Is 30+ plus the new tennis peak age ?

[Sidespin]

Ages of Major Finalists 2017

AO (Federer 35, Nadal 30)
FO. (Nadal 31, Wawrinka 32)
W. (Federer 35, Cilic 27)
USO (Nadal 31, Anderson 31)
Only one player, Cilic (now 28) was under 30.

Still just an anomaly or a trend?

Right below them you have the now 28/29 year old I major winners, Juan Martin Del Potro and Marin Cilic who IMO can still pull a Major win in the right circumstances.

The "close but no cigar" Berdych(31) Monfils (31) Gasquet (31) Tsonga (32) could still conceivably reach Qtrs or even SF's next year...

The "lost generation" of Dimitrov, Raonic, etc now 26 still haven't won a Major.

So if the young bucks, say 25 or younger don't step up to the plate in Majors in 2018 and with Novak, Murray and Wawrinka, all returning rested and hopefully recuperated from injuries, turning 31 and 33 in the first half of the year, has the tennis peak age shifted?

 

[Shaolin]

30 is like 23 now. Better training, nutrition, recovery techniques etc.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

People will say it's just due to weak field.

But I think the more fitness/endurance based nature of the tour favors an older player. Endurance athletes peak in their early 30s usually for example.

Also diet/fitness etc is better than ever so the grind of the tour is less trying (at least physically) and then acquired experience can also play a larger role.

 

[fedtennisphan]

Ages of Major Finalists 2017

AO (Federer 35, Nadal 30)
FO. (Nadal 31, Wawrinka 32)
W. (Federer 35, Cilic 27)
USO (Nadal 31, Anderson 31)
Only one player, Cilic (now 28) was under 30.

Still just an anomaly or a trend?

Right below them you have the now 28/29 year old I major winners, Juan Martin Del Potro and Marin Cilic who IMO can still pull a Major win in the right circumstances.

The "close but no cigar" Berdych(31) Monfils (31) Gasquet (31) Tsonga (32) could still conceivably reach Qtrs or even SF's next year...

The "lost generation" of Dimitrov, Raonic, etc now 26 still haven't won a Major.

So if the young bucks, say 25 or younger don't step up to the plate in Majors in 2018 and with Novak, Murray and Wawrinka, all returning rested and hopefully recuperated from injuries, turning 31 and 33 in the first half of the year, has the tennis peak age shifted?

I don't think peak age has shifted. If any of the big 4 or Stan had sucked hard, physically fallen or retired, then the younger generation would have won a slam by now.

 

[KINGROGER]

No. If there was a 23 year old Federer or Djokovic coming along, Fedal would've won nothing this year.

 

[papertank]

Modern techniques in fitness, nutrition and recovery make it possible for bodies to last much longer and even get more fit as players approach the end of their 20s. When the young guys lose their physical advantage, it becomes all about experience and mentality, which obviously favors the older players.

I still wouldn't say 30 is the new average peak age, because even though many players are having more success at that age, it is still easier to get injured and thus be inconsistent. I would say the new average peak age is 26-29, as opposed to 22-25 like it used to be.

Also, there is definitely an element of weak competition. The "lost generation" of players aged 24-28 just never had good enough players to compete with the previous generation, and now the next generation is quickly eclipsing them as well.

 

[sarmpas]

Hewitt and Safin took slam final wins off an ageing Sampras as the USO. If the 'nextgen' were any good they'd be beating these 30ish and over champions. I struggle to spot anyone of the nextgen ready to even rival Chang, Stich, Todd Martin, Rafter or Hewitt in achievements.

 

[BGod]

Nothing has changed it's all circumstantial.

That and great players are great.

Prime tennis age is always going to be 20-25 with a stretch to 30. Players can however maintain their level from 28-30 to 40 easier. But blood is blood. Biology doesn't change that quickly.

The Loser Generation coupled with tragic occurrences with Potro & Soderling, etc is how these things happen.

 

[Sidespin]

Other than Raonic, who of the younger generation has even reached a Major final?

