"Today's 33 is our 27." - Ivan Lendl explaining the Great Age Shift in tennis.

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Too early too call the GAS. I want to see first what Tsitsipas, Medvedev and a few more do when they enter traditional prime age 24-27.
I didn't make up these numbers.

over28 in the top100:

1990 - 15
1991 - 11
1992 - 11
1993 - 17
1994 - 23
1995 - 19
1996 - 22
1997 - 18
1998 - 24
1999 - 23
2000 - 26
2001 - 24
2002 - 27
2003 - 26
2004 - 28
2005 - 23
2006 - 27
2007 - 27
2008 - 30
2009 - 40
2010 - 37
2011 - 43
2012 - 43
2013 - 49
2014 - 51
2015 - 55
2016 - 56
2017 - 58
2018 - 52
current - 53
 
What's the point here? That players are able to maintain a high level much later than they used to?

I think this is clear. But it does not mean you should at 38. So, not relevant to the Fed discussion.
 

Winners or Errors

Hall of Fame
Are we sure it's not just a function of a decade of players lacking talent? I mean, what if the current generation ends up dominating the lost gen and we end up with fewer 30+ year olds in the top 100 ten years from now? How will people spin that one?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I asked you specific questions and I don’t see a reply to that . This has nothing to do with Fed fans .

Berdych , Ferrer , Tsonga have gone down and Anderson , Isner , Stan , Cilic , Murray and others are quickly following
They went down way after the 26 age mark.

Here... Explain this...

over28 in the top100:

1990 - 15
1991 - 11
1992 - 11
1993 - 17
1994 - 23
1995 - 19
1996 - 22
1997 - 18
1998 - 24
1999 - 23
2000 - 26
2001 - 24
2002 - 27
2003 - 26
2004 - 28
2005 - 23
2006 - 27
2007 - 27
2008 - 30
2009 - 40
2010 - 37
2011 - 43
2012 - 43
2013 - 49
2014 - 51
2015 - 55
2016 - 56
2017 - 58
2018 - 52
current - 53
 
They went down way after the 26 age mark.

Here... Explain this...

over28 in the top100:

1990 - 15
1991 - 11
1992 - 11
1993 - 17
1994 - 23
1995 - 19
1996 - 22
1997 - 18
1998 - 24
1999 - 23
2000 - 26
2001 - 24
2002 - 27
2003 - 26
2004 - 28
2005 - 23
2006 - 27
2007 - 27
2008 - 30
2009 - 40
2010 - 37
2011 - 43
2012 - 43
2013 - 49
2014 - 51
2015 - 55
2016 - 56
2017 - 58
2018 - 52
current - 53
Dude, we have all seen the numbers. You have posted it like 10 times. They clearly show that ages don't mean the same. We get it, the game in which the quality decreases has increased significantly over the years.

Now, like many others have said, how many over 35? How many are still making slam finals at 38?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
It is incredibly full of **** cause apart from the Big 3 everyone is much worse at 33 and the only reason the Big 3 isn't much 'worse' is it's cause the rest of the field is shambalito's now
Funny, coming from a Fognini avatar...

The irony, he won his biggest title aged 32 and reached top 10,

People are so in denial over GAS... just because of RF.

Let go of the RF worship and you'll all understand things a lot better. He is a great player but only human.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Funny, coming from a Fognini avatar...

The irony, he won his biggest title aged 32 and reached top 10,

People are so in denial over GAS... just because of RF.

Let go of the RF worship and you'll all understand things a lot better. He is a great player but only human.
Fognini isn't better than ever lol. His stats are dogshit this year

He just got a worst Nadal he ever got at MC
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Dude, we have all seen the numbers. You have posted it like 10 times. They clearly show that ages don't mean the same. We get it, the game in which the quality decreases has increased significantly over the years.

Now, like many others have said, how many over 35? How many are still making slam finals at 38?
I repeat things because clearly half of you are not reading the numbers, or fail to understand them.

38 is HUGE if prime is 20.

