If age is such a huge deal, and such a "valid" excuse for RF's losses, then let's just divide up the tour in categories.

UnderratedSlam

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
If age is so important (and it isn't) then we should have separate tennis tours.

One for NextGen, guys born from 1995-2001. So they don't have to wait a decade to start winning slams.

One for MidGen, players born from 1990-1994. Those poor bastards can finally win some slams this way.

One for the dominators, all those aged 1985-1989. That would include Wawrinka, Novak, Delpo, Fognini, Cilic, Nishikori (tough luck, Kei), Isner, Rafa among others. It's a safe bet that it would be the strongest and toughest tour for a while. And the one with the highest ratings.

And last but DEFINITELY not least, a tour for the 1984 and older. RF plays on this tour. He finally gets to play pros he can always beat, like during his heyday when he was in his prime/peak/shmeep.

By dividing up the tour - similar to boxing in a sense - RF NEVER has to play Novak and Rafa again, whereas the two of them have to play each other, a lot. RF can win easily many more slams in such a Disney World tennis tour. His fans would be thrilled. Or would they? Opinions?

That's the only way it seems to shut down this silly age excuse thing that's being going on for a whole decade now.
 
Last edited:
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
So you must be retired, if not, age 56 means you are still peaking? At what point does it matter? It seems to matter when speaking about Djoker being too young?
 
D

Deleted member 766172

Guest
What do you mean? Age is not an excuse, it is a reason for why he is not as good, physically, as he used to be. He has compensated with better tactics, larger racket head size, etc. Physical decline just happens.

Djokovic and Nadal have also declined.
 
UnderratedSlam

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
FRV2 said:
What do you mean? Age is not an excuse, it is a reason for why he is not as good, physically, as he used to be. He has compensated with better tactics, larger racket head size, etc. Physical decline just happens.
Click to expand...
Yes, but when you use this "logic", you set up a fake and unfair win-win situation for RF and a lose-lose situation for Novak and Rafa. If RF wins then "all hail the GOAT". If he loses, it's "he is too old, that match doesn't count, H2H is a joke and is irrelevant."

That's why we need separate tours. No more excuse and fact-spinning.
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
UnderratedSlam said:
I am not trolling.

I am simply taking the complaints that some (not all) RF fans have been making for a decade, and found a solution to solve this incredibly awful age problem.
Click to expand...
The problem with Fed is not that he is/was old, the problem is that he's 5-6 older than Djokovic and Nadal. You would've noticed this yourself if Nadal/Djokovic had an ATG born in 1991/1992 to compete with for the Slams instead of a platoon of waiters and mugs who aren't even good enough to tie the big 3's shoelaces.

And it did matter, you're not gonna sit here and tell me that Federer wasn't at a disadvantage against a 26-year old Djokovic when he was 32. Look at historical h2hs between guys like Connors, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, McEnroe, Becker, Sampras etc. The older guy almost always ends up with a string of consecutive losses and an overall losing h2h, Connors-Lendl being the prime example. This really isn't rocket science. Go look it up right now instead of spreading more BS.
 
UnderratedSlam

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
tennis_pro said:
The problem with Fed is not that he is/was old, the problem is that he's 5-6 older than Djokovic and Nadal. You would've noticed this yourself if Nadal/Djokovic had an ATG born in 1991/1992 to compete with for the Slams instead of a platoon of waiters and mugs who aren't even good enough to tie the big 3's shoelaces.
Click to expand...
Becker is 7 years older than Lendl, 8 years older than McEnroe. Never ever was that used as an excuse by ANYBODY back in the 80s when Becker routinely beat Lendl in slams.
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
UnderratedSlam said:
Becker is 7 years older than Lendl, 8 years older than McEnroe. Never ever was that used as an excuse by ANYBODY back in the 80s when Becker routinely beat Lendl in slams.
Click to expand...
Because they weren't competing for the GOAT title so no-one cared.

Maybe Federer-Nadal is a special case but look at the pattern of the Federer-Djokovic h2h. Clearly Fed was all over him at the beginning, then it was even and then Djokovic took over. The problem for Fed was that most of their meetings were in 2011-2019, that's why Djokovic leads the h2h because there was no way a 6-year older Fed was gonna keep beating Djokovic on a consistent basis.
 
