The WTF is harder to win than a slam for a 30+ player

[JMR]

From 1970 through 2013, out of 44 editions of the ATP's Masters/WTF year-end championship, there has been only one champion age 30 or older: Federer in 2011 (age 30 years, 3 months). That's 2.3%.

During the same time period, out of 176 slams, there were a total of 14 men's champions age 30 or older, or about 8%.

The older slam winners are pretty well-known. Some other older YEC winners: Federer, 29; Nastase, 29; Sampras, 28; Davydenko, 28; Becker, ~28.

 

[torpantennis]

So Nadal won't ever win WTF?

 

[dlk]

Interesting stat. But I don't think those older players put as much effort/emphasis/determination to win WTF versus a slam.

The WTF is a culmination of results of slams for the year; the WTF has no bearing in any of the slams, other than perhaps a miniscule ranking seed for the new year, if any; I'm being anal to include that,

 

[Gary Duane]

From 1970 through 2013, out of 44 editions of the ATP's Masters/WTF year-end championship, there has been only one champion age 30 or older: Federer in 2011 (age 30 years, 3 months). That's 2.3%.

During the same time period, out of 176 slams, there were a total of 14 men's champions age 30 or older, or about 8%.

The older slam winners are pretty well-known. Some other older YEC winners: Federer, 29; Nastase, 29; Sampras, 28; Davydenko, 28; Becker, ~28.

Wasn't the WTF or whatever it was called then usually a Bo5 tournament? To me that makes all the difference in the world...

 

[JMR]

Interesting stat. But I don't think those older players put as much effort/emphasis/determination to win WTF versus a slam.

Explanations that rely on speculation about player subjectivity are impossible to falsify (or to validate).

In my opinion, one important factor is that it's harder for an older player to qualify for the WTF. Gaining entry into a slam is much, much easier for a 30+ player than earning your way into the top 8 for the year. And once you're in a tournament, you always have a chance to win it if you can put together a hot streak.

 

[torpantennis]

There are no occasional easy draws in WTF, hence the difference.

 

[JMR]

Wasn't the WTF or whatever it was called then usually a Bo5 tournament? To me that makes all the difference in the world...

Actually, I would not say that the YEC was "usually" a best-of-five tournament. The format has changed a lot over the years. Even when, for example, the final was 3/5, the round robin matches were 2/3.

But even if the YEC always demanded best-of-five match play, how would that make it harder to win for oldsters than the slams, which are also best-of-five?

 

[dlk]

Explanations that rely on speculation about player subjectivity are impossible to falsify (or to validate).

In my opinion, one important factor is that it's harder for an older player to qualify for the WTF. Gaining entry into a slam is much, much easier for a 30+ player than earning your way into the top 8 for the year. And once you're in a tournament, you always have a chance to win it if you can put together a hot streak.

Yes, this makes more sense. It is opinion, as is your thread (so no need to get cocky with speculation/validation/subjectivity). Tennis is a young man's game, so I can see less winning, as less qualify. But you must note the better players are hanging longer of recent times.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

There are no occasional easy draws in WTF, hence the difference.

Yeah. Slam draws can be a joke sometimes, while the WTF involves you playing 5 top 8 players in succession.
Nadal can only dream of winning a low and slow HC tourney with such competition, and will get rekt by Fedovic there every year, until his last year.

 

[JMR]

There are no occasional easy draws in WTF, hence the difference.

That's probably a significant factor as well.

 

[JMR]

Yeah. Slam draws can be a joke sometimes, while the WTF involves you playing 5 top 8 players in succession.
Nadal can only dream of winning a low and slow HC tourney with such competition, and will get rekt by Fedovic there every year, until his last year.

Nadal has had his troubles at the WTF, but until now they have been only stylistic, not age-based. That could start to change next year, assuming he's in the event.

 

[dlk]

I still stand by my "speculation" that WTF does not mean as much to players as the Slams.:shock:

 

[dlk]

In particular, the more accomplished a player, the less value the WTF holds.

 

[JMR]

I still stand by my "speculation" that WTF does not mean as much to players as the Slams.:shock:

That's not what you said above. The ultimate value that a player attaches to a championship does not necessarily determine the effort put into winning it. You can prize a slam title above all else yet also apply your maximum effort in a lesser but still important event. I'd say the YEC results of players like Federer, Sampras, Lendl, McEnroe, Djokovic, and Becker make that pretty clear.

 

[dlk]

That's precisely what I said above! While your proposition is theoretically accurate, I believe effort is equal to want. I bet interviews of said players would reveal a differing thought with YEC. McEnroe would trade his YECs for an Aussie, and certainly a French title.

