Longer careers started with the Djokovic/Nadal Generation.

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

We keep hearing about how medical advancements are extending player's primes, prolonging careers and their time at the top. This is true, but when did it actually start and accelerate? Most posters here say 90's players did not benefit from it while 2000's players did without showing any data, so let's take a look at some stats for the top players of different gens.

Key takeaways:
- New balls gen's advantage in career length is purely down to outliers Federer and Haas. Without them, their average career length is the same as our group of 1970-76 born players. This disproves the myth that early to mid 2000's players were benefiting from longer careers.
- There is a massive jump in retirement age and career length from the new balls gen to the golden gen. The shortest careers in this group are at the top range of the other two groups. This is when the "age shift", as some might call it, truly accelerated.
- As far as career length and retirement age, new balls gen has much more in common with the group of 1970-1976 born players than the golden gen. We should stop grouping them together and applying the same modern standards of aging and longevity to new balls gen.

1970-1976 players
Median retirement age: 32
Average career length: 14.09 years
Agassi - retired 2006, age 36, 20 year career
Moya - retired 2010, age 34, 15 year career
Ivanisevic - retired 2004, age 33, 16 year career
Sampras - retired 2003, age 32, 15 year career
Krajicek - retired 2003, age 32, 14 year career
Kuerten - retired 2008, age 32, 13 year career
Rafter - retired 2003, age 31, 12 year career
Enqvist - retired 2005, age 31, 14 year career
Chang - retired 2003, age 31, 15 year career
Kafelnikov - retired 2003, age 29, 11 year career
Rios - retired 2004, age 29, 10 year career

New Balls Gen
Median retirement age: 32.5 (+1.6% over 1970-1976)
Average career length: 15.58 years (+10% over 1970-1976)
Federer - retired 2022, age 41, 24 year career
Haas - retired 2018, age 40, 22 year career
Ferrer - retired 2019, age 37, 19 year career
Hewitt - retired 2016, age 35, 18 year career
Davydenko - retired 2014, age 33, 15 year career
Gaudio - retired 2011, age 33, 15 year career
Gonzalez - retired 2012, age 32, 13 year career
Ferrero - retired 2012, age 32, 14 year career
Nalbandian - retired 2013, age 31, 13 year career
Roddick - retired 2012, age 30, 12 year career
Safin - retired 2009, age 29, 12 year career
Coria - retired 2009, age 27, 9 year career

Golden Gen
Median retirement age: 37 (+14% over new balls gen)
Average career length: 18.82 years (+21% over new balls gen)
Wawrinka - active 2023, age 38, 21 year career
Isner - retired 2023, age 38, 16 year career
Nadal - active 2023, age 37, 22 year career
Gasquet - retired 2023, age 37, 21 year career
Monfils - active 2023, age 37, 19 year career
Tsonga - retired 2022, age 37, 18 year career
Djokovic - active 2023, age 36, 20 year career
Murray - active 2023, age 36, 18 year career
Cilic - active 2023, age 35, 18 year career
Del Potro - retired 2022, age 34, 17 year career
Berdych - retired 2019, age 34, 17 year career

 

[MrFlip]

My 2 cents
Players from previous generations were more consistent and played more tennis - earlier injury/burnout/retirement
Players from recent generations will do well in pockets but play less overall - grind/recovery period

 

[Pablo1989]

Interesting thread. I give you a like! (Gasquet is not retired, though)

 

[Pheasant]

I think that there are a lot of factors at play here. Off the top of my head, you get
1. Better surfaces(Carpet gone, Rebound Ace gone, etc)
2. Better surgeons and doctors
3. Better training of muscles
4. Better understanding of stretch/injury prevention
5. Better diets
6. having the money to afford an entourage of specialists on your team(chiro, physical therapist, nutrionist, etc)
7. Better scheduling
8. elimination of Best of 5 in non-major championship matches

It would be interesting to see a larger sample size, in this instance. But so far, it is looking like players born in 1982 and earlier had a shorter shelf life. But we'd want to have concrete parameters too. For example, would be looking at players that once reached the top 10 at anytime during his career? Or maybe, looking at players that reached the top 20 at anytime during their careers would be a better sample. If that's the case, then ironmen like Feliciano Lopez and Ivo Karlovic would be included.