D

Deleted member 766172

Guest
UnderratedSlam said:
Yes, but when you use this "logic", you set up a fake and unfair win-win situation for RF and a lose-lose situation for Novak and Rafa. If RF wins then "all hail the GOAT". If he loses, it's "he is too old, that match doesn't count, H2H is a joke and is irrelevant."

That's why we need separate tours. No more excuse and fact-spinning.
Click to expand...
Yes, that does happen to an extent. But Nadal has declined (mainly in movement) to the point where losses to Fed aren't really surprising, so I don't think it occurs too much with him. Djokovic probably isn't going to lose to Federer unless he has a bad match. The Wimbledon Final was a bad match for Djoker and that's how Federer almost won.
 
UnderratedSlam

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
tennis_pro said:
Because they weren't competing for the GOAT title.
Click to expand...
False conclusion.

The age difference is often used to make excuses for the H2H and for RF's losses, and that has nothing EXCLUSIVELY to do with the GOAT debate, or not necessarily always. Some RF fans use certain matches and deny their value because of the age difference. Hence they are saying "these matches don't count".

We are talking about individual matches here, not just the "grand GOAT debate" that shouldn't even exist in the first place because it is so silly.
 
Nadal_Django

Nadal_Django

Legend
UnderratedSlam said:
If age is so important (and it isn't) that we should have separate tennis tours.

One for NextGen, guys born from 1995-2001. So they don't have to wait a decade to start winning slams.

One for MidGen, players born from 1990-1994. Those poor bastards can finally win some slams this way.

One for the dominators, all those aged 1985-1989. That would include Wawrinka, Novak, Delpo, Fognini, Cilic, Nishikori (tough luck, Kei), Isner, Rafa among others. It's a safe bet that it would be the strongest and toughest tour for a while. And the one with the highest ratings.

And last but DEFINITELY not least, a tour for the 1984 and older. RF plays on this tour. He finally gets to play pros he can always beat, like during his heyday when he was in his prime/peak/shmeep.

By dividing up the tour - similar to boxing in a sense - RF NEVER has to play Novak and Rafa again, whereas the two of them have to play each other, a lot. RF can win easily many more slams in such a Disney World tennis tour. His fans would be thrilled. Or would they? Opinions?

That's the only way it seems to shut down this silly age excuse thing that's being going on for a whole decade now.
Click to expand...
Good suggestion. Make them like boxing's weight classes, only here divided by age. This abuse of the young and potent Djokodal over 68 y/o crippled Federer on crutches, needs to stops once and for all.:mad:
 
UnderratedSlam

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
FRV2 said:
Yes, that does happen to an extent. But Nadal has declined (mainly in movement) to the point where losses to Fed aren't really surprising, so I don't think it occurs too much with him. Djokovic probably isn't going to lose to Federer unless he has a bad match. The Wimbledon Final was a bad match for Djoker and that's how Federer almost won.
Click to expand...
So you're saying the division of tours should have happened a decade ago?
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
UnderratedSlam said:
False conclusion.

The age difference is often used to make excuses for the H2H and for RF's losses, and that has nothing EXCLUSIVELY to do with the GOAT debate, or not necessarily always. Some RF fans use certain matches and deny their value because of the age difference. Hence they are saying "these matches don't count".

We are talking about individual matches here, not just the "grand GOAT debate" that shouldn't even exist in the first place because it is so silly.
Click to expand...
The F outta here with your "false conclusion" claims and then giving me yours like yours matter more.

If it were just individual matches nobody would've mentioned the age difference. You just can't grasp what we're witnessing in the last couple of years is a historical battle. It isn't just Lendl or Becker winning random Slams, the big 3 are going all out for history books, this is absolutely gigantic.

Another reason that it's mentioned is because Federer was so good that he dominated everyone his age so it took guys 5-6 younger to beat him. This has never happened before that the main rivals of a top player from his era were so much younger than him. Even for Rosewall-Laver the age difference wasn't as big and it clearly affected Rosewall at the end of their careers when he was losing a lot.
 
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
UnderratedSlam said:
So you agree RF should have had his own veteran tour since a decade ago?
Click to expand...
No, it is what it is, just like 20 slams is what it is. Fed is older, and he is still playing so age is NOT an excuse. However, I think most people bring this up when Fed haters post about why Fed sucks and starts going off and creating thread after thread about it.

