Mats Wilander > Carlos Alcaraz

[soldat]

Then we have a scenario in which the young players of today are dominant against the young players of 10+ years from now (when they are old themselves) and this...somehow is supposed to be an improvement?

How come there’s only 3 players over 30 in the top 35 ranking slots?

There was never a great age shift. The great age shift was made up to pretend that the young guys weren’t worse than the previous generation.

There was only The Great Level Dropoff.

If you want to compare the ratio of age 30+ players in the top 35 you’d have to pull about 40 years of historical data, and choose a time frame, say 1 year or 1 month, then plot the data over time to determine whether there’s an increase, decrease or it’s just random for the ratio.

That is a separate data analysis from estimating the level of all players in the top 35.

 

[Rosstour]

I actually think the OP is onto something.

The problem with Alcaraz is that his goodness is an illusion propped up by circumstances.

Is he faster covering the court than Wilander? Sure.

However, when I try to envision peak Wilander playing a final at RG against bulky Carlitos, it’s easy for me to envision Wilander frustrating Carlos with precise depth, slices to his bh, and sneak attacks to net.

I watched the match between Carlos and Humbert this week. Carlos won easily, but only because Humbert couldn’t keep 3 of his NextGen wristy forehands in the court in a row. And there were many points where Humbert won the rally because Carlos’ low sw wide stretch fh retrieval was swatted by Humbert into the open court before Carlos could recover. Humbert would not even be a top 50 player in Wilander’s era.

It’s the type of weakness that Wilander would prey on.

Bulky? Lmao

 

[Rosstour]

That's why we have a 36 year old cleaning house right? Because the field is getting stronger?

Djokovic cleaned house this year?

All the Slams were won by guys under 23. lol

 

[NeutralFan]

So you think 2024 geriatric Monfils is playing close to peak prime Monfils level?

Again Monfils didn't play great in his 30s either so him playing close to his best at 37 is absurd, so yeah a bad example. GAS is a reality you can deny it all you want but it is. Players career has increased across all sports ,not just in tennis.

 

[travlerajm]

If you want to compare the ratio of age 30+ players in the top 35 you’d have to pull about 40 years of historical data, and choose a time frame, say 1 year or 1 month, then plot the data over time to determine whether there’s an increase, decrease or it’s just random for the ratio.

That is a separate data analysis from estimating the level of all players in the top 35.

You don’t recall when a few years ago when the average age of the Top 50 was almost 30 years old?

It wasn’t coincidence that it was when the last good gen (the djokodal gen) reached their early 30s. They were still better than the 25-year-olds, which was not a normal thing in tennis history.

 

[CHillTennis]

Djokovic cleaned house this year?

All the Slams were won by guys under 23. lol

How many slam winners were in their 20s from 2017-2023?

Carlos at the 2022 US Open, 2023 Wimbledon, Medvedev at the 2021 US Open and Thiem at the 2020 US Open.

That's it. For seven years!!

 

[soldat]

You don’t recall when a few years ago when the average age of the Top 50 was almost 30 years old?

It wasn’t coincidence that it was when the last good gen (the djokodal gen) reached their early 30s. They were still better than the 25-year-olds, which was not a normal thing in tennis history.

I do not recall, and there is nothing to indicate that in a couple of years the average age will not again reach 30.

Why don’t you do the calculation? Tennis explorer has the YE rankings for each year to 1998. Find the average age each year of the top 50 players. Is there a trend? Is it random? And that tells you only the age average. It does not prove that the years with older averages the players were less strong.

For that it would be a different analysis.

I tend to think players get better with experience, so a 30 year old player generally beats a 20 year old. For the 20 year old to win he has to not only be talented but handle the experience of reaching a big match well at a young age.

One final point is that tennis is not like soccer where you might run for 45 minutes with little rest, and even in soccer, basketball, football, older players can win as a team. In tennis you contest points, which may last as little as one serve or as much as a 55 shot rally. You also sit down between sets, there’s change overs, you even rest between points

Your fixation with age is simply bizarre and illogical.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Thirty years ago, the sport was in great hands thanks to four young Americans, a German, a Spaniard and a Sweede.

We were firmly entrenched in the compelling rivalries of Becker, Edberg, Chang, Courier, Agassi and Sampras. The old guard of Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl were all free to retire from the sport without the fear of a cataclysmic meltdown. It was nothing like what we're facing today.

True; there was no shortage of incredible talent who took their stage just as most of the "Tennis Boom" generation were no longer majors contenders, with the exception of Lendl. At the time, (late-80s) sports media repeatedly asked "what happened to American men's tennis" (at the point McEnroe and Connors had not won a majors in several years), but it was not long before the quartet of Americans you referred to began to make their mark on the sport, with some doing so in an unforgettable way.

This is all to say that there's no comparison between that strong, historic generational change and the embarrassing lack of talent seen in the men's game at present, where the overrated Alcaraz is packaged as some GOAT-to-be (laughable), when he's playing a field of the most talentless check-collectors ever seen in pro tennis. Even then, Alcaraz is no once in a generation talent, which says much, in that he has no challengers, other than Sinner. The rest are a pile of go-nowhere imbeciles (unless the aforementioned players are sick or absent), which is all the evidence one needs to conclude that Alcaraz is not facing any true talent (outside of one) in his own generation. Alcaraz is not carrying the torch for the men's game.

Carlos has problems, he very erratic on hard courts and can go for long periods of time without winning.

He seems to be a washout on the surface--namely the two HC majors--and there does not appear to be any improvements or different approaches taken, considering his results at the AO and USO up to this date.

This sport is in a lot of trouble right now. At least on a professional level.

The men's game has not witnessed so low a period ever before.

 

[CHillTennis]

I do not recall, and there is nothing to indicate that in a couple of years the average age will not again reach 30.

Why don’t you do the calculation? Tennis explorer has the YE rankings for each year to 1998. Find the average age each year of the top 50 players. Is there a trend? Is it random? And that tells you only the age average. It does not prove that the years with older averages the players were less strong.

For that it would be a different analysis.

I tend to think players get better with experience, so a 30 year old player generally beats a 20 year old. For the 20 year old to win he has to not only be talented but handle the experience of reaching a big match well at a young age.

One final point is that tennis is not like soccer where you might run for 45 minutes with little rest, and even in soccer, basketball, football, older players can win as a team. In tennis you contest points, which may last as little as one serve or as much as a 55 shot rally. You also sit down between sets, there’s change overs, you even rest between points

Your fixation with age is simply bizarre and illogical.

If a 30 year old player is supposed to normally win against a 20 year old player, then why do so many players retire at the age of 30?

Why would Sampras leave the game at the age of 31?

With his experience...surely he had many years where he could have dominated Roger Federer and the young players of that time.

Why give all of that up?

I mean it seems idiotic to think that a 20 year old Rafael Nadal would have stood a chance against a 35 year old Pete Sampras. With all that experience and years of beating up his body. Why wouldn't Pete be up for that?

We know what happened when he had to face a 35 year old, experience loaded, Andre Agassi...oh...wait.