Parallels between 1969 and now

[Gary Duane]

I was curious about the age of slam winners and finalists at the beginning of the open era in comparison to now.

In 1969 Laver, who was already 30, played Gimeno in the final of the AO, who was almost exactly a year older, 31.

At the FO, Laver was nearly 31 when he played Rosewall, who was around 34.5 (birthday in Nov.)

At Wimbledon Laver was even closer to 31 and beat Newcombe, who was 25.

Then at the USO 31 year old Laver won over 24 year Roche.

That year doesn't seem so different from 2015 so far, where almost 34 year-old Fed was defeated by 28 year-old Djokovic, and where 28 year-old Djokovic was defeated at the FO by Wawrinka, age 30.

Right now people are assuming that tennis has changed, for good. But looking back at 1969 it seemed like the great aging players would win forever.

Suddenly in 1974 Connors came out of nowhere and won three slams, two before age 22, and Borg won the FO at age 18.

That's how fast things can change in tennis.

 

[okdude1992]

I was curious about the age of slam winners and finalists at the beginning of the open era in comparison to now.

In 1969 Laver, who was already 30, played Gimeno in the final of the AO, who was almost exactly a year older, 31.

At the FO, Laver was nearly 31 when he played Rosewall, who was around 34.5 (birthday in Nov.)

At Wimbledon Laver was even closer to 31 and beat Newcombe, who was 25.

Then at the USO 31 year old Laver won over 24 year Roche.

That year doesn't seem so different from 2015 so far, where almost 34 year-old Fed was defeated by 28 year-old Djokovic, and where 28 year-old Djokovic was defeated at the FO by Wawrinka, age 30.

Right now people are assuming that tennis has changed, for good. But looking back at 1969 it seemed like the great aging players would win forever.

Suddenly in 1974 Connors came out of nowhere and won three slams, two before age 22, and Borg won the FO at age 18.

That's how fast things can change in tennis.

Can only hope that some young future greats will come along in the next 2 years

 

[Gary Duane]

Can only hope that some young future greats will come along in the next 2 years

In the late 60s there were a number of players in their mid-20s who were pressing, but for the most part they were not winning. When people like Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver faded, then there was room. I think perhaps the years before Connors would be labeled "a weak era" by the people who write in this forum. I would simply say that players like Ashe, Newcombe and Stan Smith were not strong enough to continue to dominate as they aged. In the case of Smith he was only dominant for about a year. To me this is a lot like the very early 2000s. Fed and Connors both exploded out of nowhere, and in the case of both there was no one to stop them for awhile. I expect this to happen again, sometime in the next 5 years. And maybe sooner.

 

[Gary Duane]

bump

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Coric and Kok are coming. Still feel like they at least 1.5+ years away from contention tho.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I was curious about the age of slam winners and finalists at the beginning of the open era in comparison to now.

In 1969 Laver, who was already 30, played Gimeno in the final of the AO, who was almost exactly a year older, 31.

At the FO, Laver was nearly 31 when he played Rosewall, who was around 34.5 (birthday in Nov.)

At Wimbledon Laver was even closer to 31 and beat Newcombe, who was 25.

Then at the USO 31 year old Laver won over 24 year Roche.

That year doesn't seem so different from 2015 so far, where almost 34 year-old Fed was defeated by 28 year-old Djokovic, and where 28 year-old Djokovic was defeated at the FO by Wawrinka, age 30.

Right now people are assuming that tennis has changed, for good. But looking back at 1969 it seemed like the great aging players would win forever.

Suddenly in 1974 Connors came out of nowhere and won three slams, two before age 22, and Borg won the FO at age 18.

That's how fast things can change in tennis.

Elaborate on the bold please, as I've seen zero evidence of this. The only general assumption I've seen made here by many members is that: players may mature slightly later; the current old guys came from extremely strong generations; that the mid 20s guys won't achieve much and that the next young generation will probably usurp them before they can get much done and dominate the scene at large.

 

[Gary Duane]

Coric and Kok are coming. Still feel like they at least 1.5+ years away from contention tho.

If things go as they went in the late 60s, first we will see more players in their mid 20s win slams, most likely.

