Over-30 geezers have won the last 14 slams and counting

blablavla

Hall of Fame
So why do you use Big3's age as an argument to say that they're not peak?
because they're not.
they might rack the big titles and #1 - #3 spots in the ranking, but that only talks so much about their competition.

The older you get, the more recovery time you need.
In the case if you are past 30, or if you have friends that are past 30. Try to have a wild party and get drunk like when you were 18 or in early 20s. You'd be surprised by what awaits for you next day. Or ask your friends past 30 what happens next day as opposed to when they were "young".
Same in sport, when an athlete is young, the recovery time is way faster. Unless your opposition doesn't push you to the limits, so you don't need to recover.

When do you think Nadal was capable to run at highest speed burst?
What do you think about average speed of the sprints?
What do you think about the total distance covered while sprinting?
look into some highlights of the "baby Nadal" and see how difficult it was to hit a winner past him, cause he was getting to every ball. Is he doing this now?

Why do you think Moya talked so much about the need to change his strategy? to shorten the points?
Why do you think Novak brought first Boris and then Goran into the team?
Why Novak was so happy with winning a lot of easy points from serve? that isn't intelligent tennis, but if you don't have the speed of 10 years ago, who cares if instead of chasing every ball you rather win points by hitting aces or unreturned serves?

why do you think Fed, Novak and Rafa all went through stages when their biggest focus was to shorten the points?
let me guess, cause they don't lose speed and are still capable to outrun the entire tour day in day out, 70 matches per year.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
Big3's average win percentage:

2020 - 88.19
2012 - 86.42
2011 - 86.15
2017 - 85.71
2019 - 85.50
2018 - 85.38

2014 - 85.22
2015 - 84.54
2013 - 84.40
2007 - 82.94
2010 - 82.73
2008 - 82.89
2006 - 82.31
2009 - 82.16
2016 - 78.81
2005 - 78.02

off clay:

2020 - 88.19
2019 - 86.00
2017 - 85.23
2018 - 84.94

2011 - 84.66
2012 - 84.46
2015 - 84.04
2013 - 83.97
2014 - 83.92
2010 - 82.26
2008 - 81.02
2009 - 80.45
2007 - 80.34
2006 - 79.15
2016 - 76.68
2005 - 76.41
This is a very convincing argument that the most recent several years have the weakest field.
 
Big3's average win percentage:

2020 - 88.19
2012 - 86.42
2011 - 86.15
2017 - 85.71
2019 - 85.50
2018 - 85.38

2014 - 85.22
2015 - 84.54
2013 - 84.40
2007 - 82.94
2010 - 82.73
2008 - 82.89
2006 - 82.31
2009 - 82.16
2016 - 78.81
2005 - 78.02

off clay:

2020 - 88.19
2019 - 86.00
2017 - 85.23
2018 - 84.94

2011 - 84.66
2012 - 84.46
2015 - 84.04
2013 - 83.97
2014 - 83.92
2010 - 82.26
2008 - 81.02
2009 - 80.45
2007 - 80.34
2006 - 79.15
2016 - 76.68
2005 - 76.41
2020... LOL.
 
I just considered 2019 and 2020 as one year, so that the sample size for 2020 is not too small (which is a valid point, btw).
Yeah, I know, I'm just interjecting with idiosyncratic facetiousness. It's a logical approach.

You are just posting the same old stuff that runs into the zero-sum problem as if it doesn't exist and hasn't permeated your thread responses, however.
 

40L0VE

Semi-Pro
Hewitt and Chang never gave up in a match or look defeated when being dominated. The younger gen can't even match these 2 former and lesser champions even on attitude. Then I look at their physiques and as a whole they look far less well conditioned than the top group of players from previous generations.

Then I look at their games, do they have so called signature-go-to-shot combinations/playing styles that can do damage on a regular basis to the top players like previous generations? From what I see as a whole group my answer in no.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
Hewitt and Chang never gave up in a match or look defeated when being dominated. The younger gen can't even match these 2 former and lesser champions even on attitude. Then I look at their physiques and as a whole they look far less well conditioned than the top group of players from previous generations.

