The most recent 20 Slam champions by age:

Can you explain each column, please?

I don't see Federer finishing 2017 as #3. Other than that, it looks like a solid prediction. Players like Simon, who play a draining game, often fluctuate in form, so he might make a comeback. Robredo made an excellent comeback in 2013-4 after a few disappointing years starting in about 2010.

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.
 
Women's Age Rankings Over Time

Now:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 5
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 8
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: at least 20 [#20 ranked in age range = 86]
Teenagers in the top 100: 5
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 158
Twentieth-ranked teenager: 246

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: at least 20 [#20 ranked in age range = 44]
Teenagers in the top 100: 19
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 10
Twentieth-ranked teenager: 102

1996 Year-End Rankings:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 1
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 2
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: at least 20 [#20 ranked in age range: 58]
Teenagers in the top 100: 15
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 4 (Hingis, actually 16) or 53 (Sidot)
Twentieth-ranked teenager: 117

1986 Year-End Rankings:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 2
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 4 [but including #1 and #2]
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: at least 20 [#20 ranked in age range: 42]
Teenagers in the top 100: at least 20 [#20 ranked in age range: 77]
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 3
Twentieth-ranked teenager: 77
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Can you explain each column, please?

I don't see Federer finishing 2017 as #3. Other than that, it looks like a solid prediction. Players like Simon, who play a draining game, often fluctuate in form, so he might make a comeback. Robredo made an excellent comeback in 2013-4 after a few disappointing years starting in about 2010.
The left column is my swag at a ranking. The number after the name is the age of the player, then their current ELO rating. This is followed by their peak ELO rating and the round and tournament that rating was achieved (peak rating is last column.) This is from current tennis abstract ELO ratings and I just kind of cut out some players like Simon and put in others. I'm not so sure Tsonga or Gasquet will drop much either. Gasquet especially this year actually has been pretty good. If not for his back it might have been a nice year.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Women's Age Rankings Over Time

Now:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 5
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 8
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: at least 20 [#20 ranked in age range = 86]
Teenagers in the top 100: 5
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 158
Twentieth-ranked teenager: 246

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: at least 20 [#20 ranked in age range = 44]
Teenagers in the top 100: 19
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 10
Twentieth-ranked teenager: 102

1996 Year-End Rankings:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 1
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 2
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: at least 20 [#20 ranked in age range: 58]
Teenagers in the top 100: 15
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 4 (Hingis, actually 16) or 53 (Sidot)
Twentieth-ranked teenager: 117

1986 Year-End Rankings:
Players aged 33+ in top 100: 2
Players aged 30+ in top 45: 4 [but including #1 and #2]
Players aged 22 or less in top 100: at least 20 [#20 ranked in age range: 42]
Teenagers in the top 100: at least 20 [#20 ranked in age range: 77]
Highest-ranked 17-year-old: 3
Twentieth-ranked teenager: 77
Did you use the Sackmann github data for this?
 
One way to track the change over time: What ranking did the 20th highest-ranked woman aged 22 or under hold? Here are the answers:
Year-End 1986: 42
Year-End 1996: 58
Year-End 2006: 44
Current: 86

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

Year-End 1986: only four women aged 32 or more are listed
Year-End 1996: only nine women aged 32 or more are listed
Year-End 2006: 1279
Current: 502
 
Another way to track the change over time: What ranking did the 20th highest-ranked teenage girl hold? Here are the answers:
Year-End 1986: 77
Year-End 1996: 117
Year-End 2006: 102
Current: 246

And another: What ranking did the 20th highest-ranked woman aged 30 or more hold? Here are the answers:

Year-End 1986: only 14 listed, #14 is 184
Year-End 1996: 1030, #14 is 455
Year-End 2006: 215, #14 is 145
Current: 174, #14 is 78
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
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!
Yes, which makes me wonder about fluctuating talent, which was my original thought.
 
Yes, which makes me wonder about fluctuating talent, which was my original thought.

Talent is always going to be a more plausible explanation for the data points with a low sample size than for those with a larger sample size, so it's a better explanation of teenage rankings and of the top few spots in the rankings than of, say, the number of players aged 22 or less in the top rankings, where we're dealing with 40-200 people and where the trend is relatively clear over time.

E.g. It's perfectly plausible to hold that nobody born in between 1990 and 1993 has the same degree of talent as Alexander Zverev or Roger Federer, but it's not as likely that the fact that there were 20 men aged 22 or less in the top 42 in 1986 but only 20 men aged 22 or less in the top 200 in 2016 is due to more people born in 1964-6 being talented than people born in 1994-6, especially as the data point isn't particularly an outlier.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
This data needs to be plotted, fam.
Right now it's just swimming in front of my eyes.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
OK...
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.
No argument with that. It sounds reasonable.
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.
OK, but I'm not conducting an experiment. I've never talked about social factors. Obviously they exist.

I'm merely passing on what I saw. I collected the data, I sorted it by different age brackets and year. I didn't know what the results would be. I guess I expected roughly what turned out to be so. I knew there were a lot of old winners at the beginning of the Open era, and obviously there are a bunch of them right now.

