Do you remember that time when people here said that players over 30 won‘t win many slams?
- Thread starter Hyde
- Start date
Spencer Gore
Legend
We're certainly sailing in previously uncharted waters. The way Nadal and Djokovic have played this tournament you can't see it changing any time soon.
ollinger
G.O.A.T.
What uncharted waters? Lots of slams have been won by players 30 or older for decades
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Glitch in the system
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
Well, considering the course of tennis history they (we) were not unreasonable to think that way. How was anyone here to know that not 1, not 2 certainly 3, and arguably 4 players were going to rewrite the rules of what was possible in the sport?
If I'm right, Tilden won 5 slams after turning 30, that was almost 100 years ago, Rosewall and Laver won 4 apiece after, turning 30, that was going on 50 years ago. Since then I think the record is 2 By Connors and Agassi. Djokovic and Wawrinka are both at 2 now, with Novak almost certain to add to that number, Rafa's on 3 and could add to it, Fed's on 4. They're literally rewriting history, certainly Open Era history.
If I'm right, Tilden won 5 slams after turning 30, that was almost 100 years ago, Rosewall and Laver won 4 apiece after, turning 30, that was going on 50 years ago. Since then I think the record is 2 By Connors and Agassi. Djokovic and Wawrinka are both at 2 now, with Novak almost certain to add to that number, Rafa's on 3 and could add to it, Fed's on 4. They're literally rewriting history, certainly Open Era history.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Wawrinka just happens to be a late boomer. Murray came on very late in his career. Fed, Nad and Djok are just such special ones and collectively won so many slams in their 30s, but individually, each won 4 or less (Fed - 4, Nad - 3, Djok - 2). They may still win more, but definitely not at the rate they used to win in their 20s. Probably they will win no more than 5 each in their 30s.
Spencer Gore
Legend
When was the last time ten slams in a row were won by players over 30?
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Part you're wrong about is thinking it was only here.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
It’s not just people here, it’s everyone who has ever watched tennis. There were no great champions after the age of 30 in the Open era aside from Laver, Rosewall and Agassi. All of the greats either retired around age 3O or didn’t win events much after that age.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
At the start of the Open era you had a glut of the Pro Tour guys winning. Maybe not 10 in a row but quite a bit.
Djokovic is at 2 and Nadal at 3 but they haven't shattered the books yet. If Novak wins both guys are at 3 and then say they both win 2 more and sit at 5. That isn't a massive swing.
But people are now picking Nadal to win 7+ in his 30s and Novak 9+. If THAT happens it's pleasantville.
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Considering that developments in training, nutrition, rehabbing and stuff like that, players being physically okay for longer, albeit still slowing down, is to be expected.
Considering the ginormous void of talent in the 20-28, players who are supposed to be around their prime, it's not strange either.
People shouldn't act like Nadal, Djokovic and Federer aren't breaking the record books for this. They are, much more so because they're all doing it and because they're still cannibalising each other, which is the only reason the absolute record for post-30 Slams hasn't fallen yet.
Djokovic and Nadal just showed the entire world just how incredibly far ahead they are in Grand Slam tennis if they're healthy. Nadal has completely retooled his game, Djokovic basically confirmed he takes slow approaches and gradually increases his intensity during a two week tournament.
Every other player must be scared sh*tless. Nadal and Djokovic are widening the gap between Grand Slams and lesser tournaments, they're trivialising the damage to their aura of invincibility when they lose there.
Nadal and Djokovic will be 33 and 32 this year. Yet every single Grand Slam they play is theirs to lose, much more than anyone elses to win.
Considering the ginormous void of talent in the 20-28, players who are supposed to be around their prime, it's not strange either.
People shouldn't act like Nadal, Djokovic and Federer aren't breaking the record books for this. They are, much more so because they're all doing it and because they're still cannibalising each other, which is the only reason the absolute record for post-30 Slams hasn't fallen yet.
Djokovic and Nadal just showed the entire world just how incredibly far ahead they are in Grand Slam tennis if they're healthy. Nadal has completely retooled his game, Djokovic basically confirmed he takes slow approaches and gradually increases his intensity during a two week tournament.
Every other player must be scared sh*tless. Nadal and Djokovic are widening the gap between Grand Slams and lesser tournaments, they're trivialising the damage to their aura of invincibility when they lose there.