 

[JMR]

That's precisely what I said above! While your proposition is theoretically accurate, I believe effort is equal to want.

Well, now we're back to the speculation. I don't disagree that players value a slam more than a WTF. I do disagree that there is any evidence to suggest that the top players therefore don't try as hard to win the WTF, or that (going back to the subject of the thread) players over 30 find the WTF harder to win than slam because they aren't trying as hard to win it.

I bet interviews of said players would reveal a differing thought with YEC. McEnroe would trade his YECs for an Aussie, and certainly a French title.

Straw man. Who's arguing that the slams aren't bigger? But using that fact to explain the difficulties of older players at the YEC over the years is a stretch, at best.

 

[Mr.Snrub]

How many WTFs had 30 year olds in them? You should do that percentage instead.

 

[Sentinel]

I still stand by my "speculation" that WTF does not mean as much to players as the Slams.:shock:

In particular, the more accomplished a player, the less value the WTF holds.

Then even more motivation for a 30+ player to try to win the WTF.

(provided he qualifies ...)

 

[JMR]

How many WTFs had 30 year olds in them? You should do that percentage instead.

That number wouldn't be particularly meaningful without also knowing the number of 30+ players in the slam draws since 1970, and it's far too much work to look all that up and tally everything just for a thread like this. I think the bottom line (wins) is significant all by itself.

 

[Gary Duane]

Actually, I would not say that the YEC was "usually" a best-of-five tournament. The format has changed a lot over the years. Even when, for example, the final was 3/5, the round robin matches were 2/3.

But even if the YEC always demanded best-of-five match play, how would that make it harder to win for oldsters than the slams, which are also best-of-five?

Let's start out with your OP...

From 1970 through 2013, out of 44 editions of the ATP's Masters/WTF year-end championship, there has been only one champion age 30 or older: Federer in 2011 (age 30 years, 3 months). That's 2.3%.

You're starting in 1970, but I'm not sure which tournament you are tracking. Exactly what is considered the old "WTF" is pretty tricky. If you go back to the old WTC finals, Rosewall won in 1971 and 1972. He was born in November of 1934. We can't go before that because we end up in pre-open tennis, so there we have to consider some kind of pro tournament.

But if you count the old WTC, Rosewall won at age 36 and 37. There was the whole problem of the "Grand Prix", where Laver, Rosewall and Newcombe were tied in 1971 for #1, Rosewall one the AO in 1971.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Grand_Prix_(tennis)

I have to repeat, not to you, but to others who are younger that things were VERY confusing in this era re rankings.

During the same time period, out of 176 slams, there were a total of 14 men's champions age 30 or older, or about 8%.

I'll accept your figures. They sound about right.

The older slam winners are pretty well-known. Some other older YEC winners: Federer, 29; Nastase, 29; Sampras, 28; Davydenko, 28; Becker, ~28.

Obviously you left out Rosewall, and he was pretty important.

Now I'll get back to your main question...

 

[furryballs]

the WTF is harder to win than a slam fullstop.

 

[Gary Duane]

Actually, I would not say that the YEC was "usually" a best-of-five tournament. The format has changed a lot over the years. Even when, for example, the final was 3/5, the round robin matches were 2/3.

But even if the YEC always demanded best-of-five match play, how would that make it harder to win for oldsters than the slams, which are also best-of-five?

First of all, it did demand Bo5 many years, if you accept the ATP Final as the forerunner of the WTF:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Finals

But it is weirdly inconsistent. In 1975 the final was Bo3, also 77-80. I have no idea why.

I also can't remember if all but the final were Bo5, in other years. Does anyone have info on that?

Then in 81 it at least finals went back to Bo5 and stayed that way until 2003. In 2004 it was Bo3 because of rain, I think, but then back to Bo5. Suddenly it was cut to Bo3 in 2008 and has been that ways since then.

4 of the first 5 of Fed's wins were Bo5.

Would it make it EASIER to win the final than slams, cut down to Bo3?

I certainly think it changes things.

You ask why it would make things harder for older players?

Maybe for one match it wouldn't. Maybe at age 33 winning just the final in a Bo5 is not harder, but considering Fed's record this year, I have to wonder if B03 does not favor his efficient, take-charge style of play.

I'm really not sure...

 

[Gary Duane]

Explanations that rely on speculation about player subjectivity are impossible to falsify (or to validate).

In my opinion, one important factor is that it's harder for an older player to qualify for the WTF. Gaining entry into a slam is much, much easier for a 30+ player than earning your way into the top 8 for the year. And once you're in a tournament, you always have a chance to win it if you can put together a hot streak.

