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

smalahove

Hall of Fame
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.
Sometimes, people read what they want to read. This is one of those times.

1) There is no mention of top 10 in the post you're quoting. It mentions "looking at the current top 100" and your age-cut-off-point "over 28 in the top 100".

2) The reason I bring up the 25-27 age group, is that they should be next in line to enter your category "over 28 in the top 100". Of course, there might be myriads of 25-27 yr old players outside of the top 100 that will enter the top 100 in the years to come, but the likelihood is rather slim I would presume (and ye's that's an assumption too). If we look at this group, most of them are lower ranked, which again based on previous career development, is a good sign the "over 28 in the top 100" indicator will drop rather than increase in the years to come.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Sometimes, people read what they want to read. This is one of those times.

1) There is no mention of top 10 in the post you're quoting. It mentions "looking at the current top 100" and your age-cut-off-point "over 28 in the top 100".

2) The reason I bring up the 25-27 age group, is that they should be next in line to enter your category "over 28 in the top 100". Of course, there might be myriads of 25-27 yr old players outside of the top 100 that will enter the top 100 in the years to come, but the likelihood is rather slim I would presume (and ye's that's an assumption too). If we look at this group, most of them are lower ranked, which again based on previous career development, is a good sign the "over 28 in the top 100" indicator will drop rather than increase in the years to come.
Yup...

Homer, you really need to heed 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

Which part of this confuses you?
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
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.
Ah, so that's what you assume the argument means.

I clearly write "ATP players are more concerned about the long tail than before when it comes to distribution of prize money", which means:


Over the last few decades we've seen massive increase in prize money, and more importantly sponsorship money.
But as more money is accumulated at the top, less money is being made available for the lower ranked players.
That means the chance of sustaining a long career diminishes.

Whilst I don't have any data on the income of ATP players, the numbers I've read indicate that that it's easier to sustain a career in the top 100 now, than it was 10 years ago, and even more so than in the 90s and 00s.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Yup...

Homer, you really need to heed 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

Which part of this confuses you?
No confusion here.

What you seem to believe is that this trend line is a conclusion of sorts.
You do realize you base your conclusions on a indicator, i.e. "over28 in the top100", of the phenomenon you want to investigate ("weak era" or something like that)?
How do you know this is a good indicator? Do you have comparative data from other sports f.inst.?

And let's look at the trend line for a minute. It wouldn't be hard to come up with a hypothesis and run a linear regression analysis that would give us the basis for a prognosis that would end up near 100 players "over28 in the top100" within a decade or so. Do you think that's realistic?

Time will tell. My money's on a decrease over the new few years.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
most of federer's peers retired the way previous generations of players did (early 30s).

its possible fed will inspire successive generations.

we will see.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I clearly write "ATP players are more concerned about the long tail than before when it comes to distribution of prize money", which means:
Over the last few decades we've seen massive increase in prize money, and more importantly sponsorship money.
But as more money is accumulated at the top, less money is being made available for the lower ranked players.
That means the chance of sustaining a long career diminishes.

Whilst I don't have any data on the income of ATP players, the numbers I've read indicate that that it's easier to sustain a career in the top 100 now, than it was 10 years ago, and even more so than in the 90s and 00s.
Absolute nonsense.

As the money increased - and it increased from ALREADY BEING HIGH - the lower ranked players earned more too.

Which is why now you have journeymen making more money than former no 1 in the 80s. Courier made 10 million in his career, which any top 30 player who hangs around long enough can match.

Besides, the chart proves that careers ARE getting longer. So what's your point? That the poor are getting poorer hence careers are shorter - yet the numbers show they are getting longer? Wut?

Trust me, you have no data on anything. You are making up stuff as you go along and assuming a lot.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
No confusion here.

What you seem to believe is that this trend line is a conclusion of sorts.
You do realize you base your conclusions on a indicator, i.e. "over28 in the top100", of the phenomenon you want to investigate ("weak era" or something like that)?
How do you know this is a good indicator? Do you have comparative data from other sports f.inst.?