 

[Gary Duane]

Elaborate on the bold please, as I've seen zero evidence of this. The only general assumption I've seen made here by many members is that: players may mature slightly later; the current old guys came from extremely strong generations; that the mid 20s guys won't achieve much and that the next young generation will probably usurp them before they can get much done and dominate the scene at large.

You mean this:

"Right now people are assuming that tennis has changed, for good."

I mean that people here, for the most part, are only paying attention to right now, meaning this year and the last few. So the assumption is that in the last 10 years or so the opportunity for guys to hit peaks at 24-25 has changed. The assumption is the we have a "new normal". Young players can no longer break through and win Masters and slams. 28 is the new 24, and 29 is the new 25. Something like that.

What I'm trying to point out is that at certain times older players have been very strong, as was true in the late 60s and very early 70s. When that happens the older players hog the wins, but it does not stay that way permanently.

I don't think things have changed except that modern medicine and better training is allowing players who are older to stick around longer.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

29 sure wasn't the new 25 for Rafa and Fed.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

You mean this:

"Right now people are assuming that tennis has changed, for good."

I mean that people here, for the most part, are only paying attention to right now, meaning this year and the last few. So the assumption is that in the last 10 years or so the opportunity for guys to hit peaks at 24-25 has changed. The assumption is the we have a "new normal". Young players can no longer break through and win Masters and slams. 28 is the new 24, and 29 is the new 25. Something like that.

What I'm trying to point out is that at certain times older players have been very strong, as was true in the late 60s and very early 70s. When that happens the older players hog the wins, but it does not stay that way permanently.

I don't think things have changed except that modern medicine and better training is allowing players who are older to stick around longer.

I remember one person specifically stating that 30-31 could be the new 28 or so... can't recall the exact numbers. To me, this thread echoes the sentiments of the majority of this board.

They know vacancies are opening up and the only thing that people are really wondering is if those vacancies will be taken up by the current mid 20s guys or by younger guys. On top of that, those who think the mid 20s guys are not assuming a long period of dominance because they know that generation isn't particularly special, so the assumption is that there will be superior talents from the current 18-21 group and that they with have a more sustained period of success. Meanwhile, due to the current dominant generations being so strong, the assumption is that at least one of them (Djokovic) will hold his ground for a long time in attempts to fend off the upcoming much younger vanguard. Most of the current dominant older generations will continue to fade and so vacancies will continue to open up. I think just about everyone will be in agreement with the sentiment of this thread because it's the popular opinion.

The only real questions are which will take more of the initiative out of the current very young players or the current mid-20s players, and is there a talent lurking on the Federer level who could separate themselves from those guys in the desolate wastelands of the post Fedalovic era, or not.

 

[Gary Duane]

29 sure wasn't the new 25 for Rafa and Fed.

Exactly. People are using Wawrinka to "prove" that 30 is the new 25, but players who don't win slams and even many Masters until so late do not develop as players in the normal manner.

 

[Gary Duane]

I remember one person specifically stating that 30-31 could be the new 28 or so... can't recall the exact numbers. To me, this thread echoes the sentiments of the majority of this board.

I'm not sure what the majority opinion is here. I do know that a lot of people mention the number of players in the top 20 who are close to 30 or older.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

The overriding constantly spouted opinion here is that the mid-20s guys = generation suck. So, who do you expect most people here think will fill in the vacancies left by the declining older generations, generation suck or the even younger guys? Well most make the assumption it has to be one of the two and probably opt for one of the three following general possibilities:

1. Lost boys (Dimi/Rao/Kori) fail and the young guns fill the void
2. Lost boys succeed for only a short time before being usurped
3. Lost boys aren't so lost and have a decent amount of success before eventually being overhauled by the young guns.

Wawrinka is one guy and the only guy I can think of who is a top player that peaked late from his generation. There is Ferrer from Federer's gen.

The point is that 30 doesn't even have to be the new 25. Actually I think it's largely irrelevant and what matters is the quality of the player in the first place. If there is a mega talent from the current very young guys then they will make their presence known before too long. If there isn't then they probably won't or by latest such a talent will show dominant multi-Slam winning credentials along a sort of Lendl path. It's possible there isn't really a mega talent from Nishikori's generation in which case there will be a huge amount of room for players from even younger generations to rise into Slam winning positions with Fed's gen fading badly and Djokovic's generation overall probably declining.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

I'm not sure what the majority opinion is here. I do know that a lot of people mention the number players in the top 20 who are close to 30 or older.

