One thing we can ALL agree on. This is the worst state the men and women's game has ever been in
- Thread starter 90's Clay
- Start date
14OuncesStrung
Professional
Damn you Tenniswarehouse... Why did you have to change the forum software!?!?!?
This new system is so buggy!!!! AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH
This new system is so buggy!!!! AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH
Last edited:
90's Clay
Banned
Yep.. Dimitrov at least should be dominating.. With Raonic rivalring him for a few slams by now. And Nishikori doing some kind of damage with Fedal and NoleRay pushed out of the way for the most part. At least Fedal since they are the older
14OuncesStrung
Professional
Roger Federer for CALENDER GRAND SLAAAAAAAAAAM!!!!!
Last edited:
14OuncesStrung
Professional
This has been the best Australian Open in years... Apart from Krygios having a problem with his knee and losing early. :-(
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
I think the Federer generation 'New Ball" and the 1986/1987 generation success out of the blocks spoiled us. The 1988-1992 generation has failed to live up to that 'instant success' and so we're all disappointed. I think Sascha Zverev will be the first 20yo in a long time to win a slam later this year.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
By that standard then, there have been 0 ATG in the field since the 2016 FO.True.My own studies of fields show them picking up by 2002 and 2003, but ATGs a lacking.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Meles, I think you read something I didn't write:
http://www.theactivetimes.com/why-middle-age-isn-t-past-your-prime
Peak endurance is much later and above article shows evidence that high levels of endurance continue to age 54.
Injuries end many careers, so modern sports science most helpful. Often speed is an issue for some. Roddick was a relatively slow player whose game really took a hit when he got older and the earlier retirement.Federer was so fast to begin with that he still is a fierce player depite the obvious losses. Breakerer may not be the same on clay and has taken a hit on grass, but changes to his game and more power have allowed him to improve his hard court game enough to still have near peak return levels (serverer off the chart now.) Fed is slowly losing his speed, but its slow and he's not falling off a cliff like Roddick any time soon.
You know very well what I think about this subject, so before sort of trying to embarrass me a bit publicly, I'd prefer you give me a little bit benefit of the doubt.
Incredibly fast does not mean FASTEST or PEAK speed. I'm saying that there are some teens who are ALREADY very fast, probably close to what will eventually be their peak.
KEEP RUNNING FOR A LONG TIME does not mean peak endurance. It means they ALREADY have an impressive amount of endurance.
You had guys in their late teens who already were fast enough and had enough endurance to win slams. Have you forgotten????
The one area where very young people have a huge advantage over everyone on the planet it their ability to recover, meaning HEAL. Up until recently that was the biggest disadvantage older tennis players had, speed of recovery, and that's where modern science and DRUGS help.
I don't talk about this often. PEDS, what are they? Well, there is a huge gray area. There are things that are flat out illegal, the kind of things Armstrong got caught using. But then there are a ton of other things available today that weren't in existence 50 years ago, some of which are clearly legal. Some of them, for all we know, may extend not only careers but also lifetimes. Some are greatly improving quality of life, but again many did not even exist for player 50 years ago.
Ibuprofen has been a miracle for me many days allowing me to get up and continue working on a day when otherwise I might be immobile.
The gray area? I believe Borg got an injection in his abdominal muscles to allow him to play a final. It's unlikely that Laver got that, or Tilden. And so on.
Ice baths are legal. But no one thought of recovering that way in the Laver days.
I'd wager 50 years ago Murray's back problems would have ended his career, and Federer would not be back threatening to win a slam after surgery. We can go on and on and on.
So if you are telling me that I'm full of baloney when I mention that peak age used to be around age 25 at slams, I'm sitting on facts that support that.
What do you have?
NOTHING.
Now, if you wish to assert that things have changed hugely, I'm right there with you, which I have told you in private many times. The evidence suggests overwhelmingly that peak age for winning in tennis has gone up at least a year or two and perhaps more. However, we need to observe this for longer before coming to conclusions, and that's why I keep saying that we have to observe carefully for the next five to 10 years.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
No. Just the most negative!
Have you watched this film?
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
No, but the picture makes me want to.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
No, but the picture makes me want to.
I highly recommend it. Gran Torino. Give it a whirl on a night off, perhaps. I also gave you a recommendation in your puzzle games thread, but it might not be best suited for you if you want a more direct and to the point gaming experience...
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Stop crying. Sampras is in retirement. The WTA is popular around the world and among the most visible, known faces in professional sports.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
@Meles
Peak endurance is much later and above article shows evidence that high levels of endurance continue to age 54.
