The most recent 20 Slam champions by age:

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Yes, those are the changes in playing style. But we need to be more nuanced about it because it is not simply longer points that help older players but a particularly type of longer point. Remember that Borg and Vilas engaged in rallies far longer than the current ones and Borg was done by 25, and even Vilas reached his last Slam final in the year he turned 30. (I think he was still 29 but I can't remember offhand when in 1952 he was born). The point is, I think, that the current baseline game is a power baseline one, whereas the tennis of Borg and Vilas (and the Swedish and Argentinian Armadas who followed them) was much less powerful. I am not quite sure what it is about the power baseline game that helps older players, but I think that some of the following are going on:

- strength is a physical attribute that develops later than some other attributes. It may not be the case that 30-year-olds have an advantage over 23-year-olds, but it is probably the case that they don't have a disadvantage. By contrast, they do have a disadvantage when it comes to being able to turn quickly. [I believe that heavyweight boxers tend to be older than lightweight boxers and I think the difference between strength and speed of turn is partially the reason].
- the power-baseline game places more emphasis on shot selection than did the previous variant of baseline play. Older players definitely have an advantage over younger players when it comes to shot selection because a man's cerebral cortex doesn't stop developing until he is about 25. Prior to that age, he is just not going to be equally able to avoid making rash decisions in the heat of the moment. It is just a supposition that the power baseline game places more emphasis on shot selection, but that would be my sense of what's going on.

Besides this, there are several "extra"-court changes that are relevant, such as:

- there have been advances in nutrition and in training that allow older players to stay in shape longer. Some injuries that would have finished the careers of a player no longer do so. Many players declined as the result of sustaining an injury that never fully healed.
- the prize money differentials have increased. This enables the established players to access those improvements in nutrition and in training that non-established players cannot access.
- there are more byes in ATP/WTA events than in the past, so the draws are smaller. This also handicaps non-established players, who tend to be younger.
- there are more seeds in ATP/WTA events, e.g. there are 32 in Slams rather than 16. This also benefits established players, who tend to be older.
That explanation contains far more assumptions than simply saying that the past couple of generations have not produced good enough players to beat the older ones. In other words, lack of talent.
 
That explanation contains far more assumptions than simply saying that the past couple of generations have not produced good enough players to beat the older ones. In other words, lack of talent.

Well, not really. It is simply more honest - or perhaps self-aware - about the assumptions. You know that there are tens of thousands of players who try to make it as professionals? So you are assuming a lot about the distribution of talent if you take it that it is remotely possible for none to emerge without there being some reason(s) why they didn't emerge.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
It's hard to say the slam winners are at their peak age right now.

Djokovic is hardly at his peak. He isn't playing as well as he was even a year ago, but 2011 Djokovic was far more dominant. Murray isn't at his peak. He isn't playing as well as he was a couple of years ago before his injuries. Wawrinka may be an exception, but is probably the exception proving the rule.

These GS winners are rarely at their peak. The issue is that the ones following them seem unable to break past the top 3 or 4, even though they are not at their peak.
This is not true. Djokovic before 2012 did not have a strong serve at all. Murray is at his peak because of big improvements in his serve game.

We've had three top tier ATGs at the top of the game and Wawrinka and Murray are turning out to be stronger than thought. In the last two years only Djokovic, Murray, and Wawrinka have won slams, which is something only the big 3 have done.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
That's one sure thing that is often overlooked. I'm not even sure early Nadal is winning in this environment which is the most extreme example.
huh? Early Rafa wouldn't have the stamina to contend in today's era?? o_Oo_Oo_O I know you're a proponent for this being an exceptionally strong era, but this takes the cake. :eek:
 
This is not true. Djokovic before 2012 did not have a strong serve at all. Murray is at his peak because of big improvements in his serve game.

We've had three top tier ATGs at the top of the game and Wawrinka and Murray are turning out to be stronger than thought. In the last two years only Djokovic, Murray, and Wawrinka have won slams, which is something only the big 3 have done.

What would you take to be the improvements that Wawrinka has made that have transformed him from also-ran into the latest blooming multiple Slam champion?
 
huh? Early Rafa wouldn't have the stamina to contend in today's era?? o_Oo_Oo_O I know you're a proponent for this being an exceptionally strong era, but this takes the cake. :eek:

Yeah, I agree. Nadal would have the stamina to contend. I think the bigger question is whether it's plausible that he'd have become as good as he did become by the age of 18 if he were to be 18 today. Perhaps he would have done. But I doubt it.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, that's true about the teenagers, but note that you are still supposing that it's possible to classify some eras as "exceptional" and others as "normal." I don't think that's true.
There I have a fundamental disagreement. I think what happened in the late 60s was in every way shaped by an extraordinary group of professionals who were more or less killing everyone in Open tennis because the rest of the players they went up against were all former amateurs. I'd say what went on from 68 to 74 is important and can't be understood without understanding the virtual war that went on prior to 60 between the pros and amateur tennis.

I'd also say that something important is probably going on right now, although I think it is too early to know just what it is.

It could be that a few older players have set a new standard in training. There is also the matter of super coaches, the changes in seedings (I think this is important), lousy pay for young players, and so on.

