Age this year in the quarters

[EkVraNaamEnVan]

You will think that with their current access to technology, old videos of past and current champions, best tennis facilities, best coaching teams, dieticians, blah blah and youth on their side, they would do better. It must be mental, the will and the heart. The hunger is not there, these kids are millionaires before they are 21.

 

[mike danny]

Thiem would be able to win GS titles in the 1990s decade. Even now he would have been a two-time RG champion, not to be resurected Nadal. He has the most chances to win the GS title from all current young players, but Bull is blocking him.

At Pete I see one huge advantage, which Milos is missing - excellent mental strength.

There's no guarantee Thiem would have beaten Stan and Delpo at the last 2 RG editions. He is incredibly poor in big matches.

 

[Plamen1234]

Except the Big 3 have little to do with the failures of young players.

True.Zverev for example should be able to go deep into Slams but he cant and it is not like his losses there are to super strong players.Look at his losses at GS this year-Chung,Thiem,Gulbis and Kohlschreiber.The loss to Thiem on clay can be accepted but the others shouldnt have happened especially the last 2.

 

[Gary Duane]

I think it's cyclic...The late sixties in particular, was absolutely about the teen and younger generation overcoming the older generation, now the 'zeitgeist' is swung to the other side of the pendulum. The sportsmen pattern this
The 'zeitgeist', is not a natural outcropping of the 'spirit' of humanity. A large part of it is manufactured from the apex of the pyramid and then disseminated via the media, who make it look like a 'natural' outcropping.

I also see a big connection between what we are seeing right now and what we saw in the early OE until Connors and Co. finally broke through.

I have all the majors from 1969 through this year and the exact ages of the winners. My list is not a knew idea, but it is more complete than something I saw a few years back. The norm is for peaks hitting right around age 25, not the full year, but rather the beginning of that year. So figure players should hit their peak right around then, and the fact that Laver win his 2nd grand slam at age 30-31 does not change that overall picture. It also, by the way, shows that he won his amateur GS at that same expected age, 24-25, and that's what made the pros of that time so different. Each of those pros had to break in AFTER getting to the top of the world in amateurs, true of Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Laver and so on. Then to continue leaving their mark they had to do it all over again in 68. It took a few years for the former amateurs to catch up.

I think what we are seeing now is different. There are cycles, for whatever reason, and at the moment we probably have an unusual amount of strength in older veterans. But if this is all it is, it will swing back, and we will get back to seeing people peak at 24-25. I don't think that will happen. I think in the future peaks will be later, and for the simple reason that experience is the ultimate trump in competition of aging does not reduce the physical part of competition to the point where experience can't compensate for decreasing physical dominance.

I don't have sufficient stats to look at the breakdown of service and return earlier than 1990, and I'm too lazy to try to analyze matches by counting points and games. But I do know that the trend is to win more and more games on serve, less and less on return. The reason is that there is a practical max of what % of games the best can win, on any surface, in a great year, and normally that is around 60% and not much higher.

You would expect veterans to keep up service skills longest, and we see that with guys like Sampras and Federer, who continued to serve very well after age 30. Most likely the exact same thing was true of guys like Pancho Gonzalez, but I do not have stats to support that.

However, if aging players lose a couple percentage points on return but gain them serving, the end result is no loss of success.

Here is what absolutely does not make sense, going by what we expected earlier.

Federer won a higher % of return games on HC in 2015 than all but two years- 2006 and 2005. 2015 was his 2nd best year, ever, for winning games serving. It was his 2nd best year ever for winning total games, and comparing 2004, 2005 and 2015 is so close, they are different by a few 100ths of one percent.

If other aging players can do the same, the young guys don't have a chance.

Djokovic is similar, but in a way that reflects more of what we might expect. He won 41% of return games in 2011, which is so freaking high it is just stupid. But he won around 85% of service games, so as his return stats went down, his service stats went up. His best year serving games, stats, was 2013, but for winning all games, 2011 was highest (no surprise there), but 2015 was not much down.