I think it speaks more to the once in a century quality of the Rafa/Djoker/Andy generation that followed Fed. They're so good and well rounded that the lesser talented generation of Raonic/Nishikori ect can't evict them despite being in what should be thier prime years.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

The overriding constantly spouted opinion here is that the mid-20s guys = generation suck. So, who do you expect most people here think will fill in the vacancies left by the declining older generations, generation suck or the even younger guys? Well most make the assumption it has to be one of the two and probably opt for one of the three following general possibilities:

1. Lost boys (Dimi/Rao/Kori) fail and the young guns fill the void
2. Lost boys succeed for only a short time before being usurped
3. Lost boys aren't so lost and have a decent amount of success before eventually being overhauled by the young guns.

Wawrinka is one guy and the only guy I can think of who is a top player that peaked late from his generation. There is Ferrer from Federer's gen.

The point is that 30 doesn't even have to be the new 25. Actually I think it's largely irrelevant and what matters is the quality of the player in the first place. If there is a mega talent from the current very young guys then they will make their presence known before too long. If there isn't then they probably won't or by latest such a talent will show dominant multi-Slam winning credentials along a sort of Lendl path. It's possible there isn't really a mega talent from Nishikori's generation in which case there will be a huge amount of room for players from even younger generations to rise into Slam winning positions with Fed's gen fading badly and Djokovic's generation overall probably declining.

Ya to me generation suck doesn't have even one guy capable of reaching Murray's level much less Rafa/Djoker.

 

[urban]

In 1969 a new generation of top players had already arrived. In the summer of 1969, Ashe himself spoke of the post-Laver Generation, a provocation, which made Rod a bit angry. People like Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Kodes, Nastase, Smith, Lutz were coming up, all in the range of 22-25/26. I also remember the New Balls marketing strategy of the ATP around 2000, with people like Kuerten Safin, Rios, Federer, Hewitt and Haas. OK, not all dreams came true, and in reality not all came or stayed at the top, for different reasons. But today i cannot even see many, if any virtual top contenders from this age segment. With all respect to Wawrinkas late surge, but there is a big gap in the mid 20s to early 20 s group. Last year at the USO, i thought, Nishikori could step up, but he seems physically fragile. Cilic, who looked so unbeatable at the USO, went out tamely, too tamely to Djoker at Wim, i think he is now 0-13 against him. Ranoic looks to me very limited, his movement even on grass is awful. Tomic is - i think - a disappointment so far, Kyrgios seems to me very volatile. I believe, only a turn of style can bring some fresh impuls to the mens game. A new aggressive mood. Look what journeymen like Brown and Anderson could do on grass. If a really good player with confidence, aggressive approach and no fear for the net will step up, he will be the talk of the town in an instant. Maybe a guy like Sascha Zwerev.

 

[AngieB]

I would simply say that players like Ashe, Newcombe and Stan Smith were not strong enough to continue to dominate as they aged.

Arthur had severe, pre-existing heart disease which limited him, that was not revealed until his heart attack and subsequent Open Heart surgery in 1979. He was 36. Hence, Arthur's tennis longevity issue wasn't related to age, rather, genetic heart disease passed down from his father. It was believed he contracted HIV from a blood transfusion related to that surgery, of which he later died of AIDS in 1993. Arthur was a great man. Miss him.

#GrannyIlluminati​

 

[bjsnider]

In the late 60s there were a number of players in their mid-20s who were pressing, but for the most part they were not winning. When people like Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver faded, then there was room. I think perhaps the years before Connors would be labeled "a weak era" by the people who write in this forum. I would simply say that players like Ashe, Newcombe and Stan Smith were not strong enough to continue to dominate as they aged. In the case of Smith he was only dominant for about a year. To me this is a lot like the very early 2000s. Fed and Connors both exploded out of nowhere, and in the case of both there was no one to stop them for awhile. I expect this to happen again, sometime in the next 5 years. And maybe sooner.

Agreed completely. It's possible to view both Connors and Federer as transitional players clearly above their contemporaries who bridged two deep eras. Obviously Connors was not as dominant and had a rival within his own generation -- Vilas -- so it's not an exact parallel, but it's close. After the generation faded that replaced Connors/Vilas -- the Borg/Mac/Lendl group, there was immediately a new group -- Wilander/Edberg et al. and then immediately another new group -- Agassi/Sampras et al. So three deep eras in a row. Otherwise, with those great players missing, Lendl might have won almost every major from 1985-1990-something.

