35 years 5 months
USO16 - 31 years 5 months
W16 - 29 years 1 months
RG16 - 29 years 0 months
AO16 - 28 years 8 months
USO15 - 28 years 3 months
W15 - 28 years 1 months
RG15 -30 years 2 months
AO15 - 27 years 8 months
USO14 - 25 years 11 months
W14 - 27 years 1 months
RG14 - 28 years 0 months
AO14 - 28 years 9 months
USO13 - 27 years 3 months
W13 - 26 years 1 months
RG13 - 27 years 0 months
AO13 - 25 years 8 months
USO12 - 25 years 3 months
W12 - 30 years 10 months
RG12 - 26 years 0 months

"bUt PeAk AgE iS bEtWeEn 22-26"
"tErMiNaL dEcLiNe AfTeR 26"

Think about this logically. What is more likely?
Every single player from a couple of generations somehow being a "mug" or the Great Age Shift (improvement in technology, sport analytics, training methods, medicine + nutrition, gained knowledge + experience, etc etc) as evidenced by other sports as well.

Discuss.

The most likely thing is that you don't need to be a mug to be an inferior tennis player to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. If the same players invariably win, the average age of winners increases by a year every year.

 

[Lleytonstation]

for the previous decade:

RG22 - 36 years 0 months
AO22 - 35 years 7 months
USO21 - 25 years 7 months
W21 - 34 years 1 months
RG21 - 34 years 0 months
AO21 - 33 years 8 months
RG20 - 34 years 4 months
USO20 - 27 years 0 month
AO20 - 32 years 8 months
USO19 - 33 years 3 months
W19 - 32 years 1 months
RG19 - 33 years 0 months
AO19 -31 years 8 months
USO18 - 31 years 3 months
W18 - 31 years 1 months
RG18 - 32 years 0 months
AO18 - 36 years 5 months
USO17 - 31 years 3 months
W17 - 35 years 10 months
RG17 - 31 years 0 months
AO17 - 35 years 5 months
USO16 - 31 years 5 months
W16 - 29 years 1 months
RG16 - 29 years 0 months
AO16 - 28 years 8 months
USO15 - 28 years 3 months
W15 - 28 years 1 months
RG15 -30 years 2 months
AO15 - 27 years 8 months
USO14 - 25 years 11 months
W14 - 27 years 1 months
RG14 - 28 years 0 months
AO14 - 28 years 9 months
USO13 - 27 years 3 months
W13 - 26 years 1 months
RG13 - 27 years 0 months
AO13 - 25 years 8 months
USO12 - 25 years 3 months
W12 - 30 years 10 months
RG12 - 26 years 0 months

"bUt PeAk AgE iS bEtWeEn 22-26"
"tErMiNaL dEcLiNe AfTeR 26"

Think about this logically. What is more likely?
Every single player from a couple of generations somehow being a "mug" or the Great Age Shift (improvement in technology, sport analytics, training methods, medicine + nutrition, gained knowledge + experience, etc etc) as evidenced by other sports as well.

Discuss.

MoDeRn MeDiCiNe

 

[Towny]

Excluding the Big 3, who are obvious outliers, and looking at their contemporaries and the LostGen (too early for Zverev/Med Gen)

Peak year
Murray 2016 (age 28/29)
Berdych 2010 (age 24/25)
Tsonga 2008 (age 22/23)
Ferrer 2013 (age 30/31)
Warinka 2015 (age 29/30)
Del Potro 2009 (age 20/21)
Cilic 2014 (age 25/26)
Raonic 2016 (age 25/26)
Dimitrov 2017 (age 25/26)
Nishikori 2014 (age 24/25)
Thiem 2020 (age 26/27)

Average age 25/26

Last YE top 10
Murray 2016 (age 28/29)
Berdych 2016 (age 30/31)
Tsonga 2015 (age 29/30)
Ferrer 2015 (age 32/33)
Warinka 2017 (age 31/32)
Del Potro 2018 (age 29/30)
Cilic 2018 (age 29/30)
Raonic 2016 (age 25/26)
Dimitrov 2017 (age 25/26)
Nishikori 2018 (age 28/29)
Thiem - too early to tell

Average age 29/30

So the idea that the Big 3 having dominant seemingly peak level seasons in their mid 30s indicates that this is the new normal is nonsense. Players are lasting a bit longer but they are generally still peaking in mid 20s and declining late 20s/early 30s. The Big 3 late success is likely attributable to their GOAT tier level and a couple of successive poor generations (note Dimitrov/Raonic/Nishikori declined younger and had less success than even the also-rans of the Djokodal generation).