So I'm not saying that nothing has changed. But I'm not going to be surprised if we see young players pushing through at the old peak age of around 25.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
On another note: there aren't many Slam champions of ANY age. It's important to list by Slam champion and not by Slam tournament, because listing by Slam tournament allows multiple counting. (For example, Borg won 11 Slams but was done within a week of his 25th birthday. If we list by Slam tournament, we come to 11 championships won by a player aged 25 or under, and that seems to give a much more sizable n than if we list by Slam champion and realize that they were all one just by Borg). I think that this is a mistake that many posters made in presenting the data about slam champions in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s that led to unwarranted confidence that those results reflected a timeless inevitable order.
But you are basically saying to throw out the average age that slams were won at over several decades because too many were won by only a few players.

I think that's going to far. I'm not looking for a timeless, inevitable order. On the other hand, if we don't look at slams, we are sort of skipping the #1 metric.

There are 21 times that slams have been won by players 30 years or older.

49 slams have been won by players 24 or 25.

I think there are 25 or 26 names in the group. And yes, some players have won many at that age. I think Fed tops this list winning 5 times at that age. Sampras did it 4 times. Nadal 4 times. Djokovic 4 times. Borg and McEnroe three times. And so on.

But most likely there are also more one time winners in that age range.

So if you're going to say that the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions, we might as well stop drawing any conclusions at all about when slams are won.
I'm not sure it's worth considering players aged 24-26, because I think we would all agree that that's an age range that is always likely to fall within the winnable range. In the past it may have been middle-aged, now it may be young, but it's never likely to be so young that players of that age are still developing or so old that players of that age are past it. Tennis is not gymnastics!
It's worth talking about when age 24-25 such a standout age over about 50 years. And it's worth watching to see if that "bulge" goes up...
 
Last edited:

Meles

Bionic Poster
You have a partial point. But if we broaden the scope to not only include top-3 players winning the slams, but top-50 or top-100, the same thing applies. Older players beat youngsters again and again and keep them from rising in the rankings.
From 2007 to 2014, the average age of a top-50 player went up with more than 3 years. That's massive. I haven't done the analysis, but I can only imagine it has gone up further since then. Have a look: http://www.changeovertennis.com/atp-dark-age-coming/

Can't find the graph, but we've had graphs on the site earlier showing the average age of slam winners and slam finalists for the Open era. The best years were 24-25 - and 22-27 more broadly speaking. Today, the average age of the top-4 is almost 30 and the average age of top-10 is probably above that.
To me this screams that this is not the ups and downs of ATGs showing up in the game (and we've been spoiled by a bumper crop that has not been seen in the Open era before.) Clearly the game has changed.

The obvious culprit is Poly strings. These strings favor the power baseline game of today with harder higher bouncing balls with which the youngsters have issues due to not being full developed in upper body strength. Life is easier on grass, clay, and perhaps the lower bouncing Australian Open hard courts. But indoor carpet has gone the way of the Dodo bird and been replaced with hard courts and even grass has become higher bouncing. On hard courts the reverse ageism is in full force. Pouille this year was a big change at the US Open and he barely made it to the QFs. It has been veterans in the QFs at the US Open for a long, long time. I would give tall players like Zverev and Delpo a better chance at a younger age as they are more able to handle the higher bounce. Poly strings and the prevalence of hard courts on the current tour favor a powerful game requiring physically strong players.

Some say Poly favors stronger serving in the game, but I'm not wholly confident of that. The aging top group of players generally have improved their serves in their later years and experience some diminishment in return. This age of the top group has made serving look stronger, but it may be less equipment and more the reality of a veteran group of players. Poly definitley favors returning or helps players return better.

The younger players on hard courts don't have a strong enough serve to dominate against the reality of the Poly return game. Even a phenom like Kygrios often wins a lowish amount of first serve points for such a great serving talent. The younger players serves simply aren't good enough in today's game. Here again taller players have some chance for success, but often these tall players don't have the strength to hit with the highest serve velocity. On hard courts the younger players just have trouble holding serve.


At the very top of the game, its clearly talent, but I would contend that even a young Murray, Nadal, or Djokovic would have a lot of trouble against their older versions. I don't think Djokovic before 2011 does well against his later self or Murray for most years. Throw in Nadal and Federer on top of that in near prime form and players like Stanimal. Its not an easy environment.

The current top 4 youngsters (Thiem, Pouille, Kyrgios, and Zverev) may just take a bit longer to emerge against this strong veteran group given the realities of the Poly game.

I'd also contend that the current Big 4 has in a way benefitted from riding the Poly wave. Their games might have allowed them to break through against some retrofitted players from the early 2000s and now they also are having their careers extended by this change to the game. The average age of slam winners will clearly go down once these 4 are gone, but it may not be the great change for which @Gary Duane might be hoping.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Well, not really. It is simply more honest - or perhaps self-aware - about the assumptions. You know that there are tens of thousands of players who try to make it as professionals? So you are assuming a lot about the distribution of talent if you take it that it is remotely possible for none to emerge without there being some reason(s) why they didn't emerge.
I'm just assuming they didn't have enough talent. I don't think a Federer or Laver is born every couple of years or so. I think they're so exceptional it can be a decade or more.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
What would you take to be the improvements that Wawrinka has made that have transformed him from also-ran into the latest blooming multiple Slam champion?
Wawrinka had a solid hard court year with his stas in 2016 before the US Open. He looks a bit stronger and fitter than ever. I'd say he pretty much owns Djokovic if he's got a good game going near the end of a slam. Having a higher seed paid off for Wawrinka at this US Open and he got the draw he needed. Biggest thing in future slams for Wawrinka will be drawing Djokovic as part of the package. He basically was lucky with the draw and it could easily happen again in the next year.
 
