Ages of the 4R players highlight the issues for the ATP compared to the WTA. Just 1 player over 30 for the WTA vs 9 for the ATP

[Aussie Darcy]

Ages of the men’s 4R lineup:

Djokovic (32 years old) v Struff (29 years old)
Fognini (32 years old) v Zverev (22 years old)
Thiem (25 years old) v Monfils (32 years old)
Khachanov (23 years old) v Del Potro (30 years old)
Tsitsipas (20 years old) v Wawrinka (34 years old)
Mayer (32 years old) v Federer (37 years old)
Nishikori (29 years old) v Paire (30 years old)
Londero (25 years old) v Nadal (32 years old)

1 player 20 and under
5 players 28 and under
7 players under 30
9 players 30 and over

Ages of the womens 4R lineup:

Siniaková (23 years old) v Keys (24 years old)
Kenin (20 years old) v Barty (23 years old)
Halep (27 years old) v Swiatek (18 years old)
Anisimova (17 years old) v Bolsova (21 years old)
Sloane (26 years old) v Muguruza (25 years old)
Vekic (22 years old) v Konta (28 years old)
Vondrousova (19 years old) v Sevastova (29 years old)
Kanepi (33 years old) v Martic (28 years old)

Four players that are 20 and under
10 players that are 25 and under
15 of 16 players that are under 30

The ATP next gen are literally quaking in their boots.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Is it biology or level of the tour?

 

[gold soundz]

Why is this necessarily a bad thing?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Why is this necessarily a bad thing?

Problematic for the future of the tour

 

[Sport]

Is it biology or level of the tour?

His point is that the ATP Next Gen sucks. And he is right.

 

[helterskelter]

I have a whole thread on the age of Slam draws on the Pro Results section.

N.B. If by any chance the Londero v Nadal match is rained out tomorrow or not finished until Monday for some other reason, Nadal will be 33 when it concludes. Tomorrow is his last day as a 32 year old.

 

[gold soundz]

Problematic for the future of the tour

I think we're lucky to have the three greatest players of all time playing for such a long time and should enjoy it while we can. As well as this, I think it should be celebrated and admired that players are able to play well into their 30s and stay at the top of the game. It just depends on how you look at it.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I think we're lucky to have the three greatest players of all time playing for such a long time and should enjoy it while we can. As well as this, I think it should be celebrated and admired that players are able to play well into their 30s and stay at the top of the game. It just depends on how you look at it.

Definitely agree it's exciting having the big 3 still but you have to be a little concerned about the future of the ATP tour when they retire. It's 2019 and there hasn't been a slam champion born in the 1990's. Eventually they will retire and someone has to fill that void and currently nobody knows who that is and popularity is going to plummet.

 

[icedevil0289]

I think we're lucky to have the three greatest players of all time playing for such a long time and should enjoy it while we can. As well as this, I think it should be celebrated and admired that players are able to play well into their 30s and stay at the top of the game. It just depends on how you look at it.

i mean sure fed, nadal, novak are amazing no doubt but imo i dont like the next gen get a pass because of that. i mean i love fed, but at 37 he should not be no.3 in the world nor should he have been close to being no.1 in 2017 having skipped clay. i get how the rankings work obviously and it was super easy for him to pick up points after missing the second half of 2016 but the young kids continously get a pass. people have been waiting for them to step up for ages and i feel like i've been hearing this bs of we are in a transitional phase. if im not mistaken in the past, the current generation were able to push the past gen out of the way. i mean ffs fed, well a testament to the kind of person he is, is still a top player in like this 3rd. or 4th gen considering his original gen wasthe likes of hewitt/safin roddick. heck for all the talk about his era, atleast those 3 if im not mistaken were competitive with the previous gen and the likes of sampras/agassi etc.

also people dont want to acknowledge it but i also think the fact that the players have very little variety, as a result of the all the surfaces more or less playing the same and so they go in with one game plan, hit as hard as possible from the baseline or behind the baseline and if plan A doesnt work, everything fails. the young players have little variety, half of htem are allergic to the net. the whole big 3 are amazing and that is why young guys are failing can only go on for so long.

 

[Lew II]

Different sports.

Female tennis is expanding in popularity. Therefore younger players are more talented than the older.

Male tennis has quite reached the peak of popularity. Therefore younger players are not more talented than the older.

Women's fertility declines with age, so female players have to worry about becoming mothers.

 

[reaper]

Ages of the men’s 4R lineup:

Djokovic (32 years old) v Struff (29 years old)
Fognini (32 years old) v Zverev (22 years old)
Thiem (25 years old) v Monfils (32 years old)
Khachanov (23 years old) v Del Potro (30 years old)
Tsitsipas (20 years old) v Wawrinka (34 years old)
Mayer (32 years old) v Federer (37 years old)
Nishikori (29 years old) v Paire (30 years old)
Londero (25 years old) v Nadal (32 years old)

1 player 20 and under
5 players 28 and under
7 players under 30
9 players 30 and over

Ages of the womens 4R lineup:

Siniaková (23 years old) v Keys (24 years old)
Kenin (20 years old) v Barty (23 years old)
Halep (27 years old) v Swiatek (18 years old)
Anisimova (17 years old) v Bolsova (21 years old)
Sloane (26 years old) v Muguruza (25 years old)
Vekic (22 years old) v Konta (28 years old)
Vondrousova (19 years old) v Sevastova (29 years old)
Kanepi (33 years old) v Martic (28 years old)

Four players that are 20 and under
10 players that are 25 and under
15 of 16 players that are under 30

The ATP next gen are literally quaking in their boots.