Nadal and Djokovic will be 33 and 32 this year. Yet every single Grand Slam they play is theirs to lose, much more than anyone elses to win.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
The big 3 getting their resumes fattened up by feasting on a generation of players that suffered a wrong turn in tennis evolution by trying to emulate their innate talent based techniques.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
It is really a set of circumstances very specific to tennis:
1) Multiple ATGs with different games at the same time in their 30ies
2) homogenization, robbing the younger players of their advantage in the reflexes and aggressiveness department, and giving advantage to the endurance and tactics of the older players
3) third generation in a row which for now doesn't demonstrate enough quality to challenge the top dogs (that might be a new record)
4) modern medical and training advances, that allow for the players with most money to literally invest in their health and form
5) divide between tennis and other pro sports in the income department, acting in the opposite way than the Open Era organisation and the subsequent popularisation of the sport, leading to lesser talent pool
6) loss of talent: the ineffectiveness of many a national tennis programmes that scrape players' talent, and the proliferation of tennis academies that teach nothing but blandness, thus giving less chance of natural talent to reveal itself (cannot stress enough how many times I have seen coaches insisting on THBH, just because thar is all that is being taught there, because it is "better")
7) loss of competitiveness due to exposure to fame and other social phenomenons, which was not a factor for the currently over 30 generations
In effect, we see a total inflation of many metrics by which we judge the greats of the sport, including Majors won
1) Multiple ATGs with different games at the same time in their 30ies
2) homogenization, robbing the younger players of their advantage in the reflexes and aggressiveness department, and giving advantage to the endurance and tactics of the older players
3) third generation in a row which for now doesn't demonstrate enough quality to challenge the top dogs (that might be a new record)
4) modern medical and training advances, that allow for the players with most money to literally invest in their health and form
5) divide between tennis and other pro sports in the income department, acting in the opposite way than the Open Era organisation and the subsequent popularisation of the sport, leading to lesser talent pool
6) loss of talent: the ineffectiveness of many a national tennis programmes that scrape players' talent, and the proliferation of tennis academies that teach nothing but blandness, thus giving less chance of natural talent to reveal itself (cannot stress enough how many times I have seen coaches insisting on THBH, just because thar is all that is being taught there, because it is "better")
7) loss of competitiveness due to exposure to fame and other social phenomenons, which was not a factor for the currently over 30 generations
In effect, we see a total inflation of many metrics by which we judge the greats of the sport, including Majors won
D
Deleted member 763024
Guest
I remember it when Federer was 27, 28 and this was being discussed. Agassi was seen an outlier because he'd been out of the game effectively for a while and that added a few years to the backend of his career.
Over 30s won't win slams. Once married + becoming dads no more slams.
We've heard a lot of stuff over the years, not just from keyboard warriors but experts and TV pundits. Guess there's a first time for everything, then that becomes the new norm and people forget how insistent they were that the trend would not be broken.
Federer and Del Potro
Bionic Poster
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Just wait till you see Djokovic vs Nadal in Australian Open final of 2030.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Scale it back brother. 2026.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
inb4 weak era
clout
Hall of Fame
What’s the third gen that can’t win?It is really a set of circumstances very specific to tennis:
1) Multiple ATGs with different games at the same time in their 30ies
2) homogenization, robbing the younger players of their advantage in the reflexes and aggressiveness department, and giving advantage to the endurance and tactics of the older players
3) third generation in a row which for now doesn't demonstrate enough quality to challenge the top dogs (that might be a new record)
4) modern medical and training advances, that allow for the players with most money to literally invest in their health and form
5) divide between tennis and other pro sports in the income department, acting in the opposite way than the Open Era organisation and the subsequent popularisation of the sport, leading to lesser talent pool
6) loss of talent: the ineffectiveness of many a national tennis programmes that scrape players' talent, and the proliferation of tennis academies that teach nothing but blandness, thus giving less chance of natural talent to reveal itself (cannot stress enough how many times I have seen coaches insisting on THBH, just because thar is all that is being taught there, because it is "better")
7) loss of competitiveness due to exposure to fame and other social phenomenons, which was not a factor for the currently over 30 generations
In effect, we see a total inflation of many metrics by which we judge the greats of the sport, including Majors won
There’s the dreadful lost gen from like 1989-1995, then there’s the next gen from 1996-1999/00.
O
OhYes
Guest
People were also saying Novak's 2011 was a fluke....
BGod
G.O.A.T.
If one divides into 89-92, 93-96 and 97-00 per 4 year intervals given 85-88 stands out that way.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
The third gen is the one to which Tsitsipas belongs.
It is too early for some of them to break through, but it is obvious (to me) that they will not supplant the ATGs by simply getting stronger or faster, so they need to put in a lot of work to see if they can do it.
The problem is not that they are not talented, the problem (to me) is that they are limited in the choices about the playing style they can develop to counter the vast experience of the ATGs.
