For the 1st time in the 147-year history of grand slam tennis, no man under 30 holds a singles title


Tragic day upon us at last. You know the other thing I'm thinking? I cannot wait to see who breaks this streak, and more interestingly I want to see the gigantic gap from the birth year of the last guy to win their first major to the next one. I cannot imagine that in all tennis history there can have been a full decade or more gap in age from one major winner to the next. We're literally looking at two generations of players failing to win a slam.


john Hartley won wimby 1879 singles aged 30. the only "grand slam" title that year..

the previous winner by definition has lost his title seeing as he didn't win.


That truly is amazing when you think about, 147 years of tennis and it's happened for the first time. It just seems since the big 3 started playing that they are just taking every record off the book, or are at least contributing factors. Obviously there are records that they don't have, or are unable to obtain, but I'll tell you that list is growing awfully small, awfully fast


Now it's the perfect time to talk about changing stuff because "we don't like this situation" !!
And guess what possible proposals will sound - not helping young players but rather oldest one. Bring the carpet, make courts faster, give us shot clock, yadadada....

Just make Fedr retire, rest will follow...

Deleted member 77403

And Nadal was the world number one when it happened.

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
I've yet to see anyone comment on what this actually means.

Weak era? Somewhat, possibly.

40 is the new 30? Getting closer to the truth - improved training, nutrition, medicine, etc.

Go back a generation or two and look at photos of 40 year olds. Forty was old.

The average lifespan today is 80... average. Tennis players will be routinely playing to 40 in the near future.