The breakup of the ATP round of 16 players shows the young players are doing ok. There's 5 aged 25 or under and 11 aged 29 or over. So there's no one aged 26-28 which has to be pretty unusual. FAA who's probably the best young player withdrew so that might have taken one out of the younger group. There's going to be a lack of depth as these older players disappear but the top young players probably have enough ability and charisma to keep the sport popular.

 

[Lleytonstation]

A lot of different ways to view this, too many really. I would be careful of comparing the ATP to the WTA, very different in many ways. The only thing I take from this, is that the top men are more consistent than the top women.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

A lot of different ways to view this, too many really. I would be careful of comparing the ATP to the WTA, very different in many ways. The only thing I take from this, is that the top men are more consistent than the top women.

Really? You don't take away the fact that yet again the youngsters on the ATP tour can't break through. I mean you've got so many youngsters on the WTA breaking through (we've seen slam champs from the 1990s) and yet no male born in the 1990s has won a slam yet...

 

[Lleytonstation]

Really? You don't take away the fact that yet again the youngsters on the ATP tour can't break through. I mean you've got so many youngsters on the WTA breaking through (we've seen slam champs from the 1990s) and yet no male born in the 1990s has won a slam yet...

Sure, like I said that is definitely one way to view it. You could argue about 5 more and I wouldnt argue those either.

I just see the top men are still in the draw (ranking wise), and the top women are not.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Sure, like I said that is definitely one way to view it. You could argue about 5 more and I wouldnt argue those either.

I just see the top men are still in the draw (ranking wise), and the top women are not.

3 of the top 4 seeds from 2009 are the same top seeds in 2019. Great for the nostalgic bunch and for the big 3 fans (like me) but not great for the future of the sport because soon this is coming to an end and nobody will know who's taking over.

 

[Lleytonstation]

3 of the top 4 seeds from 2009 are the same top seeds in 2019. Great for the nostalgic bunch and for the big 3 fans (like me) but not great for the future of the sport because soon this is coming to an end and nobody will know who's taking over.

True, but do we know who these "young" women are that are taking over? Osaka is not on that list. So who are these future greats that are leading the charge in the women's game?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

True, but do we know who these "young" women are that are taking over? Osaka is not on that list. So who are these future greats that are leading the charge in the women's game?

17 year old Anisimova is setting herself up nicely with back to back slam 4R appearances. Barty (Miami champ) who's 23 and top 10 in singles and doubles is looking incredibly strong, you've got 19 year old Vondrousova who's had a very consistent year with a QF in Rome, QF in Miami, QF in Indian Wells and two finals. Then there's of course the existing players that are slam champions in there mid 20's like Sloane, Halep and Muguruza who have already built a name for themselves.

Oh and then there is the #1 Osaka who did lose but you can't exactly write her off because of one result, especially considering she won back to back slams.

 

[Lleytonstation]

17 year old Anisimova is setting herself up nicely with back to back slam 4R appearances. Barty (Miami champ) who's 23 and top 10 in singles and doubles is looking incredibly strong, you've got 19 year old Vondrousova who's had a very consistent year with a QF in Rome, QF in Miami, QF in Indian Wells and two finals. Then there's of course the existing players that are slam champions in there mid 20's like Sloane, Halep and Muguruza who have already built a name for themselves.

The ATP round 4 has everything you just mentioned as well with the likes of Tsits, Thiem, Zverev, Khachanov, and Paire. Now, the only difference is the big 3 essentially are your Sloan, Muguruza, and Halep.

 

[Azure]

17 year old Anisimova is setting herself up nicely with back to back slam 4R appearances. Barty (Miami champ) who's 23 and top 10 in singles and doubles is looking incredibly strong, you've got 19 year old Vondrousova who's had a very consistent year with a QF in Rome, QF in Miami, QF in Indian Wells and two finals. Then there's of course the existing players that are slam champions in there mid 20's like Sloane, Halep and Muguruza who have already built a name for themselves.

Oh and then there is the #1 Osaka who did lose but you can't exactly write her off because of one result, especially considering she won back to back slams.

Good analysis. WTA is not really bad as some here would like to project. I am actually fed up of seeing the same big 3. Sure I appreciate their matches but please it's been almost 15 years now. The women's side does look good.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

The ATP round 4 has everything you just mentioned as well with the likes of Tsits, Thiem, Zverev, Khachanov, and Paire. Now, the only difference is the big 3 essentially are your Sloan, Muguruza, and Halep.