This is far more expected. We don't know what he is doing yet this year, because the first half of the year knocked down his results so far. But I would expect him to never equal 2011 in return, or come close. However, if he gets his service game up to where it was at that peak, and keeps return in range, he's going to win more majors.

Now let's look at Murray, same thing, HC: His second best year for winning games on return was 2016. For winning all games he was in a virtual tie with himself in 2009. And his serving was better in 2009, but return better in 2016.

If you're interesting, I'll tell you how guys like Agassi and Sampras compare, but you probably know already what the results are going to be.

What we are seeing now JUST DID NOT HAPPEN IN THE PAST.

 

[Federev]

Time to mention again:

Thiem 25
Millman 29
Nishikori closer to 29 than 28
Delpo - almost 30
Cilic almost 30
Djokovic 31
Nadal 32
Isner 33

Do the math, then tell yourselves that this is only because the younger players are wimps. I've estimated that peaks have been extended by 2 to 3 years. I think this may turn out to be too conservative. It may now be close to 5 years.

It can't be slower courts, or poly, or any of these factors alone. Anything that allows players to run around longer, hit more balls, play more pong should logically favor younger players, as it did in the past.

The only logical explanation, no matter whether you like it or not, is that training and medicine is changing everything, giving older players a longer sweet spot to utilize their increasing understanding of the game, tactics, the mental aspect. A 30 year old in the same condition as a 24 year old should always win because of experience, knowledge. Youth used to trump everything, but no more.

I don't think its that so much as this:

Fed (and Nadal) changed everything.

Everyone had to get better than they had ever been at tennis in order to keep up with him.

Fed's generation got a shock awakening and had not time to catch up and he destroyed them all like no one had ever dominated their peers in the Open Era.

Rafa was already going to be unreal without Fed, but Fed made him push himself that much better

Novak - as he admitted - would not be the player he is today without Fedal.

Think that didn't happen to everyone else? You only push yourself - when its hard to push - as far as you have to. All the 26 and up folks either ran themselves ragged trying to get to Fed's level (like Murray) or are still the ones to beat because they were in close proximity to the Fed Fallout.

But the farther we get from Fed and his GOAT Peak level, the less folks are being compelled to keep up to that standard wether they know it or not. Most don't. It's just not around anymore like it was.

The ancient ways of peak Fed are slowly being buried by age and time.

Novak ... is...

The Last Jedi.

 

[Gary Duane]

I don't think its that so much as this:

Fed (and Nadal) changed everything.

Everyone had to get better than they had ever been at tennis in order to keep up with him.

Fed's generation got a shock awakening and had not time to catch up and he destroyed them all like no one had ever dominated their peers in the Open Era.

Rafa was already going to be unreal without Fed, but Fed made him push himself that much better

Novak - as he admitted - would not be the player he is today without Fedal.

Think that didn't happen to everyone else? You only push yourself - when its hard to push - as far as you have to. All the 26 and up folks either ran themselves ragged trying to get to Fed's level (like Murray) or are still the ones to beat because they were in close proximity to the Fed Fallout.

But the farther we get from Fed and his GOAT Peak level, the less folks are being compelled to keep up to that standard wether they know it or not. Most don't. It's just not around anymore like it was.

The ancient ways of peak Fed are slowly being buried by age and time.

Novak ... is...

The Last Jedi.

Please read my post just above yours...

 

[Federev]

Please read my post just above yours...

"If other aging players can do the same, the young guys don't have a chance."

"IF".

until then...

FEDR-GOAT.

 

[Gary Duane]

"If other aging players can do the same, the young guys don't have a chance."

"IF".

until then...

FEDR-GOAT.

They are doing it right now, same bizarre trend of return stats staying very high for guys in their 30s.

The fountain of youth is about drugs, legal or not.

 

[Federev]

They are doing it right now, same bizarre trend of return stats staying very high for guys in their 30s.

The fountain of youth is about drugs, legal or not.

But "they" aren't doing it - not in the way Fed is.

That was the point of your sentence.