I'm only saying that overall things are more even than I expected, and that what has happened since 2010 sticks out like a sore thumb. There are a lot of factors we are talking about that did not suddenly start in 2010.

I'm not claiming answers. I'm raising questions. The way slams are seeded did not suddenly happen in 2010. (I don't remember when that changed.) Super coaches seems to be a relatively new thing. I don't remember such an emphasis on players boxes in the past. I'm not sure how much the pay structure has changed since 2010.

If I had to make a guess as to what has changed the sport the most, I would say training methods/medicine/surgeries. I would guess that something is changing the balance in recovery from being on the side of younger players to benefiting older players more.

My guess is also that the peak time at which players win the most, effecting their peak wins, is moving up. Maybe it is also expanding. We may find, for example, that in the future age 26 will be added to the age at which players win the most slams. I don't know.

I would also like to see a graph of the ages of the top 20 players over the last 50 years. That would be helpful in getting a bigger picture. We could better understand what is happening right now. Or maybe we would need the top 100. I don't really know. That could help, or it also might not be selective enough.

However, I have no idea how to get such data. It would be a huge project, tracking down rankings going way back and also the birthdays of all those players from long ago.

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.[/QUOTE]
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
I think it has become a general trend that professional athletes last longer than before with better management of their health and fitness. This happens in a lot of sports - boxing, tennis, soccer, etc. Baseball and basketball, for some reasons, have seen players lasting quite long anyway so maybe there's no real new trend there. This is like the health of general public as well. We now live in a society where people in their 80s move around well.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
1984

Not Yet 23
4 Mats Wilander SWE 1964-08-22
7 Henrik Sundstrom SWE 1964-02-29
10 Pat Cash AUS 1965-05-27
11 Joakim Nystrom SWE 1963-02-20
12 Aaron Krickstein USA 1967-08-02
14 Jimmy Arias USA 1964-08-16
19 Juan Aguilera ESP 1962-03-22
20 Stefan Edberg SWE 1966-01-19
22 Ben Testerman USA 1962-02-02
25 Libor Pimek BEL 1963-08-03
26 Francesco Cancellotti ITA 1963-02-27
27 Henri Leconte FRA 1963-07-04
30 David Pate USA 1962-04-16
36 Guy Forget FRA 1965-01-04
47 Sammy Giammalva Jr USA 1963-03-24
48 Jan Gunnarsson SWE 1962-05-30
49 Scott Davis USA 1962-08-27
50 Miloslav Mecir SVK 1964-05-19
52 Diego Perez URU 1962-02-09
54 Thierry Tulasne FRA 1963-07-12

At Least 30
2
Jimmy Connors USA 1952-09-02
17 Vitas Gerulaitis USA 1954-07-26
21 Jose Higueras ESP 1953-03-01
28 Guillermo Vilas ARG 1952-08-17
32 John Lloyd GBR 1954-08-27
34 Terry Moor USA 1952-04-23
42 Vijay Amritraj IND 1953-12-14
43 Balazs Taroczy HUN 1954-05-09
45 Wojtek Fibak POL 1952-08-03
53 Brian Teacher USA 1954-12-23
61 Paul Mcnamee AUS 1954-11-12
74 Tom Gullikson USA 1951-09-08
83 Givaldo Barbosa BRA 1954-01-25
86 Hank Pfister USA 1953-10-09
90 Brian Gottfried USA 1952-01-27
106 Tim Gullikson USA 1951-09-08
117 Sandy Mayer USA 1952-04-05
121 Russell Simpson NZL 1954-02-22
142 John Alexander AUS 1951-07-04
145 Mark Edmondson AUS 1954-06-24

CURRENT

Not Yet 23
10
Dominic Thiem AUT 1993-09-03
16 Nick Kyrgios AUS 1995-04-27
26 Lucas Pouille FRA 1994-02-23
29 Alexander Zverev GER 1997-04-20
40 Borna Coric CRO 1996-11-14
54 Taylor Harry Fritz USA 1997-10-28
85 Kyle Edmund GBR 1995-01-08
86 Yoshihito Nishioka JPN 1995-09-27
92 Jordan Thompson AUS 1994-04-20
96 Karen Khachanov RUS 1996-05-21
99 Thiago Monteiro BRA 1994-05-31
113 Adam Pavlasek CZE 1994-10-08
120 Dennis Novikov USA 1993-11-06
122 Jared Donaldson USA 1996-10-09
124 Francis Tiafoe USA 1998-01-20
127 Hyeon Chung KOR 1996-05-19
140 Quentin Halys FRA 1996-10-26
141 Elias Ymer SWE 1996-04-10
154 Kimmer Coppejans BEL 1994-02-07
155 Stefan Kozlov USA 1998-02-01