Age should not be an excuse, but your blind if you cant see the difference in a 38 year old playing and a 32 year old.
 
UnderratedSlam

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
FRV2 said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Well, because with an early division we would have prevented the complicated "prime/peak/shmeep" mess that tennis is in. The peak/prime thing is the most scientifically complex subject in all of science. It is an intellectual maze we can't get out of.
 
UnderratedSlam

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
tennis_pro said:
The F outta here with your "false conclusion" claims and then giving me yours like yours matter more.

If it were just individual matches nobody would've mentioned the age difference. You just can't grasp what we're witnessing in the last couple of years is a historical battle. It isn't just Lendl or Becker winning random Slams, the big 3 are going all out for history books, this is absolutely gigantic.

Another reason that it's mentioned is because Federer was so good that he dominated everyone his age so it took guys 5-6 younger to beat him. This has never happened before that the main rivals of a top player from his era were so much younger than him. Even for Rosewall-Laver the age difference wasn't as big and it clearly affected Rosewall at the end of their careers when he was losing a lot.
Click to expand...
Ah, the arrogance of denying the relevance of Becker, Lendl and others... The wonderful bliss of ignorance that leads to zero respect for anybody who wasn't born in Switzerland in 1981, or Serbia 1987, or Spain in 1986...
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
UnderratedSlam said:
Yes, but when you use this "logic", you set up a fake and unfair win-win situation for RF and a lose-lose situation for Novak and Rafa. If RF wins then "all hail the GOAT". If he loses, it's "he is too old, that match doesn't count, H2H is a joke and is irrelevant."

That's why we need separate tours. No more excuse and fact-spinning.
Click to expand...
Well luckily for Nadal and Djokovic they don't have to go through this crap because guys younger than them suck so much like holy S they're pathetic.
 
D

Deleted member 766172

Guest
UnderratedSlam said:
Well, because with an early division we would have prevented the complicated "prime/peak/shmeep" mess that tennis is in. The peak/prime thing is the most scientifically complex subject in all of science.
Click to expand...
No division necessary. I don't think there is a problem currently.
 
UnderratedSlam

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
tennis_pro said:
Well luckily for Nadal and Djokovic they don't have to go through this crap because guys younger than them suck so much like holy S they're pathetic.
Click to expand...
Once again, you CONFIRM my suggestion that we need separate tours. By doing this Novak and Rafa can't play the extremely old RF or the "useless NextGen" players.

Glad you agree with me.
 
UnderratedSlam

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
tennis_pro said:
Wow, please go be dumb somewhere else.
Click to expand...
Why are you so offended?

You complained that Novak and Rafa play a useless NextGen batch of players, which is a problem that can be solved by dividing up the tour, so you no longer have to complain about their domination and "easy" victories.
 
UnderratedSlam

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
Nadal_Django said:
Instead of enjoying his tour right now consisted of Karlovic, Verdasco, Lopez, Kohlschreiber etc. Federer has to run around with spring chickens like Nadal, Djoko, Wawrinka... Damn ATP and their rigid system. :mad:
Click to expand...
The ATP is right now not very GOAT-friendly, but we can change that by giving RF's fans all they ever wanted: a young-player-free zone. A Rafa/Novak-free zone. Because they are so much younger (15 years by some accounts), they really have no business torturing a veteran who can barely walk.
 
weakera

weakera

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal is 33, and when Roger was 33, maestronians were ALREADY trying to qualify his results based on his age. They've been doing this since he was 30. It's a coping mechanism designed to protect against Roger's frequent shortcomings compared to his rivals over the last 10 years.
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
weakera said:
Nadal is 33, and when Roger was 33, maestronians were ALREADY trying to qualify his results based on his age. They've been doing this since he was 30. It's a coping mechanism designed to protect against Roger's frequent shortcomings compared to his rivals over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
Federer at 33 = Nadal at 28, Djokovic at 27.
Nadal at 33 = Federer at 38, Djokovic at 32.

See the difference?
 
weakera

weakera

Talk Tennis Guru
tennis_pro said:
Federer at 33 = Nadal at 28, Djokovic at 27.
Nadal at 33 = Federer at 38, Djokovic at 32.