When the bottom half of the USO fell out, it was the veteran 31 year old Kevin Anderson, coming back from injuries that made it to the finals. The other Semifinalist was 28 year old Juan Martin Del Potro.

The losing SF's at all the Majors:

AO; Wawrinka (30) Dimitrov (25)
FO: Murray (30) Thiem (23)
W: Berdych (30) Querrey (28)
USO: Del Potro (28) Carreno (26)

So of the 12 different semfinalists in Majors this year, only 3 were younger than 28.

So even outside the big 4, others 28+ stepped up to the plate in Majors this year. It used to be that 22-26 was considered peak tennis performance results not too long ago.

I would say better conditioning, nutrition, etc maintains/preserves the body better without changing the "biology" Perse.

 

[mike danny]

No. 23 year old Fed and Rafa would have dominated this year putting this theory to bed.

 

[mike danny]

People will say it's just due to weak field.

But I think the more fitness/endurance based nature of the tour favors an older player. Endurance athletes peak in their early 30s usually for example.

Also diet/fitness etc is better than ever so the grind of the tour is less trying (at least physically) and then acquired experience can also play a larger role.

I still don't believe a 30+ year old ATG would beat a 20+ year old ATG.

 

[jimmy0slams]

No, it's just that there is zero new talent coming in, are people really that naive to believe Federer and Nadal are THAT good ?
Imagine if Thiem/Zverev/Dmitrov/Raonic/Kryios actually lived up to expectations ?

Would they have split the 4 slams this year ?
doubt it ...

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I still don't believe a 30+ year old ATG would beat a 20+ year old ATG.

Nadal this year at RG would beat Borg peak imo

 

[abmk]

Nadal this year at RG would beat Borg peak imo

Nadal would play well, but in the end would lose in 4 sets with some untimely UEs and end up wondering what the hell happened vs peak Borg.

 

[zikzak]

It is not true in general. It is true in the current men's field, but it could change.

 

[tennis_pro]

No, the new generations are s**t.

Next thread.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Nadal would play well, but in the end would lose in 4 sets with some untimely UEs and end up wondering what the hell happened vs peak Borg.

Well then you must think peak/prime borg>peak/prime nadal. Since nadal was only better on clay in 08 and 12 arguably than this year.

 

[Sport]

No. If there was a 23 year old Federer or Djokovic coming along, Fedal would've won nothing this year.

Or a 24 years old Nadal by the way:

 

[abmk]

Well then you must think peak/prime borg>peak/prime nadal. Since nadal was only better on clay in 08 and 12 arguably than this year.

nah, he was better in 07 RG as well and in the 10 final ( raised his level considerably in the final vs Soderling).

I put peak/prime borg on par with peak/prime nadal on clay.

 

[KINGROGER]

Or a 24 years old Nadal by the way:

I omitted 2010 Nadal because he lost to Murray at the AO.

Fed and Djokovic were threats at all 4 slams. Nadal never was in the same year.

 

[mike danny]

Bottom line, no, the age of players peaking is not 30+. The younger guys are simply not that good, has nothing to do with the oldies being better.

Put 23 year old Nadal, Fed and Djoker this year and they would clean up the oldies.

Heck, even 23 year old Murray would clean up the oldies.

 

[ultradr]

Last 15 years:

1. Higher numbers of seeds at slams and masters.
2. Ranking system without bonus points for up and coming players.
3. Uniformly slow surface all year around.

Now you have the oldest ever top 50 in history !

This is here to stay unless 3 things above change...

 

[Druss]

Not! The thing is Federer and Nadal (& Djokovic) have had such high peaks compared to the rest of the field, that even in their decline due to age at say 80% of their peak level, they are still ahead. Only another ATG in his prime can consistently beat them and a younger generation of the likes of Safin/Hewitt would do damage, but sadly there are none.

 

[Meles]

Other than Raonic, who of the younger generation has even reached a Major final?

When the bottom half of the USO fell out, it was the veteran 31 year old Kevin Anderson, coming back from injuries that made it to the finals. The other Semifinalist was 28 year old Juan Martin Del Potro.