And let's look at the trend line for a minute. It wouldn't be hard to come up with a hypothesis and run a linear regression analysis that would give us the basis for a prognosis that would end up near 100 players "over28 in the top100" within a decade or so. Do you think that's realistic?

Time will tell. My money's on a decrease over the new few years.
We are not here to PREDICT the future like Nostradummus, but to examine what is fact.

What is fact is that you have an agenda. You just admitted it. You are afraid that the numbers may prove weak era or whatever, and that is why you are in denial about these numbers that speak a veryyyyy clear language.

This isn't a thread about weak era, or pro-RF or anti-RF or pro-this or anti-that. It is simply an observation that careers are LONGER and that players are much older on average, and that age has shifted drastically.

Which part of this you don't grasp?
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
You are afraid that the numbers may prove weak era or whatever, and that is why you are in denial about these numbers that speak a veryyyyy clear language.

Which part of this you don't grasp?
11 players over 28 in the top 100 in 1991

53 players over 28 in the top 100 in 2019

Move along. Nothing to see here.
11 players over 28 in the top 100 in 1991

53 players over 28 in the top 100 in 2019

95 players over 28 in the top 100 in 2047

There you have it.


 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
11 players over 28 in the top 100 in 1991

53 players over 28 in the top 100 in 2019

95 players over 28 in the top 100 in 2047

There you have it.
Again, you show inability to understand this thread or its stats. Your meager attempt at sarcasm/trolling doesn't work because you've completely missed the point. Your post only acts as a boomerang, exposing your own confusion.

It's not a prediction thread, it is an observation thread. Nobody here claimed that age will continue to rise. It might or it might not. This is not a Tarot Cards thread.

Instead of being upset that it doesn't suit your agenda, you should try to explain why the age has gone up. That is the point here.

DENYING that it has gone up is just... plain denial. And denial is always related to deep-seated fear of reality.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Absolute nonsense.

As the money increased - and it increased from ALREADY BEING HIGH - the lower ranked players earned more too.

Which is why now you have journeymen making more money than former no 1 in the 80s. Courier made 10 million in his career, which any top 30 player who hangs around long enough can match.

Besides, the chart proves that careers ARE getting longer. So what's your point? That the poor are getting poorer hence careers are shorter - yet the numbers show they are getting longer? Wut?

Trust me, you have no data on anything. You are making up stuff as you go along and assuming a lot.
You assume that the forces at work, that I describe draw in the same direction, but they don't, which is apparent if you re-read my post.

Force #1:
More money -> easier to sustain a career

"Over the last few decades we've seen massive increase in prize money, and more importantly sponsorship money."
"Whilst I don't have any data on the income of ATP players, the numbers I've read indicate that that it's easier to sustain a career in the top 100 now, than it was 10 years ago, and even more so than in the 90s and 00s."

Which is probably the main reason why we see more 28+ players in the top 100 now than before.


Force #2:
Money accumulates unproportionally at the top ("winner takes all") -> harder to break through to the top 100/top 50 - and sustain a long career

"But as more money is accumulated at the top, less money is being made available for the lower ranked players."

F.inst.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
You assume that the forces at work, that I describe draw in the same direction, but they don't, which is apparent if you re-read my post.

Force #1:
More money -> easier to sustain a career

"Over the last few decades we've seen massive increase in prize money, and more importantly sponsorship money."
"Whilst I don't have any data on the income of ATP players, the numbers I've read indicate that that it's easier to sustain a career in the top 100 now, than it was 10 years ago, and even more so than in the 90s and 00s."

Which is probably the main reason why we see more 28+ players in the top 100 now than before.


Force #2:
Money accumulates unproportionally at the top ("winner takes all") -> harder to break through to the top 100/top 50 - and sustain a long career

"But as more money is accumulated at the top, less money is being made available for the lower ranked players."

F.inst.
So MONEY enables the body to play longer and win for more years?

If this hilarious theory were true, we wouldn't need physicians. We'd just show money to the heavens and the divine forces would heal us.

Thanks for this post... It is... unique.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
So MONEY enables the body to play longer and win for more years?

If this hilarious theory were true, we wouldn't need physicians. We'd just show money to the heavens and the divine forces would heal us.

