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

blablavla

Professional
The science aspects are part of the EXPLANATIONS for why we have GAS.

You are finally admitting there is GAS.

As for money, arguing players are older now (which you finally admit) because of higher pay is rather far-fetched.

Surface speeds: if anything, MORE RUNNING should SHORTEN careers, not make them longer. I.e with fast courts maybe players would have EVEN LONGER careers now.

You completely misunderstand this thread. I am simply showing that GAS has occurred, that is all. The REASONS for GAS are possible multiple, and I'm not saying I know them all. If you are saying there are REASONS for GAS you are correct. There are reasons/explanations for everything.
lol, you're a funny person.
where did I say that I admit GAS?
just because some highly talented and hard working guys can earn a ton of money by playing tennis, which motivates them to retire later, this doesn't translate into GAS.
A 36 yo Agassi didn't have the motivation of P. Andujar to stay competitive, as 156k USD, minus taxes and other expenses... I guess he can make similar amounts of money easily, so staying touring pro probably wasn't that attractive to him.
While P Andujar probably can't easily make 680k USD by some other legal activities, so he will stay a touring pro as long as he can.
So you have a skewed statistics from both sides, and fail to recognize this, and keep seeing statements that were never done.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Its a favorite proclivity of mine including Delpo/Cilic as LostGen. Delpo may be lost due to injuries, but still lost. Cilic just not all that good and got red hot on serve for one slam. Calling him great is like saying what would Medvedev have done if he won 75% of serve points at every slam like he did in Tokyo. :D

Mad Lad played the inaugural event in Milan two years ago and just part of the pack as the elder statesman.
Who said Cilic was great? He is a great talent but far too nervous in clutch.

Bearerer won't play Milan, it makes no sense...
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
lol, you're a funny person.
where did I say that I admit GAS?
just because some highly talented and hard working guys can earn a ton of money by playing tennis, which motivates them to retire later, this doesn't translate into GAS.
A 36 yo Agassi didn't have the motivation of P. Andujar to stay competitive, as 156k USD, minus taxes and other expenses... I guess he can make similar amounts of money easily, so staying touring pro probably wasn't that attractive to him.
While P Andujar probably can't easily make 680k USD by some other legal activities, so he will stay a touring pro as long as he can.
So you have a skewed statistics from both sides, and fail to recognize this, and keep seeing statements that were never done.
Pros don't have a choice that often WHEN they will retire.

You seem to completely assume that every pro plays AS LONG AS THEY WANT TO.

They retire usually either coz they CAN'T WIN ANYMORE or INJURIES. Getting bored or money reasons aren't key in terms of quitting pro tennis.

If that were true then pros from BEFORE should have played LONGER in order to make MORE money. (Your tax reasons theory is silly... Most pros are in tax havens...)

Right?

Agassi? He retired because of a bad back. Read his book. Read the interviews. Check out YT clips and interviews. Get informed.

And yes, you did admit GAS exists because you started trying to explain it in a previous post.

Hilarious...
 

blablavla

Professional
Pros don't have a choice that often WHEN they will retire.

You seem to completely assume that every pro plays AS LONG AS THEY WANT TO.

If that were true then pros from BEFORE should have played LONGER in order to make MORE money.

Right?

Agassi? He retired because of a bad back. Read his book. Read the interviews. Check out YT clips and interviews. Get informed.

And yes, you did admit GAS exists because you started trying to explain it in a previous post.

Hilarious...
I'm telling you that you have a skewed statistics and you see something else.
indeed it's hilarious.

Do you think Federer or Wawrinka or Nadal are injury-free?

lol, that is even more hilarious.

Pros don't have a choice that often WHEN they will retire.

You seem to completely assume that every pro plays AS LONG AS THEY WANT TO.

If that were true then pros from BEFORE should have played LONGER in order to make MORE money.

Right?
exactly the opposite.
why take the hassle of playing on ATP Tour when you could play exhibition games for example?
be commentator?
open your own academy?
or monetize your tennis skills in other ways?
because you can make 150k USD before taxes and expenses?
google how much Agassi made by writing the book

Pros don't have a choice that often WHEN they will retire.

You seem to completely assume that every pro plays AS LONG AS THEY WANT TO.

If that were true then pros from BEFORE should have played LONGER in order to make MORE money.

Right?
lol, wrong.
be commentator?
open your own academy?
or monetize your tennis skills in other ways?
write books?
work in the tennis federation?
go in Parliament?
the sky is the limit?
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Who said Cilic was great? He is a great talent but far too nervous in clutch.

Bearerer won't play Milan, it makes no sense...
Medvedev which means Bear in Russian has not been eligible for Milan for two years; they'll kick him out if he shows up.:D

Will he play Vienna next week?:unsure:
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Do you think Federer or Wawrinka or Nadal are injury-free?
1. You've heard of advances in sports surgery, right...?