I'm just assuming they didn't have enough talent. I don't think a Federer or Laver is born every couple of years or so. I think they're so exceptional it can be a decade or more.

Those are some big assumptions, especially when you try to reckon with the fact that the aging goes all the way down the top few hundred, so you are also assuming that few younger players had the talent of a Berdych or a Lopez or even a Stephane Robert.

I believe that lack of talent is a rather implausible explanation. Once a player has developed his or her talent at something close to its full potential, then it is indeed one of the major explanations of that player's success. But players don't just spring fully formed as developed talents. Their talent has to develop. Whether it does or not is not dependent merely on a combination of their talent and aptitude but also, and I think primarily, on their opportunities for developing that talent. If we want to explain why talents did or didn't develop, we need to look not at the individuals but at the structures of the tour.
 
You may well be right about the period between 1968 and 1974 and I think your explanation makes sense. But it's important to note that it's an explanation that goes beyond physical ability and incorporates social structure, e.g. the older players were better than the younger ones because the younger ones hadn't competed on the cutting edge professional tour and so hadn't developed in time. Now, that particular social fact is indeed likely to be a one off. However, it is likely that there will frequently if not always be some social facts or other that advantage or disadvantage particular players. As you say, right now there are various factors that are again disadvantaging younger players. In the 1980s and 1990s, there were factors that disadvantaged older players. For example, the sport was becoming very physically intense, especially with the new graphite rackets, and players were increasingly playing on unforgiving synthetic surfaces, and so they were more likely than hitherto to suffer from injuries. However, the rehabilitation schedules had not kept pace with the increased intensity of the game, and so players couldn't recover from injuries. That advantages younger players who are less likely to have suffered a serious injury because they haven't been playing for as long.

My argument is that there is always some such thing occurring, and therefore there will be no way to conduct a "pure" experiment in which players compete without the nature of the competition being structured by social factors. As a result, I don't think there's a normal against which to measure aberrations.

I agree that it is too early to know exactly what is going on right now and that something is going on! Also, as I said earlier in the thread, the upward shift is likely to settle back down to some extent. I don't think players of 20 or 21 are likely to win much for the next few years, but players of 23 or 24 might well do so. The "super coaches" that you mention are part of a process whereby it's become very difficult to unseat incumbents, because the incumbents have all the advantages. I think that difficulty is the main factor explaining Sampras and Agassi's longevity, but that the increased age down the rankings suggest that it is only one factor among several explaining what's going on today.

There I have a fundamental disagreement. I think what happened in the late 60s was in every way shaped by an extraordinary group of professionals who were more or less killing everyone in Open tennis because the rest of the players they went up against were all former amateurs. I'd say what went on from 68 to 74 is important and can't be understood without understanding the virtual war that went on prior to 60 between the pros and amateur tennis.

I'd also say that something important is probably going on right now, although I think it is too early to know just what it is.

It could be that a few older players have set a new standard in training. There is also the matter of super coaches, the changes in seedings (I think this is important), lousy pay for young players, and so on.

So I'm not saying that nothing has changed. But I'm not going to be surprised if we see young players pushing through at the old peak age of around 25.
 
You make good points, and you are right that a large part of my argument is that we can't know about slam winners because of small sample size. The stats I quote in this thread can't really be used to support a positive argument that players are aging. They can at best be used negatively; that is, to debunk the argument that players won't age. Two years ago, there were posters who believed in a law of 28.5: that all players entered "physical decline" six months after their 28th birthday. Their evidence was the number of Slams won after players turned 28.5. Now, it's indeed to early to say whether young players will start winning Slams again soon. But it seems pretty conclusive that, if players do enter physical decline at 28.5, we can't use Slam results as evidence of that without drawing in a host of other arguments and assumptions.

But you are basically saying to throw out the average age that slams were won at over several decades because too many were won by only a few players.

I think that's going to far. I'm not looking for a timeless, inevitable order. On the other hand, if we don't look at slams, we are sort of skipping the #1 metric.

There are 21 times that slams have been won by players 30 years or older.

49 slams have been won by players 24 or 25.

I think there are 25 or 26 names in the group. And yes, some players have won many at that age. I think Fed tops this list winning 5 times at that age. Sampras did it 4 times. Nadal 4 times. Djokovic 4 times. Borg and McEnroe three times. And so on.

But most likely there are also more one time winners in that age range.

So if you're going to say that the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions, we might as well stop drawing any conclusions at all about when slams are won.

It's worth talking about when age 24-25 such a standout age over about 50 years. And it's worth watching to see if that "bulge" goes up...
 
Wawrinka had a solid hard court year with his stas in 2016 before the US Open. He looks a bit stronger and fitter than ever. I'd say he pretty much owns Djokovic if he's got a good game going near the end of a slam. Having a higher seed paid off for Wawrinka at this US Open and he got the draw he needed. Biggest thing in future slams for Wawrinka will be drawing Djokovic as part of the package. He basically was lucky with the draw and it could easily happen again in the next year.

