Tennfan123
Legend
Ok, here's my half baked theory. Help me cook it so it’s yummy! 
A player's peak is their early and mid 20s. For me. Say 20-26. You can’t peak after that age though you can of course play at a very high level. There's no two ways about it.
Players who play their best tennis aged 27 and over, like Wawrinka, are not peaking. They missed their peak, but they improved their game when they were older, and because of environmental factors, they achieved success, and at the highest levels.
So, players 27+, like the Big 4 the last several years, who have great runs, it's not that they're peaking again, it's just that the guys who should be peaking, the young ones, aged 20-26, are not very strong and haven't been able to tap into what would've been their peak. That's why we've had the period we've had since 2013 because the Young Guns/Next Gens haven't been that great and had much weaker peaks, allowing the older guys to profit.
I'm working on this idea, or at least a way of rethinking how we talk about 'peak' levels. I see a lot of myths on here about 2017 Nadal RG being peak Nadal, etc, or Djokovic AO 2019 being peak Djokovic, or, Federer being peak Federer in 2017. Those guys already had their peaks. As for Peak Wawrinka, he never peaked. He just had a strong late 20s and early 30s period. The guy missed his peak.
But peak Safin? That is a correct assertion as he was 20-25 when he peaked. Peak Federer 03-06 the same.
To conclude, just because a player aged 27+ is No.1 and winning slams does not mean he’s peaking. It means he’s playing very well. It also means that the 20-26 year olds around him are not peaking, and that’s a key factor in the older player’s success.
If you made it this far, thanks for your patience. My idea is a bit lazy and pointless , so perfect for sharing here
Now, on with your day, buds.
A player's peak is their early and mid 20s. For me. Say 20-26. You can’t peak after that age though you can of course play at a very high level. There's no two ways about it.
Players who play their best tennis aged 27 and over, like Wawrinka, are not peaking. They missed their peak, but they improved their game when they were older, and because of environmental factors, they achieved success, and at the highest levels.
So, players 27+, like the Big 4 the last several years, who have great runs, it's not that they're peaking again, it's just that the guys who should be peaking, the young ones, aged 20-26, are not very strong and haven't been able to tap into what would've been their peak. That's why we've had the period we've had since 2013 because the Young Guns/Next Gens haven't been that great and had much weaker peaks, allowing the older guys to profit.
I'm working on this idea, or at least a way of rethinking how we talk about 'peak' levels. I see a lot of myths on here about 2017 Nadal RG being peak Nadal, etc, or Djokovic AO 2019 being peak Djokovic, or, Federer being peak Federer in 2017. Those guys already had their peaks. As for Peak Wawrinka, he never peaked. He just had a strong late 20s and early 30s period. The guy missed his peak.
But peak Safin? That is a correct assertion as he was 20-25 when he peaked. Peak Federer 03-06 the same.
To conclude, just because a player aged 27+ is No.1 and winning slams does not mean he’s peaking. It means he’s playing very well. It also means that the 20-26 year olds around him are not peaking, and that’s a key factor in the older player’s success.
If you made it this far, thanks for your patience. My idea is a bit lazy and pointless , so perfect for sharing here
Now, on with your day, buds.