38 is great if prime is 25.

38 is pretty solid if prime is 30.

38 is nothing if prime is 38.

Capiche?

As the prime goes up, the number 38 becomes less impressive.

This is literally Maths 101. I can't make it any simpler.

I am not saying 38 isn't impressive, just saying it's LESS impressive.

Make an effort to understand what I just posted.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Fognini isn't better than ever lol. His stats are dogshit this year

He just got a worst Nadal he ever got at MC
Desperation.

Should we ask Fognini on this? Gilbert? Mac? Lendl?

Ah yes... they are all clueless. You know better.

Fognini winning his first M1000 and reaching top 10 is clearly inferior to his years ranked 30...
 
Honestly, with the way this is going, I wouldn't be surprised if Federer wins a GS title at age of 44, 6 years later, that is if he doesn't retire.
 
I repeat things because clearly half of you are not reading the numbers, or fail to understand them.

38 is HUGE if prime is 20.

38 is great if prime is 25.

38 is pretty solid if prime is 30.

38 is nothing if prime is 38.

Capiche?

As the prime goes up, the number 38 becomes less impressive.

This is literally Maths 101. I can't make it any simpler.

I am not saying 38 isn't impressive, just saying it's LESS impressive.

Make an effort to understand what I just posted.
Yes, it is less impressive, yet still impressive as no one has yet to do it. Just like 14 slams was impressive, now it is less impressive. But still impressive nonetheless.

So until I see others doing what Fed has done, it is still very impressive. I mean, who before Fed was doing this? Where is the guys before him that played late at a high level?

It will be even less impressive if Rafa and Djoker do it at 38 as it will be 5 years further on this "new age" path, and they won't have any ATG's to deal with.

Capiche?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
The young gen is incredible s**t hence one off runs like Isner Miami, Fognini MC, Anderson USO and Wimb , lopez Queens are seen as a paradigm shift

However the truth is Big 3 are different league than other tennis players and the rest all stink so badly

The younger gens stink like pigs while the next gen is only like horse poop
 
The young gen is incredible s**t hence one off runs like Isner Miami, Fognini MC, Anderson USO and Wimb , lopez Queens are seen as a paradigm shift

However the truth is Big 3 are different league than other tennis players and the rest all stink so badly

The younger gens stink like pigs while the next gen is only like horse poop
Problem is, certain people think these players are better. They think Isner, Fognini, and Anderson are much better all of the sudden...

Oh and Fed has reached his prime...
 
Still no top 10 players aged 35+ other than Federer. Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga all beset with injuries and permanently declined. Murray, del Potro badly struggling with injuries, unlikely to reach the top again. Wawrinka has struggled, back to top 30 now but making the top 10 is dubious. Djokodal will likely join Fred a few years later but that's it.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Problem is, certain people think these players are better. They think Isner, Fognini, and Anderson are much better all of the sudden...

Oh and Fed has reached his prime...

The way Goffin got mauled today was embarrassing . He has made major QF multiple times , reached finals of YEC , top 10 player and he got all of 4 games

Now what has this got to do with age shift ? How is this not a weak era ? Zverev needs 5 sets every match , Nishikori is losing to De Minaur , Thiem and Tsitsipas lose to Fabbiano
 
The way Goffin got mauled today was embarrassing . He has made major QF multiple times , reached finals of YEC , top 10 player and he got all of 4 games

Now what has this got to do with age shift ? How is this not a weak era ? Zverev needs 5 sets every match , Nishikori is losing to De Minaur , Thiem and Tsitsipas lose to Fabbiano
Shouldn't Goffin be getting better? Not worse?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
The way Goffin got mauled today was embarrassing . He has made major QF multiple times , reached finals of YEC , top 10 player and he got all of 4 games

Now what has this got to do with age shift ? How is this not a weak era ? Zverev needs 5 sets every match , Nishikori is losing to De Minaur , Thiem and Tsitsipas lose to Fabbiano
So you choose to focus on Goffin losing today...

