Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
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.
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.