A reminder for other people new to tennis history:
These 9 men or "boys" won majors before the age of 20:
Chang
Becker
Wilander
Borg
Becker
Nadal
Sampras
Wilander
Edberg
These 14 men won majors after the age of 30:
Korda
Connors
Wawrinka
Gomez
Laver
Newcombe
Agassi
Laver
Federer
Connors
Sampras
Ashe
Gimeno
Rosewall
These 10 men won slams after age 31:
Connors
Sampras
Laver
Wawrinka
Ashe
Agassi
Rosewall
Gimeno
Federer
Rosewall
These men won majors after age 32:
Agassi
Rosewall
Gimeno
Federer
Rosewall
This man won majors after age 35 more than 50 years ago:
Rosewall
In about 12 hours or less we will know if Federer is going to join Rosewall in the over 35 list.
The idea that peak age of winning tennis players has gone up as much as five years or so is not supportable with evidence.
It is more likely that the top players right now are enjoying a boost coming from things other than age, something that would be very similar to the early open era.
At that time you had older players who competed in a separate tour, the old pro tour, and they were clearly better than the younger amateurs. It took several years for younger players to thoroughly break this dominance.
It is at least highly likely that something very similar is going on right now, something that has allowed the older champions to hold onto a stranglehold over younger players.
For the record, in case we are still debating this in another five years time, I think the age of peak tennis has gone up, but more likely around 1.5-3 years, not 5 or more. There are many other factors involved, and we are in the second anomaly of open tennis, this one even more extreme than the Laver/Rosewall days.
Equating the age of marathon runners to major winners is a false metric.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, and thanks for that. I saw my wife trying it out last night. She knows about it.
But I'm looking for more things like "The Room".
Now back to either talking about how tennis is the worst it's ever been or why all future major winners are going to be at least 26 years old.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I'm figuring a younger winner will open a floodgate much like the Connors/Borg/McEnroe days, but the young winners will be at least a couple years older, on average, and maybe a bit more.
Meles
Bionic Poster
I know I can strongly contend a point and you won't have any hard feelings.
Perhaps we are in complete agreement. These teens and youngsters of days past would have no chance in the modern game is my contention. The stamina and strength requirements make it so. For me the older game was very much speed, but players like Laver and especially Rosewall showed how muscles mattered. Lost in our discussion about the aging of the game is changes in technology. Graphite rackets were a big change. Poly strings were a big change. Based on recent increases in the speed of surfaces, I'll even buy that surface changes have an impact.I have NOTHING on the past peak age, etc. because I've heard it ad nauseum on this site.
The Poly Era has been going on for some time. Its becoming time to make some hypothesis; not 5 years from now, let alone 10 years. Be bold.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Same old hypothesis
The average age of players reaching say, the last 16, will plummet soon enough. Any remotely special talent is still going to have a breakthrough in their early 20s and the older perennial later round achievers are going to start to rapidly fall by the wayside other than the very best talents. Whether the average age of semi-finalists starts to plummet is down to how long the current 3+ Slam winners can maintain themselves for and how quickly much younger players can mature.
Current average age of players reaching the latter stages of the Slams has more to do with special individuals and a strong (or well suited) "generation" (the currently ~30 gen) than anything else. Average prime age has risen slightly but does not account for the current ridiculously high average age reaching the latter stages and this average age will plummet in a few years time. Changes in the game might give the illusion that a drastic trend is in motion and will be for a long time. It will not be. It doesn't mean that changes in the game haven't caused the likely typical prime age to rise because it probably has, but guys like Thiem and Dimitrov don't remotely compare to Federer, Nadal or Djokovic in talent. The big anomalies will always rule, and from early.
Next.
The average age of players reaching say, the last 16, will plummet soon enough. Any remotely special talent is still going to have a breakthrough in their early 20s and the older perennial later round achievers are going to start to rapidly fall by the wayside other than the very best talents. Whether the average age of semi-finalists starts to plummet is down to how long the current 3+ Slam winners can maintain themselves for and how quickly much younger players can mature.
Current average age of players reaching the latter stages of the Slams has more to do with special individuals and a strong (or well suited) "generation" (the currently ~30 gen) than anything else. Average prime age has risen slightly but does not account for the current ridiculously high average age reaching the latter stages and this average age will plummet in a few years time. Changes in the game might give the illusion that a drastic trend is in motion and will be for a long time. It will not be. It doesn't mean that changes in the game haven't caused the likely typical prime age to rise because it probably has, but guys like Thiem and Dimitrov don't remotely compare to Federer, Nadal or Djokovic in talent. The big anomalies will always rule, and from early.