Wrong, the WTA doesn't have the big 3. The big 3 are named that because they've been around for 15+ years and hold over 35 slams but are all now nearing the end of their careers. Muguruza, Halep and Sloane however are either just starting or are mid way through there careers... They are not at all the same.

Serena was the WTA equivalent to the big 3. She was the one who won all the big titles like the big 3 still do now but her time is done and the next gen are taking over, however that's not happening on the ATP tour which is the point i'm making. You say Tsitsiipas, Thiem, Zverev, Khachanov and Paire are the WTA equivalent except none of them have slam titles because nobody under 30 has a slam title on the ATP tour.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Wrong, the WTA doesn't have the big 3. The big 3 are named that because they've been around for 15+ years and hold over 35 slams but are all now nearing the end of their careers. Muguruza, Halep and Sloane however are either just starting or are mid way through there careers... They are not at all the same.

Serena was the WTA equivalent to the big 3. She was the one who won all the big titles like the big 3 still do now but her time is done and the next gen are taking over, however that's not happening on the ATP tour which is the point i'm making. You say Tsitsiipas, Thiem, Zverev, Khachanov and Paire are the WTA equivalent except none of them have slam titles because nobody under 30 has a slam title on the ATP tour.

Who? Please tell me who is taking over women's tennis! Have not seen it, Maybe Osaka will but she is not on that list. Like you said, SW time is done, not cause she was forced out by the younger players. The men's young players are just as good and will be just as accomplished once the big 3 leave.

To say that because the young guys have yet to push out the three greatest players to ever play, that they are not any good, is laughable. Keys is equivalent to Nishikori, in fact nishikori is more successful in my opinion. The top competition for the young men is much more difficult than for the young women.

Who do these young WTA players fear? Halep? Kerber? Pliskova? Williams? Muguruza? Oh wait what about Ostapenko?

ATP men have Djokovic, Nadal, and Fed to deal with, and yes they are still playing at a great level.

 

[Lleytonstation]

When I look at those lists for the 4th round, what I see in the men's is a definitely lock for a Djokovic Nadal final with Nadal winning. Not because the young guys are not good (and maybe they won't be), but because they are ATG's who should be in the final.

When I look at the WTA list, I literally would believe any one of them could win or be in the final. Literally, I mean Ostapenko anyone? Results like that don't happen in the ATP cause there is a wall at the top of great tennis players.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Who? Please tell me who is taking over women's tennis! Have not seen it, Maybe Osaka will but she is not on that list. Like you said, SW time is done, not cause she was forced out by the younger players. The men's young players are just as good and will be just as accomplished once the big 3 leave.

To say that because the young guys have yet to push out the three greatest players to ever play, that they are not any good, is laughable. Keys is equivalent to Nishikori, in fact nishikori is more successful in my opinion. The top competition for the young men is much more difficult than for the young women.

Who do these young WTA players fear? Halep? Kerber? Pliskova? Williams? Muguruza? Oh wait what about Ostapenko?

ATP men have Djokovic, Nadal, and Fed to deal with, and yes they are still playing at a great level.

Just love the excuses you make, it's the same crap we've heard for 8 years. Remember when Dimitrov was the next big thing? Gulbis? Raonic? Tomic? Kyrgios? Now it's Tsitsipas and Zverev (the latter has never made a slam SF for what it's worth) but they all end up bombing out. Meanwhile we've got multi slam winners like Muguruza and Osaka who are still so young and yet you're clinging onto the same people who won slams in 2008? Yeah that screams hope for the future.

Also, I can't help but laugh at you comparing Keys to Nishikori considering Madison is only 24 while Nishikori is 29.. yes 29!. Pretty **** poor comparison.

 

[oldmanfan]

Wrong, the WTA doesn't have the big 3. The big 3 are named that because they've been around for 15+ years and hold over 35 slams but are all now nearing the end of their careers. Muguruza, Halep and Sloane however are either just starting or are mid way through there careers... They are not at all the same.

Serena was the WTA equivalent to the big 3. She was the one who won all the big titles like the big 3 still do now but her time is done and the next gen are taking over, however that's not happening on the ATP tour which is the point i'm making. You say Tsitsiipas, Thiem, Zverev, Khachanov and Paire are the WTA equivalent except none of them have slam titles because nobody under 30 has a slam title on the ATP tour.

You understood the situation well (especially the bolded), yet you are still puzzled?

Serena won something like 10+ slams after turning 30. As dominant as the ATP's Big 3 were/are, none of them have done similar, not even close yet, with only Fedr winning 4 slams after turning 30. So following this logic, if ONE Serena was such a dominant gatekeeper at such an advanced age, then out of all the slams that she didn't win, if there had been TWO more Serenas (i.e. WTA's Djokodal equivalents), how many would be left for the rest of the WTA tour? The WTA has many younger slam winners bc Serena is fading, not bc of them beating her while she's in her pre-baby form. The ATP doesn't have this situation of the fading Fedalovic yet.