Then I look at their games, do they have so called signature-go-to-shot combinations/playing styles that can do damage on a regular basis to the top players like previous generations? From what I see as a whole group my answer in no.
I consider the NextGen approach and style to be a failed dead-end tennis evolutionary branch.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
I consider the NextGen approach and style to be a failed dead-end tennis evolutionary branch.
Tsitsipas with Becker and Thiem with Lendl could help. They have the game and physicality required, now that Big3 are fading. How moving it was when Thiem, in tears at AO, told us he would have won slams in a different era... :sick:
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
As showed by some stats in this thread many players are having their best results in their late 20s and 30s.
Are these maybe players who were in their mid 20s when the big 3 were in pretty much every semi of every tournament?

Easier to beat Carreno Busta than peak Djokovic in a Slam SF I would think but maybe thats just me.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
As showed by some stats in this thread many players are having their best results in their late 20s and 30s.
@Lew II you might call Hewitt, Safin and Roddick the weak or weakest era together with your Wonderland buddies @Nadal_Django @weakera @beard but you probably know somewhere deep inside that there is one common thing between Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Murray, Nadal, Djokovic and this is missing in the generations after Djokodal we have seen so far.

And you know what that is?
The winner takes it all while #2 is a loser. The #2 is simply the best of the losers, and yet still a loser. And the #3 is even a worse loser.
This is why Murray jeopardized his career but went on with that insane streak and sealed the #1.
While the maestro of the second serves and part time pro player and part time philosopher are waiting till big 3 will retire.

Can you imagine Djokovic to patiently wait till Federer and Nadal will retire so that he can win in the absence of strong competition?

And you know what?
The nature of tennis is that there will be a #1, a #2, and a #100 no matter what.
It's not like in ski jumping, that in order to qualify to Olympic Games one needs to jump to at least certain threshold. So, if only 20 athletes jump, then only 20 are allowed to compete in the biggest event in that sport.
No, in tennis the GS has 128 slots. And if there is Big 3 and then nobody, either way there will be 128 players starting in R1, and there will be precisely 8 players reaching the quarter-final and precisely 4 players reaching the semifinal.
So the fact that 3 geezers are still raking up big titles and top positions only talks about who is the real "vulture", who is "vulturing" the GS titles and weeks at #1 in absence of strong competition.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I think they have less improvement/changes to add to the game, evolution slows down at some point. Plus the older players age better, especially due to better treatments/prevention to injuries.
So you are admitting that the young generation is very weak, thank you.

(And Novak Djokovic has been the main beneficiary of this)
 

Federev

Hall of Fame
No, trend in most sports is that athletes are great at "late" age... "Late" is quoted because it's not really late, but normal and expected... And it's ok, I don't see the problem except for Fed fans who expected some other players to keep his records safe, the quest he failed himself badly...

And what is wrong when tennis careers lasts 15 or 20 years instead of 10? Nothing at all in my book...

They won last 8 and it feels just great... Hope for 10 more... ;) Hope Fed will increase his number sf's and f's in the same period....
You turned this thread question about the lack of success in 20 somethings into a way to put down Fed.

You must really not like him.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
No, I'm saying that the older gen is too complete and has few weak points to expose.
are you saying Agassi wasn't a complete player with few weak points to be exposed?
1. age
2. check the previous point, which means slower recovery
3. check the point #1, which means his ability to sprint isn't same like "baby Nadal", or "baby Djokovic", or "weak era Fed"
and so on and so forth

by the way, as sport science is developing, don't you find it awkward that approx. 12 - 17 years after some of the best tennis players were "produced", all the accumulated knowledge failed to produce an even better player? someone who could sprint faster, bend more than Novak, recover faster, hit the ball harder, put more touch, have a stronger mentality? isn't this a proof of ongoing progress?