The losing SF's at all the Majors:

AO; Wawrinka (30) Dimitrov (25)
FO: Murray (30) Thiem (23)
W: Berdych (30) Querrey (28)
USO: Del Potro (28) Carreno (26)

So of the 12 different semfinalists in Majors this year, only 3 were younger than 28.

So even outside the big 4, others 28+ stepped up to the plate in Majors this year. It used to be that 22-26 was considered peak tennis performance results not too long ago.

I would say better conditioning, nutrition, etc maintains/preserves the body better without changing the "biology" Perse.

The game has gone baseline with Poly strings and is much, much more about stamina. Even Nadal really never had great success on US Open style hard courts until 2010. Nadal's 2017 US Open run shows how players well past their speed peak (age 24) still may develop their overall game to the highest of levels. Some very foolish posters on here seem to think younger players have a stamina advantage which is very far from the truth these days.

For me the most shocking development in 2017 was the emergence of NextGen on US Open hard courts. Rublev, Tiafoe, and Shapovalov have excellent weapons on the surface. Tiafoe is just an absolute physical beast for his age. They likely have a long, long way to go on hard courts. Tiafoe with his physique might be able to break through earlier. Shapovalov's offense on serve is quite stunning for his age. Most players need to be near their stamina peak to compete (an efficient serve game is a huge asset for effective slam stamina.)

 

[AceSalvo]

From 2008-2012, Federer was under constant pressure from the likes of young Murray, Djoko and Nadal.

From 2013-2017, Murray, Djoko and Nadal were challenged by some French Toons, Birdbrains and others who are nearing the end of their tennis lifecycle.

The above two eras pale in comparison and no its not because 30 is the new 20. There was and is a serious dearth in talent.

 

[Meles]

Bottom line, no, the age of players peaking is not 30+. The younger guys are simply not that good, has nothing to do with the oldies being better.

Put 23 year old Nadal, Fed and Djoker this year and they would clean up the oldies.

Heck, even 23 year old Murray would clean up the oldies.

Pretty sure Nadal's two major runs would not have been stopped by the younger versions. Hard to debate Djoko at Auz or younger Fed at Wimby. Not really sure why the all time best players at given events is the standard you wish to apply as a metric. Murray is a NO..

 

[Meles]

From 2008-2012, Federer was under constant pressure from the likes of young Murray, Djoko and Nadal.

From 2013-2017, Murray, Djoko and Nadal were challenged by some French Toons, Birdbrains and others who are nearing the end of their tennis lifecycle.

The above two eras pale in comparison and no its not because 30 is the new 20. There was and is a serious dearth in talent.

Laughable to talk about young Murray and Djokovic as true slam competition. They were early Poly baseliners, but still didn't have the stamina to win at majors for the most part. You might as well call Zverev at #3 this year strong competition.

 

[metsman]

Well then you must think peak/prime borg>peak/prime nadal. Since nadal was only better on clay in 08 and 12 arguably than this year.

I'd say Nadal was better on clay 07, 08, 10, 12 without a doubt compared to this year and 05, 06, 13 too. 11, 14 were similar at RG due to improved 2017 serve, maybe a little less stable at clay masters but I can see those versions of Djoker scoring wins over this year's Nadal too.

Nadal didn't face anyone this year who would really make him play defense. When Thiem once in a blue moon redlined that one match, Nadal couldn't handle it. You might need a refresher on how ridiculous Nadal's defense was back then and he could go on the offensive easily enough.

Federer on grass this year was similar to Nadal on clay. Dominant numbers but mostly faced a bunch of guys who weren't really any good in the grand scheme of things.

 

[70後]

Thing about the 30 year old, who survived at the top this long, is that they have acquired the knowledge asset that an 18 year old has not, while being equally fit and also physically accustomed to the rigors and stresses of the professional tour life.

Hence I think in the WTA, Azarenka will make a big comeback when she is ready. Her second career will be greater than her first.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

It certainly makes sense. Nutrition, training, recovery, sports science - these things have advanced rapidly during the careers of the big 3. If you add in the fact that not only are 30 - 35 year old players in good condition, they can compound that by having vastly more experience and tennis I.Q. than the younger players in the field. It is a dangerous combo which has led us to Roger winning 3 slams in his 30's and Rafa 2 & Stan winning 2. These guys aren't going to win everything but the still look very capable.

