List of men to win a major title aged 33 or more in the Open Era

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Body maintenance has Improved a lot so I think the rules are being rewritten about age. Plus he wants to chase the slam record, and hes one of the most determined players ever and with few new players coming through its given him a lot to play for
 

tudwell

Legend
Body maintenance has Improved a lot so I think the rules are being rewritten about age. Plus he wants to chase the slam record, and hes one of the most determined players ever and with few new players coming through its given him a lot to play for
Yeah, literally no one had this sort of longevity since the early Open Era. The rules have definitely changed in the last 15 years - court homogenization, advances in sports medicine, prize money, etc. Fed of course is a recipient of these benefits as well, but it remains to be seen just how much these three extraordinary players are outliers or how much of these things are permanent (or at least long-term) shifts in the nature of the game.
 

cucio

Legend
Yep, at this point one has to wonder, because the numbers are getting beyond ridiculous. It seems that 30 has become the new 25, and these guys hit their primes just at the right moment.

I have similar thoughts about The Beatles. They were an awesome pop band, but how much of their success and impact do they owe to hitting the market at the point fan culture started to become global?
 
Meet Jimbo if you're talking about longevity.

Age at last Slam title since Connors's breakthrough at the start of 1974:

1. Federer - 36 [and five/six months]
2. Nadal - 33 [and six days]
3. Agassi - 32 [and nine months]
4. Ashe - 31 [turned 32 a few days later]
5. Djokovic - 31 [and eight months]
6. Wawrinka - 31 [and five/six months]
7. Sampras - 31 [and three weeks]
8. Connors - 31 [and three days]
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
Age at last Slam title since Connors's breakthrough at the start of 1974:

1. Federer - 36 [and five/six months]
2. Nadal - 33 [and six days]
3. Agassi - 32 [and nine months]
4. Ashe - 31 [turned 32 a few days later]
5. Djokovic - 31 [and eight months]
6. Sampras - 31 [and three weeks]
7. Connors - 31 [and three days]

Nadal now ranks ninth among the oldest players to win a Major in the Open Era.
Move from that position to Andre Agassi.
(y)
 
After the 1984 US Open, when McEnroe defeated him, he was no longer a threat, even if he could still reach the semifinals, which he did in the following years, but his glory days were over.
Yeah. Connors was 31 and three days when he won his last Slam, which made him the oldest man to win a Slam title in between Ashe at Wimbledon 1975 and Sampras at the US Open 2002, but is also younger than Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Wawrinka, and Agassi were when they won their last Slams.

Connors was 31 years and ten months (roughly) when he made his last Slam final, which is younger than Federer, Nadal, Agassi, Wawrinka, and Anderson were when they made their last Slam finals [bear in mind that Djokovic has only played one Slam, in which he lost 7-5 in the fifth set of the semi-final, since he turned 31 years and 10 months]. Ferrer also made a Slam final at 31, albeit only two months or so past his 31st birthday.

It's in making semis that Connors is still the longevity king. He played his last Slam semi on his 39th birthday. Federer could surpass him if he made the semis of the US Open 2020 or a subsequent Slam.
 
Nadal now ranks ninth among the oldest players to win a Major in the Open Era.
Move from that position to Andre Agassi.
(y)
Is that counting women too or is it counting those people who won multiple Slams when older than he is now on multiple occasions? By my calculations, the only men to have won a Slam when older than Nadal is now are Rosewall, Gimeno, and Federer. True, he's also younger than Navratilova and Williams, and perhaps some other women.
 
@DSH I think your previous list was counting multiple wins for the different men, as Rosewall won four titles when older than Nadal is now, Federer three, and Gimeno one, so Nadal comes in 9th. But fourth if you count Rosewall and Federer once each.

By the way, here is the full list of women to have won Slams aged 33 or more in the open era:

1. Serena Williams [last Slam = Australian Open 2017, aged 35]
2. Flavia Pennetta [last/only Slam = US Open 2015, aged 33]
3. Martina Navratilova [last Slam = Wimbledon 1990, aged 33]

Court, King, Evert, and Na were all 31 when they won their final Slams.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
Open Era, Oldest male tennis players as champions in the Grand Slam:

1 Rosewall 37 years and 2 months: AO 1972
2 Federer 36 years 5 months and 20 days: AO 2018
3 Rosewall 36 years and 2 months: AO 1971
4 Federer 35 years and 11 months: Wimbledon 2017
5 Rosewall 35 and 10 months: US Open 1970
6 Federer 35 years 5 months and 21 days: AO 2017
7 Gimeno 34 years and 10 months: RG 1972
8 Rosewall 33 years 7 months and 7 days; RG 1968
9 Nadal 33 years and 6 days; RG 2019
10 Agassi 32 years and 9 months; AO 2003
8-B
 

NLBwell

Legend
Ken Rosewall made the Wimbledon finals at age 39 in 1974. The player who beat him was ... Jimmy Connors. The same thing happened at the US Open. (Connors crushed him in both matches, I remember watching them, they were complete beatdowns, a horrible matchup - but Rosewall had to beat some of the greats to get to the finals.)

