Only two over-30 players left in the top 20
- Thread starter James P
- Start date
Terenigma
Talk Tennis Guru
Big 3/4 elevated the level tennis players needed to even compete with them and we got a period of tennis where even the journeymen were pushing 30 and still competing at the top levels. Now that we're almost done with the Big 4 era tennis is regressing back into what it was before where players would retire around 30 and the idea of hitting 20+ slams is a pipe dream.
I'm really curious if the medical advances and training regimes are a contributing factor. I wonder if in 5 years we're still going to be seeing Tsitsipas/Rublev/Zverev and Medvedev still competing inside the top 10 and pushing for slams or will they be drifting into retirement? Also if you confidently think they'll all still playing, ask yourself this. Where are Dimitrov/Nishikori and Raonic right now?
I'm really curious if the medical advances and training regimes are a contributing factor. I wonder if in 5 years we're still going to be seeing Tsitsipas/Rublev/Zverev and Medvedev still competing inside the top 10 and pushing for slams or will they be drifting into retirement? Also if you confidently think they'll all still playing, ask yourself this. Where are Dimitrov/Nishikori and Raonic right now?
James P
G.O.A.T.
It'll be interesting to see. I think the four mentioned are probably as good as the 'gatekeepers' of the previous era who stayed in the top 20 for a long time, the Ferrer/Tsonga/Berdych/Monfils types that were top 20 into their 30s. But, top 10 is probably less likely.
SecondToNone
Semi-Pro
In 6 weeks there's going to be just one 
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Surely this is a mistake. Did someone forget to tell the 30 year olds that they have 10 more years of practice and should be better than they were in their 20s?
Sputnik Bulgorov
Hall of Fame
Perhaps the age shift is a myth?
Razer
G.O.A.T.
In every sport it has been observed, I would not call it a myth. Notice when the 1996-2003 born players become 30+ then most of them will still be in the top 50-100 ranks in the world and some of them will be in the top 20-30 ranks too.
Age shift is real.
The Fedfather
Legend
Really,.where are the ardent fighters ready to die on the hill that 30 isn't at all an age where a pro athlete would typically decline? Where are you, guys? Used up all energy on arguing about Federer peaking at 34?
Sputnik Bulgorov
Hall of Fame
Perhaps it is real, but nowhere near to the extent people make it out to be. Why aren't there more 30+ players at the top now? There's only one 30+ player in the top 10 and 2 in the top 20. There are 24 30+ players in the top 100, but 92% of them are outside the top 20. 58% of them are outside the top 50. The data shows that while players are able to play longer, they are not at the elite level, on average.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Only special players can be at the top, so are you surprised at 92% ? The point is GAS helped the players at the absolute top to achieve more, thats it. It doesn't guarantee anything for guys who were already failures (at a slam wining level) in their 20s. If we expect Thiem to be great in 30s then we are asking too much, that guy was already losing to Djokodal, what good is he now when his own body has broken down and the guys in 20s are better than him ?
Sputnik Bulgorov
Hall of Fame
Please define "GAS" then. If it means that players are playing better than ever at an advanced age, the current data doesn't support it. If it just means that players can have longer careers, regardless of their actual level then yes, I can get behind that.
Please also define "absolute top". If we go by top 4, then why are Wawrinka, Murray, Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori and Cilic - all of whom spent significant time in the top 4 - irrelevant? If we go by just the big 3 - well then that's a very small sample size, isn't it? They're the exceptions rather than the norm. Why did the age shift help them and not other players in their peer group?
Last edited:
Razer
G.O.A.T.
GAS theory of Ivan Lendl suggests that today's 33 is their 27, that means an age shift of 6 years.
It means when Lendl was 27 in 1987-88, Sampras was 27 in 1998-99, Federer was 33 in 2014-2015, their playing level was comparable with respect to their competition. This means in Pete's time 31 is very old, that means 10 years age gap is a big deal, a 21 year old can kick you ass. But 31 is not a big deal for Federer because forget about 21, even prime athletes like Novak were unable to properly kick Federer's ass, why is that ? Because Federer is damn good at 31, this is the age shift. Novak is damn good at USO2018 and AO2019, he crushed Nadal, because he was 31 and not old anymore. This is great age shift.
As someone said earlier, the Big 3 raised the level of the entire field when they were in their prime and now slowly level is dipping again, later I believe if Sinner-Alcaraz-Rune emerge as ATGs then they too will raise the level of the field and this everyone will play longer. Decline in athleticism and energy levels in early 30s onwards is going to happen to everyone.
Sputnik Bulgorov
Hall of Fame
Let's be very precise with our definitions. What does "an age shift of 6 years" mean? Does this mean someone who's 33 can play like they're 27? If someone is 27, should he be playing like he's 21?
If we go by the first one, then why aren't the current crop of 30+ players playing like they are 27? Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, Del Potro and Cilic are the former top players currently in this age range, but what happened to them? Del Potro is retired. Raonic and Nishikori are for all intents and purposes, retired. Dimitrov and Cilic are languishing in the top 30. This is due to a combination of physical decline and injuries.
The current data doesn't support the age shift of 6 years.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
I thought we were in the “new age” of age resilience and 38 was the new 28?
Federev
G.O.A.T.
No way. That elbow will be just fine. Plus he’s awesome at Pilates!In 6 weeks there's going to be just one
Razer
G.O.A.T.
I said age shift is for top 100, never said you will have a constant supply of players in the top 20 ranks in their 30s. Only great players are able to play really well in their 30s, the age shift only slows your decline, it doesn't ensure you being in peak in your early/mid 30s. Dimitrov wa struggling in 2018-2019 itself, his ranking has not dropped a lot in last 4 years. Cilic is way too old now, he is around 35 now. The likes of Raonic, Nishikori already extended their careers into the 30s, they should all be done in their 20s in earlier eras. What more can you expect ? You will have a fresh set of athlete aged 30+ in the top 20-30 ranks when Zverev-Med-Sascha-Rublev-Tsitsipas all hit their 30s, till then you have to wait patiently.
Sputnik Bulgorov
Hall of Fame
You never said it was for top 100 only. And let’s stick to one definition please. If the age shift is only for the top 100, then 33 is not the new 27. Players are extending their careers, but they are clearly not playing prime or “27” level tennis at 33.
Nishikori is only 33. According to “GAS”, he should be playing like he’s 27. Raonic is only 32. According to “GAS”, he should be playing like he’s 26. Dimitrov is only 31. According to “GAS”, he should be playing like he’s 25. Cilic is only 34. According to “GAS”, he should be playing like he’s 28. But they’ve all fallen off and are retired or shadows of the the players they were in their 20’s.
Nothing you’ve said actually confirms the age shift.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Yes Novak is anamoly. A glitch in the metrics.
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Oh Nice. Took how many years for some clowns in their 20s to beat guys close to 40. LOL
DSH
Bionic Poster
Besides that, with the points from Wimbledon 2022, Nadal would still be top 10.
Of course, Djokovic would be even more comfortable at world number 1.
Tennfan123
Legend
Thank Lordy we won’t have to hear anymore guff about 30 is the new 20 etc.
Similar threads