 

[mike danny]

Pretty sure Nadal's two major runs would not have been stopped by the younger versions. Hard to debate Djoko at Auz or younger Fed at Wimby. Not really sure why the all time best players at given events is the standard you wish to apply as a metric. Murray is a NO..

Yes, Nadal this year at the USO would have been beaten by the younger versions of himself, Fed and Djoker.

And 23 year old Murray would have easily reached this USO final.

 

[scotus]

Roger and Rafa have found a way to fool the biological passport.

Djokovic will get there, too. Very soon.

 

[Druss]

It certainly makes sense. Nutrition, training, recovery, sports science - these things have advanced rapidly during the careers of the big 3. If you add in the fact that not only are 30 - 35 year old players in good condition, they can compound that by having vastly more experience and tennis I.Q. than the younger players in the field. It is a dangerous combo which has led us to Roger winning 3 slams in his 30's and Rafa 2 & Stan winning 2. These guys aren't going to win everything but the still look very capable.

So sports science and nutrition has only improved drastically in last few years in tennis only? Give me a break! I don't see that improvement you're talking about in other racquet sports or boxing, football, basketball, athletics, cycling etc. Perhaps cycling and Athletics to a very small extent but that is more likely because of advanced doping than nutrition or what have you. I studied sports science and nutrition in the 90s, it was pretty advanced then too. Swimming is the one sport that keeps improving and that is because as humans we have only mastered 20-25% of our full potential in the water technique wise and the improvements we are seeing there is solely due to improved technique and not sports science or nutrition.

 

[TennisSprout]

I don't think so. Roger and Rafael might play brilliantly this year, but they definitely benefited from a lack of competition especially from top players like Djokovic and Murray. The week field peaked on USO, with 5 of top 11 players not even playing.

Hopefully, the competition will be better in 2018. I believe Roger and Rafael is still motivated and competitive as hell. But they might not be as successful as they are in 2017.

 

[InsideOut900]

Besides tier 3 players like Muller, Querray and Anderson(and even them briefly), no one has been anywhere near his peak this year from players that are 30+.

Only Thiem on clay and Zverev in Masters have shown progress and of course, Dimitrov had a good year, but neither are old.

So yeah, it is the weak field.

Nadal didn't face anyone this year who would really make him play defense. When Thiem once in a blue moon redlined that one match, Nadal couldn't handle it.

That's a great observation.
Guys like Fognini and Edmund troubled Nadal mighty in the clay Masters too.

On HC, every offensive player who was on it that day beat Nadal( or took sets off him in USO), except for Dimitrov in AO, that one being the one great win for Nadal.

 

[Meles]

Yes, Nadal this year at the USO would have been beaten by the younger versions of himself, Fed and Djoker.

And 23 year old Murray would have easily reached this USO final.

Have my doubts about 23 year old Murray versus the Anderson of 2017 given this recent result:
36/2015 R16 US Open Hard Kevin Anderson Andy Murray 7-6(5) 6-3 6-7(2) 7-6(0) 5.95 - 1.13

Still taking stock on Nadal 2017 at US Open, but much of his game even looks better than 2013. Really doubt Djoko2011 (who barely won the USO that year) and Federer 2004 beat today's Nadal given the trouble peak Fraud had with early Nadal:
9/2006 F Dubai Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 2-6 6-4 6-4 3.65 - 1.35
21/2005 SF FO - RG Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3 2.33 - 1.70
12/2005 F Miami Masters Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 2-6 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-3 6-1 1.13 - 7.04
13/2004 R32 Miami Masters Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-3 6-3 5.25 - 1.18

Nadal leagues better now on hard courts than these early years.

 

[Meles]

Besides tier 3 players like Muller, Querray and Anderson(and even them briefly), no one has been anywhere near his peak this year from players that are 30+.

