Peak / Prime years is a myth

[mahatma]

Medicine can slow down your decline man, but you would still decline. Testosterone levels start to decline from late 20s itself, even in this modern world players do decline in their 30s but the decline is slow.

See always remember, whatever "medicines" an old guy is on, even the young guy is on that, so if both you and old takes the same stuff then young always wins because of biology. Sports like Tennis is not like Cricket or something else where we can be in your prime in 30s, it doesn't work that way.

The Big 3 won so much after 2016 because the 1990s generation's best player is Medvedev who is a Roddick level player at best. If an entire generation lacks talent then the result is someone picks those slams meant for them, in this case BIg 3.... and since Novak is the youngest of the lot, he picks the most. If Federer was on Djokovic's age then Federer could have also picked more into the share of spoils, but here it is all Novak and a bit of Rafa,

Okay with Big 3 being better than the rest argument.

Not okay with the selective peak selections of players. You peak when you win and aren't in peak when you lose is very very selective.

To any rational viewer of the sport, all of big 3 played most of their matches while being in their peak. Esp when they reached the late stages of slam, they were def at their peak.

 

[mahatma]

Football and Basketball are team games, it is not like Tennis which is an individual sport.

Plus we are not saying primes are in 20s because slam winners age, we can actually see Djokovic declining post 2016, Federer post 2010, or Nadal post 2014, the levels of energy shown by these players in 20s and 30s are very different from each other, you can see it yourself.

Games of players always advance as per era, you could make an argument that Federer's game in 2004 was much less advanced than what it was in 2017, but if you put 04Fed and 17Fed in the same timeline, what do you think will happen ? Do you think 2017Fed will beat 2004 Fed because of a gamelevel or racquet superiority ? I am sure 2017 Fed would surprise 2004 Fed initially for a few matches, then the 2004 version will quickly adapt, will change his racquet, will work on his backhand, everything he will adapt and then after a few months he will beat his older version like a drum. That's why age matters....an ATG in his 20s is always ahead of an ATG in his 30s no matter what advancements the player does to his game.

And 2017Fed won't do anything. Only 2004Fed adapts. Okay.

While we know that it was 2017Fed who had that neo backhand and actually won against his nemesis while 2004Fed struggled, kept adapting and still struggled for too long.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

Football and Basketball are team games, it is not like Tennis which is an individual sport.

Plus we are not saying primes are in 20s because slam winners age, we can actually see Djokovic declining post 2016, Federer post 2010, or Nadal post 2014, the levels of energy shown by these players in 20s and 30s are very different from each other, you can see it yourself.

Games of players always advance as per era, you could make an argument that Federer's game in 2004 was much less advanced than what it was in 2017, but if you put 04Fed and 17Fed in the same timeline, what do you think will happen ? Do you think 2017Fed will beat 2004 Fed because of a gamelevel or racquet superiority ? I am sure 2017 Fed would surprise 2004 Fed initially for a few matches, then the 2004 version will quickly adapt, will change his racquet, will work on his backhand, everything he will adapt and then after a few months he will beat his older version like a drum. That's why age matters....an ATG in his 20s is always ahead of an ATG in his 30s no matter what advancements the player does to his game.

I don’t understand why it matters for peak age whether it’s a team sport or individual sport.

Regarding the big 3’s decline… I don’t see it. I still think they played spectacular even when older. The only thing I see is that injury concerns increase and they play more strategically by not giving their best in unimportant games. This is actually a bit similar to basketball players too. So let’s just agree to disagree.

Finally, advancement has slowed down significantly. Just look at the racquet and techniques between eras.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I don’t understand why it matters for peak age whether it it’s a team sport or individual sport.

As far as the big 3 decline is concerned. I don’t see it. I still think they played spectacular even when older. The only thing I see is that injury concerns increase and they play more strategically by not giving their best in unimportant games. This is actually a bit similar to basketball players too. So let’s just agree to disagree.

Finally, advancement has slowed down significantly. Just look at the racquet and techniques between eras.

They definitely did.

 

[Razer]

And 2017Fed won't do anything. Only 2004Fed adapts. Okay.

While we know that it was 2017Fed who had that neo backhand and actually won against his nemesis while 2004Fed struggled, kept adapting and still struggled for too long.

2004 Federer might have taken more than a decade to change his racquet and backhand because he was already winning everything on tour and he did not change his stick until it was too late, however in this timeline if he plays 2017 Nadal and 2017 federer then he would aged in his early 20s and he would be seeing the whole tour using better racquets, so he will not only change but he will beat the older versions black and blue. You need to look at how Tennis was in 2004 and how it is in 2017 to understand that the field of 2004 was still playing 90s tennis but today's field has an advantage over them of knowing what those guys could not have known, so when Federer comes from 2004 to 2017 then he gets the advantage of 13 years of evolution and knowing a lot of things. He quickly adapts, throughout his life he was 5-6 years older to Rafole, now he would be younger and would be the guy imposing his youth on these old farts..... he would reduce them to his pigeon status... few months he will take to adapt but he will then murder them.