I totally agree on that point. The same Sampras who won his last USO could not qualify for the WTF, and I don't believe he was yet 30. He was not top 10 in the world that year.

 

[Gary Duane]

Yeah. Slam draws can be a joke sometimes, while the WTF involves you playing 5 top 8 players in succession.
Nadal can only dream of winning a low and slow HC tourney with such competition, and will get rekt by Fedovic there every year, until his last year.

I agree, but the WTF could just as well be on clay, and then he probably would have won most years. HC players always have an advantage. There are two slams on HC and also the WTF.

If Nadal had the same kind of dominance on HCs, he would win every GOAT argument and would have have many more slams - while Fed would have fewer.

Statistics always favor the players who dominate on HC - and also rankings.

 

[Gary Duane]

Nadal has had his troubles at the WTF, but until now they have been only stylistic, not age-based. That could start to change next year, assuming he's in the event.

They have also been surface-based. He is weakest on low-bouncing and faster indoors HCs.

Imagine for a moment what would have happened if Sampras had been dominant on clay instead of grass and on HC. He would hardly be mentioned today.

The 2nd greatest (if he was even 2nd) clay court player was Borg. Why is he remembered today? Because he won 5 Wimbledons. Without those grass slams he would be a footnote.

 

[Gary Duane]

I still stand by my "speculation" that WTF does not mean as much to players as the Slams.:shock:

Let's look at this from another angle:

How much do players care about YE#1?

If they do, the WTF is really important.

The AO gives a bump of 2000 points. That bump is important until the FO, and then there is the possibility of 6000 points for winning the FO, Wimbledon and the USO.

If Fed and Novak were equally close, after both winning a couple slams, the WTF would be super important because it might determine who is #1.

Think of 2009.

At the end of the year, here are the points:

Fed: 10,550
Nadal: 9,205
Djokovic: 8,310

Davydenko won the WTF that year. But supposing the points were about te same, before the WTF. In that case I think Nadal could have finished #1.

So it's all about timing. If the top two players are close, as is true this year, then the WTF becomes VERY important.

 

[Gary Duane]

In particular, the more accomplished a player, the less value the WTF holds.

No. The closer points are at the end of the year, the more value the WTF holds.

 

[Gary Duane]

That's precisely what I said above! While your proposition is theoretically accurate, I believe effort is equal to want. I bet interviews of said players would reveal a differing thought with YEC. McEnroe would trade his YECs for an Aussie, and certainly a French title.

Good point!!!

 

[Russeljones]

Interesting stat. But I don't think those older players put as much effort/emphasis/determination to win WTF versus a slam.

The WTF is a culmination of results of slams for the year; the WTF has no bearing in any of the slams, other than perhaps a miniscule ranking seed for the new year, if any; I'm being anal to include that,

Could have limited the response to the bolded part. The rest was pure nonsense.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

That's precisely what I said above! While your proposition is theoretically accurate, I believe effort is equal to want. I bet interviews of said players would reveal a differing thought with YEC. McEnroe would trade his YECs for an Aussie, and certainly a French title.

Well pardon but McEnroe played the AO only 5 time in his career, only twice until 1985. McEnroe didn't care about the AO, it wasn't more than small tournament far away for him. What he did play, and win, are the Masters and WCT finals.

I believe a player want to win and put more effort into the tournaments he enter than those he doesn't.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Let's look at this from another angle:

How much do players care about YE#1?

If they do, the WTF is really important.

The AO gives a bump of 2000 points. That bump is important until the FO, and then there is the possibility of 6000 points for winning the FO, Wimbledon and the USO.

If Fed and Novak were equally close, after both winning a couple slams, the WTF would be super important because it might determine who is #1.

Think of 2009.

At the end of the year, here are the points:

Fed: 10,550
Nadal: 9,205
Djokovic: 8,310

Davydenko won the WTF that year. But supposing the points were about te same, before the WTF. In that case I think Nadal could have finished #1.

So it's all about timing. If the top two players are close, as is true this year, then the WTF becomes VERY important.

You are only considering the ranking. In this regard the WTF or previous Masters are important because they grant the winner a lot of ranking points.

They also grant the winner a lot of money. Lendl won 250'000$ when he won the Masters in 87. The same year, he reached the SF in Australia, and won 25'000$.
In 89, he reversed the performance. A SF at the Masters granted him 105'000$, a win at the AO granted him 140'000$.
In 86 he won both the Masters and the USO, he got 210'000$ for each.

I believe the money do matter for professional sportmen.