Thanks for this post... It is... unique.
No, and that just goes to show your system 1 at work.

Money does not "enable the body to play longer and win for more years".

But a money let's athletes sustain careers that they previously had to abandon due to financial reasons, even though their physical and competitive level would indicate otherwise. This is a well documented fact, and esp. apparent in all sports with low sponsor interest and little prize money, paired with high costs to sustain a competitive career.

//
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
No, and that just goes to show your system 1 at work.

Money does not "enable the body to play longer and win for more years".

But a money let's athletes sustain careers that they previously had to abandon due to financial reasons, even though their physical and competitive level would indicate otherwise. This is a well documented fact, and esp. apparent in all sports with low sponsor interest and little prize money, paired with high costs to sustain a competitive career.

//
A much more documented fact is that most players give up because they can't win anymore, or much less than before. Many retire due to injuries INCLUDING the mega-rich ones like Lendl, Muster and Agassi.

Also, a documented COMMON SENSE fact tells us that players who made 3 million have more incentive to play longer than those who made 30 million.
 

blablavla

Professional
No, and that just goes to show your system 1 at work.

Money does not "enable the body to play longer and win for more years".

But a money let's athletes sustain careers that they previously had to abandon due to financial reasons, even though their physical and competitive level would indicate otherwise. This is a well documented fact, and esp. apparent in all sports with low sponsor interest and little prize money, paired with high costs to sustain a competitive career.

//
@smalahove you're doing a really nice job to explain obvious things to your opponent in this debate, however please be ready that all your arguments will be bluntly ignored at the end and your opponent will proclaim that he / she won the argument with irrefutable facts.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
@smalahove you're doing a really nice job to explain obvious things to your opponent in this debate, however please be ready that all your arguments will be bluntly ignored at the end and your opponent will proclaim that he / she won the argument with irrefutable facts.
Yet again posting child-like "personal attacks" as opposed to staying on topic... So I am the bane of your existence?

I figured as much.

I have destroyed every one of your arguments on over 50 threads, so now you try to organize a lynch mob?

Too funny.

Get over it.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
A much more documented fact is that most players give up because they can't win anymore, or much less than before. Many retire due to injuries INCLUDING the mega-rich ones like Lendl, Muster and Agassi.

Also, a documented COMMON SENSE fact tells us that players who made 3 million have more incentive to play longer than those who made 30 million.
So, is Djokovic winning the same as before. How about in 2017?

:unsure:
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
So, is Djokovic winning the same as before. How about in 2017?

:unsure:
This thread isn't about any specific players, much less just the Big 3.

I realize that pro tennis is just about the Big 3 to some fans, and some fans believe that only one Swiss player makes up all of tennis - past and present and future - but believe it or not, there are hundred pros in the...

... top 100. And several hundred more beyond.

And their average age has gone up a lot. And the number of "veteran" players has drastically risen. Three players are too small a sample to substantially affect this average or this trend - unless they were all over 150 years old.

If you struggle with the numbers user LewII gave you, then I suggest you take that up with him...

Or are just trolling again for personal reasons?
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
It appears that the new 32 is the 28 from 20 years ago.

Right now, 22 different players at age 32+ are ranked in the top 100. The peak age also appears to be happening about 4 years later now than 20 years ago.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
It appears that the new 32 is the 28 from 20 years ago.

Right now, 22 different players at age 32+ are ranked in the top 100. The peak age also appears to be happening about 4 years later now than 20 years ago.
And yet some people believe this is only due to 3 players dominating...

It doesn't enter their heads that just maybe the main reason they're dominating so long is BECAUSE careers have been stretched and peaks/primes extended...
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
I'm running these numbers for my own curiosity.