Only Thiem on clay and Zverev in Masters have shown progress and of course, Dimitrov had a good year, but neither are old.

So yeah, it is the weak field.



That's a great observation.
Guys like Fognini and Edmund troubled Nadal mighty in the clay Masters too.

On HC, every offensive player who was on it that day beat Nadal( or took sets off him in USO), except for Dimitrov in AO, that one being the one great win for Nadal.

US Open has the weakest fields of the majors given that Fraud hasn't won here since 2008 and Djokovic is questionable at the event while Murray has been rather lucky. For Nadal this will be one of his better majors ongoing given the weakness of the rest of the Big 4.

I'd rate Anderson in 2017 very close to last year's two finalists. The guy was good enough to beat Murray in 2015 and his form was at another level this year. With Delpo showing up to play just wouldn't call it weak, just an unbalanced draw.

Pretty much off your rocker on Nadal if you're bringing up early clay matches with Edmund and Fognini. Nadal found some of his best form ever late in the clay season and the latter stages of this year's US Open.

 

[Meles]

So sports science and nutrition has only improved drastically in last few years in tennis only? Give me a break! I don't see that improvement you're talking about in other racquet sports or boxing, football, basketball, athletics, cycling etc. Perhaps cycling and Athletics to a very small extent but that is more likely because of advanced doping than nutrition or what have you. I studied sports science and nutrition in the 90s, it was pretty advanced then too. Swimming is the one sport that keeps improving and that is because as humans we have only mastered 20-25% of our full potential in the water technique wise and the improvements we are seeing there is solely due to improved technique and not sports science or nutrition.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

So sports science and nutrition has only improved drastically in last few years in tennis only? Give me a break! I don't see that improvement you're talking about in other racquet sports or boxing, football, basketball, athletics, cycling etc. Perhaps cycling and Athletics to a very small extent but that is more likely because of advanced doping than nutrition or what have you. I studied sports science and nutrition in the 90s, it was pretty advanced then too. Swimming is the one sport that keeps improving and that is because as humans we have only mastered 20-25% of our full potential in the water technique wise and the improvements we are seeing there is solely due to improved technique and not sports science or nutrition.

So are you putting the current spate of over 30 slam winners and the best 5 players in the world being over 30 (Rafa, Fed, Djoker, Muzz, Stan) down to a co-incidence then? Are you suggesting there has been little or no advancement in sports science, nutritional, recovery techniques since Pete retired in 2002? In the internet / information era, this knowledge travels faster and much quicker. In my country Rugby League is one of the biggest sports and most brutal in the world and we are consistently seeing players play into their mid 30's thanks to recovery techniques.

It's not the entire reason, Fedalovic are at the top end of all players that have played the game so they will naturally be able to compete at the top late into their career but yes, in the internet era most fields are advancing at an incredibly rapid pace.

 

[octogon]

So sports science and nutrition has only improved drastically in last few years in tennis only? Give me a break! I don't see that improvement you're talking about in other racquet sports or boxing, football, basketball, athletics, cycling etc. Perhaps cycling and Athletics to a very small extent but that is more likely because of advanced doping than nutrition or what have you. I studied sports science and nutrition in the 90s, it was pretty advanced then too. Swimming is the one sport that keeps improving and that is because as humans we have only mastered 20-25% of our full potential in the water technique wise and the improvements we are seeing there is solely due to improved technique and not sports science or nutrition.

Are you serious? It's happening in most sports. Floyd Mayweather was still the best pound for pound boxer in the world in his late 30's. A generation ago, he'd been considered over the hill at that age for a world class boxer. A boxer like Bernard Hopkins was able to stay a world class contender into his late 40's, because sports science and nutrition has improved.

Cristiano Ronaldo should be on the verge of retirement. He's 32 and a generation ago, an outfield football player would basically be considered finished at his age. But he's remained in fantastic shape and is still being voted the Best footballer in the world every year. Zlatan Ibrahimovic is a striker in his mid 30's, and was the top scorer for Manchester United last season. People ued to think it was imposible for a striker that age to still be at the top level of the game. Now it's more routine.