"If other aging players can do the same [what FEDR-GOAT is doing], the young guys don't have a chance." (And by your data Not even Novak (relative to his own past) matches the robust level of Fed's 2015 stats relative to Fed's past.)

We've really never seen anything like this. And that "this" starts with Fed at the very top of the "unprecedented" given his incredible age.

So you can say its "experience empowered by drugs" or you can say Fed was a catalyst for excellence and standard-raising that we have not seen ever before in the open era.

You can see the effect he had on his generation downward. You have players like Novak saying literally : "I would not be the player I am today"..."I would never have pushed myself if it were not for Federer and Nadal"

That's how nature works. A new infection comes we've never seen before and and it forces the body to produce stronger antibodies than it ever had to. Once the body fights it off, the body returns to normal.

We'll the tennis body has not quiet returned to "normal" from its response to the invasion of FEDR-GOAT standard.

Fed (and Nads too) changed the nature of the standard for Fed's proximate pool of players from Rafa to Novak to Murray to Delpo to Stan to Cilic to Berd down - with progressively weaker and weaker players the farther away we get from Fed. (Hence the age issue).

What might happen is you get someone really strong like Thiem to finally get to a place where he can take out Rafa and Novak in the next 2 years (including due to their age natural slip as he gets physically stronger) and sets the standard around himself. Then I think you might see a new cluster of strength around Theim's rise.

But it won't be anything like Fed's reorienting effect until another Fed comes along.

 

[Gary Duane]

But "they" aren't doing it - not in the way Fed is.

That was the point of your sentence.

Actually, that was not my point at all. Your point, as a Fed fan, may be that he did it better than anyone else, but that's different.

My point is this: you look at return stats for any player, by year. But first look at career average. If an aging player, one at around age 30 or older is returning above his career average and does so for more than one year at that age, that's different from the past.

Your point that Djokovic has been unable to reproduce his 2011 peak is valid, and the same is true for Nadal's clay peak in 2008. These are results we expect. But we also expect earlier years, in general, to be better than later years, in general. If you look at return stats for a whole bunch of players who are now winning past the age of 30, their return stats are staying very high. This means they can continue to run around like rabbits and go on returning pong style at age 30 and later, and there are just too many of them doing this for it to be temporary, or coincidence.

For example, Isner, age 33, return games 12% this year so far, career average 11%. Granted, that's crap for other players, but for Big John it is very good, and that's what he was doing in 2010.

These guys peak later because they return as well or better at a much later age, and going by records of the past this is a change.

If Samrpas's return game remained close to as strong around age 30 as it was at around age 24, he would have won more like the number of majors Fed has won. But his body gave out, and even Agassi's was never the same as he got old.


"If other aging players can do the same [what FEDR-GOAT is doing], the young guys don't have a chance." (And by your data Not even Novak (relative to his own past) matches the robust level of Fed's 2015 stats relative to Fed's past.)

We've really never seen anything like this. And that "this" starts with Fed at the very top of the "unprecedented" given his incredible age.

So you can say its "experience empowered by drugs" or you can say Fed was a catalyst for excellence and standard-raising that we have not seen ever before in the open era.

You can see the effect he had on his generation downward. You have players like Novak saying literally : "I would not be the player I am today"..."I would never have pushed myself if it were not for Federer and Nadal"

That's how nature works. A new infection comes we've never seen before and and it forces the body to produce stronger antibodies than it ever had to. Once the body fights it off, the body returns to normal.

We'll the tennis body has not quiet returned to "normal" from its response to the invasion of FEDR-GOAT standard.

Fed (and Nads too) changed the nature of the standard for Fed's proximate pool of players from Rafa to Novak to Murray to Delpo to Stan to Berd to Cillic down - with progressively weaker and weaker players the farther away we get from Fed. (Hence the age issue).

What might happen is you get someone really strong like Thiem to finally get to a place where he can take out Rafa and Novak in the next 2 years (including due to their age natural slip as he gets physically stronger) and sets the standard around himself. Then I think you might see a new cluster of strength around Theim's rise.