Agreed about his matchup with Djokovic: as the commentators noted, his weight of shot means that Djokovic can't out maneuver him in long rallies as he does everyone else. But I'd still be pretty confident that Djokovic would beat Wawrinka at Wimbledon!

Isn't it interesting that Murray was able to beat Wawrinka so comfortably at Roland Garros? Murray's game is relatively similar to Djokovic's, and he's not as good on clay. And Wawrinka wasn't playing that badly at Roland Garros - he demolished ARV in the previous round and most of us thought he looked pretty good in doing so.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
huh? Early Rafa wouldn't have the stamina to contend in today's era?? o_Oo_Oo_O I know you're a proponent for this being an exceptionally strong era, but this takes the cake. :eek:
Upper body strength and serving. Rafa would have had an even harder time on hard courts in this environment. And the exercise here is to put him in today as a new player, even against himself. Current Rafa is struggling in this environment because his serve is getting crushed. Young Rafa might have been worse in that department. Peak Rafa of 2008 and probably 2007 does something, but 2005 and 2006 Rafa I'm not so sure about. Do those versions beat 2011 Djokovic or 2012 Rafa? I'm not confident they win the last two years either. Its not a big stretch to say pre-prime Rafa, Murray, and Djokovic lose to their prime versions. Rafa really just had to deal with Fed when he broke in.

I'm not trying to say he'd do worse than today's youngsters, its just an illustration to show that its not that easy today. Rafa is the most controversial example I could pick and he was the last teen star. It would have been harder for all the big 4 breaking in against themselves. Its not easy to break in today is the point of this exercise. Start the big 4 off one at a time in 2011 against the tour would be a fun exercise and maybe use their first slam winning year as a starter (maybe Murray a year after Djokovic.)

-Put 2008 Djokovic starting in 2011. He's winning a lot less masters events, and doesn't break out until 2014 - then he might go crazy.
-Put 2009 Murray starting in 2011. Less masters early. 2014 he could take US Open, probably not 2015 Wimby - so just 1 slam to date
-Put 2005 Rafa stating in 2011. Doubt he beats himself or Djoko in 2011 on clay. Doesn't beat himself in 2012, 2013-2014 wins French, probably gets picked off 1 of the last 2 years (like 2009), Rafa does better on grass initially with 2013 and 2014 Wimby and one more. Skunked at Auz open to date. Wins 2016 US Open. Many years to come for Rafa
-Put 2003 Fed starting in 2011 on Plexicushion at Auz too. At age 21 he takes Wimbledon. No Auz open the next year, but likely at Wimby and US Open all the way through 2016, but might have been picked off once at each in 2015 and 2016. Probably has French in 2015 and Auz in 2016. Maybe 3 or 4 less majors versus 13 he had by 2008 and quite a few more possible.

This says to me that the earliest possible age win a major in this enviroment is age 20 and 21 is likely the number. Players like Djokovic aren't winning majors until nearly the age of 24. Murray is and was age 25.

The takeaway from this insanity is that Thiem, Zverev, Kyrgios, and Pouille aren't in the criticial years. Thiem starts in 2017, Pouille 2018, Kyrgios 2018, Coric 2019, and Zverev 2020. When they fail to produce then more hand wringing should commence.
 
Last edited:

Meles

Bionic Poster
Agreed about his matchup with Djokovic: as the commentators noted, his weight of shot means that Djokovic can't out maneuver him in long rallies as he does everyone else. But I'd still be pretty confident that Djokovic would beat Wawrinka at Wimbledon!

Isn't it interesting that Murray was able to beat Wawrinka so comfortably at Roland Garros? Murray's game is relatively similar to Djokovic's, and he's not as good on clay. And Wawrinka wasn't playing that badly at Roland Garros - he demolished ARV in the previous round and most of us thought he looked pretty good in doing so.
I think for Wawa he's got one golden matchup with Djokovic (outside of grass maybe). Murray ran out of gas early in the final and did not manage the tournament well (Isner 5 sets, wtf!). Murray is closer to Djokovic on clay than on any hard court I believe. Tennis is matchups much of the time.

We've got some youngsters to follow at this point and I don't think they'll Dimitrough on us.;)
 
@Meles Good point about Djokovic. Because he won the AO in 2008 at age 20 and generally had a strong run of form between March 2007 and May 2008, people assume that he was an early developer like Nadal and so a counterexample to the late development of today. But that's only true to a very limited extent. In fact, Djokovic made big improvements at the age of 23 and a half in early 2011, which is much more inline with today's common trajectory. They're not as good as Djokovic, but Nishikori made improvements at 24 and Raonic at 25. And Wawrinka at 28!
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Those are some big assumptions, especially when you try to reckon with the fact that the aging goes all the way down the top few hundred, so you are also assuming that few younger players had the talent of a Berdych or a Lopez or even a Stephane Robert.

I believe that lack of talent is a rather implausible explanation. Once a player has developed his or her talent at something close to its full potential, then it is indeed one of the major explanations of that player's success. But players don't just spring fully formed as developed talents. Their talent has to develop. Whether it does or not is not dependent merely on a combination of their talent and aptitude but also, and I think primarily, on their opportunities for developing that talent. If we want to explain why talents did or didn't develop, we need to look not at the individuals but at the structures of the tour.
Berdych has been surpassed in his usual rankings position by younger players. Is the top 100 older now than 10, 20, 30 years ago and so on? I'd like to see that data.
 