imagine if you go to purchase a new car, and the cars manufactured in the last 12-17 years have less features, slower speed, smaller range when compared to cars manufactured in 1980 - 1987.
or imagine that the 3 coolest smartphones were manufactured in 1980 - 1987, and since then you are only getting something with less features.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
are you saying Agassi wasn't a complete player with few weak points to be exposed?
1. age
2. check the previous point, which means slower recovery
3. check the point #1, which means his ability to sprint isn't same like "baby Nadal", or "baby Djokovic", or "weak era Fed"
and so on and so forth

by the way, as sport science is developing, don't you find it awkward that approx. 12 - 17 years after some of the best tennis players were "produced", all the accumulated knowledge failed to produce an even better player? someone who could sprint faster, bend more than Novak, recover faster, hit the ball harder, put more touch, have a stronger mentality? isn't this a proof of ongoing progress?

imagine if you go to purchase a new car, and the cars manufactured in the last 12-17 years have less features, slower speed, smaller range when compared to cars manufactured in 1980 - 1987.
or imagine that the 3 coolest smartphones were manufactured in 1980 - 1987, and since then you are only getting something with less features.
They don't build tennis players like they used to.
 

beard

Hall of Fame
You turned this thread question about the lack of success in 20 somethings into a way to put down Fed.

You must really not like him.
Sorry you don't like my post... If you can tell what I'm wrong about, we can discuss...
 

Lew II

Legend
<6' tall Slam finalists

2001 - 4 (Agassi, Clement, Corretja, Hewitt)
2002 - 5 (Johansson, Costa, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Agassi)
2003 - 2 (Agassi, Schuettler)
2004 - 3 (Gaudio, Coria, Hewitt)
2005 - 3 (Hewitt, Puerta, Agassi)
2006 - 1 (Baghdatis)
2007 -
2008 -
2009 -
2010 -
2011 -
2012 -
2013 - 1 (Ferrer)
2014 - 1 (Nishikori)
2015 -
2016 -
2017 -
2018 -
2019 -
2020 -
 

FedeRadi

Rookie
Peaking in early 20s is a myth.
Analyzing every ATG career the peak is in their mid 20s. Some early-mid, some mid-late. There are some early boomer who peaked at 22(Like Rafa, Boris).
It's diffcult to say what is peak(Djokovic, for example, arguably peaked in 2011 or 2016). So I will indicate all their prime in this case.

Novak Djokovic: 2011-2016 - 24-29.
Rafael Nadal: 2008-2013 - 22-27.
Roger Federer: 2004-2009 - 23-28.
Andy Murray: 2011-2016 - 24-29.
Andre Agassi: 1999 - 29. (Weird career, difficult to indicate even a prime)
Pete Sampras: 1993-1997 - 22-26.
Boris Becker: 1989-1991 - 22-24.
Stefan Edberg: 1990-1992 - 24-26.
Mats Wilander: 1988. - 24.
Ivan Lendl: 1984-1987. - 24-27.
John McEnroe: 1981-1984. - 22-25.
Bjorn Borg: 1978-1981. 22-25.
Jimmy Connors: 1974-1978. 22-26.

There was some ATGs who BEGIN their prime at 22. Not before. And arguably 22 season almost never was their peak.
2010 Nadal is arguably better than 2008 one(And maybe 2013 too).
1993 Sampras wasn't best Sampras.
1989 Becker has a strong case to be best Becker season. (But he is the early boomer by definition)
1981 McEnroe was not close 1984 McEnroe.
Borg was pretty steady dominant in his prime.
1974 Connors was his best season result-wise, but this had a lot to do with competition IMO.

The typical player peak is, and was in all the open era, in mid 20s. Maybe it shifted from 24-25 to 26-27. But not more.
The real difference between this century and the previous one, is that top player can mantain a level near their prime, at least, in their early 30s. It's not difficult to understand why, with technologies, sports diet and medicine ecc. going forward.
In 1970s/1980s/1990s you can raise your level until 24/25, and then, before or right after 30, it will drop drammatically(So there was less competition and more chances for very young players too).
In 2010s you can reaise your level until 26/27 and then it will slowly decrease. There are obviously some outlier in both case, but the pattern is clear.
Lew cited Stan, but almost every good player in 2010s was better at 32 than in his very early 20s.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Highest paid athletes are mostly over 30.