I think that this topic is a fascinating one. But I think that the parameters need to defined.

 

[Kralingen]

There are only 2 players over age 30 in the top 20: Djokovic and Grigor. 2 more in the top 30 in late bloomers Mannarino and Struff both at career highs.

However, the best of the “LostGen” - only Dimi remains, with Raonic and Nishikori semi-retired due to injury, Thiem a total bum post wrist surgery, Diego, Goffin, Fognini, PCB all out of the top 100. Shockingly metal hip Murray and ancient Wawrinka outrank the entirety of other 30 year olds sans Evans.

Are players really aging better now? If they were wouldn’t we see the top 100 littered with 30 year olds?

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

I think that there are a lot of factors at play here. Off the top of my head, you get
1. Better surfaces(Carpet gone, Rebound Ace gone, etc)
2. Better surgeons and doctors
3. Better training of muscles
4. Better understanding of stretch/injury prevention
5. Better diets
6. having the money to afford an entourage of specialists on your team(chiro, physical therapist, nutrionist, etc)
7. Better scheduling
8. elimination of Best of 5 in non-major championship matches

It would be interesting to see a larger sample size, in this instance. But so far, it is looking like players born in 1982 and earlier had a shorter shelf life. But we'd want to have concrete parameters too. For example, would be looking at players that once reached the top 10 at anytime during his career? Or maybe, looking at players that reached the top 20 at anytime during their careers would be a better sample. If that's the case, then ironmen like Feliciano Lopez and Ivo Karlovic would be included.

I think that this topic is a fascinating one. But I think that the parameters need to defined.

I’ve come to expect well thought out responses from you, and appreciate the feedback. Believe me, if it didn’t take so much work to compile, I’d absolutely apply this analysis to a larger sample size. For now, I picked top 10 players from each gen in admittedly subjective fashion. Feliciano Lopez and Ivo Karlovic absolutely crossed my mind, but they never made it to the top 10 and are not as decorated as the players in scope. I’ll expand this if I’m able to get the time.

 

[The Sinner]

One needs to also take into consideration that many top players nowadays just stick around because the money is good, as long as you’re in the top 100. Back in the 80s and 90s the $$$ was nowhere near it is today, even if you weigh in the inflation, hence the motivation to keep ’slugging’ it out well into your 30s à la Hewitt, Murray, Lopez, Verdasco, Gasquet, Wawrinka et al - was pretty slim back then. So having all these once good/great players still hanging around, just to make up the numbers, it can be somewhat skewing the stats of longevity. Yes it’s (longevity) slightly higher now than 30 or 40 years ago, but not as high as many think, especially when we are talking about prime years. And please don’t bring in the Big 3 when talking up prime years as for comparison. They are a breed apart, and their level is/was so absurd, that even sub-prime/peak, they are/were still able to dominate most of the field, so it can be rather deceiving (when discussing prime/peak).

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

There are only 2 players over age 30 in the top 20: Djokovic and Grigor. 2 more in the top 30 in late bloomers Mannarino and Struff both at career highs.

However, the best of the “LostGen” - only Dimi remains, with Raonic and Nishikori semi-retired due to injury, Thiem a total bum post wrist surgery, Diego, Goffin, Fognini, PCB all out of the top 100. Shockingly metal hip Murray and ancient Wawrinka outrank the entirety of other 30 year olds sans Evans.

Are players really aging better now? If they were wouldn’t we see the top 100 littered with 30 year olds?