Berdych has been surpassed in his usual rankings position by younger players. Is the top 100 older now than 10, 20, 30 years ago and so on? I'd like to see that data.

Berdych turns 31 this month and is still #9. Yes, that's two or three ranking places below his 2010-5 finishes (#6 or #7 every single time), but it's hardly a big drop.

Yes, the top 100 is, according to an article that Chanwan linked to earlier in this thread, three years older than it was in 2007. And I posted a link to Tennis Abstract, where you can track the data for yourself. It doesn't pool it, but look through it and you'll see that there is a very marked change. I tried to get Gary Duane to collate the data for us, but I don't think he's interested! ;)
 
I think for Wawa he's got one golden matchup with Djokovic (outside of grass maybe). Murray ran out of gas early in the final and did not manage the tournament well (Isner 5 sets, wtf!). Murray is closer to Djokovic on clay than on any hard court I believe. Tennis is matchups much of the time.

We've got some youngsters to follow at this point and I don't think they'll Dimitrough on us.;)

Not sure I agree about "any" hard court, but I might agree that he's closer than at either hard court Slam. I think that Cincinnati or Shanghai would be tournaments where Murray would have more chance against Djokovic.

But my question is why Wawrinka doesn't have the matchup advantage against Murray, given that Murray's style is similar to Djokovic's. Is it because Murray has more variety and so gets Wawrinka out of his rhythm? That was posited as the explanation of why Wawrinka struggles against Federer on hard courts. (It was sometimes said struggles against Federer, but that's not true. Wawrinka is unlikely to lose against Federer again on clay).
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Berdych has been surpassed in his usual rankings position by younger players. Is the top 100 older now than 10, 20, 30 years ago and so on? I'd like to see that data.
Ferrer is in decline. Berdy just had an Apendectomy and is trying to claw his way into WTF. He's got a packed schedule after missing US Open. He may just have started to decline on clay perhaps. His hard court return game dropped a lot from last year, but he's within 0.7% of his career return points won average. Unfortunately, Berdy might not be in heavy decline and may yet make WTF.:(
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Berdych turns 31 this month and is still #9. Yes, that's two or three ranking places below his 2010-5 finishes (#6 or #7 every single time), but it's hardly a big drop.

Yes, the top 100 is, according to an article that Chanwan linked to earlier in this thread, three years older than it was in 2007. And I posted a link to Tennis Abstract, where you can track the data for yourself. It doesn't pool it, but look through it and you'll see that there is a very marked change. I tried to get Gary Duane to collate the data for us, but I don't think he's interested! ;)
I've been messing with tennis abstract. You might get me to do this eventually if I can do it systematically.
 
Ferrer is in decline. Berdy just had an Apendectomy and is trying to claw his way into WTF. He's got a packed schedule after missing US Open. He may just have started to decline on clay perhaps. His hard court return game dropped a lot from last year, but he's within 0.7% of his career return points won average. Unfortunately, Berdy might not be in heavy decline and may yet make WTF.:(

But Ferrer is 34 and a half and his decline started recently. That's compatible with the view that players are going on longer, as 34 is still outside the normal range. Ferrer was breaking ground in his 30s: he won his only MS event at 30 and he made his only GS final at 31.
 
I've been messing with tennis abstract. You might get me to do this eventually if I can do it systematically.

The problem is that Tennis Abstract doesn't store data from 2013-5! When it updates the data each week, it takes them off the site, which is annoying. It does have end-of-year data from 2012 and before though.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
@Meles Are you completely giving up on Dimitrov then? Don't think he's got any chance of following in Stan's footsteps and finally fulfilling his potential at 28 or so?
I don't think he's a top ten player. He'd have to do a Wawrinka to get into the top 10. 2014 on grass was a bit weak and Dimi was strong and really got his ranking up. I don't see him quite getting that high again without a major weapon. Wawrinka beefed up serve and forehand; that would do a lot for Greegor.
 
@bjsnider Just a couple of snapshots of the Tennis Abstract data:

Now:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 15.
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 20.
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: 11
Teenagers in the top 100: 3
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 250
Twentieth-ranked teenager: #350

2006 Year-End Rankings:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 2.
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 3.
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: 17.
Teenagers in the top 100: 3
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: Outside top 314 and top 20 teenagers, so data not available.
Twentieth-ranked teenager: #314.

1996 Year-End Rankings:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 0
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 4
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: At least 20 (20th ranked player in age range: #77).
Teenagers in the top 100: 1
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: Outside top 331 and top 20 teenagers, so data not available
Twentieth-ranked teenager: #331

1986 Year-End Rankings:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 2
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 3
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: At least 20 (20th ranked player in age range: #42).
Teenagers in the top 100: 9
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 91 (Agassi, actually 16) or 109 (Perez Roldan)
Twentieth-ranked teenager: #177
 
I don't think he's a top ten player. He'd have to do a Wawrinka to get into the top 10. 2014 on grass was a bit weak and Dimi was strong and really got his ranking up. I don't see him quite getting that high again without a major weapon. Wawrinka beefed up serve and forehand; that would do a lot for Greegor.