Here's some stats 20 years ago:
ATP Rankings for 1999-11-22
Top 100:
Average age: 25.4 Median age: 25.3
Under 20: 5 (5%) Under 23: 24 (24%)
28-plus: 22 (22%) 30-plus: 7 (7%)
Youngest: Roger Federer (18.105)
Oldest: Ronald Agenor (35.008)

To sum up, here's how many were ranked in the top 100 at various ages:
1999
28+: 22
30+: 7

2019:
32+: 22
36+: 5

Out of curiosity, let's see how bad 1989 looks:
ATP Rankings for 1989-11-27
Top 100:
Average age: 24.6 Median age: 24.6
Under 20: 10 (10%) Under 23: 33 (33%)
28-plus: 16 (16%) 30-plus: 7 (7%)
Youngest: Michael Chang (17.278)
Oldest: Jimmy Connors (37.086)
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
This thread isn't about any specific players, much less just the Big 3.

I realize that pro tennis is just about the Big 3 to some fans, and some fans believe that only one Swiss player makes up all of tennis - past and present and future - but believe it or not, there are hundred pros in the...

... top 100. And several hundred more beyond.

And their average age has gone up a lot. And the number of "veteran" players has drastically risen. Three players are too small a sample to substantially affect this average or this trend - unless they were all over 150 years old.

If you struggle with the numbers user LewII gave you, then I suggest you take that up with him...

Or are just trolling again for personal reasons?
I was giving you a counter example to the "well known fact", and a very prominent at that, but I can go on and ask the same question about Nadal, Federer and a bunch of other players which are the current "oldies" and the answer will always be the same, which tells me that not only is that not a well known fact, but it isn't a fact at all.

Your rant about someone being only about the big 3 and the even more hilarious rant about "one Swiss player" leaves you empty handed. By now I am aware of every tactic of your ilk. You don't even realise that by trying to portray my objection in such a light it only backfires at you as I never mentioned the big 3 and Federer in particular.

Also, there is a difference between the average age raising and the success those players have. It is a lot more complicated than. smalahove already pointed you at one of the reasons why that might be so, and there are also others.

Neither Lew, nor you can provide me with information from the past that I don't know. You cannot say the opposite, as it is evident from this here conversation.

:cool:
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I was giving you a counter example to the "well known fact", and a very prominent at that, but I can go on and ask the same question about Nadal, Federer and a bunch of other players which are the current "oldies" and the answer will always be the same, which tells me that not only is that not a well known fact, but it isn't a fact at all.

Your rant about someone being only about the big 3 and the even more hilarious rant about "one Swiss player" leaves you empty handed. By now I am aware of every tactic of your ilk. You don't even realise that by trying to portray my objection in such a light it only backfires at you as I never mentioned the big 3 and Federer in particular.

Also, there is a difference between the average age raising and the success those players have. It is a lot more complicated than. smalahove already pointed you at one of the reasons why that might be so, and there are also others.

Neither Lew, nor you can provide me with information from the past that I don't know. You cannot say the opposite, as it is evident from this here conversation.

:cool:
So... why are you in denial about the players getting older and having longer careers?

What about this FACT irks you?

I don't understand how you can negate something that is so blatantly true. All the numbers prove this.

You really should ask yourself: "WHY am I fighting so hard to negate these facts? Why am I opposed to this trend being true?"

It is just a trend. A factual trend. It is not an anti-Fed thread nor a pro-Fed thread. It is a fact thread. One of the few.

Start from page 1 and re-read the posts. Analyze the facts. You will understand them.
 
Last edited:

blablavla

Professional
Yet again posting child-like "personal attacks" as opposed to staying on topic... So I am the bane of your existence?

I figured as much.

I have destroyed every one of your arguments on over 50 threads, so now you try to organize a lynch mob?

Too funny.

Get over it.
what a narcissism.
you're hilarious, together with your so called "arguments".
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
No confusion here.

What you seem to believe is that this trend line is a conclusion of sorts.
You do realize you base your conclusions on a indicator, i.e. "over28 in the top100", of the phenomenon you want to investigate ("weak era" or something like that)?
How do you know this is a good indicator? Do you have comparative data from other sports f.inst.?

And let's look at the trend line for a minute. It wouldn't be hard to come up with a hypothesis and run a linear regression analysis that would give us the basis for a prognosis that would end up near 100 players "over28 in the top100" within a decade or so. Do you think that's realistic?