You're just looking at the rest of both tours outside of Fedalovic/Serena, but the two cases are not equivalent. On the ATP side, Fedalovic are still playing at a VERY high level, while on the WTA side, Serena is not. As a result, high playing level ATG on the ATP = 3, while high playing level ATG on the WTA = 0. Yet, we are to praise the youngsters on the WTA for being "luckier" by having 0 high playing level ATG to deal with while the ATP still has 3? 3 > 0, no?

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

1 player 20 and under

That's the hope

 

[Aussie Darcy]

You understood the situation well (especially the bolded), yet you are still puzzled?

Serena won something like 10+ slams after turning 30. As dominant as the ATP's Big 3 were/are, none of them have done similar, not even close yet, with only Fedr winning 4 slams after turning 30. So following this logic, if ONE Serena was such a dominant gatekeeper at such an advanced age, then out of all the slams that she didn't win, if there had been TWO more Serenas (i.e. WTA's Djokodal equivalents), how many would be left for the rest of the WTA tour? The WTA has many younger slam winners bc Serena is fading, not bc of them beating her while she's in her pre-baby form. The ATP doesn't have this situation of the fading Fedalovic yet.

You're just looking at the rest of both tours outside of Fedalovic/Serena, but the two cases are not equivalent. On the ATP side, Fedalovic are still playing at a VERY high level, while on the WTA side, Serena is not. As a result, high playing level ATG on the ATP = 3, while high playing level ATG on the WTA = 0. Yet, we are to praise the youngsters on the WTA for being "luckier" by having 0 high playing level ATG to deal with while the ATP still has 3? 3 > 0, no?

Actually, Muguruza defeated Serena in her pre pregnancy form to win her first slam at RG and also had beaten Serena at the French Open slam back in 2014. Kerber also beat Serena at a slam pre pregnancy.

The issue with the ATP is not the big 3. For the last 5+ years, several players of the so called 'next gen' from Nishikori to Raonic to Dimitrov to Cilic to Tsitsipas to Zverev to Thiem have been able to defeat members of the big 3 outside of slams and yet at the slams, nothing. In several circumstances, those same players at the slams haven't even lost to members of the big 3 but have lost to nobodies. Let's look at Zverev's slam losses since he's won a Masters in May 2017.

2017 RG: 1R - Verdasco
2017 Wimbleon: 4R - Raonic
2017 USO: 2R - Coric
2018 AO: 3R - Chung
2018 RG: QF - Thiem
2018 Wimbledon: 3R - Gulbis
2018 USO: 3R - Kohlschreiber
2019 AO: 4R - Raonic

Not once has he lost at a slam to a member of the big 3 at a slam so the point that the big 3 are holding back the next gen is just incredibly weak. It's due to the weak nature of the next gen.

 

[beard]

OP

So ATP has issues compared to WTA? Good example that older age has nothing to do with quality... Young WTA sucks...

But ok, you can go and watch great, young WTA, I'll stick to sucking ATP, and watch more great tennis that will come this weeks and in future...

 

[Aussie Darcy]

OP

So ATP has issues compared to WTA? Good example that older age has nothing to do with quality... Young WTA sucks...

But ok, you can go and watch great, young WTA, I'll stick to sucking ATP, and watch more great tennis that will come this weeks and in future...

It's more about the future of the tour. I enjoy watching both tours but in terms of popularity the youngsters aren't doing themselves any favours.

Many of us would know casual tennis fans who tune in just for Federer and Nadal but who's filling that gap in viewership once they're gone? That's the issue at play.

 

[oldmanfan]

Actually, Muguruza defeated Serena in her pre pregnancy form to win her first slam and also had beaten Serena at a slam back in 2014. Kerber also beat Serena at a slam pre pregnancy. Svitolina scored a number

The issue with the ATP is not the big 3. For the last 5+ years, several players of the so called 'next gen' from Nishikori to Raonic to Dimitrov to Cilic to Tsitsipas to Zverev to Thiem have been able to defeat members of the big 3 outside of slams and yet at the slams, nothing. In several circumstances, those same players at the slams haven't even lost to members of the big 3 but have lost to nobodies. Let's look at Zverev's slam losses since he's won a Masters in May 2017.

2017 RG: 1R - Verdasco
2017 Wimbleon: 4R - Raonic
2017 USO: 2R - Coric
2018 AO: 3R - Chung
2018 RG: QF - Thiem
2018 Wimbledon: 3R - Gulbis
2018 USO: 3R - Kohlschreiber
2019 AO: 4R - Raonic

Not once has he lost at a slam to a member of the big 3 at a slam so the point that the big 3 are holding back the next gen is just incredibly weak. It's due to the weak nature of the next gen.

I knew you would cite some slam winners that has beaten Serena in slams. But that's the problem on the ATP side. If someone beats one of Fedalovic, there are still two more. On the WTA side, if someone beats Serena in a slam (at any round), then that slam is wide open. That's the difference.