 

[Oceans II]

Excluding the Big 3, who are obvious outliers, and looking at their contemporaries and the LostGen (too early for Zverev/Med Gen)

Peak year
Murray 2016 (age 28/29)
Berdych 2010 (age 24/25)
Tsonga 2008 (age 22/23)
Ferrer 2013 (age 30/31)
Warinka 2015 (age 29/30)
Del Potro 2009 (age 20/21)
Cilic 2014 (age 25/26)
Raonic 2016 (age 25/26)
Dimitrov 2017 (age 25/26)
Nishikori 2014 (age 24/25)
Thiem 2020 (age 26/27)

Average age 25/26

Last YE top 10
Murray 2016 (age 28/29)
Berdych 2016 (age 30/31)
Tsonga 2015 (age 29/30)
Ferrer 2015 (age 32/33)
Warinka 2017 (age 31/32)
Del Potro 2018 (age 29/30)
Cilic 2018 (age 29/30)
Raonic 2016 (age 25/26)
Dimitrov 2017 (age 25/26)
Nishikori 2018 (age 28/29)
Thiem - too early to tell

Average age 29/30

So the idea that the Big 3 having dominant seemingly peak level seasons in their mid 30s indicates that this is the new normal is nonsense. Players are lasting a bit longer but they are generally still peaking in mid 20s and declining late 20s/early 30s. The Big 3 late success is likely attributable to their GOAT tier level and a couple of successive poor generations (note Dimitrov/Raonic/Nishikori declined younger and had less success than even the also-rans of the Djokodal generation).

You only selected certain players (Monfils, RBA, etc ???) and your peak years are subjective. Nishikori's could easily be 2018/19, Del Potro's could easily be 2018, Tsonga's a bit later which all bumps up the average. I do like the last YE top 5/10 stats.

 

[Towny]

You only selected certain players (Monfils, RBA, etc ???) and your peak years are subjective. Nishikori's could easily be 2018/19, Del Potro's could easily be 2018, Tsonga's a bit later which all bumps up the average. I do like the last YE top 5/10 stats.

I picked the best players of those generations. Monfils and RBA don't compare. I suppose you could use a much bigger sample size but then you'd have to factor number of matches played etc. Del Potro won a slam in 2009 which ranks above his masters win in 2018. Plus he made the WTF final. Nishikori made his only slam final in 2014. You could make a decent argument for his 2016 be his best too, which I think was better than his 2018. Even if we took his 2018, we're still talking late 20s, not 30s and he went into 'terminal decline' shortly after.

The reality is Djokovic coming one match away from his best slam season ever at age 34 is not the new normal. Maybe it will be with current young guns but that remains to be seen

 

[ibbi]

There is obviously and undeniably a great age shift in sports that is changing the landscape of things, and while this maybe applies more to people at the top of their sports (Brady, Lebron, Messi, Ronaldo, Big 3, Serena, Bolt, Phelps, even in less athletic stuff like snooker where general increases in levels of professionalism have massively extended top-level careers) it does apply in general too.

The thing is, you can't really use the age of major winners as evidence of this because, as has been said, these three dudes have monopolized the majors, and the sample size of what we're left with doesn't really back the point up either... Age of non-big 3 winners since the beginning of 2008 when Djokovic wins his first major (20, 25, 26, 28, 25, 30, 29, 31, 27, 25 - 26.6 average)

To me, a maybe more meaningful way of seeing what happened reveals itself in the average age of the year-end top 10, and you can quite clearly see a skew. The funny thing is that this skew appears to now be going away, so people who try and, what, argue against the idea that there is a great age shift in order to condemn the Next Gen should admit that the Next Gen, while obviously not in the league of the big 3, are the ones who have actually gotten things back closer to normalcy after the mad days of the last decade...

Average age of year-end top 10, 1973-2021.
Numbers in parentheses are the average age minus whatever members of the Big 3 featured in said top 10 that specific year so we can take whatever skew they have caused out of the equation (not much until 2017)... Also take into account that 73-75 have about a year added onto their total by Ken Rosewall...