At Least 30
3
Stanislas Wawrinka SUI 1985-03-28
4 Roger Federer SUI 1981-08-08
5 Rafael Nadal ESP 1986-06-03
8 Tomas Berdych CZE 1985-09-17
11 Jo Wilfried Tsonga FRA 1985-04-17
13 David Ferrer ESP 1982-04-02
15 Richard Gasquet FRA 1986-06-18
18 Feliciano Lopez ESP 1981-09-20
20 Pablo Cuevas URU 1986-01-01
22 John Isner USA 1985-04-26
23 Ivo Karlovic CRO 1979-02-28
25 Kevin Anderson RSA 1986-05-18
27 Philipp Kohlschreiber GER 1983-10-16
32 Gilles Simon FRA 1984-12-27
35 Viktor Troicki SRB 1986-02-10
37 Gilles Muller LUX 1983-05-09
39 Paolo Lorenzi ITA 1981-12-15
41 Nicolas Mahut FRA 1982-01-21
44 Marcos Baghdatis CYP 1985-06-17
45 Marcel Granollers ESP 1986-04-12

Looks like the columns have been reversed. It occurred to me what's really going on here when I looked at the birthdates in the two 1984 columns (head-slapping moment because I haven't read enough Pat Buchanan recently). These are Boomer/Generation Jones folks. Birthrates have fallen a lot since those days. Here's a graph:

Slide2.jpg


"Replacement Rate" means enough births to sustain the population. The USA isn't on that graph but it's generally the same. There were many dominant Gen Jones players because the birth rates were very high in the 1960s. There are fewer dominant young players today because they were never born.
 

Tornes

Semi-Pro
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.

I calculated right now and the average of top 50 is 28,8. Almost the same. However the rise of average age has stopped. Moreover now there are four teenagers in top 100 which is best number since 2007 and they have best rankings since Novak and Andy in 2006.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
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).
Doesn't he have one vs. Murray as well? Or at least not a disadvantage? Murray's slice does help him, but before Stan's transformation into a real contender, Murray was the only big 4 guy, he had some success against. He's beaten him twice at the US Open alone, is 3-1 in the last 4 and 7-9 overall: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/andy-murray-vs-stan-wawrinka/MC10/W367
I was personally quite surprised Murray beat him at the FO.

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.
What's changed on clay that would prevent him from winning title after title (Novak having a two-handed backhand is one possible answer)? And to make the occasional HC run? Nadal played poly from an early age too iirc.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
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.
I don't think Rafa from AO 2014, aside FO 2014 perhaps, is a scary sight for any version of the younger versions of the big 4. His 2005 self def. beats his 2014 self imo. Rafa had more upper body strength as a 19 year old than a 28 year old.
While you've done an impressive exercise, I'm afraid I don't have the time nor the interest to engage you in it. Overall, I think you have a bit of a point, but that you're overstating it. I also think it's impossible to make meaningful guesses like you're attempting (nevertheless, I'll make a few below myself).

19 year old Rafa, 20 year old Djoko, 21 year old Fed and 20-21 year old Murray would easily all be top-10'ers and most would be top-5'ers imo. Maybe 20 year old Djoko and 19 year old Rafa would only be slam finalists instead of champions, depending on whom they got in the final.
But I don't think you can say that Thiem, Kyrgios and Pouille aren't somewhat behind track. They might do better than the Nishi/Raonic generation, but that's not necessarily saying much.

Thiem is turning 24 in a bit and has one GS semi and no quarters to show for it
. Don't tell me the Big 4 wouldn't have done much, much, much better than that at a similar age in today's environment - even playing against their older selfs.
 
Doesn't he have one vs. Murray as well? Or at least not a disadvantage? Murray's slice does help him, but before Stan's transformation into a real contender, Murray was the only big 4 guy, he had some success against. He's beaten him twice at the US Open alone, is 3-1 in the last 4 and 7-9 overall: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/andy-murray-vs-stan-wawrinka/MC10/W367
I was personally quite surprised Murray beat him at the FO.


What's changed on clay that would prevent him from winning title after title (Novak having a two-handed backhand is one possible answer)? And to make the occasional HC run? Nadal played poly from an early age too iirc.

You may be right about Murray/Wawrinka. Perhaps I was attaching too much importance to Murray's win at Roland Garros.

Let me try to be clear about what I'm saying about Nadal on clay, as I don't think it's easy to explain. I absolutely agree that IF he were 19 today and were as good as he actually was in 2005, he would likely be at least on a par with Djokovic, and that IF he were 21 or 22 today and were as good as he actually was in 2007-8, he would likely be a fair bit better and so win many tournaments. But I don't think that, if he were 19 today, he would be as good as he actually was in 2005. As I tried to say in this thread, while it's probably true that someone's abilities are the crucial factor in explaining their success once those abilities have been well developed, I don't think they are particularly important in explaining whether those abilities develop to the fullest of their capacities or not. Rather, their opportunities to develop are crucial. If Nadal were to have been 16 in 2013, he'd have faced a different environment to the one he faced in 2002 and I think that environment would likely have stunted his development. Likewise, it's possible that if Thiem had been 10 years older than he is, he would have been able to develop into a better player than he has yet become. (Not that he is by any means a bad player!) I don't doubt that Nadal is just more able than Thiem - but I do doubt that it HAD to manifest itself to the full extent that it did manifest itself. Plenty of players don't live up to their potential and there are all sorts of reasons for that. Some are personal (these seem particularly important in the case of Dimitrov, say), but others are situational.