True, Z has underperformed in slams. But why look at only the youngsters and exclude the guys 3-6yrs older too, with the timeframe of the last few years? I'm looking at the tours as a whole. 1 prime-Serena is simply an easier roadblock compared to the 3 prime-Federer/Nadal/Djokovic, in regards to reaching finals to have chances to win slams. Cilic/Delpo/Anderson/Thiem made slam finals recently. Before then, guys like Tsonga/Berdych/etc. made QFs and SFs many times combined, but they were stopped by Fedalovic. On the WTA, the only real hurdle is Serena, so it's easier for more players to reach finals, even in Serena's prime.

To be fair, I do agree that the WTA has better youngsters, but not by a large margin. And we can't know for sure since, like I said in my last post, the WTA has 0 ATG playing well compared to the ATP having 3.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I knew you would cite some slam winners that has beaten Serena in slams. But that's the problem on the ATP side. If someone beats one of Fedalovic, there are still two more. On the WTA side, if someone beats Serena in a slam (at any round), then that slam is wide open. That's the difference.

True, Z has underperformed in slams. But why look at only the youngsters and exclude the guys 3-6yrs older too, with the timeframe of the last few years? I'm looking at the tours as a whole. 1 prime-Serena is simply an easier roadblock compared to the 3 prime-Federer/Nadal/Djokovic, in regards to reaching finals to have chances to win slams. Cilic/Delpo/Anderson/Thiem made slam finals recently. Before then, guys like Tsonga/Berdych/etc. made QFs and SFs many times combined, but they were stopped by Fedalovic. On the WTA, the only real hurdle is Serena, so it's easier for more players to reach finals, even in Serena's prime.

To be fair, I do agree that the WTA has better youngsters, but not by a large margin. And we can't know for sure since, like I said in my last post, the WTA has 0 ATG playing well compared to the ATP having 3.

And yet Wawrinka was able to win 3 slams in the same time frame as many of these youngsters.

I understand your point that they have to compete against 3 ATG's instead of just 1 Serena but a lot of the time they aren't even losing to one of the big 3 and instead just choke earlier and let's not pretend there hasn't been chances for these younger players to win a slam by just having to defeat one of the big 3, 2018 Australian Open with Thiem comes to mind.

My point stands, the future of the ATP is looking grim with a lack of youngsters who just keep losing to older players. Look, you had Borna Coric who's 22 lost to 29 year old Struff yesterday. That's not great.

 

[oldmanfan]

And yet Wawrinka was able to win 3 slams in the same time frame as many of these youngsters.

I understand your point that they have to compete against 3 ATG's instead of just 1 Serena but a lot of the time they aren't even losing to one of the big 3 and instead just choke earlier and let's not pretend there hasn't been chances for these younger players to win a slam by just having to defeat one of the big 3, 2018 Australian Open with Thiem comes to mind.

My point stands, the future of the ATP is looking grim with a lack of youngsters who just keep losing to older players. Look, you had Borna Coric who's 22 lost to 29 year old Struff yesterday. That's not great.

You focus on 'upsets' like Struff beating Coric, or a LostGen beating a NextGen. Well, they are called upsets for a reason, but more importantly, not all youngsters are better than oldsters. Exhibit A: Wawrinka winning his first slams at 28 or so. How about Anderson? Age matters, but it's not everything.

Personally, I think it's easier for youngsters on the WTA side to find earlier success bc the WTA tour is more inconsistent. Look at Kostyuk/Gauff/Anisimova/etc. Gauff just turned 15 (I think?), but I think she can be competitive in the WTA right now bc of how inconsistent many main tour players are, though I don't 'yet' think she'll be an ATG as many touted her to be. Anisimova, I think she'll be pretty good tbf. Kostyuk, hmm, not sure about her. Similarly aged/level of players like those, but on the ATP, would not be as successful mainly due to how much harder it is to beat the top20-30 ATP players. I think a De Minaur equivalent on the WTA would be more successful that he has been on the ATP as he has yet to beat a top20 (I think?).

If you pose this thread before Tsits/Z/Shapo/FAA showed up, it would hit the mark better. After seeing those 4 in the last 2 years, the ATP is catching up pretty close to the WTA, future-wise, IMO (I would include Medvedev/Karen and a few slightly lessser players, too). On the WTA, the only proven elite youngster to me is Osaka. I can see Sabalenka/Yastremska/Anisimova/(Vandrousova (very high marks of what little I've seen of her in 2019)) doing well, but time will tell. Vandrousova might be the best of that bunch. Muguruza/Halep/Pliskova were supposed to hold the fort down, but only Halep has truly proved to be consistent. But if we remove the Big 3 on the ATP, Z/Thiem/Tsits would be their equivalent.

I agree that tennis will take a hit once the Big 3 leaves, but that's still a few years out. And that's a few years for guys like Tsits/Z/Shapo/FAA to establish and prove themselves. Who knows, may one, or more, young Fedalovic may pop up to keep them company.