1973: 28.8
1974: 28.5
1975: 27.8
1976: 24.7
1977: 25.3
1978: 24.6
1979: 26.7
1980: 24.2
1981: 24.8
1982: 24.7
1983: 24.6
1984: 23.6
1985: 23.9
1986: 24.1
1987: 25.3
1988: 24.6
1989: 23.3
1990: 24.2
1991: 24
1992: 23.4
1993: 23.1
1994: 24.1
1995: 24.3
1996: 25
1997: 24.7
1998: 24.9
1999: 25.6
2000: 25
2001: 25.6
2002: 24.6 (25)
2003: 24.7 (25)
2004: 25.4 (25.6)
2005: 24.8 (25.6)
2006: 24.4 (24.8)
2007: 24.1 (24.8)
2008: 24 (24.2)
2009: 24.6 (24.7)
2010: 26.1 (26.4)
2011: 26.7 (26.8)
2012: 26.9 (26.7)
2013: 27.8 (27.5)
2014: 28 (27.4)
2015: 29.7 (29.4)
2016: 28.4 (28.1)
2017: 27.6 (26.1)
2018: 30 (28.5)
2019: 28.2 (25.5)
2020: 27.7 (24.4)
2021: 25.7 (23.5)

Though, on the subject of major winners here's more data for statheads...

Average age of major winners in the Open era (up to 2009)
Average age of major winners in the Open era (2010-)
Average age of major winners in the Open era (overall)

Australian Open
25
29.6
26.1

Roland Garros
23.6
29.9
25.1

Wimbledon
23.9
29
24.9

US Open
24.9
27.5
25.5

 

[AO13]

There is obviously and undeniably a great age shift in sports that is changing the landscape of things, and while this maybe applies more to people at the top of their sports (Brady, Lebron, Messi, Ronaldo, Big 3, Serena, Bolt, Phelps, even in less athletic stuff like snooker where general increases in levels of professionalism have massively extended top-level careers) it does apply in general too.

The thing is, you can't really use the age of major winners as evidence of this because, as has been said, these three dudes have monopolized the majors, and the sample size of what we're left with doesn't really back the point up either... Age of non-big 3 winners since the beginning of 2008 when Djokovic wins his first major (20, 25, 26, 28, 25, 30, 29, 31, 27, 25 - 26.6 average)

To me, a maybe more meaningful way of seeing what happened reveals itself in the average age of the year-end top 10, and you can quite clearly see a skew. The funny thing is that this skew appears to now be going away, so people who try and, what, argue against the idea that there is a great age shift in order to condemn the Next Gen should admit that the Next Gen, while obviously in the league of the big 3, are the ones who have actually gotten things back closer to normalcy after the mad days of the last decade...

Average age of year-end top 10, 1973-2021.
Numbers in parentheses are the average age minus whatever members of the Big 3 featured in said top 10 that specific year so we can take whatever skew they have caused out of the equation (not much until 2017)... Also take into account that 73-75 have about a year added onto their total by Ken Rosewall...

1973: 28.8
1974: 28.5
1975: 27.8
1976: 24.7
1977: 25.3
1978: 24.6
1979: 26.7
1980: 24.2
1981: 24.8
1982: 24.7
1983: 24.6
1984: 23.6
1985: 23.9
1986: 24.1
1987: 25.3
1988: 24.6
1989: 23.3
1990: 24.2
1991: 24
1992: 23.4
1993: 23.1
1994: 24.1
1995: 24.3
1996: 25
1997: 24.7
1998: 24.9
1999: 25.6
2000: 25
2001: 25.6
2002: 24.6 (25)
2003: 24.7 (25)
2004: 25.4 (25.6)
2005: 24.8 (25.6)
2006: 24.4 (24.8)
2007: 24.1 (24.8)
2008: 24 (24.2)
2009: 24.6 (24.7)
2010: 26.1 (26.4)
2011: 26.7 (26.8)
2012: 26.9 (26.7)
2013: 27.8 (27.5)
2014: 28 (27.4)
2015: 29.7 (29.4)
2016: 28.4 (28.1)
2017: 27.6 (26.1)
2018: 30 (28.5)
2019: 28.2 (25.5)
2020: 27.7 (24.4)
2021: 25.7 (23.5)

Though, on the subject of major winners here's more data for statheads...

