Do you remember that time when people here said that players over 30 won‘t win many slams?

[Mainad]

Do you know what an outlier is?

Yes, why? Do you think the Bryans and Dr.Ivo are outliers?

 

[Krish872007]

You can't predict these kinds of things really. There's a reason it's calling "setting a precedent".

 

[Tornes]

Ivo is, mainly because of his serve. Don't watch Bryans too much however it is and always was quiet common to play doubles in much higher age than singles.

Yes, why? Do you think the Bryans and Dr.Ivo are outliers?

 

[Eren]

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.

Fed fans copied the excuse from Sampras fans who declared that 29-year-old Sampras was old when he lost to zygote Fed at Wimbledon. Now, thanks to a lot of posters, we know that was actually peak Sampras and therefore Fed's grass GOATness is a fact.

 

[KINGROGER]

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.

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.

Not imaginary.

 

[MeatTornado]

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.

So if a 25 year old Federer suddenly showed tomorrow, you think 31/32 year old Novak/Rafa would still be in charge of the sport and beating him at the same rate their younger selves did to 30s Federer?

 

[abmk]

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.

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.

just more ignorant stuff from the guys who don't have a clue about how few guys won a slam after their 30s in the open era before the last 5-6 years.
And of course the pathetic mug gen (raonic, nishi, dimi) and the new gen(not yet capable) is obviously helping Nadal/Djokovic now..helped Fed as well in 17-early 18.

 

[AceSalvo]

yes. Proved wrong because of Lost Gen/Useless Next Gen I/ Above Avg Next Gen II.

Haven't seen anyone of the caliber of Roddick/Hewitt to even begin with.

"Federer, Nadal On Top Because Next Generation Is 'Very Bad': Marat Safin" That from a pro. Pretty serious indeed.

 

[upchuck]

just more ignorant stuff from the guys who don't have a clue about how few guys won a slam after their 30s in the open era before the last 5-6 years.

We have a clue. The point is even when the trend-lines were clearly shifting you all clung to your dated notions (for entirely self-serving reasons).

 

[Hyde]

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?

Well, even in times when Serena Williams already proved that claim about 30+ players not winning slams wrong, people here still said that Djokovic and Nadal cannot do it „because of history“.

 

[abmk]

We have a clue. The point is even when the trend-lines were clearly shifting you all clung to your dated notions (for entirely self-serving reasons).

yeah, enlighten all of us when it was clear that the trend lines were clearly shifting.
it wasn't clear or shifting in 11/12 when fed was losing to 5/6 year younger prime ATGs.

Also where is anyone remotely close to even delpo/roddick/murray/stan/hewitt/roddick level of talent with semblance of performance 5-10 years younger to Nadal/Djokovic , let alone at Nadal/Djokovic level?

You know there was actually,uh, a competitive field back then.