To any rational viewer of the sport, all of big 3 played most of their matches while being in their peak.

Only morons or trolls or both think that Big 3 were in their peak in 30s, no shame in saying that, because this is the fact. Anyone who does not see the decline of Big 3 athletically and in terms of energy levels when they look at old videos and now is low on Intelligence, thats all I can say.

I don’t understand why it matters for peak age whether it’s a team sport or individual sport.

Regarding the big 3’s decline… I don’t see it. I still think they played spectacular even when older. The only thing I see is that injury concerns increase and they play more strategically by not giving their best in unimportant games. This is actually a bit similar to basketball players too. So let’s just agree to disagree.

Finally, advancement has slowed down significantly. Just look at the racquet and techniques between eras.

I dont follow football or basketball bro so I cannot explain to you how it makes a difference and how the team positions old players at locations where they dont have to run much and save energy, maybe @NeutralFan can explain it to you.

I would however tell you that in Cricket we have energetic players who are young standing at the point, cover, mid wicket regions or at places even close to the boundary where athleticism is needed to stop a fast coming ball, the older players who are in the 30s and a bit fat are usually positioned at the slips or at positions where they dont have to run much, just need to dive if there is a nick close to the batsman, once the ball gains speed after travelling a few mts the fielder there who have to chase the ball before it reaches the boundary are all young ones. This is what happens during fielding, in batting the old players try to get more runs by hitting boundaries instead of singles. In singles these sort of tweaks are not possible, thats why never compare a team game with an individual sport.

 

[mahatma]

2004 Federer might have taken more than a decade to change his racquet and backhand because he was already winning everything on tour and he did not change his stick until it was too late, however in this timeline if he plays 2017 Nadal and 2017 federer then he would aged in his early 20s and he would be seeing the whole tour using better racquets, so he will not only change but he will beat the older versions black and blue. You need to look at how Tennis was in 2004 and how it is in 2017 to understand that the field of 2004 was still playing 90s tennis but today's field has an advantage over them of knowing what those guys could not have known, so when Federer comes from 2004 to 2017 then he gets the advantage of 13 years of evolution and knowing a lot of things. He quickly adapts, throughout his life he was 5-6 years older to Rafole, now he would be younger and would be the guy imposing his youth on these old farts..... he would reduce them to his pigeon status... few months he will take to adapt but he will then murder them.



Only morons or trolls or both think that Big 3 were in their peak in 30s, no shame in saying that, because this is the fact. Anyone who does not see the decline of Big 3 athletically and in terms of energy levels when they look at old videos and now is low on Intelligence, thats all I can say.



I dont follow football or basketball bro so I cannot explain to you how it makes a difference and how the team positions old players at locations where they dont have to run much and save energy, maybe @NeutralFan can explain it to you.

I would however tell you that in Cricket we have energetic players who are young standing at the point, cover, mid wicket regions or at places even close to the boundary where athleticism is needed to stop a fast coming ball, the older players who are in the 30s and a bit fat are usually positioned at the slips or at positions where they dont have to run much, just need to dive if there is a nick close to the batsman, once the ball gains speed after travelling a few mts the fielder there who have to chase the ball before it reaches the boundary are all young ones. This is what happens during fielding, in batting the old players try to get more runs by hitting boundaries instead of singles. In singles these sort of tweaks are not possible, thats why never compare a team game with an individual sport.

Lol, only morons and trolls hide behind peak/prime discussions.

Anyone who has played sports for a few decades knows that your energy levels or performance doesn't change much for atleast 2 decades.

I was a good badminton / Tennis player around a decade and a half and till today my performance remains pretty much the same. Infact in few aspects my game has improved over the years. Anyone who believes that pro athletes who give their best times of their lives improving their craft aren't actually improving.

Unless an athelete declines physically massively, he is very close to his achieved peak. If you learn how to hit a good backhand, you can't really unlearn it.

That is also the reason Sinner will be the better player going forward, till Alcaraz improves on what he has. Djokovic, for this very reason is still going strong. Federer/ Nadal didn't decline until injuries took them out.

My point, and again I am reiterating, is once you achieve your peak - decline is minimal till you physically decline. And physical decline doesn't like just happen in a day, it's a slow process.

I don't see Djokovic of current level being out of top 5 even in 2025 or 2026, unless a group of better players come up. His level won't drop drastically. Someone has to up the ante.

Sinner already has upped the game.

 

[Razer]

Lol, only morons and trolls hide behind peak/prime discussions.

Anyone who has played sports for a few decades knows that your energy levels or performance doesn't change much for atleast 2 decades.

I was a good badminton / Tennis player around a decade and a half and till today my performance remains pretty much the same. Infact in few aspects my game has improved over the years. Anyone who believes that pro athletes who give their best times of their lives improving their craft aren't actually improving.

Unless an athelete declines physically massively, he is very close to his achieved peak. If you learn how to hit a good backhand, you can't really unlearn it.