By the way, Thiem only turned 23 a week or so ago, so it's not quite true that he's turning 24 in a bit.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
You may be right about Murray/Wawrinka. Perhaps I was attaching too much importance to Murray's win at Roland Garros.

Let me try to be clear about what I'm saying about Nadal on clay, as I don't think it's easy to explain. I absolutely agree that IF he were 19 today and were as good as he actually was in 2005, he would likely be at least on a par with Djokovic, and that IF he were 21 or 22 today and were as good as he actually was in 2007-8, he would likely be a fair bit better and so win many tournaments. But I don't think that, if he were 19 today, he would be as good as he actually was in 2005. As I tried to say in this thread, while it's probably true that someone's abilities are the crucial factor in explaining their success once those abilities have been well developed, I don't think they are particularly important in explaining whether those abilities develop to the fullest of their capacities or not. Rather, their opportunities to develop are crucial. If Nadal were to have been 16 in 2013, he'd have faced a different environment to the one he faced in 2002 and I think that environment would likely have stunted his development. Likewise, it's possible that if Thiem had been 10 years older than he is, he would have been able to develop into a better player than he has yet become. (Not that he is by any means a bad player!) I don't doubt that Nadal is just more able than Thiem - but I do doubt that it HAD to manifest itself to the full extent that it did manifest itself. Plenty of players don't live up to their potential and there are all sorts of reasons for that. Some are personal (these seem particularly important in the case of Dimitrov, say), but others are situational.

By the way, Thiem only turned 23 a week or so ago, so it's not quite true that he's turning 24 in a bit.
You're right on Thiem - I got confused by the ATP site's way of writing birth dates.
Care to elaborate on the bold - what would have stunted him in 2013 compared to 2002? I follow the logic of your argument, but I don't quite know what's entailed in this premise.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I don't think Rafa from AO 2014, aside FO 2014 perhaps, is a scary sight for any version of the younger versions of the big 4. His 2005 self def. beats his 2014 self imo. Rafa had more upper body strength as a 19 year old than a 28 year old.
While you've done an impressive exercise, I'm afraid I don't have the time nor the interest to engage you in it. Overall, I think you have a bit of a point, but that you're overstating it. I also think it's impossible to make meaningful guesses like you're attempting (nevertheless, I'll make a few below myself).

19 year old Rafa, 20 year old Djoko, 21 year old Fed and 20-21 year old Murray would easily all be top-10'ers and most would be top-5'ers imo. Maybe 20 year old Djoko and 19 year old Rafa would only be slam finalists instead of champions, depending on whom they got in the final.
But I don't think you can say that Thiem, Kyrgios and Pouille aren't somewhat behind track. They might do better than the Nishi/Raonic generation, but that's not necessarily saying much.

Thiem is turning 24 in a bit and has one GS semi and no quarters to show for it
. Don't tell me the Big 4 wouldn't have done much, much, much better than that at a similar age in today's environment - even playing against their older selfs.
:rolleyes: Thiem just turned 23 at the US Open.

Its clear that the big 4 would have done well enough trying to break in against their older versions, just not as well. Its clear Thiem as the older of the nextgen is absolutely behind the big 3 and even Murray at this stage of his career. Murray and Djokovic may be the true benchmark for these players and they really started to get results in 2011; the year they turned 24. Thiem will be 4 months younger than Djoko/Murray next year (his 24th year). In today's environment, its just not reasonable to expect players to make the top 5 until that age.

Another area against players is that it seems that strings have homogenized the game and made it easier for players to dominate on all surfaces. Hard courts with Poly strings really favor the older players. This makes it all the harder to break through. Patience Chanwan, nextgen will have their day:
1. Thiem - most talented balanced player I've seen since Murray and Djokovic were ascending and they were predominantly baseliners.
2. Kyrgios - physical issues holding NK back. Probably a sort of Goran Ivanasevic player at worst and maybe more. Return game is an issue. Three years til NK's rising in his 24th year.:D
3. Pouille - two years til his 24th and another balanced player.
4. Zverev - five years til his 24th, but Z is likely to start doing more earlier due to his height.(same for Kyrgios really)
5. Coric - 4 years and 6 months behind Djokoray til his 24th range.