 

[ChrisRF]

I don’t see the "issue" here. If older players are good than it means that rather today the fitness level can be preserved for a longer time due to better training methods and progression in sports medicine or it simply means that technical skills are more important than pure power and fitness.

I believe both factors exist and I don’t see a problem in any of them, but rather the opposite.

 

[Red Rick]

Is it biology or level of the tour?

90% the level of the Tour.

Obviously older guys are declining less quickly then they used to, but the simple fact is that almost all dudes in their physical primes right now can't put the slightest dent into a group of far better tennis players who are past their physical peak.

It is absolutely unfunny how slow guys like Del Potro and Wawrinka have gotten and they still keep winning **** cause people are just too bad to exploit it.

 

[tennisaddict]

Is this a pre-emptive defense thread from folks pointing out that all of ATP top 10 made it to Round of 16 while I think only 1 top 10 player made it in Womens ??

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Well, that makes it 7 out of the last 16 under 30. So it's a pretty good place to be. Consider further that three are 25 or under - Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas. And the low number (1) of women over 30 in the last 16 simply points to their lack of staying power. Unless you are implying Fedalovic are staying in the top echelons without playing high level tennis which you know is simply not true.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

You focus on 'upsets' like Struff beating Coric, or a LostGen beating a NextGen. Well, they are called upsets for a reason, but more importantly, not all youngsters are better than oldsters. Exhibit A: Wawrinka winning his first slams at 28 or so. How about Anderson? Age matters, but it's not everything.

Personally, I think it's easier for youngsters on the WTA side to find earlier success bc the WTA tour is more inconsistent. Look at Kostyuk/Gauff/Anisimova/etc. Gauff just turned 15 (I think?), but I think she can be competitive in the WTA right now bc of how inconsistent many main tour players are, though I don't 'yet' think she'll be an ATG as many touted her to be. Anisimova, I think she'll be pretty good tbf. Kostyuk, hmm, not sure about her. Similarly aged/level of players like those, but on the ATP, would not be as successful mainly due to how much harder it is to beat the top20-30 ATP players. I think a De Minaur equivalent on the WTA would be more successful that he has been on the ATP as he has yet to beat a top20 (I think?).

If you pose this thread before Tsits/Z/Shapo/FAA showed up, it would hit the mark better. After seeing those 4 in the last 2 years, the ATP is catching up pretty close to the WTA, future-wise, IMO (I would include Medvedev/Karen and a few slightly lessser players, too). On the WTA, the only proven elite youngster to me is Osaka. I can see Sabalenka/Yastremska/Anisimova/(Vandrousova (very high marks of what little I've seen of her in 2019)) doing well, but time will tell. Vandrousova might be the best of that bunch. Muguruza/Halep/Pliskova were supposed to hold the fort down, but only Halep has truly proved to be consistent. But if we remove the Big 3 on the ATP, Z/Thiem/Tsits would be their equivalent.

I agree that tennis will take a hit once the Big 3 leaves, but that's still a few years out. And that's a few years for guys like Tsits/Z/Shapo/FAA to establish and prove themselves. Who knows, may one, or more, young Fedalovic may pop up to keep them company.

I never mentioned Coco Gauff or Kostyuk, not sure what that's about. Neither have made a slam 4R. Gauff has done literally nothing yet cause she's only 15. Also, I never said that these players will be the next ATG. Osaka, Kerber, Muguruza etc. Players don't 'have' to be ATG's. Hewitt isn't, Safin isn't, Ivanovic isn't, Capriarti isn't. We've become used to ATG's thanks to the big 3 and Serena and Venus but this hasn't necessarily been the norm. There can be a few slam champs without one huge dominant force that has twice the points of #2 (like Djokovic currently has)

Also, the ATP is not catching up to the youngster level of the WTA. Shapovalov bombed out, all the others haven't really fared much better with Zverev playing a billion 5 setters and Thiem's dropped a set every match. Khachanov isn't slam winning material or even slam SF material yet. The WTA meanwhile have proven a number of youngsters, sure they might have lost already at this French Open but that doesn't mean they are completely out of the mix. After all, it is quite common (on both tours) for players to not do so well on clay but be great on grass and hard. Ash Barty's name has to be thrown into the ring, as does Sloane. Anisimova is incredibly young but already showing herself to be a force to be reckoned with. The problem is that on the men's side players can have their breakthroughs outside of slams but just are awful at slams, the same isn't true for the WTA.

 

[Gazelle]

So the WTA struggles with longevity of their players...doesn't manage to keep their main players in the spotlights long enough to attract many people.

Nowadays most WTA champions win a slam, become complacent and disappear.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

So the WTA struggles with longevity of their players...doesn't manage to keep their main players in the spotlights long enough to attract many people.

Nowadays most WTA champions win a slam, become complacent and disappear.

Most?

Ostapenko.