No?

Medicine is the same 30 years ago as now? That's what you believe?

2. Regarding Agassi...

We are not discussing how much money he made with the book. Completely irrelevant, as I never even hinted he RETIRED TO WRITE BOOKS. That'd be YOUR type of argument.

You are way too confused for this thread. Constantly mixing up arguments and subjects. Why not read first then answer?

3. Commentators and coaches make a LOT less money than top pros...

Duh.

Or you believe Mac gets 5 million per slam?

4. Academies aren't a sure-fire thing. Many pros have them, there is great competition there. You seem to have a child-like understanding of supply, demand, financing, competition, marketing, profits...

5. Pros play exhibitions mostly WHILE THEY ARE HOT. Lopez playing an exhibition as a retired pro will get less money offered than Lopez who is no 30 in the world. You do understand this, right? No...?

And tell me again about your logic that slower surfaces prolong careers...

... which just proves that you admit GAS exists because tried to explain it.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I'm telling you that you have a skewed statistics and you see something else.
indeed it's hilarious.

Do you think Federer or Wawrinka or Nadal are injury-free?

lol, that is even more hilarious.



exactly the opposite.
why take the hassle of playing on ATP Tour when you could play exhibition games for example?
be commentator?
open your own academy?
or monetize your tennis skills in other ways?
because you can make 150k USD before taxes and expenses?
google how much Agassi made by writing the book



lol, wrong.
be commentator?
open your own academy?
or monetize your tennis skills in other ways?
write books?
work in the tennis federation?
go in Parliament?
the sky is the limit?
And you still haven't EXPLAINED how come the no of above-28 age pros has gone up from 15 to over 50...

Wanna explain?
 

blablavla

Professional
And you still haven't EXPLAINED how come the no of above-28 age pros has gone up from 15 to over 50...

Wanna explain?
As soon as you will present relevant statistics, that would take into account at least prize money when comparing the age of professional tennis players in top 100 since whenever you want
 
Last edited:

flanker2000fr

Professional
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
Single best data I have seen to illustrate this trend.
 
The main reasons women's tennis hasn't gone up nearly as much are simple.

Women mature earlier, physically and mentally. It's in all the textbooks. We've always has very young prodigies at WTA, such as young as 13 or 14, in men's tennis that's 17 or 18, 19.

Secondly, WTA don't have three exceptional players who dominate, such as Big 3. They have just one and she's 38 and injured half the time.
Nowadays, in women's tennis it is more like 17 to 19, and in men's tennis more like 21 to 23, as you noted. Of course, young boys will never be able to compete with adult men in the way that some young girls can compete with adult women. But they now strictly limit how many tournaments teenage girls can play and that also slows down their development. Hingis was #1 at 16, Seles at 17, and Capriati made a slam semi at 14 and a couple of months. That wouldn't be very likely at all today. Pennetta and Li both won majors in their 30s. Schiavone was a month shy of turning 30. Even Halep and Wozniacki were in their mid-to-late 20s when they became slam winners. It has gone up in women's, but of course it will not go up as much as in men's. Andreescu was, I believe, the first teen to win a Slam since Sharapova in 2006. Something like that, anyway. And even Andreescu was 19.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
As soon as you will present relevant statistics, that would take into account at least prize money when comparing the age of professional tennis players in top 100 since whenever you want
OK, now I know you're a troll.

Or at least trolling this particular thread because its facts bother you for whatever reason.

Sorry, mate, can't help you there, the psychology department I ain't... This is TTW, tennis.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
As soon as you will present relevant statistics, that would take into account at least prize money when comparing the age of professional tennis players in top 100 since whenever you want
Oh... and one more thing...

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

You can explain now to other users why these stats aren't relevant - on a thread that deals with an increased average in age.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
As soon as you will present relevant statistics, that would take into account at least prize money when comparing the age of professional tennis players in top 100 since whenever you want
You have yet again admitted that GAS exists. Because just now you've tried to rationalize it.

Check-mate, mate...

GAS exists. Glad we agree. Coz that is the whole point of the thread.
 

blablavla

Professional
You have yet again admitted that GAS exists. Because just now you've tried to rationalize it.

Check-mate, mate...

GAS exists. Glad we agree. Coz that is the whole point of the thread.
you missed first 3 letters: dis
it is correct to say disagree.
and no need to thank for the spell check, you're welcome.
 

blablavla

Professional
You can explain now to other users why these stats aren't relevant - on a thread that deals with an increased average in age.
I have more important things to do.
for example have a life beyond keyboard and monitor.
for example go and play some tennis.

so, I'm leaving the creation of threads to you.
I trust I leave this important task in good hands. in hands of an expert.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I have more important things to do.
for example have a life beyond keyboard and monitor.
for example go and play some tennis.

so, I'm leaving the creation of threads to you.
I trust I leave this important task in good hands. in hands of an expert.
Absolutely.