Next.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
If conditions stay static enough then you'll see a greater spread of players competing at the top rather than it being convenient to a generation who by chance were more likely to be acclimated to a set of conditions; Fed's gen suffered here and the next gen didn't, the generations after had equally convenient circumstances as ~30 gen but didn't have the talent and timing made it harder for them to break through the existing vanguard.
Chess is a nice static game. There are elite players aged in the teens, 20s, 30s and 40s.
If the generations after Djoko-Nadal's weren't so relatively mediocre, we'd have realistic Slam contenders right now aged 35, ~30, ~25, ~20 (banking on A.Zverev). If conditions remain relatively static (courts, technology in general.. racquets) then I expect that to be the case more frequently in the future, but the ultimate great anomalies will win with prolificacy regardless of age and starting from young (at oldest 23/24 like Djokovic or Lendl).
Pure fornication.
Chess is a nice static game. There are elite players aged in the teens, 20s, 30s and 40s.
If the generations after Djoko-Nadal's weren't so relatively mediocre, we'd have realistic Slam contenders right now aged 35, ~30, ~25, ~20 (banking on A.Zverev). If conditions remain relatively static (courts, technology in general.. racquets) then I expect that to be the case more frequently in the future, but the ultimate great anomalies will win with prolificacy regardless of age and starting from young (at oldest 23/24 like Djokovic or Lendl).
Pure fornication.
Meles
Bionic Poster
I concur that we have some ATGs in the game right now and that is a parallel with Rosewall and Laver, but those two had a huge advantage in that the merging of the amatuer and pro ranks put the amateurs at a huge disadvantage. When Laver first joined the pro tour he was not the top player and had a year long learning curve. When the amateurs joined the pros they had a long learning curve. Even Gimeno scored a slam in this environment. I don't think its an exact parallel.
@Meles
Peak endurance is much later and above article shows evidence that high levels of endurance continue to age 54.
A reminder for other people new to tennis history:
These 9 men or "boys" won majors before the age of 20:
Chang
Becker
Wilander
Borg
Becker
Nadal
Sampras
Wilander
Edberg
These 14 men won majors after the age of 30:
Korda
Connors
Wawrinka
Gomez
Laver
Newcombe
Agassi
Laver
Federer
Connors
Sampras
Ashe
Gimeno
Rosewall
These 10 men won slams after age 31:
Connors
Sampras
Laver
Wawrinka
Ashe
Agassi
Rosewall
Gimeno
Federer
Rosewall
These men won majors after age 32:
Agassi
Rosewall
Gimeno
Federer
Rosewall
This man won majors after age 35 more than 50 years ago:
Rosewall
In about 12 hours or less we will know if Federer is going to join Rosewall in the over 35 list.
The idea that peak age of winning tennis players has gone up as much as five years or so is not supportable with evidence.
It is more likely that the top players right now are enjoying a boost coming from things other than age, something that would be very similar to the early open era.
At that time you had older players who competed in a separate tour, the old pro tour, and they were clearly better than the younger amateurs. It took several years for younger players to thoroughly break this dominance.
It is at least highly likely that something very similar is going on right now, something that has allowed the older champions to hold onto a stranglehold over younger players.
For the record, in case we are still debating this in another five years time, I think the age of peak tennis has gone up, but more likely around 1.5-3 years, not 5 or more. There are many other factors involved, and we are in the second anomaly of open tennis, this one even more extreme than the Laver/Rosewall days.
Equating the age of marathon runners to major winners is a false metric.
I'm not sure I'm saying the peak age has moved 5 years. For Murray and Djokovic it looks that way. I'm saying the period is blurred. Its no longer set by a players speed prime above all else. Stamina and power are more dominant factors especially on hard courts. Take a look at quarterfinalists at the US Open and it shows this. Jez Green has a 5 year program for Zverev. Its not a trivial matter developing this strength and stamina. Nadal blows up this model a bit, but he does that too everything. If you look at hard courts even Nadal took much longer to do well. The evidence is overwhelming.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
If conditions stay static enough then you'll see a greater spread of players competing at the top rather than it being convenient to a generation who by chance were more likely to be acclimated to a set of conditions; Fed's gen suffered here and the next gen didn't, the generations after had equally convenient circumstances as ~30 gen but didn't have the talent and timing made it harder for them to break through the existing vanguard.