In 1977, at age 42, he made the semifinals of the Australian Open. Three years older than Connors at the US Open.

Even in a comeback at 47 years old, he was still winning pro matches, reaching the finals of the New South Wales Hardcourt Championships.
 
Open Era, Oldest male tennis players as champions in the Grand Slam:

1 Rosewall 37 years and 2 months: AO 1972
2 Federer 36 years 5 months and 20 days: AO 2018
3 Rosewall 36 years and 2 months: AO 1971
4 Federer 35 years and 11 months: Wimbledon 2017
5 Rosewall 35 and 10 months: US Open 1970
6 Federer 35 years 5 months and 21 days: AO 2017
7 Gimeno 34 years and 10 months: RG 1972
8 Rosewall 33 years 7 months and 7 days; RG 1968
9 Nadal 33 years and 6 days; RG 2019
10 Agassi 32 years and 9 months; AO 2003
8-B
Right, that's what I thought. I'd say that makes Nadal the fourth oldest man to win a major, not ninth. Federer can't be second, fourth, and sixth oldest. I'd say it means Nadal's victory at Roland Garros 2019 is the ninth oldest single event titles.
 

Big_Dangerous

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, literally no one had this sort of longevity since the early Open Era. The rules have definitely changed in the last 15 years - court homogenization, advances in sports medicine, prize money, etc. Fed of course is a recipient of these benefits as well, but it remains to be seen just how much these three extraordinary players are outliers or how much of these things are permanent (or at least long-term) shifts in the nature of the game.
But that still doesn't explain why some of the guys who are 10-15 years younger than Federer have yet to win a major title.
 
But that still doesn't explain why some of the guys who are 10-15 years younger than Federer have yet to win a major title.
10 years younger than Federer is inexplicable. There should be some major champions born in 1991 or 1992 or 1993 by now.

15 years younger than Federer still could be changes in the game - it's possible that, in future, players will tend not to win much before turning 22 or 23. We don't know yet, but it's certainly possible. What's highly unlikely is that players won't win much until the age of 27 or 28 in future.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
From 22 years to 29 years is the best period that tennis players have to win big tournaments and fight for the maximum.

Nothing will change that.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
I have never heard of Andres Gimeno - was that the only slam he ever won?
Yes, until now, he is the oldest male tennis champion at RG. He won at the age of 34 years and 10 months.
He won the title with the particularity that he only had to win 6 matches in that edition.
Nadal would have to win the French Open in 2021 at the age of 35 if he want surpass this record of his countryman.
:D
 
List of men to win at least 20 slams at any age:

Federer

end of list
List of men to win at least 18 slams at the age of 33:

Nadal

end of list
Can we please leave the dick-measuring contests off this particular thread? If either of you knows my posting history, you'll know I am far from being a Nadal fan. The point of the thread wasn't to celebrate Nadal over Federer - Federer, after all, is on the list in the OP, too. The point was to talk about the aging of the tour, something from which both Nadal and Federer have benefitted.
 
They suck absolute **** at tennis

Either that or it's all a huge conspiracy.

I'll stick to "they suck **** at tennis"
This is a farce. There is a lot of talent out there. The Big 3 of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are just a very special, unique trio. There never has been, nor will there ever be, a collection of players like them. It's not the other way around, that all the young talent are mugs. It's the sheer dominance of those 3, even into their thirties.
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
Yeah. Connors was 31 and three days when he won his last Slam, which made him the oldest man to win a Slam title in between Ashe at Wimbledon 1975 and Sampras at the US Open 2002, but is also younger than Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Wawrinka, and Agassi were when they won their last Slams.

Connors was 31 years and ten months (roughly) when he made his last Slam final, which is younger than Federer, Nadal, Agassi, Wawrinka, and Anderson were when they made their last Slam finals [bear in mind that Djokovic has only played one Slam, in which he lost 7-5 in the fifth set of the semi-final, since he turned 31 years and 10 months]. Ferrer also made a Slam final at 31, albeit only two months or so past his 31st birthday.