That is also the reason Sinner will be the better player going forward, till Alcaraz improves on what he has. Djokovic, for this very reason is still going strong. Federer/ Nadal didn't decline until injuries took them out.

My point, and again I am reiterating, is once you achieve your peak - decline is minimal till you physically decline. And physical decline doesn't like just happen in a day, it's a slow process.

I don't see Djokovic of current level being out of top 5 even in 2025 or 2026, unless a group of better players come up. His level won't drop drastically. Someone has to up the ante.

Sinner already has upped the game.

You are a nobody in Tennis/Badminton to actually compare your levels to tha of a pro. Never compare yourself with pros and say that levels don't drop in 30s because they do.

Difference is always seen at the "highest level", that is why these men are elite athletes and not club level players like you or me. A man like Roger Federer doesn't need to be of the same age as Murray or Dimitrov to beat them, he can beat them with a 6 or even 10 years age disadvantage, but he cannot do that against Nadal or Djokovic, why is that ? Simple answer is, at the highest possible level when you meet your equals in skill, talent and athleticism then you need to be very close to age in order to triumph over them. This is basic common sense that any pro will tell you.

Federer even at 50 will be able to thrash a club player like you but he won't be able to beat the pros, because age gap is now too much even for him..... so you see, you cannot freakin compare yourself to a pro who plays at the highest possible elite level.

Djokovic has not had a career ending injury or anything serious in his 30s but he had it in his late 20s, WHY WAS THAT ? .,...The answer is simple, he had ATGs in their prime and great players in general who created more wear and tear on his body when he was actually young compared to the mugs (borebots born in 1990s) who are less talented and full of flaws in their game unable to create enough wear and tear for the old man, the old man is playing a limited schedule and still beating them....

Days back I already made a thread showing how players playing 10+ top 5 matches in an year declined bigtime between 2017-2022 due to the weak 90s gen, did you go through that ? Your hero is has been vulturing in the 30s like there is no tomorrow, if you cannot see that he has declined then you really are unfit to have a discussion. This thread is a big joke @mahatma, you should be embarassed on even wondering peak and prime to not exist, it says that you don't understand how elite athletes play and you cannot even understand from the eye test on who is playing how, who is dropping his level after a few sets, who is slowing down, whose shots have declined with age.... none of this you can comprehend.... very sad

By the way, here is the thread which shows 2017-2022 being a weak era due to 1990s gen peaking.

Number of Players who played Top 5 ranked players 10+ times in an year

Number of Players who played Top 5 ranked players 10+ times 1973 - 7 1974 - 1 1975 - 4 1976 - 8 1977 - 7 1978 - 3 1979 - 9 1980 - 6 1981 - 1 1982 - 2 1983 - 4 1984 - 5 1985 - 3 1986 - 2 1987 - 8 1988 - 0 1989 - 5 1990 - 3 1991 - 6 1992 - 4 1993 - 3 1994 - 5 1995 - 4 1996 - 2...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[>17]

Laver wildcard confirmed for French Open

a good thread idea, let's run with it

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

@Razer and @mahatma :
Please stuff like morons and trolls is not necessary.

Mahatma, I agree with Razer that your experience of physical decline is not relevant to the debate.

Razer, I disagree with “you need to be very close to age in order to triumph over them. This is basic common sense that any pro will tell you.” As far as I see it pros don’t bring up the age excuse. This seems to be reserved for tt warehouse. And I know of a semi-pro who plays against pros he told me he played his best tennis in the 30s.

 

[mahatma]

You are a nobody in Tennis/Badminton to actually compare your levels to tha of a pro. Never compare yourself with pros and say that levels don't drop in 30s because they do.

Difference is always seen at the "highest level", that is why these men are elite athletes and not club level players like you or me. A man like Roger Federer doesn't need to be of the same age as Murray or Dimitrov to beat them, he can beat them with a 6 or even 10 years age disadvantage, but he cannot do that against Nadal or Djokovic, why is that ? Simple answer is, at the highest possible level when you meet your equals in skill, talent and athleticism then you need to be very close to age in order to triumph over them. This is basic common sense that any pro will tell you.

Federer even at 50 will be able to thrash a club player like you but he won't be able to beat the pros, because age gap is now too much even for him..... so you see, you cannot freakin compare yourself to a pro who plays at the highest possible elite level.

Djokovic has not had a career ending injury or anything serious in his 30s but he had it in his late 20s, WHY WAS THAT ? .,...The answer is simple, he had ATGs in their prime and great players in general who created more wear and tear on his body when he was actually young compared to the mugs (borebots born in 1990s) who are less talented and full of flaws in their game unable to create enough wear and tear for the old man, the old man is playing a limited schedule and still beating them....