Great choice.

I believe you wield the racket 100000 times better than tennis theories.
 

flanker2000fr

Professional
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.
Agree with most of what you say there. I think we'll see a number of players playing at the highest level at 35, perhaps more. Not sure that many will be able to push it to 38 and beyond though. The body just doesn't recuperate / heal as quickly when you are on the wrong side of the 30's.
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
Basel semi final
Alex de Minaur age 20
Tsitsipas age 21
Reilly Opelka age 22
Federer age 36

3 of the 4 players are younger than 23.
"Great age shift"
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Basel semi final
Alex de Minaur age 20
Tsitsipas age 21
Reilly Opelka age 22
Federer age 36

3 of the 4 players are younger than 23.
"Great age shift"
I hope you copy-paste that reply on every thread...

The fact you ignore statistics just because it doesn't suit your fan universe...

Trying to refute all these numbers based on thousands of events and hundreds of players and decades of play - with just one event - is frankly either hilarious or tiresome. Not sure which.
 

Xemi666

Professional
ok how about Shanghai masters 1000 tournament? There wasn't a single player older than 23 in the semis.
How about the top 100, which is actually a large enough sample? How about the 2019 season as a whole instead of cherry picking the events that suit your agenda?
 

Raphael Nadal

Professional
Agassi already was able to play great tennis until age 36.
35-year-old Agassi played THREE 5-setters before playing Federer in the 2005 US Open Final, so Federer got a bit lucky, and Agassi still won the 2nd Set 6-2 and pushed the 3rd Set to a tiebreaker.
So if you are really talented then you should still play great in your mid-30s :)
Sampras could have played to his mid-30s too, but would have had to reduce his schedule to handle the back problems....
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
Tsitsipas is the youngest player to make the final at the ATP Finals on his tournament debut since Jim Courier in 1991. GAS
 

ForehandRF

Professional
On the other hand Thiem is peaking at the age Federer started declining...
Things have changed a lot since 2007.Back then, people considered 30 a retirement age and Agassi playing well into his 30s was an exception, just like Connors or Rosewall.Past legends retired at that age and some of them stopped winning slams at 28.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Things have changed a lot since 2007.Back then, people considered 30 a retirement age and Agassi playing well into his 30s was an exception, just like Connors or Rosewall.Past legends retired at that age and some of them stopped winning slams at 28.
It's 12 years ago, it's not like Federer belongs to a different century.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
It's 12 years ago, it's not like Federer belongs to a different century.
True, but people didn't have the information we have today.Nobody could have predicted that Fedalovic would be at the top of the game for such a long period of time.How many players have won multiple slams in their 30s till that point ? Today it sounds ridiculous to call a 29-30 year old player old in tennis terms, but remember that at the 2011 RG SF, commentators called Federer grandpa.Then again, today it sounds ridiculous, but back then was something normal.Back in 2006-2007 I though that Federer will play till 30-31 and if someone would have told me that he will play till almost 40, I would have laughed in his face (that's valid too if that person would have told me that Nadal will still be playing in 2019).
 
Last edited:
LOL.

Just because 3 players are doing good-mostly because they can mask their bad days better doesn't mean there's an age shift.

Players are still retiring in their early to mid thirties.
Just have a look the retired guys in yesterday's ceremony for instance
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Lendl picks an anomaly, an exceptional anomaly at that, as the basis of his argument. Let's look at a sample of players with D.O.B close to Federer.

Federer D.O.B 8 August 1981

marat-safin D.O.B 27 January 1980
juan carlos ferrero D.O.B 12 February 1980
Xavier Malisse D.O.B 19 July 1980
fernando gonzalez D.O.B 29 July 1980
Lleyton Hewitt D.O.B 24 February 1981
Nikolay Davydenko D.O.B 2 June 1981
Feliciano Lopez D.O.B 20 September 1981
David Nalbandian D.O.B 1 January 1982
Guillermo Coria D.O.B 13 January 1982
Tommy Robredo D.O.B 1 May 1982
Andy Roddick D.O.B 30 August 1982
Fernando Verdasco D.O.B 15 November 1983


It's not hard to see the argument players peak in their 30s and get better with age is unsupported by far more cases disapproving the point.
No doubt there are more players past 30 in the top 50 today than in the past, but few peaked past 30. Federer is an exception, in that he has maintained his peak or near peak into his mid-late thirties, similar to Gonzalez and Rosewall. I would say that Novak and Nadal, today, are at their near peak which is still good enough to win slams and masters titles.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
No doubt there are more players past 30 in the top 50 today than in the past, but few peaked past 30. Federer is an exception, in that he has maintained his peak or near peak into his mid-late thirties, similar to Gonzalez and Rosewall. I would say that Novak and Nadal, today, are at their near peak which is still good enough to win slams and masters titles.
Are you actually going to ARGUE with these facts? It is not a question of peaking, it is a question of surviving. The fact that so many older pros can even survive in the elite portion of pro tennis (top 100, top 50, top 20 even) is the great new change.