The WTF or Masters grant the winner a lot of money. Now its less than a slam, but not by far. Djokovic won 2'400'000$ for his AO 2013, 500'000$ for his Shanghai 2013, 522'000$ for his Paris 2013, 1'900'000 for his WTF 2013.

Finally, the Masters and WTF are prestigious title in their own right, the most competed tournaments after the slams.

 

[sbengte]

the WTF is harder to win than a slam fullstop.

Where WTF is tougher in it's format :- No easy draws, got to play a top 8 from the get go. You can win a slam playing no one in the top 10 or even top 20 sometimes and you play at the most 2-3 top 10 players.
- The RR format to some extent eliminates fluke wins since you play everyone in your half to qualify.

Slams of course are best of 5 and if WTF was BO5 as well (at least the knock out stages), WTF would be a clear winner here.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Lots of good arguments put forward on this thread.

Another small paradox is that the format allows for an off day or a loss, which you would think might be a marginal benefit to the older player too.

 

[Boom-Boom]

WTF is harder to win than a slam for any player.

Reason is usually to win a slam you have to beat 1 or 2 top 8 players usually (do we have stats on that on average over history??). To win WTF you need to beat 4 usually.

 

[JMR]

You're starting in 1970, but I'm not sure which tournament you are tracking. Exactly what is considered the old "WTF" is pretty tricky. If you go back to the old WTC finals, Rosewall won in 1971 and 1972.

The Masters Grand Prix was first held in 1970, so that's where I started with my comparison. Today's WTF is the successor to that year-end tournament (the event also had other names along the way). The WCT final was a totally different event, though similar in format, and the two were never confused. After the 1975 season, in which he won the WCT final and Wimbledon, and lost in the semis of the Masters, Arthur Ashe remarked that it would have been nice to win the WCT and Masters in the same year: "That's damn difficult, but I came within two matches."

The slams and the current YEC all have run continuously since 1970. It wouldn't have made for a clean comparison to include extinct events such as the WCT. I'm aware of Rosewall's record in the WCT.

 

[Mr.Snrub]

That number wouldn't be particularly meaningful without also knowing the number of 30+ players in the slam draws since 1970, and it's far too much work to look all that up and tally everything just for a thread like this. I think the bottom line (wins) is significant all by itself.

Ya I understand what you mean. It's still important to note what you're actually estimating.

The two events here are:

A = 30+ year old wins the world tour final
B = 30+ year old makes it to the world tour final

What you're estimating is P(A and B) not P(A|B). Since P(A and B) = P(B) * P(A|B), they won't be that close if P(B) isn't close to 1.

The equivalent for slams would be:

C = 30+ year old wins a slam
D = 30+ year old makes it into a slam

So you are estimating P(C and D). But, P(C and D) = P(D) * P(C|D) and I think since you only have to be top 100 to make it into a slam, P(D) would be pretty close to 1. So your estimate for P(C and D) would be pretty close to P(C|D), which is what you want.

Basically, your results rely far too heavily on the fact that it's much harder for a 30+ year old to even make the WTF than it is for him to make it into a slam. Something which no one will dispute.

A much more meaningful and interesting question is how does a 30+ year old who is good enough to be top 8 do against the field in the WTF.

Just going back to 1995, all of these did not have a 30+ year old in them:

1995
1996
1998
1999
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

and 1997 is not in there only because 30 year old Muster was an alternate who only played 1 match.

 

[JMR]

Basically, your results rely far too heavily on the fact that it's much harder for a 30+ year old to even make the WTF than it is for him to make it into a slam. Something which no one will dispute.

Something that I was the one to bring up in this thread as a potential explanation. And "far too heavily" is pure opinion.

Btw, it's rather strange to write a reply and then add a whole new argument to that reply 30 minutes later. Is your post finished now?

 

[Top Jimmy]

What you want to bet older players have won more Aussies and less have won US Open's and year-ends?

 

[Deleted member 733170]

What you want to bet older players have won more Aussies and less have won US Open's and year-ends?

Another good point. All the elderly Aussies winning the Aussie when no one else bothered playing it....

 

[Gary Duane]

You are only considering the ranking.

No, I'm not. I am saying that the importance of winning the WTF in terms of RANKING is greater in a year like this, where who wins may change the ranking at the end of the year.

They also grant the winner a lot of money. Lendl won 250'000$ when he won the Masters in 87. The same year, he reached the SF in Australia, and won 25'000$.
In 89, he reversed the performance. A SF at the Masters granted him 105'000$, a win at the AO granted him 140'000$.
In 86 he won both the Masters and the USO, he got 210'000$ for each.

If your point is that what tournaments players choose is a lot about money, then I agree.

 

[Boom-Boom]

the WTF is harder to win than a slam fullstop.