Chess is a nice static game. There are elite players aged in the teens, 20s, 30s and 40s.
If the generations after Djoko-Nadal's weren't so relatively mediocre, we'd have realistic Slam contenders right now aged 35, ~30, ~25, ~20 (banking on A.Zverev). If conditions remain relatively static (courts, technology in general.. racquets) then I expect that to be the case more frequently in the future, but the ultimate great anomalies will win with prolificacy regardless of age and starting from young (at oldest 23/24 like Djokovic or Lendl).
Pure fornication.
Chess is a nice static game. There are elite players aged in the teens, 20s, 30s and 40s.
If the generations after Djoko-Nadal's weren't so relatively mediocre, we'd have realistic Slam contenders right now aged 35, ~30, ~25, ~20 (banking on A.Zverev). If conditions remain relatively static (courts, technology in general.. racquets) then I expect that to be the case more frequently in the future, but the ultimate great anomalies will win with prolificacy regardless of age and starting from young (at oldest 23/24 like Djokovic or Lendl).
Pure fornication.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
We're pretty much in agreement, which was why I was a bit surprised at your last post.I know I can strongly contend a point and you won't have any hard feelings.
I have NOTHING on the past peak age, etc. because I've heard it ad nauseum on this site.
The Poly Era has been going on for some time. Its becoming time to make some hypothesis; not 5 years from now, let alone 10 years. Be bold.
But you go a bit farther than I go. I don't like comparing past players to modern players. I would not be shocked to see someone much younger win again, but I agree about height, and yes, today's players are in much better shape!
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Thought you meant proficiency, but looked this up and it's a word too. you learn something new every day, especially on the GPP at talktenis
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Actually, words like that are a dead giveaway about who @-NN- was in his last incarnation. It's the prolificacy of more sophisticated vocabulary words, this one stumping my "spillchucker".
Agreed. It was way better when Todd Martin and Cedric Pioline were playing for major championships.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Same old hypothesis? I hope you're referring to the OP, but fear you mean my "old" hypothesis which is quite new and bolstered by Mr. Dimitrov's ascension. The lost generation consists of Goffin, Dimi, Raonic, and Nishikori. Two of these players are two short to compete with the very best due to lack of serve. Chang lite perhaps, but Nishikori is under rated. Raonic is at best a non-peak Roddick due to his mobility issues. Yes, that leaves Dimi, but anyone who has seen his performances at Brisbane and now Auz would be a fool to downplay his prospects; we have at the very least a strong, strong slam contender suddenly upon us.Your contention about ATGs is undeniable and I myself feel the French contingent also constitutes a bumper crop of talent. But, does that mean we have a bubble of near 30 and over 30 players about to decline? Let's look. Recent articles point to the average age being very high on tour so there is no doubt of that. Fiddled with spreadsheet views and filtered for this:
Players aged 32-35: Simon, Ferrer, Federer, Feceliano - all in decline possibly, but Federer's greatness keeps him near the top.
Players aged 31: Wawrinka leads, the way with Tsonga, Berdych, and Isner showing first signs of decline barely. 10 in the top 100
Players aged 30: Monfils, Nadal, and Gasquet (Anderson way down right now with injuries), Gasquet has back issues, Nadal resurging near top form seemingly.
Players aged 29: Murray and Djoko lead a class of 12 including Querrey.
Not a lot of powerhouses in this group outside the top 2.Players aged 28: Cilic, RBA, and Delpo
Players aged 27: Nishikori and a plummeting Paire lead a group of 8
Players aged 26: Raonic and Goffin lead a class of 11 including Delbonis and Evans
Players aged 25: Dimitrov and PCB
Players aged 24: Sock and Tomic
Players aged 23: Thiem and Vesely make up by far the smallest class of 2
Players aged 22: Pouille and Edmund
Players aged 21: Kyrgios and Nishioki (100) and that's it, but more may emerge
Players aged 20: Coric, Khachanov, and Medvedev all on the rise (3 right now, but Jared Donaldson also notable)
Players aged 19: Zverev and Fritz
Budding ATGs below this might include FAA and Shavopalov from Canada.
For me Cilic at age 28 stands out as a player that may have peaked (made WTF this year). He got a US Open to his credit and he could luck his way into another slam.