All 5 of these players are mentally very tough (Kyrgios mentally is match to match, but he's prevailed in some tight situation like his long third set tie breaker with Federer.) In this department, they are absolutely all a cut above the also rans of the last ten years (Ferrer, Berdy, Nishikori, Raonic, and the rest of the top French). They have all made strong moves this year (Coric just recently showing signs of life.) Patience Chanwan.:D
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I calculated right now and the average of top 50 is 28,8. Almost the same. However the rise of average age has stopped. Moreover now there are four teenagers in top 100 which is best number since 2007 and they have best rankings since Novak and Andy in 2006.
I believe the current crop of youngsters is excellent; we just have unreasonable expectations given the depth of the tour at the top. Even Oldal and ******* are strong potential slam winners in most eras (well Nadal showing signs lately lets say).
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
1984

Not Yet 23
4 Mats Wilander SWE 1964-08-22
7 Henrik Sundstrom SWE 1964-02-29
10 Pat Cash AUS 1965-05-27
11 Joakim Nystrom SWE 1963-02-20
12 Aaron Krickstein USA 1967-08-02
14 Jimmy Arias USA 1964-08-16
19 Juan Aguilera ESP 1962-03-22
20 Stefan Edberg SWE 1966-01-19
22 Ben Testerman USA 1962-02-02
25 Libor Pimek BEL 1963-08-03
26 Francesco Cancellotti ITA 1963-02-27
27 Henri Leconte FRA 1963-07-04
30 David Pate USA 1962-04-16
36 Guy Forget FRA 1965-01-04
47 Sammy Giammalva Jr USA 1963-03-24
48 Jan Gunnarsson SWE 1962-05-30
49 Scott Davis USA 1962-08-27
50 Miloslav Mecir SVK 1964-05-19
52 Diego Perez URU 1962-02-09
54 Thierry Tulasne FRA 1963-07-12

At Least 30
2
Jimmy Connors USA 1952-09-02
17 Vitas Gerulaitis USA 1954-07-26
21 Jose Higueras ESP 1953-03-01
28 Guillermo Vilas ARG 1952-08-17
32 John Lloyd GBR 1954-08-27
34 Terry Moor USA 1952-04-23
42 Vijay Amritraj IND 1953-12-14
43 Balazs Taroczy HUN 1954-05-09
45 Wojtek Fibak POL 1952-08-03
53 Brian Teacher USA 1954-12-23
61 Paul Mcnamee AUS 1954-11-12
74 Tom Gullikson USA 1951-09-08
83 Givaldo Barbosa BRA 1954-01-25
86 Hank Pfister USA 1953-10-09
90 Brian Gottfried USA 1952-01-27
106 Tim Gullikson USA 1951-09-08
117 Sandy Mayer USA 1952-04-05
121 Russell Simpson NZL 1954-02-22
142 John Alexander AUS 1951-07-04
145 Mark Edmondson AUS 1954-06-24

CURRENT

Not Yet 23
10
Dominic Thiem AUT 1993-09-03
16 Nick Kyrgios AUS 1995-04-27
26 Lucas Pouille FRA 1994-02-23
29 Alexander Zverev GER 1997-04-20
40 Borna Coric CRO 1996-11-14
54 Taylor Harry Fritz USA 1997-10-28
85 Kyle Edmund GBR 1995-01-08
86 Yoshihito Nishioka JPN 1995-09-27
92 Jordan Thompson AUS 1994-04-20
96 Karen Khachanov RUS 1996-05-21
99 Thiago Monteiro BRA 1994-05-31
113 Adam Pavlasek CZE 1994-10-08
120 Dennis Novikov USA 1993-11-06
122 Jared Donaldson USA 1996-10-09
124 Francis Tiafoe USA 1998-01-20
127 Hyeon Chung KOR 1996-05-19
140 Quentin Halys FRA 1996-10-26
141 Elias Ymer SWE 1996-04-10
154 Kimmer Coppejans BEL 1994-02-07
155 Stefan Kozlov USA 1998-02-01

At Least 30
3
Stanislas Wawrinka SUI 1985-03-28
4 Roger Federer SUI 1981-08-08
5 Rafael Nadal ESP 1986-06-03
8 Tomas Berdych CZE 1985-09-17
11 Jo Wilfried Tsonga FRA 1985-04-17
13 David Ferrer ESP 1982-04-02
15 Richard Gasquet FRA 1986-06-18
18 Feliciano Lopez ESP 1981-09-20
20 Pablo Cuevas URU 1986-01-01
22 John Isner USA 1985-04-26
23 Ivo Karlovic CRO 1979-02-28
25 Kevin Anderson RSA 1986-05-18
27 Philipp Kohlschreiber GER 1983-10-16
32 Gilles Simon FRA 1984-12-27
35 Viktor Troicki SRB 1986-02-10
37 Gilles Muller LUX 1983-05-09
39 Paolo Lorenzi ITA 1981-12-15
41 Nicolas Mahut FRA 1982-01-21
44 Marcos Baghdatis CYP 1985-06-17
45 Marcel Granollers ESP 1986-04-12

Looks like the columns have been reversed. It occurred to me what's really going on here when I looked at the birthdates in the two 1984 columns (head-slapping moment because I haven't read enough Pat Buchanan recently). These are Boomer/Generation Jones folks. Birthrates have fallen a lot since those days. Here's a graph:

Slide2.jpg


"Replacement Rate" means enough births to sustain the population. The USA isn't on that graph but it's generally the same. There were many dominant Gen Jones players because the birth rates were very high in the 1960s. There are fewer dominant young players today because they were never born.
I'd say this might be part of the issue. Population is expanding worldwide, so you'd have to look at numbers of children raised from a young age in a country and I'd be surprised if it looks all that different from fertitility rate. It blows my mind that while most of the world was prospering economically until the year 2000, fertility rates were low. The connection that the production of tennis talent (any talent really:confused:) from the more established/stable part of the population might be lower follows.:oops:
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
...I would also like to see a graph of the ages of the top 20 players over the last 50 years. That would be helpful in getting a bigger picture. We could better understand what is happening right now. Or maybe we would need the top 100. I don't really know. That could help, or it also might not be selective enough.