But it won't be anything like Fed's reorienting effect until another Fed comes along.[/QUOTE]

 

[Federev]

Actually, that was not my point at all. Your point, as a Fed fan, may be that he did it better than anyone else, but that's different.

My point is this: you look at return stats for any player, by year. But first look at career average. If an aging player, one at around age 30 or older is returning above his career average and does so for more than one year at that age, that's different from the past.

Your point that Djokovic has been unable to reproduce his 2011 peak is valid, and the same is true for Nadal's clay peak in 2008. These are results we expect. But we also expect earlier years, in general, to be better than later years, in general. If you look at return stats for a whole bunch of players who are now winning past the age of 30, their return stats are staying very high. This means they can continue to run around like rabbits and go on returning pong style at age 30 and later, and there are just too many of them doing this for it to be temporary, or coincidence.

For example, Isner, age 33, return games 12% this year so far, career average 11%. Granted, that's crap for other players, but for Big John it is very good, and that's what he was doing in 2010.

These guys peak later because they return as well or better at a much later age, and going by records of the past this is a change.

If Samrpas's return game remained close to as strong around age 30 as it was at around age 24, he would have won more like the number of majors Fed has won. But his body gave out, and even Agassi's was never the same as he got old.


"If other aging players can do the same [what FEDR-GOAT is doing], the young guys don't have a chance." (And by your data Not even Novak (relative to his own past) matches the robust level of Fed's 2015 stats relative to Fed's past.)

We've really never seen anything like this. And that "this" starts with Fed at the very top of the "unprecedented" given his incredible age.

So you can say its "experience empowered by drugs" or you can say Fed was a catalyst for excellence and standard-raising that we have not seen ever before in the open era.

You can see the effect he had on his generation downward. You have players like Novak saying literally : "I would not be the player I am today"..."I would never have pushed myself if it were not for Federer and Nadal"

That's how nature works. A new infection comes we've never seen before and and it forces the body to produce stronger antibodies than it ever had to. Once the body fights it off, the body returns to normal.

We'll the tennis body has not quiet returned to "normal" from its response to the invasion of FEDR-GOAT standard.

Fed (and Nads too) changed the nature of the standard for Fed's proximate pool of players from Rafa to Novak to Murray to Delpo to Stan to Berd to Cillic down - with progressively weaker and weaker players the farther away we get from Fed. (Hence the age issue).

What might happen is you get someone really strong like Thiem to finally get to a place where he can take out Rafa and Novak in the next 2 years (including due to their age natural slip as he gets physically stronger) and sets the standard around himself. Then I think you might see a new cluster of strength around Theim's rise.

But it won't be anything like Fed's reorienting effect until another Fed comes along.

[/QUOTE]

I could just be missing your point -and you're obviously thoughtful and thorough.

But I still could see - what these guys are able to do - longer and at a later age - being at least in part dependent on the level of play/condition they've had to pursue and sustain in order to compete in the age of Federer - followed by his standard bearing spawns in Nadal and Djokovic who've reinforced much of his standard.

Including even breaking some ceilings in what was thought possible conditioning/endurance wise as they've all sought to keep up.

I guess just don't see how your data necessarily root the independent variable in drugs, etc.

But you seem unconvinced that Federer-Nadal-Novak standard has anythign to do with this? (am I right?)

And yes I'm a big Fed fan. Bias obviously injected into my theory! (Not sure - considering his objective quality - that should automatically be a disqualifier )

 

[Gary Duane]

I have to take this point by point

I guess just don't see how your data necessarily root the independent variable in drugs, etc.

When I say "drugs", I am being a bit humorous. For instance, I'm on drugs. I have to be. I have high blood pressure, so without this drug I might have a stroke, or something else horrible could happen. Obviously I'd be happier if I could magically not need it, but I don't drink, don't even use caffeine, don't eat meat, and otherwise I'm in just about perfect health.

We need to differentiate between harmful things that shorten life expectancy or cut down on quality of life and other things that actually help us live longer and with a better quality of life.