Wawrinka is far stronger than Dimitrov, so I don't think he can model himself on Stan. A better comparison style-wise is Gasquet, who has also made late-career improvements, albeit not to the same extent.
 
One way to track the change over time: What ranking did the 20th highest-ranked man aged 22 or under hold? Here are the answers:

Year-End 1986: 42
Year-End 1996: 77
Year-End 2006: 123
Current: 200

And another: What ranking did the 20th highest-ranked man aged 32 or more hold? Here are the answers:

Year-End 1986: 417
Year-End 1996: 1145
Year-End 2006: 433
Current: 95
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
But Ferrer is 34 and a half and his decline started recently. That's compatible with the view that players are going on longer, as 34 is still outside the normal range. Ferrer was breaking ground in his 30s: he won his only MS event at 30 and he made his only GS final at 31.
Great stats in 2015. Simon looks to be in decline after a fine 2015. Gasquet back troubles may signal his decline. Tsonga is barely hanging on in my book. For the Frenchies its Pouille and peak Guru next year (and Herbert in doubles, so maybe they grab a Davis Cup finally).

Here is my guess at rough year end rankings for 2017 based on ELO and trends for players:
1 Novak Djokovic 29.2 2540.5 2016 Miami Masters F 28.8 2570.6
2 Andy Murray 29.3 2397.2 2016 Cincinnati Masters SF 29.3 2412.8
3 Roger Federer 34.9 2340.8 2007 Dubai F 25.6 2524.3
4 Kei Nishikori 26.6 2277.4 2016 Cincinnati Masters R32 26.6 2297.2
5 Rafael Nadal 30.2 2276.0 2013 Beijing QF 27.3 2489.5
6 Stanislas Wawrinka 31.4 2157.3 2016 Australian Open R32 30.8 2232.2
7 Milos Raonic 25.6 2232.3 2016 Wimbledon SF 25.5 2243.3
8 Dominic Thiem 22.9 2132.0 2016 Halle R16 22.8 2215.4
9 Juan Martin Del Potro 27.9 2176.1 2009 US Open F 20.9 2352.3
10 Gael Monfils 30.0 2135.6 2011 Halle QF 24.8 2171.0
11 Nick Kyrgios 21.3 2101.7 2016 Rome Masters R32 21.0 2158.7
12 Marin Cilic 27.9 2078.3 2010 Dubai R16 21.4 2194.3
13 Tomas Berdych 30.9 2154.2 2013 Miami Masters R16 27.5 2226.1
14 David Goffin 25.7 2042.9 2016 Monte Carlo Masters R32 25.3 2115.2
15 Roberto Bautista Agut 28.3 2029.6 2016 Rotterdam R16 27.8 2106.2
16 Grigor Dimitrov 25.3 1983.9 2014 Canada Masters QF 23.2 2190.3
17 Alexander Zverev 19.3 1949.6 2016 Halle SF 19.1 2050.6
18 Lucas Pouille 22.5 1948.0 2016 Wimbledon R16 22.3 2004.1
19 Steve Johnson 26.6 1994.0 2016 Cincinnati Masters R16 26.6 2011.1
20 Jack Sock 23.9 1986.6 2016 Australian Open R128 23.3 2109.4
21 Gilles Muller 33.3 1963.8 2016 Olympics R32 33.3 1973.2
22 Ivo Karlovic 37.5 1958.6 2007 Paris Masters R64 28.7 2090.1
23 Borna Coric 19.8 1942.0 2016 Chennai SF 19.1 1972.9

Go Ivo.:D peak Muller.:eek: 4-7 is a tight pack. Of course a lucky player like Goffin or Thiem may rise above their station with some good draws as happened this year. Pouille might make top 16 by Australia this year and if he can take advantage of his seeding his ranking might stay artificially high (ELO before US Open had him at 30.) No telling what Fed and Delpo might do.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Berdych turns 31 this month and is still #9. Yes, that's two or three ranking places below his 2010-5 finishes (#6 or #7 every single time), but it's hardly a big drop.

Yes, the top 100 is, according to an article that Chanwan linked to earlier in this thread, three years older than it was in 2007. And I posted a link to Tennis Abstract, where you can track the data for yourself. It doesn't pool it, but look through it and you'll see that there is a very marked change. I tried to get Gary Duane to collate the data for us, but I don't think he's interested! ;)
I looked at it. It's a very slow, longterm drift. The >=30 crowd has increasing dominance and the <=23 crowd has been more marginalized. But, there was a big shift around 2010/2011. The conditions and equipment has also had a long, slow drift, and that may have something to do with it. Perhaps a bunch of players started using more extreme monofilament string beds about 6 years ago or something.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
@bjsnider Just a couple of snapshots of the Tennis Abstract data:

Now:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 15.
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 20.
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: 11
Teenagers in the top 100: 3
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 250
Twentieth-ranked teenager: #350

2006 Year-End Rankings:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 2.
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 3.
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: 17.
Teenagers in the top 100: 3
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: Outside top 314 and top 20 teenagers, so data not available.
Twentieth-ranked teenager: #314.