That's definitely different than today. The Murray/Nadal/Djokovic group has not had to face anyone at their level in the 20-26 age group -- two generations have offered nothing at that competitive level. So, it's as if Lendl didn't have to play against Wilander and Edberg. But what happens if there's not even a Sampras/Agassi group after this one? The Murray/Djokovic/Wawrinka et al. crew could continue to dominate the tour past the extraordinary age of 31, when almost all tennis stars have faded into obscurity.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Agreed completely. It's possible to view both Connors and Federer as transitional players clearly above their contemporaries who bridged two deep eras. Obviously Connors was not as dominant and had a rival within his own generation -- Vilas -- so it's not an exact parallel, but it's close. After the generation faded that replaced Connors/Vilas -- the Borg/Mac/Lendl group, there was immediately a new group -- Wilander/Edberg et al. and then immediately another new group -- Agassi/Sampras et al. So three deep eras in a row. Otherwise, with those great players missing, Lendl might have won almost every major from 1985-1990-something.

That's definitely different than today. The Murray/Nadal/Djokovic group has not had to face anyone at their level in the 20-26 age group -- two generations have offered nothing at that competitive level. So, it's as if Lendl didn't have to play against WIlander and Edberg. But what happens if there's not even a Sampras/Agassi group after this one? The Murray/Djokovic/Wawrinka et al. crew could continue to dominate the tour past the extraordinary age of 31, when almost all tennis stars have faded into obscurity.

Point being that it's about the quality of the players who exist and when they come about, which is somewhat down to chance. If no true opposition comes then Djokovic's generation could be winning the big ones for a rather long time. Opposition always comes though, eventually. It's just taking an unusually long time at the moment, off the back of some mighty generations.

 

[Gary Duane]

Arthur had severe, pre-existing heart disease which limited him, that was not revealed until his heart attack and subsequent Open Heart surgery in 1979. He was 36. Hence, Arthur's tennis longevity issue wasn't related to age, rather, genetic heart disease passed down from his father. It was believed he contracted HIV from a blood transfusion related to that surgery, of which he later died of AIDS in 1993. Arthur was a great man. Miss him.

#GrannyIlluminati​

Ashe was someone I very much admired too. But we can't ignore that even something like this, genetic heart disease, is also linked to what happens to the human body later in life. It simply hit him decades early. My closest friend died from the same thing at age 56. And yes, Ashe was most likely infected during that surgery. The same thing happened to Isaac Asimov.

I'm very aware of how Ashe's life was cut short. The man was only born three years earlier than me and did not quite make it to age 50. It was a tragedy.

 

[Gary Duane]

In 1969 a new generation of top players had already arrived. In the summer of 1969, Ashe himself spoke of the post-Laver Generation, a provocation, which made Rod a bit angry. People like Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Kodes, Nastase, Smith, Lutz were coming up, all in the range of 22-25/26.

There are some names from that time that I don't even know. Bowery won the AO in 68 over Gisbert. Both were 24. I know NOTHING about these two.

Roche was 23, Ashe 25, and Ashe won the USO. Okker lost to Ashe at age 24. So younger guys were around, but no one really young was winning yet. And there are more strange names at the AO than any other slam because the AO was skipped by so many players.

I also remember the New Balls marketing strategy of the ATP around 2000, with people like Kuerten Safin, Rios, Federer, Hewitt and Haas. OK, not all dreams came true, and in reality not all came or stayed at the top, for different reasons. But today i cannot even see many, if any virtual top contenders from this age segment.

By 2000 I think it is fair to say that Sampras was fading, so really Agassi was the only dominant player who was older who was also a threat, and he was 30 by 2000. Novak is still only 28. Of the former Big Four only Nadal is not a threat at the moment, and Wawrinka has been dangerous this year.