It's in making semis that Connors is still the longevity king. He played his last Slam semi on his 39th birthday. Federer could surpass him if he made the semis of the US Open 2020 or a subsequent Slam.
Jimbo actually celebrated turning 39 with his win in 4R vs Krickstein...the afternoon featured match on Labor Day Monday, September 2, 1991. Courier routed a washed up 39 years, five days Connors in the SF Saturday day match.

Had Connors completed his dream sweep to the title, it would have marked an age gap of nearly two decades between the USO’90 and USO’91 champions...Sampras won the year before as a 19-year-old.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
Open Era, Oldest male tennis players as champions in the Grand Slam:

1 Rosewall 37 years and 2 months: AO 1972
2 Federer 36 years 5 months and 20 days: AO 2018
3 Rosewall 36 years and 2 months: AO 1971
4 Federer 35 years and 11 months: Wimbledon 2017
5 Rosewall 35 and 10 months: US Open 1970
6 Federer 35 years 5 months and 21 days: AO 2017
It will be nice if this iteration starts with Fed and ends with Fed. :D
 
The Big 3 are just that good. We can't put this all on the younger players.

What we have now is like Borg, Sampras and Laver all playing at once. We should appreciate it instead of complaining.
This, a thousand times over!! APPRECIATE IT! Stop ******** about how the tour sucks, all young players suck, and everything sucks!
 

NLBwell

Legend
This is a farce. There is a lot of talent out there. The Big 3 of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are just a very special, unique trio. There never has been, nor will there ever be, a collection of players like them. It's not the other way around, that all the young talent are mugs. It's the sheer dominance of those 3, even into their thirties.
I thought about this post for a while and I think it is not true. During the amateur days of tennis, at least once there was the start of the pro game, the best amateurs turned pro after one or two years at the top. Then they disappeared into the pro tour where they could at least scratch out a living playing tennis, or maybe completely quit to get more lucrative jobs. Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, Segura, etc. were pros, as well as Kramer, Riggs, Budge, before that.
Even in the open era, you had Borg (shorter career), McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander overlapping each other and even playing Agassi, Sampras, and Courier.
A lot of this is training and the way the tour is organized. Players peak for the slam tournaments, adjusting physical training, number of matches, practice, and rest (even dropping out of other tournaments with niggling injuries) to be at their best then. It's much harder to beat the best player when they are playing their best than back when they were playing continually and not worrying about their physical condition so much (party time!) for a particular tournament.
Part of this is the slowing of surfaces. It is much harder for a less consistent player to beat the top players these days. A Chris Lewis, Wayne Arthurs, Kevin Curren or even Ivo Karlevic does not have nearly as much chance for an upset these days. A very fast surface is a great equalizer and it may only take a couple of points to go the wrong way for a top player to be upset when both players are easily holding serve.
The current Big 3 certainly are great, but I'm thinking that there were times in the past that there were three or more equivalent players.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
The Big 3 are just that good. We can't put this all on the younger players.

What we have now is like Borg, Sampras and Laver all playing at once. We should appreciate it instead of complaining.
Of course they are amazing, but they are still old. Federer is 37 now. Nadal is 33 (already very old in itself), but his body is probably older than Federer at 37 in some ways. Federer does better in head to head vs Nadal minus clay than he did even at his peak of peaks in the mid 2000s, which shows Nadal has arguably declined from his prime in some ways even more than Federer, and my point of practically being a 40 year old body in some ways so you all but have to consider him even older than 33. Yet both keep winning so much, the 37 year old and the 33 year old with a 38-40 year old body. Only Djokovic at 32 is sort of not super old, and even he is no spring chicken, Sampras was retired at that age, and Laver had been retired 6 years at that age.

The others have to suck to some degree atleast. None of them is even more successful than freaking Tomas Berdych yet after all. That cannot be put down to just the Big 3.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
This, a thousand times over!! APPRECIATE IT! Stop ******** about how the tour sucks, all young players suck, and everything sucks!
The young players do suck though. Forget the Big 3 so called future of the tour could not even beat a washed up way past it (due to injuries) Wawrinka in their battle in the most recent slam. Another so called future of the tour can barely make the very rare slam quarter final to be drubbed. And another just randomly withdrew from the last slam after saying it sucks.
 

Big_Dangerous

Talk Tennis Guru
They suck absolute **** at tennis

Either that or it's all a huge conspiracy.

I'll stick to "they suck **** at tennis"
Lol. I mean let's show some respect. They can definitely play, but experience counts for a lot at the pro level. I think nerves also play a big factor in it as well.
 
List of active male players to reach a major final aged 32 or more:

1. Roger Federer
2. Stan Wawrinka
3. Rafael Nadal
4. Kevin Anderson
5. Novak Djokovic
 
Top