1996 Year-End Rankings:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 0
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 4
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: At least 20 (20th ranked player in age range: #77).
Teenagers in the top 100: 1
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: Outside top 331 and top 20 teenagers, so data not available
Twentieth-ranked teenager: #331

1986 Year-End Rankings:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 2
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 3
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: At least 20 (20th ranked player in age range: #42).
Teenagers in the top 100: 9
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 91 (Agassi, actually 16) or 109 (Perez Roldan)
Twentieth-ranked teenager: #177
Also makes me wonder if fewer talented athletes are taking up tennis and more going into soccer or some other sport.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
One way to track the change over time: What ranking did the 20th highest-ranked man aged 22 or under hold? Here are the answers:

Year-End 1986: 42
Year-End 1996: 77
Year-End 2006: 123
Current: 200

And another: What ranking did the 20th highest-ranked man aged 32 or more hold? Here are the answers:

Year-End 1986: 417
Year-End 1996: 1145
Year-End 2006: 433
Current: 95
Nice. Really shows the bulge moving.

Are we able to continue @Chanwan 's numbers?
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I looked at it. It's a very slow, longterm drift. The >=30 crowd has increasing dominance and the <=23 crowd has been more marginalized. But, there was a big shift around 2010/2011. The conditions and equipment has also had a long, slow drift, and that may have something to do with it. Perhaps a bunch of players started using more extreme monofilament string beds about 6 years ago or something.
Poly is complex. Players like Fed in 2002 and Hewitt in 2004 might be late adopters. Rafa caused a stir in 2010 with his string changes on tour. Players just have had more and more time with the stuff. We are seeing a bit of a return to slicing in the game (another form of spin enhanced by Poly.) I would swear that Thiem's groundies on grass were exceptionally hard to handle this year, so players are doing new things and the Poly game is still evolving perhaps.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
The problem is that Tennis Abstract doesn't store data from 2013-5! When it updates the data each week, it takes them off the site, which is annoying. It does have end-of-year data from 2012 and before though.
Slackers.:D Perhaps they created there data in 2012 and just need to go to the trouble to repeat the annual numbers for the last few years. Its very helter skelter over there.;)
 
Also makes me wonder if fewer talented athletes are taking up tennis and more going into soccer or some other sport.

Perhaps, but not soccer, because I think that is another sport where players haven't broken through in a while. The best players are also at least mid-career there, e.g. Messi is 29, Ronaldo is 31, Suarez is 29, Bale is 27, even Neymar is 24, Aguero is 28, Ibrahimovic is still perhaps Man United's best player at almost 35...I don't follow the American sports so don't know what's going on there.
 
I looked at it. It's a very slow, longterm drift. The >=30 crowd has increasing dominance and the <=23 crowd has been more marginalized. But, there was a big shift around 2010/2011. The conditions and equipment has also had a long, slow drift, and that may have something to do with it. Perhaps a bunch of players started using more extreme monofilament string beds about 6 years ago or something.

I'd parse it like this:

1. Teenagers were marginalized in between 1986 and 1996. I think it was actually between 1990 and 1994 or so but I'd have to check.
2. 30-something success is, as you say, a product of the last few years since about 2010. I remember suddenly noticing it in 2012 when Haas and Stepanek both went on good runs of form at the ages of 33/34.
3. The long-term slow drift is of players in their early 20s. #20 of 22 and younger is the one that shows a long-term trend that's slow: 42-77-123-200. But they may be outliers and if I did every year, I'd see a different trend. I'll look into that one now, as I think it's most interesting. I think we can safely say that there are good reasons why teenagers don't compete, but 22 and 19 are very different things.
 
22 and under #20 by year-end overall ranking:

1984 = 54
1985 = 45
1986 = 42
1987 = 53
1988 = 61
1989 = 55
1990 = 56
1991 = 59
1992 = 59
1993 = 69
1994 = 98
1995 = 79
1996 = 77
1997 = 94
1998 = 82
1999 = 77
2000 = 87
2001 = 79
2002 = 78
2003 = 71
2004 = 80
2005 = 91
2006 = 123
2007 = 95
2008 = 101
2009 = 125
2010 = 168
2011 = 172
2012 = 163
Today = 200
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
You have a partial point. But if we broaden the scope to not only include top-3 players winning the slams, but top-50 or top-100, the same thing applies. Older players beat youngsters again and again and keep them from rising in the rankings.
From 2007 to 2014, the average age of a top-50 player went up with more than 3 years. That's massive. I haven't done the analysis, but I can only imagine it has gone up further since then. Have a look: http://www.changeovertennis.com/atp-dark-age-coming/

Can't find the graph, but we've had graphs on the site earlier showing the average age of slam winners and slam finalists for the Open era. The best years were 24-25 - and 22-27 more broadly speaking. Today, the average age of the top-4 is almost 30 and the average age of top-10 is probably above that.
Nearing the end of 2016 I just calculated the average to be 28.9 years old for the top 50. We may be levelling out at around age 29.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
22 and under #20 by year-end overall ranking:

1984 = 54
1985 = 45
1986 = 42
1987 = 53
1988 = 61
1989 = 55
1990 = 56
1991 = 59
1992 = 59
1993 = 69
1994 = 98
1995 = 79
1996 = 77
1997 = 94
1998 = 82
1999 = 77
2000 = 87
2001 = 79
2002 = 78
2003 = 71
2004 = 80
2005 = 91
2006 = 123
2007 = 95
2008 = 101
2009 = 125
2010 = 168
2011 = 172
2012 = 163
Today = 200
I'm not leaping for joy at doing this, but its probably possible to make a lookup table with the birthdates of all the players which is easily converted to their age at the end of a given year. One could then just use the year end rankings from the ATP site to mimic the tennis abstract data. I think we see the trend so this looks good.
 