With all respect to Wawrinkas late surge, but there is a big gap in the mid 20s to early 20 s group. Last year at the USO, i thought, Nishikori could step up, but he seems physically fragile. Cilic, who looked so unbeatable at the USO, went out tamely, too tamely to Djoker at Wim, i think he is now 0-13 against him. Ranoic looks to me very limited, his movement even on grass is awful. Tomic is - i think - a disappointment so far, Kyrgios seems to me very volatile. I believe, only a turn of style can bring some fresh impuls to the mens game. A new aggressive mood. Look what journeymen like Brown and Anderson could do on grass. If a really good player with confidence, aggressive approach and no fear for the net will step up, he will be the talk of the town in an instant. Maybe a guy like Sascha Zwerev.

That's the thing. If all the top guys fade, some of the guys you mentioned may grab some titles, but to me they are all "place holders".

I don't know what is going to happen in the next few years. I'm just quite sure that certain principles do not change. I believe tennis is still a young man's sport, and I think the future will show that this is still true.

 

[DMP]

I would simply say that players like Ashe, Newcombe and Stan Smith were not strong enough to continue to dominate as they aged. In the case of Smith he was only dominant for about a year.

There was an excellent documentary about Ashe on the BBC just before Wimbledon this year. Worth watching if you can find a copy. It reminded me of lots of things I had forgotten about that period. Two things relevant to this topic were

1) Smith was one of the talking heads and commented on how he had been unable to defend his Wimbledon title. He said it without apparent rancour, just pointing out how it paled into insignificance compared with the importance of establishing the rights of the fledgling ATP. I had forgotten that fact. I think at the time we were all much more fixated on the struggle between the ATP and the tennis authorities, and waiting to see who would actually play at Wimbledon that year.

2) Billie Jean King said she thought both she and Ashe underachieved in a tennis sense because they were more interested in the wider political issues of tennis at that time.

 

[Russeljones]

Exactly. People are using Wawrinka to "prove" that 30 is the new 25, but players who don't win slams and even many Masters until so late do not develop as players in the normal manner.

People like Cuevas, Karlovic, Burgos, Anderson, Cilic, Groth, Lopez, Troicki, Seppi, Fognini and others are showing that there is a shift in the due date of players' maturity as such. The Beckers, Changs, Samprases, Safins, Hewits and so on had established a trend, in this particular part of tennis history, that was seemingly only bucked by one Roger Federer. His status of an outlier was confirmed with the emergence of Nadal and Djokovic. The players of today don't seem to be worried about playing past their due date.

I think we can ascribe some of what has happened to terrific talents like Tsonga and Gasquet to how they dealt with this. Did they grow up with the weight of expectation on their shoulders? Check! Did they approach some invisible line in time with dread because they had not fulfilled said expectations? We can only guess. What is a fact, though, is that they have underachieved on said expectations and this could have played a part. The players I listed? Nobody expected much from most of them. Is this the secret of blooming late? Worth a thought.

I don't know near enough about 1969 to discuss the parallels but whether then or now, regardless of age, class will always shine through.

 

[Gary Duane]

People like Cuevas, Karlovic, Burgos, Anderson, Cilic, Groth, Lopez, Troicki, Seppi, Fognini and others are showing that there is a shift in the due date of players' maturity as such. The Beckers, Changs, Samprases, Safins, Hewits and so on had established a trend, in this particular part of tennis history, that was seemingly only bucked by one Roger Federer. His status of an outlier was confirmed with the emergence of Nadal and Djokovic. The players of today don't seem to be worried about playing past their due date.

Novak may end up another outlier, but based on his style of play I don't see that happening. The older players we have now who are "improving" around the age of 30 are players who simply did not establish themselves at the very top earlier.

I don't know near enough about 1969 to discuss the parallels but whether then or now, regardless of age, class will always shine through.

Here is what I do know: the pro tour of he 50s and 60s was a pressure cooker. Players had to play anywhere, under any circumstances, and the "show had to go on". It was as if tennis was taking place in two parallel universes. The pros of the 60s were used to playing each other, day in and day out. So it was a bit like having Fed, Novak, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka (as he is now playing) all playing each other. The competition must have been extraordinarily high when Laver and Co. were competing that way. Suddenly the two worlds merged in 1968, and for the most part the pros dominated. They were older.

That is what is similar right now, but for totally different reasons. We are more or less used to the present top players facing each other at the end of every slam. Even Wawrinka was an outsider when he won the AO. Less so now, after winning a second slam.

Based on history I think someone is due to break through at a young age, but we don't know who that will be yet.