Days back I already made a thread showing how players playing 10+ top 5 matches in an year declined bigtime between 2017-2022 due to the weak 90s gen, did you go through that ? Your hero is has been vulturing in the 30s like there is no tomorrow, if you cannot see that he has declined then you really are unfit to have a discussion. This thread is a big joke @mahatma, you should be embarassed on even wondering peak and prime to not exist, it says that you don't understand how elite athletes play and you cannot even understand from the eye test on who is playing how, who is dropping his level after a few sets, who is slowing down, whose shots have declined with age.... none of this you can comprehend.... very sad

By the way, here is the thread which shows 2017-2022 being a weak era due to 1990s gen peaking.

Number of Players who played Top 5 ranked players 10+ times in an year

Number of Players who played Top 5 ranked players 10+ times 1973 - 7 1974 - 1 1975 - 4 1976 - 8 1977 - 7 1978 - 3 1979 - 9 1980 - 6 1981 - 1 1982 - 2 1983 - 4 1984 - 5 1985 - 3 1986 - 2 1987 - 8 1988 - 0 1989 - 5 1990 - 3 1991 - 6 1992 - 4 1993 - 3 1994 - 5 1995 - 4 1996 - 2...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

You seem to be too rigid in your views. Maybe you are a fan of someone who lost the slam race. Even if not, you seem to be too pushed by someone in his 30s just taking over all the records.

Nonetheless, just fyi when Djokovic won the Aus Open in 2023, he ran more than he did when he won in 2011! His average shot speed was considerably higher in forehand and similar average shot speed in backhand. His serve was having nearly same average as 2011. We all know that he has become a better spot server though, so definitely was serving better than 2011.

I know, average data can not be the only parameter to look at decline etc, but it’s a good way to actually get some insight around whether the player is declining. It’s actually far better than stupid eye test, lol.

In 2024, both forehand and backhand speeds and of Djokovic has come down from highs of 2023. Maybe a sign of physical decline, finally.

But when some posters here say that a certain player peaked for only 5 years when there wasn’t much competition- it’s quite laughable. His peak lasted for 15 years, like most pro athletes - but he was outdone by better peers.

 

[Razer]

You seem to be too rigid in your views. Maybe you are a fan of someone who lost the slam race. Even if not, you seem to be too pushed by someone in his 30s just taking over all the records.

Nonetheless, just fyi when Djokovic won the Aus Open in 2023, he ran more than he did when he won in 2011! His average shot speed was considerably higher in forehand and similar average shot speed in backhand. His serve was having nearly same average as 2011. We all know that he has become a better spot server though, so definitely was serving better than 2011.

I know, average data can not be the only parameter to look at decline etc, but it’s a good way to actually get some insight around whether the player is declining. It’s actually far better than stupid eye test, lol.

In 2024, both forehand and backhand speeds and of Djokovic has come down from highs of 2023. Maybe a sign of physical decline, finally.

But when some posters here say that a certain player peaked for only 5 years when there wasn’t much competition- it’s quite laughable. His peak lasted for 15 years, like most pro athletes - but he was outdone by better peers.

I am a fan of myself and of common sense, thats it... nobody else.

I don't care for losers who lost slams race and I don't care for losers who worship winners of slams race either, I have my own views, I am no sheep of anyone. If I am paid money by a player then I will praise them daily but I won't do it for free like the sheep do daily, so I refuse to be a sheep. The question is, are you a sheep who praises players for free without your mind? I hope not brother.

Yes I am rigid because I can see with my own eyes that players have gotten slow with age, I can see Big 3 slowed down compared to their peak year, so I have to be rigid with my views.

Djokovic running more in Aus Open 2023 is no surprise because even Federer ran more in wimbledon 2019 than his previous versions, this actually proves my point that they have declined. If they have not declined then they would not need to run so much. Do you think Djokovic 2011 cannot run like Djokovic 2023 did? Do you think Federer of mid 2000s could not run as much as he did in 2019? Heck Murray in 2015-2016 ran more than Djokovic or Federer did in his slams, do you know that? Why do you think Murray has to run so much? If his game was more effecient then he would not have to. Running more is a sign of decline in various areas, so the player has to toil more to get the job done.

This is not up for debate man........ Players are at their peak/prime in 20s and in 30s they decline, either slowly or rapidly, but they do.... this is fact of life, if you cannot understand this then I cannot help you.....

 

[Razer]

@Razer and @mahatma :
Please stuff like morons and trolls is not necessary.

Mahatma, I agree with Razer that your experience of physical decline is not relevant to the debate.

Razer, I disagree with “you need to be very close to age in order to triumph over them. This is basic common sense that any pro will tell you.” As far as I see it pros don’t bring up the age excuse. This seems to be reserved for tt warehouse. And I know of a semi-pro who plays against pros he told me he played his best tennis in the 30s.

Playing your best version in a sport in your 30s is not an indication of anything brother, I will tell you why.

Justin Gatlin the sprinter ran his best times of 100M in his 30s, you think he is peaking in his 30s ? Nope, the correct answer is that Gatlin was banned for doping from age 24 to 27, those were his peak years physically and if he had not been banned then his times would have been even better than what he did in his 30s. This means he already missed his window of maximizing his potential, so whatever you saw in 30s was he doing the best he could in the 30s, not his full potential.