Teenagers in the Year-End Ranking

(four stats: 1. highest-ranked teenager, 2. 20th-ranked teenager, 3. teenagers in top 10, 4. teenagers in top 100)

1984: 10; 211; 1; 10
1985: 5; 250; 2; 9
1986: 2; 177; 1; 9
1987: 12; 277; 0; 6
1988: 3; 219; 1; 9
1989: 5; 158; 2; 10
1990: 5; 256; 2; 8
1991: 15; 278; 0; 3
1992: 24; 275; 0; 4
1993: 6; 304; 1; 3
1994: 52; 340; 0; 2
1995: 25; 303; 0; 4
1996: 78; 331; 0; 1
1997: 40; 296; 0; 3
1998: 49; 396; 0; 3
1999: 24; 299; 0; 5
2000: 7; 287; 1; 5
2001: 14; 349; 0; 6
2002: 89; 353; 0; 1
2003: 49; 343; 0; 4
2004: 45; 335; 0; 2
2005: 2; 356; 1; 5
2006: 16; 314; 0; 3
2007: 44; 413; 0; 5
2008: 63; 487; 0; 1
2009: 171; 373; 0; 0
2010: 106; 496; 0; 0
2011: 42; 413; 0; 2
2012: 263; 507; 0; 0
Today: 29; 350; 0; 4 [Tennis Abstract hasn't updated this week, so doesn't include Jared Donaldson, who broke into the top 100 after his US Open run]
 
Last edited:
I'm not leaping for joy at doing this, but its probably possible to make a lookup table with the birthdates of all the players which is easily converted to their age at the end of a given year. One could then just use the year end rankings from the ATP site to mimic the tennis abstract data. I think we see the trend so this looks good.

I'm hopeless with that sort of thing, but be my guest! I'd also like to see the women's data. There is also a long-term upward trend there. Because teenager girls can compete with adult women much better than teenager boys can with adult men, I can prove that it was manufactured: the tour explicitly forbid underaged girls from playing a full schedule after the burnouts of Austin, Jaeger, and Capriati. I think there was one year in the women's game when four of the top six were teenagers. When Ana Konjuh made the US Open quarter-finals this year, the commentators said that she was only the second 18-year-old to make the last eight of a Slam in the last 10 years! That is quite a remarkable change!
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Teenagers in the Year-End Ranking

(four stats: 1. highest-ranked teenager, 2. 20th-ranked teenager, 3. teenagers in top 10, 4. teenagers in top 100)

1984: 10; 211; 1; 10
1985: 5; 250; 2; 9
1986: 2; 177; 1; 9
1987: 12; 277; 0; 6
1988: 3; 219; 1; 9
1989: 5; 158; 2; 10
1990: 5; 256; 2; 8
1991: 15; 278; 0; 3
1992: 24; 275; 0; 4
1993: 6; 304; 1; 3
1994: 52; 340; 0; 2
1995: 25; 303; 0; 4
1996: 78; 331; 0; 1
1997: 40; 296; 0; 3
1998: 49; 396; 0; 3
1999: 24; 299; 0; 5
2000: 7; 287; 1; 5
2001: 14; 349; 0; 6
2002: 89; 353; 0; 1
2003: 49; 343; 0; 4
2004: 45; 335; 0; 2
2005: 2; 356; 1; 5
2006: 16; 314; 0; 3
2007: 44; 413; 0; 5
2008: 63; 487; 0; 1
2009: 171; 373; 0; 0
2010: 106; 496; 0; 0
2011: 42; 413; 0; 2
2012: 263; 507; 0; 0
Today: 250; 1148; 0; 0
Highest ranked teen today is Zverev at 29. Also, there are 3 teens in the top 100 today.
 
Highest ranked teen today is Zverev at 29. Also, there are 3 teens in the top 100 today.

Aargh, thanks. Copied the data over too quickly, as Tennis Abstract has a special column for under-18 in today's rankings that it doesn't have for the other years. I'll edit the original now. Thanks!

It's actually four as of yesterday, as Jared Donaldson just broke in after his US Open run. TA still has last week's rankings up.

Teenagers doing a bit better now than they were in between 2008 and 2012!
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I'm hopeless with that sort of thing, but be my guest! I'd also like to see the women's data. There is also a long-term upward trend there. Because teenager girls can compete with adult women much better than teenager boys can with adult men, I can prove that it was manufactured: the tour explicitly forbid underaged girls from playing a full schedule after the burnouts of Austin, Jaeger, and Capriati. I think there was one year in the women's game when four of the top six were teenagers. When Ana Konjuh made the US Open quarter-finals this year, the commentators said that she was only the second 18-year-old to make the last eight of a Slam in the last 10 years! That is quite a remarkable change!
Sackman does tennis abstract and here is his github!:
https://github.com/JeffSackmann

So git on over there.:D
 
Top