However, I have no idea how to get such data. It would be a huge project, tracking down rankings going way back and also the birthdays of all those players from long ago.

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.
[/QUOTE]
Tennis abstract has all the players and their birth datas over the Open era. It would not be hard to look these up once imported to Excel and calculate the exact age of a player at a point in time. That's easy. The work would be the lists of players. If interested, let me know.;)
 

Zebrev

Hall of Fame
Zverev will start GOATing in 2019. He needs the extra time to help his body grow. However, unlike Djok and Nadal, Zverev will have something in the way of longevity.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
I'd say this might be part of the issue. Population is expanding worldwide, so you'd have to look at numbers of children raised from a young age in a country and I'd be surprised if it looks all that different from fertitility rate. It blows my mind that while most of the world was prospering economically until the year 2000, fertility rates were low. The connection that the production of tennis talent (any talent really:confused:) from the more established/stable part of the population might be lower follows.:oops:
There are reasons other than birth rates why population might be increasing, such as longer lifespans and this phenomenon called "population momentum". Those things don't necessarily translate into more great athletes.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Tennis abstract has all the players and their birth datas over the Open era. It would not be hard to look these up once imported to Excel and calculate the exact age of a player at a point in time. That's easy. The work would be the lists of players. If interested, let me know.;)
I'd certainly be interested. I'm no wizard in getting data to move from one place to another.

If you ever take on this project, I think we will find that the data will support two "old" periods, one from 68-73, and the other from 2011-2016.

As recently as 2008 Novak won the AO before age 21, Nadal won two slams at barely 22. Federer won the USO at around age 27. There is nothing old about that.

In 2009 Nadal won before age 23 and DelPo won before age 21. Not exactly an old average for slams.

Any year where the average age of slam winners is around 25, that's an average year. Right around the beginning of age 25 is the dividing line. About half the wins have been younger than that, the other half older.

2011 was actually a hair below average in age.

It is after 2011 that the average really starts to go up, and really there are only two factors. One, an aging Federer is an anomaly we have not see too often, much like what things were like when Laver and Rosewall simply refused to stop winning. The other larger factor is that all the top guys have been hanging, with Stan doing his bit to raise the average.

This year the age of the slam winners averages out to very close to 30, which is very high.

But it was nearly this high over a year in 1999-2000, just not in a calendar year. Agassi and Sampras won 4 slams in a row, with Sampras almost 28 and Agassi almost 30 when he won the AO in 2000. So figure an average of around 29 for that year. No too much different from right now.

Laver won the GS at age 30-31 and won so much in 69 that it would skew something. Then Rosewall skewed things for a few years, and no one really young won a slam until 1974.

All we need to knock the average back down for next year and future years is a couple winners under 25.

I think at most that the average for slam winners may move up from around the beginning of age 25 to the beginning of age 26. One year difference in the average over the next couple decades in and of itself would be huge.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
:rolleyes: Thiem just turned 23 at the US Open.

Its clear that the big 4 would have done well enough trying to break in against their older versions, just not as well. Its clear Thiem as the older of the nextgen is absolutely behind the big 3 and even Murray at this stage of his career. Murray and Djokovic may be the true benchmark for these players and they really started to get results in 2011; the year they turned 24. Thiem will be 4 months younger than Djoko/Murray next year (his 24th year). In today's environment, its just not reasonable to expect players to make the top 5 until that age.

Another area against players is that it seems that strings have homogenized the game and made it easier for players to dominate on all surfaces. Hard courts with Poly strings really favor the older players. This makes it all the harder to break through. Patience Chanwan, nextgen will have their day:
1. Thiem - most talented balanced player I've seen since Murray and Djokovic were ascending and they were predominantly baseliners.
2. Kyrgios - physical issues holding NK back. Probably a sort of Goran Ivanasevic player at worst and maybe more. Return game is an issue. Three years til NK's rising in his 24th year.:D
3. Pouille - two years til his 24th and another balanced player.
4. Zverev - five years til his 24th, but Z is likely to start doing more earlier due to his height.(same for Kyrgios really)
5. Coric - 4 years and 6 months behind Djokoray til his 24th range.

All 5 of these players are mentally very tough (Kyrgios mentally is match to match, but he's prevailed in some tight situation like his long third set tie breaker with Federer.) In this department, they are absolutely all a cut above the also rans of the last ten years (Ferrer, Berdy, Nishikori, Raonic, and the rest of the top French). They have all made strong moves this year (Coric just recently showing signs of life.) Patience Chanwan.:D
Saying that Djoko and Murray only really started getting results in 2011 is pushing it a bit.
Djoko:
2007, US RU + 2 Masters
2008, AO champ, WTF champ, + 2 Masters
2009, 1 Masters, 3 ATP 500's.
2010, US RU, DC, 2 ATP 500's
Top-4, mostly top-3, throughout the period
+ RU's at Masters and smaller titles

Murray:
2008: US RU + 2 Masters
2009: 2 Masters
2010: AO RU, 2 Masters
Top-4 the entire time (safe a few Söderling weeks).
+ RU's at Masters and smaller titles.