It seems also that the natural selection pushes for taller and taller players, but they lack movement, and that is a big hole in their games.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Both Borg and Sampras retired after serious motivational issues that had little to do with the competition (more so for Borg than for Sampras, who was going downhill for some time before hanging the racquet).
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
Last edited:
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Theory was mostly propounded by Fed fans to find excuses for Federers losses to relatively younger Nadal, Djokovic and Murray on imaginary grounds of age.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
20 is also the new 10... ask nickie and bernieThe 30+ rule no longer applies in this day and age when 30 has become the new 20 (and 40 the new 30, just ask the Bryans and Dr Ivo).
Mainad
Bionic Poster
20 is also the new 10... ask nickie and bernie
Er yeah.......it doesn't always work out too well, does it???
upchuck
Hall of Fame
This is all.
By the time Federer was 30 his fans were saying it reflected poorly on Nadal and Djokovic that he was still beating him. Even in recent years when the age trends in tennis became clear, they clung to this notion. Now Nadal and Djokovic, soon 33 and 32, are about to split the fourth consecutive major and seem unlikely to stop winning anytime soon.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Where are the ATGs 5-6 years younger than Djokovic and Nadal, to see whether they will fare as well, just like Federer had them both?
Oh, I am not getting an answer to that question, I know.
Stilljonesing
Rookie
I agree on Wawrinka being a late bloomer but Murray was dominate from a young age when you look at all the SF's and Finals he made, he just had probably literally the 3 best players ever standing in his path. It wasn't until after Fed started to decline with age and some more injury/ slash burnout from the other two that he started to win and be #1 IMO. I think he always kept pretty hungry because he was getting the short straw so much, but I do think guys like Nadal and Djokovic probably had times in their career around that era they were less focused on winning at the rate they did where he took some oppertunity.
I actually think these guys that get injuries or struggled can actually comeback stronger and more focused like Aggasi in their early to mid 30's. Doubt they like to hear they are done.
Spencer Gore
Legend
So the answer is we've never had ten slams in a row won by players aged 30+.
As I said, we're in uncharted waters.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
The 30+ rule no longer applies in this day and age when 30 has become the new 20 (and 40 the new 30, just ask the Bryans and Dr Ivo).
Do you know what an outlier is?
If both Rafa and Novak show Federers longevity then i was very wrong. It has always been players who did well in their 30s, but it was the exception, not the rule. I thought maybe one of Murray/Djoko/Nadal would have a great post 30 career, but not two of them.
That being said, i still think its the exception, not the rule, but its safe to say that Nadal and Djokovic are exceptions of the sport. Federer is more or less the last man standing of his generation, and most of the players on tour older than 32/33 are clearly declined.
That being said, i still think its the exception, not the rule, but its safe to say that Nadal and Djokovic are exceptions of the sport. Federer is more or less the last man standing of his generation, and most of the players on tour older than 32/33 are clearly declined.
uscwang
Hall of Fame
I don't blame them except that they failed to see that the Big 3 are special and the 3 greatest players of the open and "close" era.
Pheasant
Legend
I admit it. I was completely wrong how often great players would win slam titles past the age of 30. When Nadal beat Federer at the 2008 Wimbledon match, I though that a few things were going to be the case:
1. Federer would maybe win 1 slam title past the age 30 since Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray would block Fed from winning them.
2. Nadal's big physique and extremely physical style would prevent him winning more than 1 slam past the age of 30. I figured that injuries would prematurely end his dominance.
So there you have it. I was wrong. I'll be wrong again and that's completely fine.
1. Federer would maybe win 1 slam title past the age 30 since Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray would block Fed from winning them.
2. Nadal's big physique and extremely physical style would prevent him winning more than 1 slam past the age of 30. I figured that injuries would prematurely end his dominance.
So there you have it. I was wrong. I'll be wrong again and that's completely fine.
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
Bold prediction: Players 38 and over won't win any slams.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Simply a combination of 3 things.
-The Big 3 are on an entirely different level than anyone else has been for many years.
-Advancements in everything you can imagine.
-No ATG to bump them from their spots which is the most important reason why they are still on top.
Look at all these guys retiring and making poor showings late in GS due to fatigue and lack of fitness. It's not normal what they have done. Just look around.
-The Big 3 are on an entirely different level than anyone else has been for many years.
-Advancements in everything you can imagine.
-No ATG to bump them from their spots which is the most important reason why they are still on top.
Look at all these guys retiring and making poor showings late in GS due to fatigue and lack of fitness. It's not normal what they have done. Just look around.
Similar threads