Seriously, there are so many players who are/were playing their best or having their biggest success around 30. Re-read the thread from the beginning. This thread is NOT about the Big 3, they are merely one part of the big picture.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Are you actually going to ARGUE with these facts? It is not a question of peaking, it is a question of surviving. The fact that so many older pros can even survive in the elite portion of pro tennis (top 100, top 50, top 20 even) is the great new change.

Seriously, there are so many players who are/were playing their best or having their biggest success around 30. Re-read the thread from the beginning. This thread is NOT about the Big 3, they are merely one part of the big picture.
I am pretty sure someone used the word peaking past 30. I did say a few may have, but they are not winning big events. There is so much money in the game today that a top 50-100 player can make a good living without winning tournaments. Good for them! Also, today's players are better trained, equipped and in better physical condition than most players 30 or more years ago, as well as having better medical treatment of injuries.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I am pretty sure someone used the word peaking past 30. I did say a few may have, but they are not winning big events. There is so much money in the game today that a top 50-100 player can make a good living without winning tournaments. Good for them! Also, today's players are better trained, equipped and in better physical condition than most players 30 or more years ago, as well as having better medical treatment of injuries.
This may merely explain the new age shift, it doesn't deny it.

So we are in agreement? It is much easier to extend careers these days and careers don't have to end by 30 as they used to...
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
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

Any more questions?
What the list above shows is a trend, a simple upwards one.
What you can not do, is draw any conclusion on the basis of such a trend. You can make an educated guess on a causal relationship, but you can not on the basis of the trend refute the probability of a mere coincidence.

If you were to address this scientifically, you would formulate a hypothesis after careful research of the issue.

That should include a variety of possible variables, not only age. Some have mentioned equipment change. I would also look into income (sponsorship and prize money), including income distribution (I know the ATP players are more concerned about the long tail than before when it comes to distribution of prize money f.inst). Another interesting aspect would be training, training and physical knowledge, as well as availability to physical trainers (and tennis coaches) aso.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
And on the subject of educated guesses, looking at the current top 100, mine is that 2016/17 will be the top year, and that we've started the decline of "over 28 in the top 100", which will continue for a few years at least. I base this on the current crop of 25-27 years old. With the exception of Thiem and Schwartzman, I don't see any of these players being able to keep the younger ones behind them on the ranking lists.

 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
What the list above shows is a trend, a simple upwards one.
What you can not do, is draw any conclusion on the basis of such a trend. You can make an educated guess on a causal relationship, but you can not on the basis of the trend refute the probability of a mere coincidence.

If you were to address this scientifically, you would formulate a hypothesis after careful research of the issue.

That should include a variety of possible variables, not only age. Some have mentioned equipment change. I would also look into income (sponsorship and prize money), including income distribution (I know the ATP players are more concerned about the long tail than before when it comes to distribution of prize money f.inst). Another interesting aspect would be training, training and physical knowledge, as well as availability to physical trainers (and tennis coaches) aso.
We've already discussed why income is an absurd reason/explanation. Go back to the earlier posts...
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
And on the subject of educated guesses, looking at the current top 100, mine is that 2016/17 will be the top year, and that we've started the decline of "over 28 in the top 100", which will continue for a few years at least. I base this on the current crop of 25-27 years old. With the exception of Thiem and Schwartzman, I don't see any of these players being able to keep the younger ones behind them on the ranking lists.

Except that we are not discussing just the top 10.

Top 100 is much older all across the board. 2-3 players do not a trend make, out of 100.
 

TTMR

Hall of Fame
If tennis was important enough to merit actual scrutiny from national and international authorities the way other sports do, they'd have cracked down on steroids long ago and you'd see young folk dominating again.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
We've already discussed why income is an absurd reason/explanation. Go back to the earlier posts...
Oh, you are referring to the regression analysis you did based on your carefully articulated, theory-based hypothesis and extensive data collection? Good for you.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Oh, you are referring to the regression analysis you did based on your carefully articulated, theory-based hypothesis and extensive data collection? Good for you.
I said go back to the earlier posts...

Arguing that winning 50,000 bucks as opposed to 200,000 is an incentive to quit earlier is as idiotic a theory as any on this planet.
 
Top