... but completely ignore this?

over28 in the top100:

1990 - 15
1991 - 11
1992 - 11
1993 - 17
1994 - 23
1995 - 19
1996 - 22
1997 - 18
1998 - 24
1999 - 23
2000 - 26
2001 - 24
2002 - 27
2003 - 26
2004 - 28
2005 - 23
2006 - 27
2007 - 27
2008 - 30
2009 - 40
2010 - 37
2011 - 43
2012 - 43
2013 - 49
2014 - 51
2015 - 55
2016 - 56
2017 - 58
2018 - 52
current - 53

Because clearly Goffin's loss today trumps all these numbers.

Laughable. And I mean hilarious-guffaw laughable.

Do you understand what these numbers mean? If not, tell me, and I will TRY to explain...
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Go to 26:20 in the clip.


I've been saying this for years, that a huge age shift had taken place in tennis in this decade. The Great Age Shift. GAS. You heard it here first.

Which means - for example - that RF being 38 isn't nearly the big deal it would have been in the 90s or 80s. It is admirable and amazing but not THAT amazing.

It also means that we cannot moan too much about 23 year-olds not winning slams anymore, because it's a completely different ballgame in modern pro tennis, with guys playing their best tennis at around 30 - give or take a few years. Wawrinka and Anderson are just two examples.

In other words, 27-34 (roughly speaking) may have become the new peak/prime/shmeep as opposed to the past eras when it was quite clearly 20-25.

Players used to drop their form at around 27-29, then retire at 30 or 31, roughly speaking. Now they are kicking ass at 30, and doing very well or reasonably well at 35 even, which would have been very rare in past eras. Agassi, Newcombe and Connors were exceptions.

We need to finally acknowledge this age shift (as much as it may annoy some RF fans who have a fetish for agism and age-related excuses), which may even be much greater than Lendl suggested (off the cuff probably). We cannot glorify RF for being a top player at 38 the way we would have done in 1993. That's just a fact.

Nor can we mock young players for not slaying the Big 3 at age 21 - which would have been normal in 1991 when 21 year-olds killed the veterans regularly.

And another thing: this is the first time in the Open Era (or probably ever) that no player younger than 31 has a slam title!!! If that fact doesn't convince you of the Great Age Shift (GAS), then nothing will, and perhaps you are in denial?

Opinions...
Really enjoyed the video especially as I remembered these guys playing each other.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Really enjoyed the video especially as I remembered these guys playing each other.
Best 4 80s players being interviewed by each other. Awesome.

Some day we'll have the Big 4. Hope it'll be a 5-hour special. And that Rafa's English improves enough that he can keep up with Murray and RF.

Well... just RF.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Dude, we have all seen the numbers. You have posted it like 10 times. They clearly show that ages don't mean the same. We get it, the game in which the quality decreases has increased significantly over the years.

Now, like many others have said, how many over 35? How many are still making slam finals at 38?
Player age is a bad metric.

What you need to do is plot player careers over time and see when they have their best years. It's almost all in the 20s, and basically no absolute top players achieving career highs in their 30s, and those that do don't even improve their stats.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
I asked you specific questions and I don’t see a reply to that . This has nothing to do with Fed fans .

Berdych , Ferrer , Tsonga have gone down and Anderson , Isner , Stan , Cilic , Murray and others are quickly following
Its easy to put the blame on 33+ Big 3 when its evident almost all of those mentioned in your post are not even active at the moment. The TV talkies don't want to put all the blame on the "I deserve everything by doing almost nothing" Next Gen. It won't look nice for the ATP. Not that it does even now.
 

DonPepe

New User
Go to 26:20 in the clip.


I've been saying this for years, that a huge age shift had taken place in tennis in this decade. The Great Age Shift. GAS. You heard it here first.

Which means - for example - that RF being 38 isn't nearly the big deal it would have been in the 90s or 80s. It is admirable and amazing but not THAT amazing.