Time will tell. My money's on a decrease over the new few years.
My money - well no money because I'm too cheap - is on the number of older players in the top 100 dropping down some because we are currently at an abnormal peak, but I also think things are changing in that direction. I seem to remember an unusual number of older players winning their biggest tournaments in their 30s over the past few years or so. The trend @UnderratedSlam points out has been building for a long time, so I think it's worth looking at. For sure prize money and the way it is distributed it is a factor, and so is the tendency in general for there to be less stress and loneliness at the top now that players travel with teams. Medicine in general (and possibly substances uses that are gray that are not yet banned) are allowing old players to stay physically relevant longer, and let's not forget surgery.

Odd are aging is going to be slowed more and more in the future, so I don't see things reversing to where they were 20 or 30 years ago.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
So... why are you in denial about the players getting older and having longer careers?

What about this FACT irks you?

I don't understand how you can negate something that is so blatantly true. All the numbers prove this.

You really should ask yourself: "WHY am I fighting so hard to negate these facts? Why am I opposed to this trend being true?"

It is just a trend. A factual trend. It is not an anti-Fed thread nor a pro-Fed thread. It is a fact thread. One of the few.

Start from page 1 and re-read the posts. Analyze the facts. You will understand them.
You don't even understand what my point is: it refuted your claim that longevity and winning are correlated the way you described it, not that there aren't more older players on tour (that would be easy to establish and see from anyone that can do simple fact checks). The fact that you think that that was my contention shows that you cannot distinguish an argument from a cabbage soup. It has nothing to do with Federer, as you think because you are unable to operate outside of a certain very limited view.

Before you write another stupid post read the bolded carefully.

:cool:
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
My money - well no money because I'm too cheap - is on the number of older players in the top 100 dropping down some because we are currently at an abnormal peak, but I also think things are changing in that direction. I seem to remember an unusual number of older players winning their biggest tournaments in their 30s over the past few years or so. The trend @UnderratedSlam points out has been building for a long time, so I think it's worth looking at. For sure prize money and the way it is distributed it is a factor, and so is the tendency in general for there to be less stress and loneliness at the top now that players travel with teams. Medicine in general (and possibly substances uses that are gray that are not yet banned) are allowing old players to stay physically relevant longer, and let's not forget surgery.

Odd are aging is going to be slowed more and more in the future, so I don't see things reversing to where they were 20 or 30 years ago.
You made a very good point. Players are less lonely. More money means more comfort, more friends traveling along, plus luxuries such as Skype. Such things make life easier.

However, it's the "substances", illicit and otherwise, coupled with medical advancements especially in surgery that are extending careers.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
You don't even understand what my point is: it refuted your claim that longevity and winning are correlated the way you described it, not that there aren't more older players on tour (that would be easy to establish and see from anyone that can do simple fact checks). The fact that you think that that was my contention shows that you cannot distinguish an argument from a cabbage soup. It has nothing to do with Federer, as you think because you are unable to operate outside of a certain very limited view.

Before you write another stupid post read the bolded carefully.

:cool:
OK, so what about "what I described" irks you as grandly fallacious?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Federer signed a 300 mil USD contract at the tail end of his career. If someone thinks that that has nothing to do with him being motivated to stay in the game for the longest time, he is off his rocker.

:cool:
And you actually believe he needs all that money - badly?

You are assuming he wouldn't be making tons of money when he retires. He will. From the exhibitions alone he could be raking in millions.

I am a little surprised that a Fedfan such as you - very staunch and protective - would suggest that RF would be so greedy as to place money over his family life.

Clearly he is playing because he is TERRIFIED of losing all his main records to you-know-who and you-know-hate.

Not to mention that his body ultimately decides whether he plays longer or not, his accountants and managers cannot do that. No contract, huge as it may be, can prolong a career if the body says no. Hence your veiled "argument" that players' greed extends careers now is quite flawed. Especially since you use the top earner as an example, when we're discussing ALL of the top 100, not the biggest earner of all times...
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I pointed it out, so you ought to read what has already been written.

:cool:
Nah, you just used playground "insults". There are no arguments anywhere.