 

[Druss]

Are you serious? It's happening in most sports. Floyd Mayweather was still the best pound for pound boxer in the world in his late 30's. A generation ago, he'd been considered over the hill at that age for a world class boxer. A boxer like Bernard Hopkins was able to stay a world class contender into his late 40's, because sports science and nutrition has improved.

Cristiano Ronaldo should be on the verge of retirement. He's 32 and a generation ago, an outfield football player would basically be considered finished at his age. But he's remained in fantastic shape and is still being voted the Best footballer in the world every year. Zlatan Ibrahimovic is a striker in his mid 30's, and was the top scorer for Manchester United last season. People ued to think it was imposible for a striker that age to still be at the top level of the game. Now it's more routine.

May I point out to you that there were great footballers playing at the top still in there mid 30s long before CR & Ibra. Maradona was still world class at 33 in 90s, Zidane at 34 was still the best in the world, that was when Djoker was in puberty stage. Lothar Matthaeus hello? At close to 40 was still captains the great Germany side in the 90s. George Foreman in boxing was still world class at 40. Evander Holyfield for Christ's sake? In his 40s still winning world titles in the 90s. Linford Christie world 100m champion at 33/34, Michael Johnson at 32 and Carl Lewis around same age were all the best in the world in the 90s in their 30s. Nothing has changed, try harder.

 

[octogon]

May I point out to you that there were great footballers playing at the top still in there mid 30s long before CR & Ibra. Maradona was still world class at 33 in 90s, Zidane at 34 was still the best in the world, that was when Djoker was in puberty stage. Lothar Matthaeus hello? At close to 40 was still captains the great Germany side in the 90s. George Foreman in boxing was still world class at 40. Evander Holyfield for Christ's sake? In his 40s still winning world titles in the 90s. Linford Christie world 100m champion at 33/34, Michael Johnson at 32 and Carl Lewis around same age were all the best in the world in the 90s in their 30s. Nothing has changed, try harder.

Maradona was a drug cheat that used cocaine and amphetamines to keep up his energy on the field as he aged. Try again.

Zidane was not a striker. Matthaeus was not a striker. CR7 and Ibra are. Strikers in the past were supposed to be done at world class level by around 30. Defenders and midfielders, and especially goalkeepers, if they pace themselves correctly, can last a little bit longer.

Foreman was an outlier at the time. And he was out of shape and fat when he won his second world title, but still had the knockout power in his fists, which is the last thing to leave a heavyweight. Have you listened to Holyfield lately? He can barely string a sentence together. He fought too bloody long, like Ali. Heavyweights don't lose knockout power so can still win at an older age, but their defense relexes goes to hell, and they end up punch-drunk. Mayweather and Hopkins were lean, mean fighting machines at an advanced age, who did not take much punishment. It's not the same thing at all.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Are you serious? It's happening in most sports. Floyd Mayweather was still the best pound for pound boxer in the world in his late 30's. A generation ago, he'd been considered over the hill at that age for a world class boxer. A boxer like Bernard Hopkins was able to stay a world class contender into his late 40's, because sports science and nutrition has improved.

Cristiano Ronaldo should be on the verge of retirement. He's 32 and a generation ago, an outfield football player would basically be considered finished at his age. But he's remained in fantastic shape and is still being voted the Best footballer in the world every year. Zlatan Ibrahimovic is a striker in his mid 30's, and was the top scorer for Manchester United last season. People ued to think it was imposible for a striker that age to still be at the top level of the game. Now it's more routine.

Lol at acting like Mayweather was in his prime this year when he crowned McGregor. That has to be the dumbest example I've ever seen.

McGregor isn't even a real boxer.

 

[octogon]

Lol at acting like Mayweather was in his prime this year when he crowned McGregor. That has to be the dumbest example I've ever seen.

McGregor isn't even a real boxer.

Do you even know how to read?

I said Mayweather was the best pound for pound boxer in his LATE 30'S.

He was 40 YEARS OLD when he fought McGregor. I obviously was not talking about him in regards to his recent fight.