Now am I mistaken in that the above crop, including Milos and Nishikori and Dimitrov and Sock and Tomic and whoever else we can think of, would be hard pressed to show more than
2 slam RU's and 2-4 Masters RU's among all of them?

I have patience, but there are limits to it...
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
:rolleyes: Thiem just turned 23 at the US Open.

Its clear that the big 4 would have done well enough trying to break in against their older versions, just not as well. Its clear Thiem as the older of the nextgen is absolutely behind the big 3 and even Murray at this stage of his career. Murray and Djokovic may be the true benchmark for these players and they really started to get results in 2011; the year they turned 24. Thiem will be 4 months younger than Djoko/Murray next year (his 24th year). In today's environment, its just not reasonable to expect players to make the top 5 until that age.
Going back to past slams: About half of them have been won at the very end of age 24. So in the past we could say that a player almost 25 and a player almost 26 were about equally likely to win a slam with changes going down in either direction.

Other people have said that this is a poor metric because so many slams are won be a relatively small number of people, but I think we can see the same general principle at work in the careers of the best players.

So if my impression is right, what may be happening is that this mid-point may be moving up. If, for example, someone does the same kind of analysis in 50 years, using 2011 through 2061, it may be that the most slams are won a year later, or 1.5 years later. But I don't think the average age of winning the most slams is going to move up four or five years.

I'm going to be very surprised if this present era does not turn out to be an anomaly much like the '68-73' era. Maybe when things change we won't see a Connors/Borg type year as in 1974, but I would not be at all surprise to see a couple guys win at age 24 or 23 - or even at age 22.

I think it's overdue.

Then if it doesn't happen, if no one under the age of 25 or 26 wins slams over the next five years, then we can probably say that there has been a permanent change.

One other thing: why should the new strings and rackets give such a huge advantage to aging players? We now have the idea that players can't reach their peak until they get muscled up, but I'm not sure that the huge emphasis we see now in size is not now coming from a kind of recency bias. I can see why endurance is becoming more and more important, with matches lasting for such insanely long periods - the recent DelPo/Murray match being just another example of a 5 hour marathon. But other than that it seems to me that the new technology is giving more and more easy power to people of all sizes.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Going back to past slams: About half of them have been won at the very end of age 24. So in the past we could say that a player almost 25 and a player almost 26 were about equally likely to win a slam with changes going down in either direction.

Other people have said that this is a poor metric because so many slams are won be a relatively small number of people, but I think we can see the same general principle at work in the careers of the best players.

So if my impression is right, what may be happening is that this mid-point may be moving up. If, for example, someone does the same kind of analysis in 50 years, using 2011 through 2061, it may be that the most slams are won a year later, or 1.5 years later. But I don't think the average age of winning the most slams is going to move up four or five years.

I'm going to be very surprised if this present era does not turn out to be an anomaly much like the '68-73' era. Maybe when things change we won't see a Connors/Borg type year as in 1974, but I would not be at all surprise to see a couple guys win at age 24 or 23 - or even at age 22.

I think it's overdue.

Then if it doesn't happen, if no one under the age of 25 or 26 wins slams over the next five years, then we can probably say that there has been a permanent change.

One other thing: why should the new strings and rackets give such a huge advantage to aging players? We now have the idea that players can't reach their peak until they get muscled up, but I'm not sure that the huge emphasis we see now in size is not now coming from a kind of recency bias. I can see why endurance is becoming more and more important, with matches lasting for such insanely long periods - the recent DelPo/Murray match being just another example of a 5 hour marathon. But other than that it seems to me that the new technology is giving more and more easy power to people of all sizes.
Upper body strength is almost always an issue for younger players and Poly strings results in harder, higher bouncing balls, particularly on hard courts. The higher bounce is the problem. The return of a young Delpo type player is the best hope, but that Delpo would have all sorts of trouble with current Murray and Djokovic at the top of the game. Delpo and now Raonic are showing that the more athletic/fast tall players seem a bit injury prone. I think youngsters will have the most early success on clay and grass, but hard courts looks bleak. Its so critical to be able to hold serve against the top players on hard courts and its rare to have a truly big serving youngster that is not a serve bot. Even tall youngsters like Opelka have a long way to go on serve. I doubt Isner's serve was any where near as big in his NCAA days.

There definitely is a confluence of aging talent at the top of the tour. Once Murray and Djokovic are past prime, then a young break through has more of a chance.

Once you realize the upper body strength and serve issues, it becomes clear what these young players are up against. Another Roddick or Becker might show up, but at 6' 3" we see the formula necessary for a big young server. That is a rare player and even those two probably fail to break through at a young age.