Average age of major winners in the Open era (up to 2009)
Average age of major winners in the Open era (2010-)
Average age of major winners in the Open era (overall)

Australian Open
25
29.6
26.1

Roland Garros
23.6
29.9
25.1

Wimbledon
23.9
29
24.9

US Open
24.9
27.5
25.5

This is simply because the three greatest ever tennis players are older, that's why after 2010 the average age of a GS winner is much higher.

As long as they are playing, Novak, Rafael and Roger are going to win Grand Slams.

 

[duaneeo]

This is simply because the three greatest ever tennis players are older, that's why after 2010 the average age of a GS winner is much higher.

Murray/Wawrinka/Cilic stopped the younger Fedalovic from winning 7 slams during the 2012-2016 seasons.

Players born in the 90s stopped the older Fedalovic from winning 1 slam during the 2017-2022 seasons. It took a default at 2020 USO.

Mugs are why the average age of a GS winner is much higher.

 

[TennisLurker]

Excluding the Big 3, who are obvious outliers, and looking at their contemporaries and the LostGen (too early for Zverev/Med Gen)

Peak year
Murray 2016 (age 28/29)
Berdych 2010 (age 24/25)
Tsonga 2008 (age 22/23)
Ferrer 2013 (age 30/31)
Warinka 2015 (age 29/30)
Del Potro 2009 (age 20/21)
Cilic 2014 (age 25/26)
Raonic 2016 (age 25/26)
Dimitrov 2017 (age 25/26)
Nishikori 2014 (age 24/25)
Thiem 2020 (age 26/27)

Average age 25/26

Last YE top 10
Murray 2016 (age 28/29)
Berdych 2016 (age 30/31)
Tsonga 2015 (age 29/30)
Ferrer 2015 (age 32/33)
Warinka 2017 (age 31/32)
Del Potro 2018 (age 29/30)
Cilic 2018 (age 29/30)
Raonic 2016 (age 25/26)
Dimitrov 2017 (age 25/26)
Nishikori 2018 (age 28/29)
Thiem - too early to tell

Average age 29/30

So the idea that the Big 3 having dominant seemingly peak level seasons in their mid 30s indicates that this is the new normal is nonsense. Players are lasting a bit longer but they are generally still peaking in mid 20s and declining late 20s/early 30s. The Big 3 late success is likely attributable to their GOAT tier level and a couple of successive poor generations (note Dimitrov/Raonic/Nishikori declined younger and had less success than even the also-rans of the Djokodal generation).

Murray was clearly at his best in 2012/2013, the time when we kinda had a Big 4 for real. His 2016 was remarkable, but also vulturing, from wimbledon on he only had 1 match against big 3, the year ending final against Djokovic

 

[Third Serve]

I think the only age shift that’s happening is that players can maintain a reasonably high level for longer periods of time before they have that massive drop-off that completely eliminates them from Slam contention. The increasingly physical nature of the game has also made it more difficult for teenagers to break through as opposed to the 90’s or earlier. But I still think players perform at their highest level in their twenties. The players currently winning at 30+ have most certainly not been performing at their highest levels.

 

[AO13]

Murray/Wawrinka/Cilic stopped the younger Fedalovic from winning 7 slams during the 2012-2016 seasons.

Players born in the 90s stopped the older Fedalovic from winning 1 slam during the 2017-2022 seasons. It took a default at 2020 USO.

Mugs are why the average age of a GS winner is much higher.

Murray is an ATG, to me. 3 slams, 8 finals, 14 masters, 41 weeks at number 1, 2 Olympic singles gold medals, 1 ATP Finals, 46 titles total.

Peak Wawrinka is at Roger, Rafa and Novak's level.

Cilic, meh. You can't say he is a one slam wonder since he has 2 more finals, but nothing special, lacks success in other departments.

I think that these young guys, Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Shapovalov, Felix are not mugs. They are just playing in the era of tennis Gods. They'll start winning slams, one of them has one, others will catch up.

 

[duaneeo]

Murray is an ATG, to me. 3 slams, 8 finals, 14 masters, 41 weeks at number 1, 2 Olympic singles gold medals, 1 ATP Finals, 46 titles total.

Peak Wawrinka is at Roger, Rafa and Novak's level.

Murray is an ATG, and peak Stan is at the same level as "the three greatest ever tennis players". This means the unfortunate 90s-born players had 5 ATGs to deal with.

 

[AO13]

Murray is an ATG, and peak Stan is at the same level as "the three greatest ever tennis players". This means the unfortunate 90s-born players had 5 ATGs to deal with.