1. That's one.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Aussie Darcy

Simple question, which R16 matches are better products to sale to the public - the WTA side or the ATP one? At the end of the day, they play to entertain people and age shouldnt be a factor. You also have to aknowledge the fact that women need to have children and look after them and they cant play deep in their 30's like the males.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Aussie Darcy

Simple question, which R16 matches are better products to sale to the public - the WTA side or the ATP one? At the end of the day, they play to entertain people and age shouldnt be a factor. You also have to aknowledge the fact that women need to have children and look after them and they cant play deep in their 30's like the males.

And yet Serena, Azarenka, Venus and more are still hanging around. While it used to be that women would retire and have children, this just isn't the case anymore. From Henin to Clijsters to Serena to Azarenka, the women can leave the tour for a year or two and return.

As for the R4 matches: I will agree with you that I and probably the majority of viewers are more excited for the men's matches than the women's. But i'm not viewing it from a current standpoint. I'm viewing it from a future standpoint. The ATP is in very safe hands right now with Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. That's clear. Meanwhile the WTA is finding it's feet with a few different slam champions and top players. But in a few years the ATP will have lost Djokovic, Nadal and Federer and no successor has shown them who will take over. Meanwhile, the WTA has and will have set in stone it's current crop of top players. For several years the ATP has desperately tried to find the successors to the big 3, so much so that it created that stupid next gen tournament. Yet it's failed. That's what my point is.

 

[tennisaddict]

And yet Serena, Azarenka, Venus and more are still hanging around. While it used to be that women would retire and have children, this just isn't the case anymore. From Henin to Clijsters to Serena to Azarenka, the women can leave the tour for a year or two and return.

As for the R4 matches: I will agree with you that I and probably the majority of viewers are more excited for the men's matches than the women's. But i'm not viewing it from a current standpoint. I'm viewing it from a future standpoint. The ATP is in very safe hands right now with Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. That's clear. Meanwhile the WTA is finding it's feet with a few different slam champions and top players. But in a few years the ATP will have lost Djokovic, Nadal and Federer and no successor has shown them who will take over. Meanwhile, the WTA has and will have set in stone it's current crop of top players. For several years the ATP has desperately tried to find the successors to the big 3, so much so that it created that stupid next gen tournament. Yet it's failed. That's what my point is.

That is a fair assessment.

The big 3 winning everything in sight is impacting tennis. It will probably be better if they are around and grab 1 major a year among them and the rest is taken by a mix of the next gen.

 

[Bukmeikara]

As for the R4 matches: I will agree with you that I and probably the majority of viewers are more excited for the men's matches than the women's. But i'm not viewing it from a current standpoint. I'm viewing it from a future standpoint. .

Your statement implies that "downs" and "lows" are bad for tennis when in reality, life goes in cycles - constant ups and downs. We shouldnt be afraid of losing the "up". Life should be lived in the present moment and right now we have Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Instead of accepting the joy they give us, we worry about the future and what might be. Whats the point? The future never arrives...

Edit: Also most women who stay in their 30's are the ones with huge egos - Azarenka, Willams, Sharapova.

 

[sredna42]

Is it biology or level of the tour?

A generation of kids having a gamestyle hardwired into them that yields immediate and consistent rewards but that has a low ceiling

 

[helterskelter]

I actually think both men's and women's tour are a bit of a mess at the moment. The men's is too top heavy, the women's isn't enough. They've both had more interesting periods. The golden age of women's tennis in my tennis-watching lifetime was probably from about 1998 through about 2003. There were also some interesting years in the early 1990s until the Seles' stabbing.

 

[ollinger]

Why is this necessarily a bad thing?

Problematic for the future of the tour

All these imagined problems!! I keep reading on this forum that people are more interested in ATP than WTA matches, so it seems not to be a problem. And when the dominant players of today leave, we may see that the players winning are again players who've been around for a little while. Does anyone really care? Do you watch matches thinking "gee I wish there was a 20 year old with some titles." I don't.

 

[helterskelter]

And yet Serena, Azarenka, Venus and more are still hanging around. While it used to be that women would retire and have children, this just isn't the case anymore. From Henin to Clijsters to Serena to Azarenka, the women can leave the tour for a year or two and return.

As for the R4 matches: I will agree with you that I and probably the majority of viewers are more excited for the men's matches than the women's. But i'm not viewing it from a current standpoint. I'm viewing it from a future standpoint. The ATP is in very safe hands right now with Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. That's clear. Meanwhile the WTA is finding it's feet with a few different slam champions and top players. But in a few years the ATP will have lost Djokovic, Nadal and Federer and no successor has shown them who will take over. Meanwhile, the WTA has and will have set in stone it's current crop of top players. For several years the ATP has desperately tried to find the successors to the big 3, so much so that it created that stupid next gen tournament. Yet it's failed. That's what my point is.