It also means that we cannot moan too much about 23 year-olds not winning slams anymore, because it's a completely different ballgame in modern pro tennis, with guys playing their best tennis at around 30 - give or take a few years. Wawrinka and Anderson are just two examples.

In other words, 27-34 (roughly speaking) may have become the new peak/prime/shmeep as opposed to the past eras when it was quite clearly 20-25.

Players used to drop their form at around 27-29, then retire at 30 or 31, roughly speaking. Now they are kicking ass at 30, and doing very well or reasonably well at 35 even, which would have been very rare in past eras. Agassi, Newcombe and Connors were exceptions.

We need to finally acknowledge this age shift (as much as it may annoy some RF fans who have a fetish for agism and age-related excuses), which may even be much greater than Lendl suggested (off the cuff probably). We cannot glorify RF for being a top player at 38 the way we would have done in 1993. That's just a fact.

Nor can we mock young players for not slaying the Big 3 at age 21 - which would have been normal in 1991 when 21 year-olds killed the veterans regularly.

And another thing: this is the first time in the Open Era (or probably ever) that no player younger than 31 has a slam title!!! If that fact doesn't convince you of the Great Age Shift (GAS), then nothing will, and perhaps you are in denial?

Opinions...
but look at the womens game
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
over28 in the top100:

1990 - 15
1991 - 11
1992 - 11
1993 - 17
1994 - 23
1995 - 19
1996 - 22
1997 - 18
1998 - 24
1999 - 23
2000 - 26
2001 - 24
2002 - 27
2003 - 26
2004 - 28
2005 - 23
2006 - 27
2007 - 27
2008 - 30
2009 - 40
2010 - 37
2011 - 43
2012 - 43
2013 - 49
2014 - 51
2015 - 55
2016 - 56
2017 - 58
2018 - 52
current - 53
I liked that last time you posted it, and I like it now. It's relevant!
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
So...

Your stubbornness to accept facts is in no way related to your fandom of Federer?

Just asking.
Good grief, whatever Roger is doing right now is a preview of what many other players will do in the future. His success right now is possible good news for Djoval, which Djokovic already acknowledged recently in public. There is no reason to mock or try to diminish what he is currently doing, but what the other two are doing is going under the wire more than a little bit. And while people try to make out that the WTA is a different thing, there is and always has been a huge difference between the time line at which a woman's and man's body develops over time. Even so, what SW is doing right now, after having a child, carrying extra weight, no longer moving her best, should also be a wake-up call.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Go to 26:20 in the clip.


I've been saying this for years, that a huge age shift had taken place in tennis in this decade. The Great Age Shift. GAS. You heard it here first.

Which means - for example - that RF being 38 isn't nearly the big deal it would have been in the 90s or 80s. It is admirable and amazing but not THAT amazing.

It also means that we cannot moan too much about 23 year-olds not winning slams anymore, because it's a completely different ballgame in modern pro tennis, with guys playing their best tennis at around 30 - give or take a few years. Wawrinka and Anderson are just two examples.

In other words, 27-34 (roughly speaking) may have become the new peak/prime/shmeep as opposed to the past eras when it was quite clearly 20-25.

Players used to drop their form at around 27-29, then retire at 30 or 31, roughly speaking. Now they are kicking ass at 30, and doing very well or reasonably well at 35 even, which would have been very rare in past eras. Agassi, Newcombe and Connors were exceptions.

We need to finally acknowledge this age shift (as much as it may annoy some RF fans who have a fetish for agism and age-related excuses), which may even be much greater than Lendl suggested (off the cuff probably). We cannot glorify RF for being a top player at 38 the way we would have done in 1993. That's just a fact.

Nor can we mock young players for not slaying the Big 3 at age 21 - which would have been normal in 1991 when 21 year-olds killed the veterans regularly.

And another thing: this is the first time in the Open Era (or probably ever) that no player younger than 31 has a slam title!!! If that fact doesn't convince you of the Great Age Shift (GAS), then nothing will, and perhaps you are in denial?