I had the decency to repeat myself for you a million times on many other threads, and here, yet you don't have the decency to finally state your case.

If you have one, that is...
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Nah, you just used playground "insults". There are no arguments anywhere.

I had the decency to repeat myself for you a million times on many other threads, and here, yet you don't have the decency to finally state your case.

If you have one, that is...
I actually didn't do anything of what you described. I asked you some questions to which you decided to answer with juvenile banter, so .... go back and read what I asked and said. I am not repeating anything upon your request. It doesn't work like that (at least not with me).

:cool:
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I actually didn't do anything of what you described. I asked you some questions to which you decided to answer with juvenile banter, so .... go back and read what I asked and said. I am not repeating anything upon your request. It doesn't work like that (at least not with me).

:cool:
OK, you have no arguments.

You never do.

Case closed.

The main thing is that most other users got something out of this thread... learning about GAS and age shifts.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Which has nothing to do with the way you argue your points, which was the thing my comment was addressed at. Like I said: the Serbian way.

:cool:
And repeating yourself like a broken LP player is just what I'd expected...

Wanna change the tune on your gramophone and offer some "insight" into why you dislike this factual thread?

I mean, aside from the fact that I opened it...
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
And repeating yourself like a broken LP player is just what I'd expected...

Wanna change the tune on your gramophone and offer some "insight" into why you dislike this factual thread?

I mean, aside from the fact that I opened it...
I don't dislike what Lendl said as I have no reason to do so. That is entirely your invention. You seem to be very full of yourself, considering how you think that your thread and what Lendl said are the same thing.

:cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
And you actually believe he needs all that money - badly?

You are assuming he wouldn't be making tons of money when he retires. He will. From the exhibitions alone he could be raking in millions.

I am a little surprised that a Fedfan such as you - very staunch and protective - would suggest that RF would be so greedy as to place money over his family life.

Clearly he is playing because he is TERRIFIED of losing all his main records to you-know-who and you-know-hate.

Not to mention that his body ultimately decides whether he plays longer or not, his accountants and managers cannot do that. No contract, huge as it may be, can prolong a career if the body says no. Hence your veiled "argument" that players' greed extends careers now is quite flawed. Especially since you use the top earner as an example, when we're discussing ALL of the top 100, not the biggest earner of all times...
What has how much he needs the money to do with anything? He can get the money, and money is important, and huge amounts of it even more so.

I am not "assuming" anything. I know that he could not get that amount of money , if he wasn't in the game when Uniqlo reached out to him. You arbitrary estimates of how much money is "enough" is irrelevant to the point I am making.

You don't know tennis players, if you think that ATGs are"terrified" of anything concerning tennis. Federer said it himself multiple times that he expects that his records will get broken, just like most anyone before him. Their only purpose is to make the most of their time as pros, both financially and as achievements. That is it.

:cool:
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I don't dislike what Lendl said as I have no reason to do so. That is entirely your invention. You seem to be very full of yourself, considering how you think that your thread and what Lendl said are the same thing.

:cool:
Well, they certainly aren't the complete opposite, are they...
 
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...
let’s see how many 38 year olds there are out there with rodgers resume then we can talk. nice try to diminish what roger is doing. sad actually that u did so
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
What has how much he needs the money to do with anything? He can get the money, and money is important, and huge amounts of it even more so.

I am not "assuming" anything. I know that he could not get that amount of money , if he wasn't in the game when Uniqlo reached out to him. You arbitrary estimates of how much money is "enough" is irrelevant to the point I am making.

You don't know tennis players, if you think that ATGs are"terrified" of anything concerning tennis. Federer said it himself multiple times that he expects that his records will get broken, just like most anyone before him. Their only purpose is to make the most of their time as pros, both financially and as achievements. That is it.

:cool:
1. You believe everything RF says. When he says he expects his records to be broken, he says it just to say the right thing, the PC non-arrogant thing. Of course he will do anything in his power to prevent the records being broken. RF has been in the business long enough to know NOT to say whatever he really thinks. He is too smart to be fully honest because full honesty very easily backfires, especially in the media. Very few celebs actually talk HONESTLY to journalists, in case you may have missed it... Reading between the lines is a great gift, and a lack of that gift is a huge curse as it leads to confusion of the variety you just exhibited in your post.