Statistically I don't rate him highly.Nishikori at age 27 appears to settled in as a career as the toughest spoiler, but will suffer due to height/serve issues
Delpo at 27 will be a player of reckoning if he ever regains his health fully
Raonic at age 26 will probably slide into a slam at some point
Goffin is much like Nishikori.Dimitrov at age 25 looks set to be a multi-slam winner
Thiem is the next long term slam prospect at 23
Pouille has a ghost of a chance and is just six months younger than Thiem. Stellar 2016 at age 22 out of the blue.
Kyrgios really doing just fine and is still quite young at 21.
Coric had knee issues and may yet emerge with time and just turned 20 in October (plenty of time)
Zverev is a guaranteed multi-slam winner and possible ATG, but his size may be boosting his game at a young age, so ATG far from sure.
It looks like the "perennial" group of starting to get old players has a bulge of 7 players aged 29-31, four of whom are multi-slam winners. They may all be declined by 2020, but its a special group that won't be dislodged easily.
Without a doubt Djokovic and Nadal are ATGs. Its ridiculous to hold any player or generation up to that standard. I'd maintain that they stand far above any other pro era player except Federer. They've achieved in the strongest of fields.
Other than the Oxygen being sucked from the tour by 3 ATGs plus Murray, I don't see major issues with talent. The pipeline is in motion and no evidence exists that "this average age will plummet in a few years time". ULTRAFICTION
The age of slam winners will surely drop, but that's pretty obvious.
DolgoSantoro
Professional
Pete and Andre had a last hurrah in a slam final when they were in their 30s. Laver and Rosewall played a legendary match in 1972, being even older than Fedal are now.
Feel free to stop watching tennis, though. Sounds like it's genuinely been years since you enjoyed it.
Feel free to stop watching tennis, though. Sounds like it's genuinely been years since you enjoyed it.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Your contention about ATGs is undeniable and I myself feel the French contingent also constitutes a bumper crop of talent. But, does that mean we have a bubble of near 30 and over 30 players about to decline? Let's look. Recent articles point to the average age being very high on tour so there is no doubt of that. Fiddled with spreadsheet views and filtered for this:
Players aged 32-35: Simon, Ferrer, Federer, Feceliano - all in decline possibly, but Federer's greatness keeps him near the top.
Players aged 31: Wawrinka leads, the way with Tsonga, Berdych, and Isner showing first signs of decline barely. 10 in the top 100
Players aged 30: Monfils, Nadal, and Gasquet (Anderson way down right now with injuries), Gasquet has back issues, Nadal resurging near top form seemingly.
Players aged 29: Murray and Djoko lead a class of 12 including Querrey.
Players aged 28: Cilic, RBA, and Delpo
Players aged 27: Nishikori and a plummeting Paire lead a group of 8
Players aged 26: Raonic and Goffin lead a class of 11 including Delbonis and Evans
Players aged 25: Dimitrov and PCB
Players aged 24: Sock and Tomic
Players aged 23: Thiem and Vesely make up by far the smallest class of 2
Players aged 22: Pouille and Edmund
Players aged 21: Kyrgios and Nishioki (100) and that's it, but more may emerge
Players aged 20: Coric, Khachanov, and Medvedev all on the rise (3 right now, but Jared Donaldson also notable)
Players aged 19: Zverev and Fritz
Budding ATGs below this might include FAA and Shavopalov from Canada.
For me Cilic at age 28 stands out as a player that may have peaked (made WTF this year). He got a US Open to his credit and he could luck his way into another slam.
Nishikori at age 27 appears to settled in as a career as the toughest spoiler, but will suffer due to height/serve issues
Delpo at 27 will be a player of reckoning if he ever regains his health fully
Raonic at age 26 will probably slide into a slam at some point
Dimitrov at age 25 looks set to be a multi-slam winner
Thiem is the next long term slam prospect at 23
Pouille has a ghost of a chance and is just six months younger than Thiem. Stellar 2016 at age 22 out of the blue.
Kyrgios really doing just fine and is still quite young at 21.
Coric had knee issues and may yet emerge with time and just turned 20 in October (plenty of time)
Zverev is a guaranteed multi-slam winner and possible ATG, but his size may be boosting his game at a young age, so ATG far from sure.
It looks like the "perennial" group of starting to get old players has a bulge of 7 players aged 29-31, four of whom are multi-slam winners. They may all be declined by 2020, but its a special group that won't be dislodged easily.
Without a doubt Djokovic and Nadal are ATGs. Its ridiculous to hold any player or generation up to that standard. I'd maintain that they stand far above any other pro era player except Federer. They've achieved in the strongest of fields.
