Six of the eight quarter-finalists in the men's singles will be 28 or more

[helterskelter]

Sorry, I've been busy so I couldn't reply to this sooner.

I don't think we really disagree all that much and I appreciate being able to discuss it civilly! (That's rare on this board!)

I think you're right that there will always come a point at which older players can't be as consistent because of recovery time, but I also think that the decline of a lot of players in the past was due to motivational problems and that the current top players are more motivated and so doing well later. Also, societal trends matter here: Borg, McEnroe, and Wilander were children of the late 60s and early 70s who liked partying and thought there was more fun to be had outside tennis than inside. Nowadays, that sort of burnout seems rarer.

Thanks for the stats about the top 20 in 2002. I remember that the period between 98 and 03 had some older players, too and that the late half o the 70s generation also didn't do well. I think what we need to note is that it's hard to shift an incumbent. The players in the late half of the 70s and early 90s thus had that disadvantage.

It could be that players in the early 20s will do well again. Only time will tell. (I don't think we'll see a rash of teenage Slam champions as we did in the 80s, as there's only been one teenage Slam champion in 25 years, and he was far stronger than most teenagers). But I do think there's been a shift from 23/24 to 27/28. Like I said, I think the reason is partly the structure of the tour: young players are handicapped by the bye system and the increase in number of seeds, as it makes it harder for them to climb the rankings and so harder for them to gain match experience. The tour is more stilted towards the top players than it was. I agree that players in their late 20s are still, ceteris paribus, going to do better than players in their early 30s. But players in their 30s will compete better than they did in the 80s, 90s, and 00s. (Plenty of early 30-somethings did well up to and including the 70s).

It will also, of course, vary tremendously by individuals, just as aging of all sorts does. Some people look old at 60, others look middle-aged at 70.

No I understand this and to touch on that, the Top 20 has never been a bastion of young guns, which is why I was referring to the top players. In terms of the Top 20, usually half are in their late 20s because the mental edge and experience is so valuable to tennis that's always going to be the case for veterans to size guys up. For example:

2002 Year End Top 20
2: 30+
9: 25+
8: 21-24
1: 20 (Andy Roddick)



At the same time you have a 14 year old kid from Canada make ATP challenger events. Coric and Kyrgios are climbing. Older athletes are maintaining their form better than earlier days but a 6-10 year age gap is significant and the body of that younger player is going to have more ability and less strain on it. Barring PEDs.



In the grand scheme of things, 15 years is not a great period of length really. So that said, some notes:

Safin wins 00 USO at age 20
Hewitt wins 01 USO at age 20
Roddick wins 03 USO at age 21
Federer wins 03 WMB at age 21
Nadal wins 05 French at age 19
Djokovic wins 08 AO at age 20
Del Potro wins 09 USO at age 20

The fact Federer and Nadal are GOAT contenders means they collect Slams while guys under 25 are just not good enough. But looking at the above what makes you think we won't be seeing 20 year old Slam champions within the next 15 years?



Yeah I've seen these things play out since I was 6. It would have already happened by now. Sometimes you just have a glut of older players still performing because the younger generation failed to produce a star on time. It happens but it'll never be the norm. Just trust me on this. It's about consistency. An older athlete is just not able to have the physicality to use as a safety net for off days.

 

[helterskelter]

The semifinalists
33
29
28
28

Agassi and Sampras' record will continue to be unchallenged. Their combined age in a Slam Final was 63. Yes, even Rosewall making those finals at 39 don't beat it losing to a 21 year old Connors.

A Federer/Wawrinka Final would have equaled that 63 mark.

If Federer and Djokovic make it three in a row in 2016, they will also equal it (29 + 34). Or Federer and Murray. But I guess the most likely final then is Djokovic v Murray.

 

[helterskelter]

..and as noted elsewhere, individual physiological differences may contribute to the longevity of a player (as a winner) than that seen in others. for this reason, one cannot say (in absence of a player's medical records, etc.) that he cannot continue to win (especially majors) well into his or her thirties. The "well, uh, player x from ten years ago couldn't do it, so no one else can" is an excuse based on nothing that can be hard-applied to any individual player, thus no one can predict how long his success will last.

Absolutely agree. Human beings age at different rates, and their aging depends on societal conditions. So, just because one players ages doesn't mean another will and just because one generation of players aged at a certain rate doesn't mean a future one will.

 

[helterskelter]

The landscape is changing. Older players are achieving late success. Remember, it took even Novak until 25 to get to his first YE#1 and first big year.

We are not saying Cilic will win 5-6 slams here. But there is everything pointing to him winning a couple over the next 4 years.

I agree that he will probably do so. I think he'll mostly need Djokovic to be taken out by other players, because that's clearly just a horrendous matchup for him (and the double whammy of Djokovic being generally better and it being a bad matchup makes it prohibitively difficult for him). I just don't think that a 16-month age gap makes it likely that he'll ever have a visible age advantage over Djokovic. He could do. But it's a small enough age difference that it wouldn't be all that surprising if Cilic declined first or if they declined at roughly the same time.

 

[tennisaddict]

I agree that he will probably do so. I think he'll mostly need Djokovic to be taken out by other players, because that's clearly just a horrendous matchup for him (and the double whammy of Djokovic being generally better and it being a bad matchup makes it prohibitively difficult for him). I just don't think that a 16-month age gap makes it likely that he'll ever have a visible age advantage over Djokovic. He could do. But it's a small enough age difference that it wouldn't be all that surprising if Cilic declined first or if they declined at roughly the same time.

Cilic has less mileage. If he remains injury free for the rest of his career, guys like him and Kyrgios will always be dangerous.

Once Novak's level drops there will be a few wolves ready to hunt.

The sad thing for these folks is Novak has improved his serve at the right moment. He has margins even if he is going to be less consistent with aging. He is not going to have the same steep decline as Rafa

 

[helterskelter]

Cilic has less mileage. If he remains injury free for the rest of his career, guys like him and Kyrgios will always be dangerous.

Once Novak's level drops there will be a few wolves ready to hunt.

The sad thing for these folks is Novak has improved his serve at the right moment. He has margins even if he is going to be less consistent with aging. He is not going to have the same steep decline as Rafa

The mileage could make a difference, but I'm not sure that it will. I also don't think Djokovic's level will drop appreciably for a good couple of years. I know that's going against TTW orthodoxy, but 28 isn't old these days by any means. He's one of the younger members of the top 40 (20 of whom are 29 or more).

Certainly, when he does decline it would seem likely to be a slow decline like Federer's.