I like this post, but I also want to point out a few things about the history of the women's tour:

1. It's not strictly true that the past truth was that women peaked and retired earlier than men. It is true that women were competitive earlier. That's for the obvious reasons that girls mature physically at a younger age and that there is far less difference in strength between a teenage girl and an adult woman than there is between a teenage boy and an adult man. Hence there were 16-year-old Slam champions in women's tennis (Austin, Seles, Hingis), 14-year-old Slam semi-finalists (Capriati), 15-year-old Slam semi-finalists (Jaeger, Seles), a 16-year-old #1 (Hingis), and most top women in the 1970s-90s won majors as a teen. However, at the older end of the range, there were always some women competing just as late as any man. Navratilova won Wimbledon at 33, was runner-up at the US Open at 34, and runner-up at Wimbledon at 37. No man matched those stats in her generation - even Agassi, a generation younger, won his last Slam at 32 and made his last Slam final at 35. Even today, no man has yet made a Slam final at 37 or older. And while Navratilova was somewhat exceptional, Evert was still in the top four at 34 and made a Slam final at 33, which was significantly older than McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Sampras, or even Connors (whose last Slam final was at 31 - although he did go on making semis until the day of his 39th birthday). My sense growing up was that the age range at which women were competitive was longer than that for men, because women could compete at a younger age but could go on equally long, if not longer.
2. Even before I was born, Margaret Court won Slams as a mother, while Evonne Goolagong also did so before I started watching tennis. So, it's been possible to leave the tour and return since at least the 1970s.
3. It's not only the future in which women's tennis might be more popular than men's. In the late 90s/early 2000s, women's tennis was booming in popularity while men's tennis was in a transitional era. I don't know that the majority of viewers were more excited for women's matches, but women's tennis definitely made more headlines than did men's for a good five years or so.
4. I think that both men's and women's tours are a bit weak at the moment. The men's is too top heavy but the women's needs a bit more consistency at the top.

 

[tacou]

I think we're lucky to have the three greatest players of all time playing for such a long time and should enjoy it while we can. As well as this, I think it should be celebrated and admired that players are able to play well into their 30s and stay at the top of the game. It just depends on how you look at it.

I’ll enjoy fedal as long as I can, but the big three are only three spots in the draw. similarly, I’m happy for the likes of Mayer, but can still be quite disappointed in the younger players, which I am.

True, but do we know who these "young" women are that are taking over? Osaka is not on that list. So who are these future greats that are leading the charge in the women's game?

Come on. Osaka isn’t in the R16 because she just had a 16 match winning streak at majors snapped. Is she a future 10+ slam winner? Who knows, but she and Muguruza have already won multiple titles. Their achievements dwarf those of younger ATP players.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Just love the excuses you make, it's the same crap we've heard for 8 years. Remember when Dimitrov was the next big thing? Gulbis? Raonic? Tomic? Kyrgios? Now it's Tsitsipas and Zverev (the latter has never made a slam SF for what it's worth) but they all end up bombing out. Meanwhile we've got multi slam winners like Muguruza and Osaka who are still so young and yet you're clinging onto the same people who won slams in 2008? Yeah that screams hope for the future.

Also, I can't help but laugh at you comparing Keys to Nishikori considering Madison is only 24 while Nishikori is 29.. yes 29!. Pretty **** poor comparison.

Remember all those ATG in the women's game the last decade? Oh yeah, there was one, and one only, so if she loses a match, someone new will win.

You scoff at Wawrinka as well, then you simply don't know tennis. You say your a big 3 fan but you yourself can't understand the difference between them and just SW?

You are asking the men's tour to climb a much, much higher wall. Plus, about half that women's draw will not exists at Wimbledon 4th round, where most of those men will be. Simple fact, I can name a young gun on the ATP for every one of yours on the WTA that will be just as successful.

Your "hot shot" young women have no one to go through, simple as that. Don't say Halep or Muguruza either, because if you scoff at Wawa, you can't consider those any good.

Either way, it is clear you and I disagree here, I believe the big 3 make it almost impossible to break through, you don't. I believe women's tennis is inconsistent compared to men, you don't.

All I wanted to do originally, is state that the top men in the draw are still there (a few of them are young by the way), and the top women are not. I told you this list can say a lot and be argued in many directions...

 

[Harry_Wild]

Woman side children and do not workout as hard as the men do!

 

[Phoenix1983]

Well, that makes it 7 out of the last 16 under 30. So it's a pretty good place to be. Consider further that three are 25 or under - Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas. And the low number (1) of women over 30 in the last 16 simply points to their lack of staying power. Unless you are implying Fedalovic are staying in the top echelons without playing high level tennis which you know is simply not true.

3 out of 16 being under 25 isn’t good by any stretch. In most eras, you’d expect around half the players to be under 25.

I looked at the equivalent slams from 25 and 50 years ago;

- 1994 French: 12 out of 16 under 25
- 1969 French: 5 out of 16 under 25

It’s interesting that this era most closely resembles the early Open Era, in terms of the same guys dominating to an older age.

I should point out though, that it’s not just a case of Fedalovic remaining dominant. We have guys like Stan, Delpo and Fognini getting through to the latter stages still. Karlovic just became the first man since the 1970s to play and win a slam match in his 40s.

The era of the great Aussies finally ended when Connors and Borg exploded on to the scene in 1974. We’re yet to see equivalent players from today’s Next Gen - and I doubt we will for a few years yet...