Sameway, if Wawrinka or someone learned Tennis a bit slowly and peaked in 30s then it doesn't mean that they've maximised their potential, they just matured late and as a side effect of that they underperformed in their 20s.

You tell me about Novak, did he maximise his Grass performance in his 20s ? I would say no.....What if he had diagnozed his gluten problem earlier and also hired a better coach (Boris) earlier in the late 2000s itself? We could have seen better wimbledon versions than Nole 2015 before 2015 itself, no ? So you see, if someone does not maximise his performance somewhere for whatever reasons, they look like they are peaking in 30s. It is entirely possible....

 

[Razer]

As far as I see it pros don’t bring up the age excuse. This seems to be reserved for tt warehouse.

Pros dont bring age excuse because they dont have the luxury to do so. The day they do that, they would have lost the battle in their mind.


If Federer in 2014-2015 tells himself

" Ok I am like 33-34 so I am past my prime, I will try the best I can do against Novak who is at his peak, lets see what happens "

What do you think will happen? Federer will be soundly thrashed if he says this, he would have lost the battle mentally even before it begins....... so he has to tell himself that he is playing better than ever and getting better, he has a shot at a win, that is his attitude. Even on Clay he kept on believing he could beat Nadal even when we knew he had no chance. Elite players even if they fight a losing battle their mindset is not of a losing one, thats how they stay competitive even in old age.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

Playing your best version in a sport in your 30s is not an indication of anything brother, I will tell you why.

Justin Gatlin the sprinter ran his best times of 100M in his 30s, you think he is peaking in his 30s ? Nope, the correct answer is that Gatlin was banned for doping from age 24 to 27, those were his peak years physically and if he had not been banned then his times would have been even better than what he did in his 30s. This means he already missed his window of maximizing his potential, so whatever you saw in 30s was he doing the best he could in the 30s, not his full potential.

Sameway, if Wawrinka or someone learned Tennis a bit slowly and peaked in 30s then it doesn't mean that they've maximised their potential, they just matured late and as a side effect of that they underperformed in their 20s.

You tell me about Novak, did he maximise his Grass performance in his 20s ? I would say no.....What if he had diagnozed his gluten problem earlier and also hired a better coach (Boris) earlier in the late 2000s itself? We could have seen better wimbledon versions than Nole 2015 before 2015 itself, no ? So you see, if someone does not maximise his performance somewhere for whatever reasons, they look like they are peaking in 30s. It is entirely possible....

Sprinting is an interesting comparison. Sprinters do reach their peak age between 23 and 28. However, the longer the distance is, the older the peak age gets.

So is tennis like sprinting or long distance running? Well you have to be fast and explosive in tennis like in sprints. But then it’s not like you sprint only once and then you are done. You move for hours. I said before that our tennis life is irrelevant to this discussion but I feel more like a long distance runner than a Sprinter! also a lot of tennis players have more of a body type of a long distance runner.

Finally, tennis is not only physical. It makes sense that you improve other aspects of the game over time. This can more than offset any potential declining physicality. (Though I get your hypothetical point “what if Novak was that complete in his 20s- he would have dominated grass”. Well yes you are right. but it didn’t happen and I think it’s normal that you need time to develop every aspect of the game)

Edit: I forgot telling you - soccer is nothing like cricket. People usually stay at the same position their career. You don’t move the old and fat people to some different position as in cricket (sorry simplifying - I have no idea about cricket).

 

[fedfan24]

He won 85% of his matches in 2012 and in 2014 while he won 72% in 2013. He had a back injury for several months in 2013.

Roger Federer regrets playing injured

Roger Federer thinks he made mistakes this year by playing when injured, but insists he is ready for a strong finish to his most difficult season.

www.espn.com

So it exactly supports my point that these players played well except during years when they were injured and I don’t know what you were smoking when you replied.

Why did he change racket if he didn’t decline at all? He was number 1 for a bit and W champ in 2012. Why not carry on doing that?
Why was he unable to dictate Djokovic from the baseline at Wimbledon in 2014, when he imposed his game just fine in 2012?
Why was 2014 Federer utterly destroyed by 2014 Nadal at the AO, while in 2012 he played a competitive 4 set match vs a better Nadal?

 

[Razer]

Sprinting is an interesting comparison. Sprinters do reach their peak age between 23 and 28. However, the longer the distance is, the older the peak age gets.

So is tennis like sprinting or long distance running? Well you have to be fast and explosive in tennis like in sprints. But then it’s not like you sprint only once and then you are done. You move for hours. I said before that our tennis life is irrelevant to this discussion but I feel more like a long distance runner than a Sprinter! also a lot of tennis players have more of a body type of a long distance runner.