Indeed.

6WTF

 

[dlk]

Could have limited the response to the bolded part. The rest was pure nonsense.

Explain the nonsense, if you please You're in deep now...

 

[OddJack]

Great stat JMR.

To win against 4-5 best in in the world in succession in old age what helps you the most is the versatility and variety of the tools you have in your bag where you can go to even when you have lost half a step.

That's also why players like Nadal, young or old, can never win WTF. If they cant use their biceps and legs to grind they are toast.

How else can you explain 9 FOs and Zero YEF?

 

[Goosehead]

as the man said..ken rosewall won WCT finals. a 1971-89 tourney that died along with WCT tour/circuit. 1971-1990.

the WTF have indeed been going since 1970 under different guises.

 

[Gary Duane]

Great stat JMR.

To win against 4-5 best in in the world in succession in old age what helps you the most is the versatility and variety of the tools you have in your bag where you can go to even when you have lost half a step.

That's also why players like Nadal, young or old, can never win WTF. If they cant use their biceps and legs to grind they are toast.

How else can you explain 9 FOs and Zero YEF?

I'd explain it by saying that the WTF is on HC and not on clay.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

No, I'm not. I am saying that the importance of winning the WTF in terms of RANKING is greater in a year like this, where who wins may change the ranking at the end of the year.

If your point is that what tournaments players choose is a lot about money, then I agree.

Yes that's very important for year end raniking, and its also 1500 ranking points for the next year.

And I find it interesting (and surprising) that the Master cup prize money for the winner was equal to the USO prize money for USO winner, at least in 89. It shows how important this tournament was for the players.

 

[NatF]

I'd explain it by saying that the WTF is on HC and not on clay.

The YEC has nearly always been on HC...it's the conclusion of the indoor season. Makes no sense for it to be anything else.

 

[Prabhanjan]

The truth to be told, any 500+ event is difficult for a 30+ player, and hence the WTF too. Yes, its a monumental task to finish under Top 8 for them and even more difficult to pull up all those muscles to close out the WTF.

 

[eldanger25]

From 1970 through 2013, out of 44 editions of the ATP's Masters/WTF year-end championship, there has been only one champion age 30 or older: Federer in 2011 (age 30 years, 3 months). That's 2.3%.

During the same time period, out of 176 slams, there were a total of 14 men's champions age 30 or older, or about 8%.

The older slam winners are pretty well-known. Some other older YEC winners: Federer, 29; Nastase, 29; Sampras, 28; Davydenko, 28; Becker, ~28.

Interesting stuff. As others have mentioned, the numbers would probably be a bit closer together if you factored in or out the early 70s, when over-30 guys like Rosewall won a few slams and skipped the YEC (alongside Laver and others in that age group) regularly.

For example, Nastase skipped the YEC in '76, the year he turned 30, despite having won the event 4 out of the 5 prior years.

Still, your overall point is pretty solid, and it makes sense to me that the occasional off days older players deal with are more likely to be punished in a Top 8 RR format.

Then again, I don't know what kind of near-term predictive value this holds, given the meekness of the current early 20s generation. For instance, what do you make of the winners all being 25 or older the last decade or so of the event, minus Novak 2008?

 

[Carsomyr]

Interesting stuff. As others have mentioned, the numbers would probably be a bit closer together if you factored in or out the early 70s, when over-30 guys like Rosewall won a few slams and skipped the YEC (alongside Laver and others in that age group) regularly.

For example, Nastase skipped the YEC in '76, the year he turned 30, despite having won the event 4 out of the 5 prior years.

Still, your overall point is pretty solid, and it makes sense to me that the occasional off days older players deal with are more likely to be punished in a Top 8 RR format.

Then again, I don't know what kind of near-term predictive value this holds, given the meekness of the current early 20s generation. For instance, what do you make of the winners all being 25 or older the last decade or so of the event, minus Novak 2008?

Along with this, given what we know about the bell-shape of the Slam winners' distribution (i.e. that 23-26 year-olds have the best results), can we use that as a predictor of how many 30 year-olds have actually competed? It requires several leaps (of good faith, mind you) in logic, as Federer will compete this year having won no majors, and he won the event as a 30 year old in 2011 win no majors, and names like Agassi and Connors will come readily to mind.

But as that graph would suggest, 23-26 is (for Slams at least) the age range where players will play their best, and winning majors has always been a huge predictor of who will actually compete. Other than outliers like Federer, Agassi (who reached the final as a 30+ year old twice, in 2000 and 2003), and Connors (who reached several semis after 30), what other 30+ year-olds actually or regularly competed?