2. If how much money he gets has nothing to do with this thread, then why talk about it? Right...?

3. Besides, people here HAVE mentioned money as a potential reason for longer careers, hence it does have to do with the subject. And you know it. Or do you?

4. You ARE assuming a lot. On this thread and many others you pretend to know what RF wants, what he plans, what he thinks, what he does, what he likes or doesn't like. I understand that you feel you know him, considering you're a big fan, but fact is that you don't know that much about him, aside from the breadcrumbs we all get from the courts and the press events...

5. The fact you imply that RF may actually NEED an additional 100 mill or 300 mill or 500 mill is a rather bizarre statement. Need it for what? To build the equivalent of NASA near Basel? He already made more money than all his future descendant until the year 2525 can spend.

You need to own up to the common sense assumption that RF wouldn't be playing now if Rafa and Novak had retired already. Nearly everyone who follows tennis would agree on this. At least people who aren't biased fans belonging to RF's block... Though even most RF fans would agree.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
let’s see how many 38 year olds there are out there with rodgers resume then we can talk. nice try to diminish what roger is doing. sad actually that u did so
This is PRECISELY why some people hate this thread. They actually think it is an anti-Fed thread... So they hate the facts AND the messenger.

Good grief.

Thanks for posting because you proved my point.

Now, can you actually somehow deny the facts that there are a LOT more 30s players in the top 100, top 50, top 30, top 20, top 10...?

Btw, Stepanek and Mirnyi just retired, older than RF by several years... Sure, Max is a doubles player mostly, but Stepanek played on a high level into his late 30s...

Nor is the point of the thread that ALL pros will play at 38 very well.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
1. You believe everything RF says. When he says he expects his records to be broken, he says it just to say the right thing, the PC non-arrogant thing. Of course he will do anything in his power to prevent the records being broken. RF has been in the business long enough to know NOT to say whatever he really thinks. He is too smart to be fully honest because full honesty very easily backfires, especially in the media. Very few celebs actually talk HONESTLY to journalists, in case you may have missed it... Reading between the lines is a great gift, and a lack of that gift is a huge curse as it leads to confusion of the variety you just exhibited in your post.

2. If how much money he gets has nothing to do with this thread, then why talk about it? Right...?

3. Besides, people here HAVE mentioned money as a potential reason for longer careers, hence it does have to do with the subject. And you know it. Or do you?

4. You ARE assuming a lot. On this thread and many others you pretend to know what RF wants, what he plans, what he thinks, what he does, what he likes or doesn't like. I understand that you feel you know him, considering you're a big fan, but fact is that you don't know that much about him, aside from the breadcrumbs we all get from the courts and the press events...

5. The fact you imply that RF may actually NEED an additional 100 mill or 300 mill or 500 mill is a rather bizarre statement. Need it for what? To build the equivalent of NASA near Basel? He already made more money than all his future descendant until the year 2525 can spend.

You need to own up to the common sense assumption that RF wouldn't be playing now if Rafa and Novak had retired already. Nearly everyone who follows tennis would agree on this. At least people who aren't biased fans belonging to RF's block... Though even most RF fans would agree.
1. No. I believe that a reasonable man that has seen many many records getting broken, regardless of how great they are, will be reasonable enough to know better than to make "final" statements. The history of the sport confirms that. Federer is a reasonable man, so, I have no reason to doubt that that is indeed what he thinks.

Here is a great display of "reading between the lines": you continue to insist that Federer is "terrified" about his records being broken, because you certainly feel better thinking that way.

2. You can't read. I didn't say that the amount of money has nothing to do with the topic (quite the opposite, actually). I said that how much he needs the money has nothing to do with the topic (not least because you cannot accurately estimate what his actual "needs" are, especially considering how people tend to view that via their own point of view, and, needless to say, you cannot even begin to put yourself in his position to understand what the truth is)

3. I actually am and was of that position. You were actually completely omitting that argument until that point in time, and now that I pointed you towards it, you decided to make it your own. I am glad that I could help you see the light, although you should have long ago, when smalahove actually made that point. Your contention was actually that the main reason for staying in the game was something else (fear from someone breaking someone's records) and now you are slowly moving in the right direction. You will get there eventually (or not, depending on how much you are willing to admit of being wrong).