Finally, tennis is not only physical. It makes sense that you improve other aspects of the game over time. This can more than offset any potential declining physicality. (Though I get your hypothetical point “what if Novak was that complete in his 20s- he would have dominated grass”. Well yes you are right. but it didn’t happen and I think it’s normal that you need time to develop every aspect of the game)

Edit: I forgot telling you - soccer is nothing like cricket. People usually stay at the same position their career. You don’t move the old and fat people to some different position as in cricket (sorry simplifying - I have no idea about cricket).

I normally don't dwell into strong eras and weak eras but given the nature of these discussions and the way Djokovic has exploited the dearth of a great player in the 1990s gen we need to discuss the elephant in the room. Even decade produced at least 2 really great players born in it, I am not even saying every 5 years great players should come even though 5-6 years is actually a big deal in Tennis if 2 equally talented players are that much apart, however 10 years is the limit. There is a reason why we say 10 years is a full generation because as soon as a champ enters his 30s there should be someone equally good as him in his 20s and in his prime i.e early 20s+, that is the rule of life, if this is missing then a weak era happens. Normally nature always creates players within 10 years but the 1990s is 1 generation where so many useless players were born, none of them actually elite by ATG standards. The reason why Djokovic and Fedal were looking like they were still in their prime in 30s was because the less talented Betas actually made them look so. A young ATG would never have allowed this to happen, they would have imposed their youth on the guys in the 30s.

Look at the list of the players and pick the clowns in the list

Best players born in the 1950s - Connors, Borg, Mcenroe
Best players born in the 1960s - Lendl, Becker, Edberg
Best players born in the 1970s - Sampras, Agassi, Courier
Best players born in the 1980s - Federer, Djokovic, Nadal
Best players born in the 1990s - Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev

Players born in the 1950s won 22 slams in the 1970s.
Players born in the 1960s won 23 slams in the 1980s.
Players born in the 1970s won 30 slams in the 1990s.
Players born in the 1980s won 30 slams in the 2000s.
Players born in the 1990s won 0 slams in the 2010s.
Players born in the 2000s won 3 slams in the 2020s and they have just started, they will win more.


Now do you know why Big 3 looked like they were in their primes iin their 30s ?

1990s borns were a bunch of muppets who are only as good as second string players in previous decades, hence the Big 3 look good in their presence in old age, if we had truly great players emerging in 1990s then they would never have allowed this sort of an inflation.

 

[Kralingen]

Predictably a brain cell killing discussion as usual.

 

[Razer]

Predictably a brain cell killing discussion as usual.

Help me bud

How do I convince these people that players decline in 30s ? Are they like teenagers who are refusing to agree that people decline in 30s ?

I think only when we are in teens/in early 20s that we refuse to believe that we will decline in 30s, otherwise how can someone say that players dont decline in 30s? LOL

 

[canta_Brian]

Help me bud

How do I convince these people that players decline in 30s ? Are they like teenagers who are refusing to agree that people decline in 30s ?

I think only when we are in teens/in early 20s that we refuse to believe that we will decline in 30s, otherwise how can someone say that players dont decline in 30s? LOL

They will find out for themselves soon enough.

As the saying goes: “Time wounds all heels”

 

[Tennfan123]

Just because a player is ranked No.1 doesn't mean they are in their peak or prime.
Most of the time, it does. But not always.
This is one of those 'not always' times.
What it means is what we have - a field of young players still finding their way and an all time great whose experience and dedication and skills, which are about 70% of his peak and prime, capitalising.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Sprinting is an interesting comparison. Sprinters do reach their peak age between 23 and 28. However, the longer the distance is, the older the peak age gets.

So is tennis like sprinting or long distance running? Well you have to be fast and explosive in tennis like in sprints. But then it’s not like you sprint only once and then you are done. You move for hours. I said before that our tennis life is irrelevant to this discussion but I feel more like a long distance runner than a Sprinter! also a lot of tennis players have more of a body type of a long distance runner.

Finally, tennis is not only physical. It makes sense that you improve other aspects of the game over time. This can more than offset any potential declining physicality. (Though I get your hypothetical point “what if Novak was that complete in his 20s- he would have dominated grass”. Well yes you are right. but it didn’t happen and I think it’s normal that you need time to develop every aspect of the game)

Edit: I forgot telling you - soccer is nothing like cricket. People usually stay at the same position their career. You don’t move the old and fat people to some different position as in cricket (sorry simplifying - I have no idea about cricket).

Good post, ignoring the cricket (of which I know very little) part.

I've been on several of these types of discussions and it's nice when they become reasonable.

Not only can tennis players improve different aspects of their game to mitigate any physical decline, but they can become wiser in their scheduling and their preparation. Back to Novak. In 2021 or 2023, he probably could not dominate week-in, week-out as he could in 2011 or 15/16, but at slams (with better serving and net play, shortening points, etc) he could be (nearly) just as great at the slams.

As tennis is results-based, yes, it's also true...obviously...that the stronger the competition, the harder it is to win, and the easier, the competition... (No sh#t.) But this gets so ridiculously overstated on this forum.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

Help me bud

How do I convince these people that players decline in 30s ? Are they like teenagers who are refusing to agree that people decline in 30s ?