See the difference?
Click to expand...

I do see the difference between rationality and delusion, yes. Crying "muh age" at every turn as maestronians do as if there is no nuance involved beyond the number is simply a coping mechanism, as stated. Nevermind the delicious irony in pointing out the supposed advantage Djokodal enjoy now while neglecting to acknowledge that maestro enjoyed the same theoretical advantage when facing baby versions of his rivals during his own prime years.
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
weakera said:
I do see the difference between rationality and delusion, yes. Crying "muh age" at every turn as maestronians do as if there is no nuance involved beyond the number is simply a coping mechanism, as stated. Nevermind the delicious irony in pointing out the supposed advantage Djokodal enjoy now while neglecting to acknowledge that maestro enjoyed the same theoretical advantage when facing baby versions of his rivals during his own prime years.
Click to expand...
You do know how age works, right? If I'm 5 years older than you I'm going to be 5 years older than you forever.
 
True Fanerer

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
There weren't any dummies back then in 70's/80's bragging about h2h over older players either. No one cared about h2h. I see you mentioning Becker and Lendl.
The dynamic is totally different now. It's not the same, nowhere close. The fact that Fedovic and Fedal have played each other so many more times is proof how weak the field has been. They were always seeded so high that they had to beat everyone else to make it there and more times than not that's what happened. This is a slam race now between three guys and Fed is at a disadvantage being nearly 40 years old. Look at Nadal slowing down. Look at the ATP as a whole and look at these draws. Look at the older players and what's happening to them. Dropping like flies. The gatekeepers that could sneak a win off the Big 3. GONE
 
Last edited:
kramer woodie

kramer woodie

Professional
Is it time to mention Pancho Segura who played until the age of 47 on the pro tour? Maybe even Laver, but he only lasted to age 40. Or how about
Richard Gonzales (hated being called Pancho) who played until age 44. One of the greatest matched every played at Wimbledon was between Gonzales (age 41) and 25 year old Charlie Pasarell. You can hear in a 2 part video Pasarell describe how the match went on U-tube. Also, at the age of 43, Gonzales known as a serve and volleyer playing from the baseline to beat a baseliner, 19 year old Jimmy Conners.

It should be noted, that Gonzales holds to this day the record for being the worlds #1 ranked player for eight years. Also, it should be mentioned that
Laver was 10 years younger than Gonzales. Their record playing head to head is:

Laver 1964 5 wins, 1965 9 wins, 1966 2 wins, 1967 9 wins, 1968 9 wins, 1969 7 wins, 1970 2 wins
verses
Gonzales 1964 7 wins, 1965 4 wins, 1966 4 wins, 1967 2 wins, 1968 2 wins, 1969 0 wins, 1970 3 wins

Not too bad for an old man past his prime of the 1950s and 10 years older than his rival.

Shalom
 
Last edited:
killerboss

killerboss

Professional
It's an interesting idea but a problem is that we would be deprived of the greatest 3 players of this era playing each other. Should just make it 20+ and 30+ tours. Since a lot of the players over 30 can beat the young players anyway, we wouldn't be missing much.
 
Enga

Enga

Hall of Fame
UnderratedSlam said:
Becker is 7 years older than Lendl, 8 years older than McEnroe. Never ever was that used as an excuse by ANYBODY back in the 80s when Becker routinely beat Lendl in slams.
Click to expand...
Nobody used it as an excuse because the internet didnt exist back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Third Serve
Age is a Valid Explanation for Decline in Form
2
Replies
85
Views
3K
itrium84
itrium84
UnderratedSlam
"Today's 33 is our 27." - Ivan Lendl explaining the Great Age Shift in tennis.
8 9 10
Replies
486
Views
23K
Drob
Drob
M
Why is Laver being such a hater?
2 3 4
Replies
170
Views
10K
kishnabe
kishnabe
W
  • Poll
RF in 2009: Time for a Coach?
Replies
29
Views
2K
S H O W S T O P P E R !
S H O W S T O P P E R !
Adv. Edberg
Explain to me how the slam race is valid like I'm a child
2 3
Replies
141
Views
3K
Karma Tennis
Karma Tennis
Top