For all I know, whatever regimen Fed and Nadal are on will help them life longer than average lives and in surprisingly good health. If so, nothing they are doing is harmful, so the only question is whether or not whatever they eat, drink and ingest is giving them an unfair advantage over young players who have less money and do not have access to whatever they are using/taking. And I make no judgement about any of this. It does not concern me as a moral point.

But what I am suggesting is that people now are not only living longer but they lead a quality of living far later in life than could have even been dreamed of even two centuries ago. And it is hard to judge change during our own lives because we right in the middle of it, changing ourselves.

You can talk about training, and that is, for sure, part of it, a huge part of it. Then there is the psychological edge of traveling with people you can socialize with. The tour used to be so much more lonely, it is amazing to think about. By the time guys were 30, it must have felt like they have to give up life to continue playing. I don't think Fed, or Rafa, or Djokovic feel that way at all.

I'm merely saying this, without supporting any one player over the others: if you give aging people advantages they never had before in prior generations, they are going to take advantage of them. I don't think it matters much if they are still wining majors at age 35, or still touring in rock groups in their 70s, or still creating art and music into their 80s. If you give aging people added good health and vitality, and help them stay sharp mentally, they can take wisdom/experience and use it as the ultimate advantage.

And I think it's already happening more than we realize, not just in tennis, not just in athletics, but in everything.

But you seem unconvinced that Federer-Nadal-Novak standard has anythign to do with this? (am I right?)

And yes I'm a big Fed fan. Bias obviously injected into my theory! (Not sure - considering his objective quality - that should automatically be a disqualifier )[/QUOTE]

 

[Gary Duane]

But you seem unconvinced that Federer-Nadal-Novak standard has anythign to do with this? (am I right?)

And yes I'm a big Fed fan. Bias obviously injected into my theory! (Not sure - considering his objective quality - that should automatically be a disqualifier )

You are absolutely wrong. I think Federer and Nadal have set a higher bar for everyone, and right now Djokovic is very much continuing the same trend. We have to wait to see how much longer he will be able to keep up his own "Indian Summer".

And this is not the first time we've seen this. At the beginning of the OE former #1 players, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver, refused to bow down to younger players as they continued playing, which is why you saw Rosewall accomplishing feats as a much older player that perhaps are only now being fully appreciated. In addition, Gonzalez turned 40 during the first year of the OE, yet he won titles that were the equivalent of some modern M1000s.

These three men in particular were also establishing a higher bar, and the young players had to step up and finally topple them.

I'm saying something different: there are more people today who continue playing longer because there are other factors contributing to this, so it is likely the peak age of the average player has gone up a couple years or so, and maybe even more. But we won't know until another decade or two has gone by, because it is too soon to judge. Not enough data yet.

 

[Federev]

You are absolutely wrong. I think Federer and Nadal have set a higher bar for everyone, and right now Djokovic is very much continuing the same trend. We have to wait to see how much longer he will be able to keep up his own "Indian Summer".

And this is not the first time we've seen this. At the beginning of the OE former #1 players, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver, refused to bow down to younger players as they continued playing, which is why you saw Rosewall accomplishing feats as a much older player that perhaps are only now being fully appreciated. In addition, Gonzalez turned 40 during the first year of the OE, yet he won titles that were the equivalent of some modern M1000s.

These three men in particular were also establishing a higher bar, and the young players had to step up and finally topple them.

I'm saying something different: there are more people today who continue playing longer because there are other factors contributing to this, so it is likely the peak age of the average player has gone up a couple years or so, and maybe even more. But we won't know until another decade or two has gone by, because it is too soon to judge. Not enough data yet.

Thanks Gary. You're an intelligent guy and I'm glad to get to know tennis history better because of you. You make this forum a better place.

 

[Gary Duane]

Thanks Gary. You're an intelligent guy and I'm glad to get to know tennis history better because of you. You make this forum a better place.

Sorry about the quote problems, which I just fixed. You might want to fix it too.

I'd write more, but I'm off to work...

 

[Federev]

Sorry about the quote problems, which I just fixed. You might want to fix it too.

I'd write more, but I'm off to work...

yeah - saw that. Tried a little clean up.