I think only when we are in teens/in early 20s that we refuse to believe that we will decline in 30s, otherwise how can someone say that players dont decline in 30s? LOL

I think you overestimate your case. Yes, you have decent arguments and I gave you credit for some. But I also laid out a bunch of good arguments. It’s not as clear cut as you think it is and I think you act way overconfident.

Btw I’m in my mid 30s.

 

[Kralingen]

Help me bud

How do I convince these people that players decline in 30s ? Are they like teenagers who are refusing to agree that people decline in 30s ?

I think only when we are in teens/in early 20s that we refuse to believe that we will decline in 30s, otherwise how can someone say that players dont decline in 30s? LOL

I think you’ll find that those who are capable of being convinced, or even changing their opinions one iota, are not the ones disagreeing with you.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

Good post, ignoring the cricket (of which I know very little) part.

I've been on several of these types of discussions and it's nice when they become reasonable.

Not only can tennis players improve different aspects of their game to mitigate any physical decline, but they can become wiser in their scheduling and their preparation. Back to Novak. In 2021 or 2023, he probably could not dominate week-in, week-out as he could in 2011 or 15/16, but at slams (with better serving and net play, shortening points, etc) he could be (nearly) just as great at the slams.

As tennis is results-based, yes, it's also true...obviously...that the stronger the competition, the harder it is to win, and the easier, the competition... (No sh#t.) But this gets so ridiculously overstated on this forum.

Thanks. Adding on your last part. if Djokovic would have faced stronger competition in the last (“peak” whatever) he would have probably dominated less and won less slams… but some people act like he would be slamless. I think it probably would be like 2011-2014 (so during his alleged “peak”).

And that is for every player. Federer also probably wouldn’t dominate that much between 2004-2007 if he had Novak’s 2011-2014 competition. Nor would Nadal in 2010.

And you see I’m using the world probable here. We don’t really know - it’s all hypothetical. We also don’t really know whether peak ends at 28, 30, 32, 34 or 37…. We can just try to assign some probability to each year.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

I think you’ll find that those who are capable of being convinced, or even changing their opinions one iota, are not the ones disagreeing with you.

People here really overestimate how they are saying “the truth” and their opponent is “wrong”. There are good arguments for different peak ages. There is a reason that academic articles which study this stuff have different conclusions on when athletes peak. It’s a topic where we cannot easily find an answer.

It would help if people here don’t try to “convince” other people but rather adopt the mindset to debate to learn more about the topic.

 

[Kralingen]

People here really overestimate how they are saying “the truth” and their opponent is “wrong”. There are good arguments for different peak ages. There is a reason that academic articles which study this stuff have different conclusions on when athletes peak. It’s a topic where we cannot easily find an answer.

It would help if people here don’t try to “convince” other people but rather adopt the mindset to debate to learn more about the topic.

You are in fact the key example (in this thread and others) of someone who thinks that they only speak “the truth” and everyone else is “wrong”. Hilarious.

 

[mahatma]

Thanks. Adding on your last part. if Djokovic would have faced stronger competition in the last (“peak” whatever) he would have probably dominated less and won less slams… but some people act like he would be slamless. I think it probably would be like 2011-2014 (so during his alleged “peak”).

And that is for every player. Federer also probably wouldn’t dominate that much between 2004-2007 if he had Novak’s 2011-2014 competition. Nor would Nadal in 2010.

And you see I’m using the world probable here. We don’t really know - it’s all hypothetical. We also don’t really know whether peak ends at 28, 30, 32, 34 or 37…. We can just try to assign some probability to each year.

Eventually if you are a Federer fan or a Nadal fan - you will never agree that people usually have longer peaks. Sticking to the narrative helps undermine what Djokovic has done.

The circular logic behind players in 90s not winning that much can also be because players in 80s had far longer peaks! Which strengthens my point that peak / prime is all just fan created thing.

Infact I go back to the point that when Federer was once asked in ‘16 - on how will he do against a 2004-06 Federer, he replied that he was playing his best tennis in ‘16 with more experience and a much better backhand. His serve also was right up there. If he lost a bit physically, he gained in his game.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

Eventually if you are a Federer fan or a Nadal fan - you will never agree that people usually have longer peaks. Sticking to the narrative helps undermine what Djokovic has done.

The circular logic behind players in 90s not winning that much can also be because players in 80s had far longer peaks! Which strengthens my point that peak / prime is all just fan created thing.

Infact I go back to the point that when Federer was once asked in ‘16 - on how will he do against a 2004-06 Federer, he replied that he was playing his best tennis in ‘16 with more experience and a much better backhand. His serve also was right up there. If he lost a bit physically, he gained in his game.

True. But Djokovic fans, including me, need also be aware that they are biased to overestimate how long a peak is

 

[nolefam_2024]

Peak prime is bs Federer fans started when he stopped winning from the huge head start he got till 2007..