Before the McGregor fight, Mayweather retired 2 years ago, at age 38. At the time of this retirement, he was officially ranked the NUMBER 1 POUND FOR POUND Fighter in the sport of boxing. In his LATE 30'S.

Now go get your shinebox!

 

[abmk]

I'd rate Anderson in 2017 very close to last year's two finalists. The guy was good enough to beat Murray in 2015 and his form was at another level this year. With Delpo showing up to play just wouldn't call it weak, just an unbalanced draw.

LOL, that's dumber than dumb.

Both Stan and Djoko of last year would've beat Anderson before the final. As far as the Anderson of the final is concerned, both would've ripped him apart.

As a matter of fact, after Anderson beat Murray in USO 2015, Stan thrashed him :6-4 6-4 6-0

Delpo only showed up in the last 3 sets of the Thiem match, the fed match and the 1st set of the nadal match. he was woeful in the 1st 2 sets of the Thiem match and well below par in the last 3 sets of the Nadal match.

This USO 17 is clearly the weakest slam in a long time.

 

[Gary Duane]

Hewitt and Safin took slam final wins off an ageing Sampras as the USO. If the 'nextgen' were any good they'd be beating these 30ish and over champions. I struggle to spot anyone of the nextgen ready to even rival Chang, Stich, Todd Martin, Rafter or Hewitt in achievements.

Old Pete was in far worse shape than the aging stars of today. Of all the ATGs you could mention, I'd say Pete suffered as much as any from lacking all the advantages aging players have today.

 

[abmk]

Still taking stock on Nadal 2017 at US Open, but much of his game even looks better than 2013. Really doubt Djoko2011 (who barely won the USO that year) and Federer 2004 beat today's Nadal given the trouble peak Fraud had with early Nadal:
9/2006 F Dubai Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 2-6 6-4 6-4 3.65 - 1.35
21/2005 SF FO - RG Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3 2.33 - 1.70
12/2005 F Miami Masters Hard Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 2-6 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-3 6-1 1.13 - 7.04
13/2004 R32 Miami Masters Hard Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-3 6-3 5.25 - 1.18

Nadal leagues better now on hard courts than these early years.

 

[MatsPhilander]

Tennis & Snooker both seem to have followed this trend in recent years-Ronnie O'Sullivan, Mark Williams & John Higgins all winning major titles in their mid-late 30's & now in their 40's & a bunch of career journeymen like Stuart Bingham & Barry Hawkins suddenly winning them as well at a similar age. Most shocking was last season Mark King who had been around for 25 years winning his first ranking event aged 42 & Anthony Hamilton who has been around for the same length of time winning his first one aged 45-making him the second oldest ranking event winner in history & that prior one came in an era of nowhere near as much depth. Steve Davis won his last world title aged 31 & although he had his moments after that even well into his 50's he was never a serious contender after winning the Masters aged 39 in something of a fluke. The man who knocked him off his perch Stephen Hendry won his last world title aged 30 & although he remained a big contender struggled to win the big ones-his last ranking title coming at the age of 35.

Both are individual rather than team sports, both are long & grueling-taking a huge toll mentally & it seems that the older players know the tricks better than the youngsters who tend to choke at key moments.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Do you even know how to read?

I said Mayweather was the best pound for pound boxer in his LATE 30'S.

He was 40 YEARS OLD when he fought McGregor. I obviously was not talking about him in regards to his recent fight.

Before the McGregor fight, Mayweather retired 2 years ago, at age 38. At the time of this retirement, he was officially ranked the NUMBER 1 POUND FOR POUND Fighter in the sport of boxing. In his LATE 30'S.

Now go get your shinebox!

Yeah dolt, I can read.

Sure but his form in his 40s probably wasn't much different. Also it's clear to anybody that follows boxing his career peak didn't eventuate when he retired but several years earlier. 2006 is what I'd say was Mayweather's peak year - which would have been his late 20s.

Go back to sucking your thumb in the corner.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And to add onto this; Mayweather kept boxing as long as he did because he was above every competitor - not because he was peaking later or some other arbitrary reason.