Peak Stan happened against Novak in RG 2015, and he was more than good enough in his other 2 slam wins route. Lack of consistency and late bloom is the reason Wawrinka hasn't achieved more in his career. He was on the same level to them only few times.

Nevertheless, facing Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, actually even one of them at Grand Slams past 15 year is a nightmare for every player, whatever his name is. Like I said numerous times, they are the Tennis Gods.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

I think the only age shift that’s happening is that players can maintain a reasonably high level for longer periods of time before they have that massive drop-off that completely eliminates them from Slam contention. The increasingly physical nature of the game has also made it more difficult for teenagers to break through as opposed to the 90’s or earlier. But I still think players perform at their highest level in their twenties. The players currently winning at 30+ have most certainly not been performing at their highest levels.

In a nutshell, this.

 

[Mustard]

Djokovic at the 2012 Australian Open was the last male major winner who was under 25 years old. LOL. Back then, getting into your late 20s was seen as time catching up with you as a tennis player. Federer had slowed down a bit at the time in terms of winning majors, at age 29-30. Nadal similar in 2015-2016, when he was 28-30. Even Djokovic went off the boil somewhat when he was 29-30. In the past, a new generation of players would have taken over and kicked them to the curb. But the big 3 come alive again in their 30s and start winning loads of majors. Federer had a last hurrah of vintage form (so far, anyway) from February-July 2019 at age 37. Nadal has just won the French Open at age 36.

 

[RaulRamirez]

The answer is somewhat subjective, as tennis is not a timed sport (such as track and field or swimming) or one in which you are individually scored (bowling, target shooting, golf...there must be others).

To me, it's a combination of the first two factors, and of course, the sheer greatness and burning desire of each of The Big 3.
And if we've never seen their equal since ... it's wayyyy too early to speculate on Alcaraz ... doesn't that also speak to the unique greatness and burning desire of The Big 3?
(Experience, aura and also - for the most part - conserving energy to peak for majors also has helped their cause.)

 

[mike danny]

I think neither is totally correct. It's just about the Big 3 being by far the best players ever. The age of Slam winners increases as THEY get older, as simple as that. It's also mainly just about THEM getting older and not declining because they are anomalies.

Yes, the Age Shift is real, but it won't be that extreme in the future without the Big 3. Look at Wawrinka and Tsonga who couldn't sustain their levels in their mid-30s.

But also it's nonsense that young players "should" beat the Big 3 now, because THEY didn't decline (or made up for SLIGHT physical decline with even better technical skills, tactics and experience).

Federer vs Djokovic. Case closed.

 

[DSH]

Last ATP slam champion younger than 21, Del Potro USO 2009, 20 years 11 months.
Last teen champion, Nadal at RG 05 (at 06 he had already turned 20 several days ago).

Only 7 teenage male players have won Majors in the Open Era so far; it's a myth to believe it was a trend.

 

[Mustard]

Only 7 teenage male players have won Majors in the Open Era so far; it's a myth to believe it was a trend.

For the record, those 7 male teenage major winners are Borg, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Sampras and Nadal.

Another 7 male players won a major at age 20, those being McEnroe, Courier, Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt, Djokovic and Del Potro.

 

[Oceans II]

I picked the best players of those generations. Monfils and RBA don't compare. I suppose you could use a much bigger sample size but then you'd have to factor number of matches played etc. Del Potro won a slam in 2009 which ranks above his masters win in 2018. Plus he made the WTF final. Nishikori made his only slam final in 2014. You could make a decent argument for his 2016 be his best too, which I think was better than his 2018. Even if we took his 2018, we're still talking late 20s, not 30s and he went into 'terminal decline' shortly after.

The reality is Djokovic coming one match away from his best slam season ever at age 34 is not the new normal. Maybe it will be with current young guns but that remains to be seen

You forgot Anderson and possibly others. Anderson would be ranked 6th (going by your W>F>SF to remain consistent) on your still very selective list.
Del Potro in 2018 won IW, made USO F, RG SF and W QF where he fell short in classic against Nadal. Nishikori between W18-W19 made 5 slam QFs in a row where he just fell short against the Big 3.
Disagree as all the stats say it could be very normal. We are also talking about Novak Djokovic here who could achieve more of the "abnormal" in the future. In sport, there are no universal age rules.