They are HURT by this very badly and majority of posters then were fedfans.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Fedfans have always made excuses. They think the asthetically appealing style should also win more..

They used the word effortless and efficient etc in 2010s. They thought Federer is so special that they are special to be his fans. They also claimed
"Let Djokovic and Nadal do this at age x"

Now they are partially true about Nadal who slowed down a lot but due to his clay court dominance still won more slams than fed..

But they got dead wrong about Nole and got egg on their face. Now instead of apologizing for their arrogance they started coping.

These are fans of the same player who we called had weak era during his early 20s. So we just need to stop listening to their voices and keep our voice louder. Put the miscreants on ignore list and move on. Stop creating these threads repeatedly.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

You are in fact the key example (in this thread and others) of someone who thinks that they only speak “the truth” and everyone else is “wrong”. Hilarious.

lol if that is your reading of my text here.

I gave credit to all sides. I gave counter arguments to Djokovic fans and non-Djokovic fans. I said I don’t know what peak age. So quite the opposite of what you accuse me of. I don’t think there is a “truth” here in the debate at all….

I guess what you are trying to say is that you just disagree with me…
Or you didn’t really read what I wrote…
Or you go really meta and say “well your truth is that you think this topic is difficult and there are good arguments on both sides and you think others who disagree with you on that are wrong”

 

[Razer]

The circular logic behind players in 90s not winning that much can also be because players in 80s had far longer peaks! Which strengthens my point that peak / prime is all just fan created thing.

Your point has no strength at all.... it is nonsense.....

80s players don't have longer peaks, it is just that 90s gen are unable to face each other at the business end of the tournaments because they are that poor and pathetic lot....

Number of Players who played Top 5 ranked players 10+ times

1973 - 7
1974 - 1
1975 - 4
1976 - 8
1977 - 7
1978 - 3
1979 - 9
1980 - 6
1981 - 1
1982 - 2
1983 - 4
1984 - 5
1985 - 3
1986 - 2
1987 - 8
1988 - 0
1989 - 5
1990 - 3
1991 - 6
1992 - 4
1993 - 3
1994 - 5
1995 - 4
1996 - 2
1997 - 1
1998 - 3
1999 - 3
2000 - 1
2001 - 2
2002 - 1
2003 - 1
2004 - 3
2005 - 0
2006 - 3
2007 - 4
2008 - 4
2009 - 9
2010 - 3
2011 - 7
2012 - 7
2013 - 5
2014 - 5
2015 - 9
2016 - 4
2017 - 1
2018 - 1
2019 - 1
2020 - 1
2021 - 2
2022 - 1
2023 - 7


Statistically 2017-2022 was indeed a superweak era due to the 1990s gens being losers.... @mahatma ... Do you see these 1s every year in succession ???

 

[fedfan24]

Eventually if you are a Federer fan or a Nadal fan - you will never agree that people usually have longer peaks. Sticking to the narrative helps undermine what Djokovic has done.

The circular logic behind players in 90s not winning that much can also be because players in 80s had far longer peaks! Which strengthens my point that peak / prime is all just fan created thing.

Infact I go back to the point that when Federer was once asked in ‘16 - on how will he do against a 2004-06 Federer, he replied that he was playing his best tennis in ‘16 with more experience and a much better backhand. His serve also was right up there. If he lost a bit physically, he gained in his game.

Who cares what Federer says? Fact is he went like 0-6 in slams vs Djokovic after he changed rackets and slowed down.

 

[messiahrobins]

Yes, landscape has changed significantly as you see in tennis. Sinner / Alcaraz are the next big thing. They have lost to Djokovic in slams, so mixed results are possible for next few years.

Djokovic until he plays in tour should be close to his own level, unless physical decline happens.

My point is - when we hypothetically start putting a players peak in 20s or say things like post a certain age, say 30, players don't win much etc, that statement doesn't exist anymore.

We have the oldest world #1 in both singles and doubles. To be world #1 consistency is key. For old guys in tennis, if it's doable than the logic given by posters here around their players playing post their peak etc is moot. Your player declined because someone else upped the ante. Gotta live with that truth.

Nadal was greater than Djokovic while both were active at the same time. That is undeniable fact. What you are talking about is consistency and longevity which are admirable qualities and part of greatness. But in sport mano e mano determines who the general public see as greater.

 

[mahatma]

Nadal was greater than Djokovic while both were active at the same time. That is undeniable fact. What you are talking about is consistency and longevity which are admirable qualities and part of greatness. But in sport mano e mano determines who the general public see as greater.

When did Nadal retire. Give me a date

 

[The Blond Blur]

Peak/prime years are a myth. Humans continue to improve more and more with practice and experience. That’s why you see 80 year old men on the pro tour beating 22-28 year olds all the time. It’s also why women are able to give birth to healthy children well into their 100’s.

 

[Razer]

OP made a laughing stock of himself with this thread.

 

[messiahrobins]

When did Nadal retire. Give me a date

June 7th 2022 basically