Grigor wasn’t even there until his recent run of good results. He entered the top 20 in late July. You’re right that Lost Gen has had terrible longevity. I didn’t include them because I thought it was too early, but now that you mention it, longevity might have peaked with Golden Gen. I might do a more comprehensive analysis with a bigger sample size and more gens. Just need to find the time and motivation lol.

 

[BlueB]

Federer - retired 2022, age 41, 24 year career

Realistically, Fed retired at 39...

 

[Pheasant]

I’ve come to expect well thought out responses from you, and appreciate the feedback. Believe me, if it didn’t take so much work to compile, I’d absolutely apply this analysis to a larger sample size. For now, I picked top 10 players from each gen in admittedly subjective fashion. Feliciano Lopez and Ivo Karlovic absolutely crossed my mind, but they never made it to the top 10 and are not as decorated as the players in scope. I’ll expand this if I’m able to get the time.

Thanks, Amigo. And right back at you. This is a great thread. I hope that more people engage in this.

 

[Biotic]

Back in 2012 (even more so in 2014-2015) Federer was widely considered a unicorn in terms of longevity. Djokodal were supposed to be on crutches by the time they hit early 30s. Didn't happen.

 

[Hypo Crisis]

Fwderer did it first, rest just followed or are teying to.

 

[Razer]

Serena, Venus, Ferrer, Versadco, Lopez .... many people in Fed's age segment retired late

Roddick could have also played till 37-38 but he retired at 30 because he did not want to put in the effort anymore, in 2011-2012 all the semis of the slams had Big 4, that had Roddick demotivated and he did not put in any effort to continue, he said this himself,

So Federer was not the only man to play long, we used to believe in 2012 that he was exceptional and everyone else wasnt, but today we see so many people played, so that bursts the myth of Roger being exceptional.

 

[Third Serve]

It is true that players are enjoying longer careers, but they have continued to fade out of relevance at around the same stage of their careers imo, except for the Big 3 of course. They just stayed on long after their initial drop off, like Hewitt did after his injuries.

Additionally, I think New Balls gen was disproportionately affected by injuries.

 

[Born_to_slice]

Think this is more about a motive to play and train hard in one's 30s than about ability to do so.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Serena, Venus, Ferrer, Versadco, Lopez .... many people in Fed's age segment retired late

You love bringing up outliers as if it somehow disproves the stats, don’t you? Obviously, there are many people in Feds age segment that retired late, but that’s not the point. The point is that these people are outliers, and the median retirement age is overwhelmingly young. For every Lopez who played for 26 years, there’s an Ancic, Ljubicic, Blake who played for half the time. Just lol at bringing up Serena and Venus. More outliers. Their peers like Hingis, Capriati, Clijsters, Henin, Dementieva, Myskina and Mauresmo all retired at 30 or younger. I can go on.

Roddick could have also played till 37-38 but he retired at 30 because he did not want to put in the effort anymore, in 2011-2012 all the semis of the slams had Big 4, that had Roddick demotivated and he did not put in any effort to continue, he said this himself,

We can say that about so many players bro. Sampras could have played till mid 30's too. We saw him pushing Federer hard in exhibition matches in the mid-2000's well after his retirement. His retirement at 31 was due to loss of motivation, and not because of physical decline. The whole "Sampras was over the hill at 29" was over-exaggerated by people with an agenda.

"I was still hitting balls but just didn’t want to do the work it took for the reward at the end. It just seemed unbalanced to me. I didn’t feel like doing the practice or the gym work. Something just came out of me that I can’t really explain. The moment when I knew I was going to retire was when I was in Palm Desert watching Lleyton Hewitt play a first-round match at Wimbledon in 2003, thinking that was the last place I wanted to be. That was when I knew I was done.”

So Federer was not the only man to play long, we used to believe in 2012 that he was exceptional and everyone else wasnt, but today we see so many people played, so that bursts the myth of Roger being exceptional.

He was an extreme outlier of his generation. That's the point. His gen was not seeing the same longevity as golden gen, proven by stats, and had more in common with the 1970's gen.