Your shorter former championgs like Connors and Borg would be up against it on today's tour. Nishikori and Goffin are pretty amazing players, but fail in the serve department because of their height.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Saying that Djoko and Murray only really started getting results in 2011 is pushing it a bit.
Djoko:
2007, US RU + 2 Masters
2008, AO champ, WTF champ, + 2 Masters
2009, 1 Masters, 3 ATP 500's.
2010, US RU, DC, 2 ATP 500's
Top-4, mostly top-3, throughout the period
+ RU's at Masters and smaller titles

Murray:
2008: US RU + 2 Masters
2009: 2 Masters
2010: AO RU, 2 Masters
Top-4 the entire time (safe a few Söderling weeks).
+ RU's at Masters and smaller titles.

Now am I mistaken in that the above crop, including Milos and Nishikori and Dimitrov and Sock and Tomic and whoever else we can think of, would be hard pressed to show more than
2 slam RU's and 2-4 Masters RU's among all of them?

I have patience, but there are limits to it...
I think if you put the early versions of Murray and Djokovic on tour starting in 2011 (4 years later), they would not be top 4. We've done these exercises before, but I expect much of what you list as great early success gets seriously eroded. Early Murray and Djokovic were particularly weak on serve. They had Nadal and Federer to deal with on clay and grass, but Nadal on hard courts was not in full flight til late in that period. Did Federer just roll over for Murray outside of slams? (did it for Thiem twice this year.)

To my eyes, Djokovic and Murray easily have more talent than a player like Thiem at the same age. They had a speed and agility (along with Nadal and Federer) that the game has not seen before in such large players. Thiem is a notch below in this department, but has gotten faster over the last year to where he's close enough. In the strength department Thiem is improving before the eyes and is clearly stronger than Murray or Djokovic at the same age. We'll see if his power bot game is enough for him to start winning slams in the next few years.

Pouille is another talent that is skyrocketing with the right training after turning 22. His serve game is still too weak for hard courts, but he's getting close and don't ask me how he held serve well enough with Nadal at the US Open.

I'd rate Thiem and Pouille far more clutch than Murray or Djokovic at the same age. We'll see if they can solidify their games enough to really contend though I rate both of them slower, shorter players. They appear to be developing power, attacking games that may do quite well in the next few years.

Speed kills and I don't see a great fast/tallish player on the horizon though from what I saw today Rublev (who I'd written off) has made good progress and may be Djokovic's height. Further out Shavopolav and FAA (16 and 17 yeaar old Canadians) may grow into the roll or past it in FAA's case. Coric has been showing signs of life despite some knee issues and may yet surprise.

Plenty of players coming up, but I'd say Pouille and Thiem are the only ones that might scalp Murray and Djokovic in the next year. I hope Thiem holds off Berdy and others for WTF as I'd like to see him play all of them again. All of these guys know how to win and are tough competitors. (Kyrgios and Zverev keep hopes alive for a super servebot.)
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I'd certainly be interested. I'm no wizard in getting data to move from one place to another.

If you ever take on this project, I think we will find that the data will support two "old" periods, one from 68-73, and the other from 2011-2016.

As recently as 2008 Novak won the AO before age 21, Nadal won two slams at barely 22. Federer won the USO at around age 27. There is nothing old about that.

In 2009 Nadal won before age 23 and DelPo won before age 21. Not exactly an old average for slams.

Any year where the average age of slam winners is around 25, that's an average year. Right around the beginning of age 25 is the dividing line. About half the wins have been younger than that, the other half older.

2011 was actually a hair below average in age.

It is after 2011 that the average really starts to go up, and really there are only two factors. One, an aging Federer is an anomaly we have not see too often, much like what things were like when Laver and Rosewall simply refused to stop winning. The other larger factor is that all the top guys have been hanging, with Stan doing his bit to raise the average.

This year the age of the slam winners averages out to very close to 30, which is very high.

But it was nearly this high over a year in 1999-2000, just not in a calendar year. Agassi and Sampras won 4 slams in a row, with Sampras almost 28 and Agassi almost 30 when he won the AO in 2000. So figure an average of around 29 for that year. No too much different from right now.

Laver won the GS at age 30-31 and won so much in 69 that it would skew something. Then Rosewall skewed things for a few years, and no one really young won a slam until 1974.

All we need to knock the average back down for next year and future years is a couple winners under 25.

I think at most that the average for slam winners may move up from around the beginning of age 25 to the beginning of age 26. One year difference in the average over the next couple decades in and of itself would be huge.
Well bring it up in conversation if you want the age data. We can work together on it.

Definitely need to put an asterick on the late 60's and early 70's. Vietnam was even an issue I expect for American tennis.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Zverev will start GOATing in 2019. He needs the extra time to help his body grow. However, unlike Djok and Nadal, Zverev will have something in the way of longevity.
What? Have you seen the size of Papa Z? Zverev needs to keep improving his serve and at worse he's likely to be a bit better than Cilic. Too heavy and he's in trouble.

Rumors of Djokovic's decline are greatly exaggerated.:rolleyes:
 
Top