Other than the Oxygen being sucked from the tour by 3 ATGs plus Murray, I don't see major issues with talent. The pipeline is in motion and no evidence exists that "this average age will plummet in a few years time". ULTRAFICTION
The age of slam winners will surely drop, but that's pretty obvious.
I'm referring to my same old hypothesis.
The point is that the next couple of generations after the current ~30 generation lack any particularly special anomalies. The anomalies will still start achieving early as a general rule even against the supposed grain of a new "trend". Chaps like Thiem and Dimitrov weren't good enough to do it. Only thing that would prove this statement wrong is if Thiem started winning multiple Slams over the next two years. Djokovic won early but really he started to peak and maintain aged 23/24. Lendl too. Anomalies will maintain that trend because they transcend any extra noise and obstacles thrown in their way by a changing game.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
One thought before I start watching the match:
Your contention about ATGs is undeniable and I myself feel the French contingent also constitutes a bumper crop of talent. But, does that mean we have a bubble of near 30 and over 30 players about to decline? Let's look. Recent articles point to the average age being very high on tour so there is no doubt of that. Fiddled with spreadsheet views and filtered for this:
Players aged 32-35: Simon, Ferrer, Federer, Feceliano - all in decline possibly, but Federer's greatness keeps him near the top.
Players aged 31: Wawrinka leads, the way with Tsonga, Berdych, and Isner showing first signs of decline barely. 10 in the top 100
Players aged 30: Monfils, Nadal, and Gasquet (Anderson way down right now with injuries), Gasquet has back issues, Nadal resurging near top form seemingly.
Players aged 29: Murray and Djoko lead a class of 12 including Querrey.
Players aged 28: Cilic, RBA, and Delpo
Players aged 27: Nishikori and a plummeting Paire lead a group of 8
Players aged 26: Raonic and Goffin lead a class of 11 including Delbonis and Evans
Players aged 25: Dimitrov and PCB
Players aged 24: Sock and Tomic
Players aged 23: Thiem and Vesely make up by far the smallest class of 2
Players aged 22: Pouille and Edmund
Players aged 21: Kyrgios and Nishioki (100) and that's it, but more may emerge
Players aged 20: Coric, Khachanov, and Medvedev all on the rise (3 right now, but Jared Donaldson also notable)
Players aged 19: Zverev and Fritz
Budding ATGs below this might include FAA and Shavopalov from Canada.
For me Cilic at age 28 stands out as a player that may have peaked (made WTF this year). He got a US Open to his credit and he could luck his way into another slam.
Nishikori at age 27 appears to settled in as a career as the toughest spoiler, but will suffer due to height/serve issues
Delpo at 27 will be a player of reckoning if he ever regains his health fully
Raonic at age 26 will probably slide into a slam at some point
Dimitrov at age 25 looks set to be a multi-slam winner
Thiem is the next long term slam prospect at 23
Pouille has a ghost of a chance and is just six months younger than Thiem. Stellar 2016 at age 22 out of the blue.
Kyrgios really doing just fine and is still quite young at 21.
Coric had knee issues and may yet emerge with time and just turned 20 in October (plenty of time)
Zverev is a guaranteed multi-slam winner and possible ATG, but his size may be boosting his game at a young age, so ATG far from sure.
It looks like the "perennial" group of starting to get old players has a bulge of 7 players aged 29-31, four of whom are multi-slam winners. They may all be declined by 2020, but its a special group that won't be dislodged easily.
Without a doubt Djokovic and Nadal are ATGs. Its ridiculous to hold any player or generation up to that standard. I'd maintain that they stand far above any other pro era player except Federer. They've achieved in the strongest of fields.
Other than the Oxygen being sucked from the tour by 3 ATGs plus Murray, I don't see major issues with talent. The pipeline is in motion and no evidence exists that "this average age will plummet in a few years time". ULTRAFICTION
The age of slam winners will surely drop, but that's pretty obvious.
It is likely that the age of major winners will normalize soon, but at a level of around 2 years older than in the past, and maybe 3. Unknown as of yet.
But the "sub-dominance" of older players is probably here to stay because there is enough money to support aging players who have families to support and who have the money to pay "teams" to support their play.
We should not underestimate the cost of having coaches, trainers, physios, and so on. Part of what is making tennis "age skewed" is the whole "players box" thing. It has become truly absurd, and it is what I most hate about tennis now.
No room for a young Pancho Gonzalez in today's tennis.
More than ever tennis is now a sport for rich kids or kids who have the support of the rich.
Now, let's see who wins as this site crashes.
Similar threads