Every sport must be in in trouble, not just tennis.
is this way of @Lew II agree-ing that @Lew II is wrong?

I assume that in the term "highest paid" you include not only the prize money / money from the contract with the team which are paid for sport performance, but you as well include endorsement money.
Well, in this case you probably know that in order to obtain an endorsement contract one first needs to start winning.
So, there is hardly a surprise that:
- human body is at the peak of physical development at approx. 27 years old
- at around same age there is more than enough top competition experience
- at around same age there is probably already min 5 years, but sometimes 10 years of effort to promote the athlete, build the popularity + polish the image

so let's guess who will be getting the biggest endorsement contracts, someone who at 20 - 23 years old settles to count the millions or someone who racked up big titles during prime years?
imagine that Thiem would have won the AO 2020.
do you think that based on 1 result he would immediately get "fatter" endorsement contracts as opposed to Fed, Nadal and Novak?

ok, let's imagine that Thiem won RG 2019 and then AO 2020.
do you think that based on 1 result he would immediately get "fatter" endorsement contracts as opposed to Fed, Nadal and Novak?

If Thiem will dethrone the big 3, by the time he will be 30+ he might have fat endorsement contracts.
And what a surprise that at the same time someone younger will be dethroning him, like Djokodal + Fed did to Agassi and Sampras.
Which in turn sent past ATGs to retirement.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
<6' tall Slam finalists

2001 - 4 (Agassi, Clement, Corretja, Hewitt)
2002 - 5 (Johansson, Costa, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Agassi)
2003 - 2 (Agassi, Schuettler)
2004 - 3 (Gaudio, Coria, Hewitt)
2005 - 3 (Hewitt, Puerta, Agassi)
2006 - 1 (Baghdatis)
2007 -
2008 -
2009 -
2010 -
2011 -
2012 -
2013 - 1 (Ferrer)
2014 - 1 (Nishikori)
2015 -
2016 -
2017 -
2018 -
2019 -
2020 -
So the question is, how come there is not a single active short player as talented as Agassi, Hewitt, or Nalbandian?
 

Lew II

Legend
is this way of @Lew II agree-ing that @Lew II is wrong?

I assume that in the term "highest paid" you include not only the prize money / money from the contract with the team which are paid for sport performance, but you as well include endorsement money.
Well, in this case you probably know that in order to obtain an endorsement contract one first needs to start winning.
So, there is hardly a surprise that:
- human body is at the peak of physical development at approx. 27 years old
- at around same age there is more than enough top competition experience
- at around same age there is probably already min 5 years, but sometimes 10 years of effort to promote the athlete, build the popularity + polish the image

so let's guess who will be getting the biggest endorsement contracts, someone who at 20 - 23 years old settles to count the millions or someone who racked up big titles during prime years?
imagine that Thiem would have won the AO 2020.
do you think that based on 1 result he would immediately get "fatter" endorsement contracts as opposed to Fed, Nadal and Novak?

ok, let's imagine that Thiem won RG 2019 and then AO 2020.
do you think that based on 1 result he would immediately get "fatter" endorsement contracts as opposed to Fed, Nadal and Novak?

If Thiem will dethrone the big 3, by the time he will be 30+ he might have fat endorsement contracts.
And what a surprise that at the same time someone younger will be dethroning him, like Djokodal + Fed did to Agassi and Sampras.
Which in turn sent past ATGs to retirement.
Over30s are the highest paid even without endorsements.

 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Peaking in early 20s is a myth.
Analyzing every ATG career the peak is in their mid 20s. Some early-mid, some mid-late. There are some early boomer who peaked at 22(Like Rafa, Boris).
It's diffcult to say what is peak(Djokovic, for example, arguably peaked in 2011 or 2016). So I will indicate all their prime in this case.