Opinions...
Yes, I generally agree. There's definitely been an age shift. But, I think it's been magnified by the Big 3, meaning that while there's definitely a shift generally, they shift for the Big 3 is even bigger. To put it another way - I expect more players because of GAS to have their best Slam performances or win Slams later than in previous eras. But, I don't expect players generally to follow the Big 3 and still be winning Slams or having their best performances in their mid 30s. So, the average player now peaks later than previous eras, but I don't expect them to keep that up as long as the Big 3. GAS isn't universal at one level - I still think they'll still be plenty of players who "age out" around 30 (which is later than it used to be) and if they keep on playing won't ever get back to their peak level.

Did this make any sense, lol. The shift is real, but on average not as broad of a shift as it is for the Big 3.
 

Pablo1989

Professional
This is not only happening in tennis, but in life in general. Nowadays a common woman in her late thirties is still looking for an economic stability and has no children, whereas in 1990 she would be a married lady with several kids
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Go to 26:20 in the clip.


I've been saying this for years, that a huge age shift had taken place in tennis in this decade. The Great Age Shift. GAS. You heard it here first.

Which means - for example - that RF being 38 isn't nearly the big deal it would have been in the 90s or 80s. It is admirable and amazing but not THAT amazing.

It also means that we cannot moan too much about 23 year-olds not winning slams anymore, because it's a completely different ballgame in modern pro tennis, with guys playing their best tennis at around 30 - give or take a few years. Wawrinka and Anderson are just two examples.

In other words, 27-34 (roughly speaking) may have become the new peak/prime/shmeep as opposed to the past eras when it was quite clearly 20-25.

Players used to drop their form at around 27-29, then retire at 30 or 31, roughly speaking. Now they are kicking ass at 30, and doing very well or reasonably well at 35 even, which would have been very rare in past eras. Agassi, Newcombe and Connors were exceptions.

We need to finally acknowledge this age shift (as much as it may annoy some RF fans who have a fetish for agism and age-related excuses), which may even be much greater than Lendl suggested (off the cuff probably). We cannot glorify RF for being a top player at 38 the way we would have done in 1993. That's just a fact.

Nor can we mock young players for not slaying the Big 3 at age 21 - which would have been normal in 1991 when 21 year-olds killed the veterans regularly.

And another thing: this is the first time in the Open Era (or probably ever) that no player younger than 31 has a slam title!!! If that fact doesn't convince you of the Great Age Shift (GAS), then nothing will, and perhaps you are in denial?

Opinions...
Didn't read most that wall of text but you're wrong. The younger generation just aren't good enough. Raonic is nearly 30... don't tell me he's "near his peak" or some stupid crap.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Boy, Lendl is in really poor shape. For a former top athlete, he really stopped taking care of himself.
The other guys look good. Mac and Wilander are pretty naturally small-framed and lithe - though they obviously take care of themselves. Boris, with his tree trunk legs and general natural thickness could have been a candidate to blow up, but he looks like he's stayed in shape.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Didn't read most that wall of text but you're wrong. The younger generation just aren't good enough. Raonic is nearly 30... don't tell me he's "near his peak" or some stupid crap.
You already sound angry.

Do you experience tennis personally, as if rackets were part of your body?

Relax, it's just a game, not a religion.

Never said Raonic's gen wasn't weak. It is. But we've had weak generations before. Nobody born between 1961-1964 won a slam, that's a whole 4 years. The 1977-1979 gen was crap too, just one slam title there. The 1989-94 generation hasn't done anything yet but one of them might.

And you can't deny the NUMBERS. The prove that age has gone up all across the board.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Ah, so you are still reading my posts - I thought you had me on ignore.

Do you concede your Godwin's Law error in the the other thread?

:cool:
I never use the ignore button. That's for sulky children. Plus I like to be amused by foolishness and bouts of anger.

Regarding Godwin, I already told you he's an idiot.

But perhaps you had me on ignore hence missed the post...
 
Top