Novak Djokovic: 2011-2016 - 24-29.
Rafael Nadal: 2008-2013 - 22-27.
Roger Federer: 2004-2009 - 23-28.
Andy Murray: 2011-2016 - 24-29.
Andre Agassi: 1999 - 29. (Weird career, difficult to indicate even a prime)
Pete Sampras: 1993-1997 - 22-26.
Boris Becker: 1989-1991 - 22-24.
Stefan Edberg: 1990-1992 - 24-26.
Mats Wilander: 1988. - 24.
Ivan Lendl: 1984-1987. - 24-27.
John McEnroe: 1981-1984. - 22-25.
Bjorn Borg: 1978-1981. 22-25.
Jimmy Connors: 1974-1978. 22-26.

There was some ATGs who BEGIN their prime at 22. Not before. And arguably 22 season almost never was their peak.
2010 Nadal is arguably better than 2008 one(And maybe 2013 too).
1993 Sampras wasn't best Sampras.
1989 Becker has a strong case to be best Becker season. (But he is the early boomer by definition)
1981 McEnroe was not close 1984 McEnroe.
Borg was pretty steady dominant in his prime.
1974 Connors was his best season result-wise, but this had a lot to do with competition IMO.

The typical player peak is, and was in all the open era, in mid 20s. Maybe it shifted from 24-25 to 26-27. But not more.
The real difference between this century and the previous one, is that top player can mantain a level near their prime, at least, in their early 30s. It's not difficult to understand why, with technologies, sports diet and medicine ecc. going forward.
In 1970s/1980s/1990s you can raise your level until 24/25, and then, before or right after 30, it will drop drammatically(So there was less competition and more chances for very young players too).
In 2010s you can reaise your level until 26/27 and then it will slowly decrease. There are obviously some outlier in both case, but the pattern is clear.
Lew cited Stan, but almost every good player in 2010s was better at 32 than in his very early 20s.
ok, tell me please how many players that are now in mid 20s to late 20s are regularly defeating Djokodal and Fed.
Dimitrov?
Nishikori?
Johnson?
Sousa?
Goffin?
Lajovic?
Evans?
Raonic?
Berankis?
Schwartzman?

these are all players 27 - 31 years old.

Or perhaps Berdych who in the meantime retired?
 

Lew II

Legend
So the question is, how come there is not a single active short player as talented as Agassi, Hewitt, or Nalbandian?
Big guys move better now.

Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Monfils
Medvedev
Zverev
Dimitrov

are tall/muscular but move like once lightweight did...
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
ok, let's o through the list.

Folks below 30 years old: Neymar, Wentz, Goff,
Folks at 31 years old: Cousins, Fury, Jones.
Folks who are having big contracts due to past achievements: min 2: Messi and Ronaldo.

sorted by salary:
1. Messi. 33, years old. What did he win in the last 2 seasons with FC Barcelona? Uefa Champions League? When did he win last time World Cup or at least the South America Cup with Argentina?
I hope there is no need to explain how much of his current salary is paid because of his past success

2. Neymar.
He is actually 28 years old.

3. Ronaldo. 35 years old. What did he win in the last 2 seasons with Juventus? Uefa Champions League? When did he win last time World Cup with Portugal?
I hope there is no need to explain how much of his current salary is paid because of his past success

4. Kirk Cousins. Can't say much, as I am not into American Football, but he is 31, and I am sure that part of the contract is due to past performance

5. Carson Wentz.
He is actually 27 years old.

6. Tyson Fury. 31 years old and as far as I remember box, all the biggest names there are in their 30s, so hardly a surprize

7. Jared Goff. 25 years old

8. Deontay Wilder. Boxer, 34 years old. Makes sense by my knowledge of box.

9. Lewis Hamilton. 35 years old. F1 driver. Again, by my knowledge of F1, it is unusual for young pilots in early 20s, or mid 20s to dominate F1. So hardly surprising

10. Julio Jones. 31 years old.
 

FedeRadi

Rookie
ok, tell me please how many players that are now in mid 20s to late 20s are regularly defeating Djokodal and Fed.
Dimitrov?
Nishikori?
Johnson?
Sousa?
Goffin?
Lajovic?
Evans?
Raonic?
Berankis?
Schwartzman?

these are all players 27 - 31 years old.

Or perhaps Berdych who in the meantime retired?
I'm not saying there wasn't a bad generation after the Djokodal one. (Lost Gen, that I identify as the first half of 90s, 1990-1994)
Too early to say something on Next Gen(1995-1999), IMO. But I'm confindent one or more players of this generation will be ATGs(Tsitsipas is my bet right now).

There will be other weak generations in past(Like 1975-1979), but they won something because player of precedent generations decline was steeper than Djokodal(And Federer) one. And, with all the due respect to Sampras and Agassi, they aren't Big 3.

If your agenda is saying Djokodal are taking advantage from Lost Gen late in their career. Yes, they are.
But Federer took advantage from late 70s weak gen early in his career.
And the difference is that Djokodal had, in their same generation, another ATG(Djokovic or Nadal) and an arguably ATG(Murray) in order to have competition for all their careers. Federer was clearly the only ATG of his generation and had some years with a completely open field.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
I'm not saying there wasn't a bad generation after the Djokodal one. (Lost Gen, that I identify as the first half of 90s, 1990-1994)
Too early to say something on Next Gen(1995-1999), IMO. But I'm confindent one or more players of this generation will be ATGs(Tsitsipas is my bet right now).

There will be other weak generations in past(Like 1975-1979), but they won something because player of precedent generations decline was steeper than Djokodal(And Federer) one. And, with all the due respect to Sampras and Agassi, they aren't Big 3.

If your agenda is saying Djokodal are taking advantage from Lost Gen late in their career. Yes, they are.
But Federer took advantage from late 70s weak gen early in his career.
And the difference is that Djokodal had, in their same generation, another ATG(Djokovic or Nadal) and an arguably ATG(Murray) in order to have competition for all their careers. Federer was clearly the only ATG of his generation and had some years with a completely open field.
do you mind to name the years when Fed was competing in the ATP tournaments vs juniors and TTW keyboard warriors?

Cause top players as of 29.12.2003 were: Roddick, Federer, JC Ferrero, A Agassi
top players as of 13.12.2004 were: Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin
top players as of 26.12.2005 were: Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt
top players as of 25.12.2006 were: Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, Blake
top players as of 31.12.2007 were: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko
top players as of 29.12.2008 were: Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray
top players as of 28.12.2009 were: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray

Roddick is no slouch. Stronger competitor than Dimitrov, Raonic and other from the generation.
JC Ferrero is no slouch. Stronger competitor than Dimitrov, Raonic and other from the generation.
Hewitt is no slouch. Stronger competitor than Dimitrov, Raonic and other from the generation.
Safin is no slouch. Stronger competitor than Dimitrov, Raonic and other from the generation.

Nadal defeated Federer from the first match.

Where are those many years of dark age when Fed was the only human capable to hit the ball and had no opposition?
 

ravenousRublev

New User
Big 3 are definitely far from their peaks athletism and intensity/movement-wise Areas of their games have deteriorated however Tactically they have improved and other parts of their game have Improved to slightly make up for that. When next gen players reach peak years 24-27 in 1-2 years time there will be alot more shock results in the slams. Thiem has a 5-2 record on Fed already and already looks like a potential contender. Zverev,Medvedev, Tsitsipas in a couple years time will be big threats most of these guys are only 20-23 I don't buy the notion that this era is 'weak'.

Federer backhand used to be a massive liability he showed massive improvements in AO 2017.
Nadal Serve was terrible
Djokovic Mental strength in tiebreakers especially was the difference at Wimbledon even though he got outplayed
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
Big guys move better now.

Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Monfils
Medvedev
Zverev
Dimitrov

are tall/muscular but move like once lightweight did...
True that they are taller and excellent movers. But Monfils and Dmitrov aren't as talented in ball striking. Medvedev has strokes that break the NextGen mold. His strokes are more old school, so it wouldn't surprise me if he breaks from the NextGen pack after the plague ebbs to become the next #1. Zverev could go either way. His forehand is NextGen wristy technique, but unlike most NextGen players he is using a 360-swingweight frame that gives him a decided edge over most of his same-age peers.
 
Top