4. Whatever I assume is based on much more than just what Federer thinks, wants etc. Federer is not unique in most things that he in his capacity as a tennis player does, so I make my conclusions based on a much wider set of circumstances than his own. Needless to say, the best way to estimate whether I understand what he is up to is when I have expectations, and to my satisfaction, mostly I am right

5. I actually discussed that matter in the points above. You might think that having a private jet is completely unnecessary, so he doesn't "need" to have the money for something like that. That is your own view, predetermined by your way of living and your own ambitions. Federer operates on a completely different level than most people on that planet, so he views that differently, and even if that wasn't so, who are we to decide that he won't want more money, because money in the Western world is viewed as something positive? You have got to be pretty brainwashed to say "NO" to a pay rise on some abstract grounds.

:cool:
 
Last edited:

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
1. No. I believe that a reasonable man that has seen many many records getting broken, regardless of how great they are, will be reasonable enough to know better than to make "final" statements. The history of the sport confirms that. Federer is a reasonable man, so, I have no reason to doubt that that is indeed what he thinks.

Here is a great display of "reading between the lines": you continue to insist that Federer is "terrified" about his records being broken, because you certainly feel better thinking that way.

2. You can't read. I didn't say that the amount of money has nothing to do with the topic (quite the opposite, actually). I said that how much he needs the money has nothing to do with the topic (not least because you cannot accurately estimate what his actual "needs" are, especially considering how people tend to view that vie their own point of view, and, needless to say, you cannot even begin to put yourself in his position to understand hat the truth is)

3. I actually am and was of that position. You were actually completely omitting that argument until that point in time, and now that I pointed you towards it, you decided to make it your own. I am glad that I could help you see the light, although you should have long ago, when smalhove actually made that point. Your contention was actually that the main reason for staying in the game was something else (fear from someone breaking someone's records) and now you are slowly moving in the right direction. You will get there eventually (or not, depending on how much you are willing to admit of being wrong).

4. Whatever I assume is based on much more than just what Federer thinks, wants etc. Federer is not unique in most things that he in his capacity as a tennis player does, so I make my conclusions based on a much wider set of circumstances than his own. Needless to say, the best way to estimate whether I understand what he is up to is when I have expectations, and to my satisfaction, mostly I am right

5. I actually discussed that matter in the points above. You might think that having a private jet is completely unnecessary, so he doesn't "need" to have the money for something like that. That is your own view, predetermined by your way of living and your own ambitions. Federer operates on a completely different level than most people on that planet, so he views that differently, and even if that wasn't so, who are we to decide that he won't want more money, because money in the Western world is viewed as something positive? You have got to be pretty brainwashed to say "NO" to a pay rise on some abstract grounds.

:cool:
Again, you give me advice that you need yerself. Better reading skills?

Well, I never said I agree with you about the money, I merely said it BECAME part of the topic because some people mistakenly thought that money was a big factor in why careers have become much longer (a fact that you're finally coming round to accepting). I've said this 100 times on this thread, but because you haven't read anything aside from your own posts, here it is again:

Money cannot extend careers. Only healthy bodies can. Healthy bodies are now healthier for longer periods due to medical advances and various substances.

More money being available should mean that players get richer SOONER hence have the incentive to quit earlier, because being a pro for longer than a decade is NOT nearly as much fun as amateurs believe it is. It's an extremely tough job, especially for journeymen who have much less success. It would be more logical for previous era players to wanna play longer for money BECAUSE they earned LESS. This is simple plain logic. Human logic. It is basic.

The fact that you deny that RF can make tons of money after he retires says a lot about how little you understand not just tennis, but the media, and just the world in general.

RF being reasonable does NOT mean he doesn't make mistakes or thinks like you. That is the biggest flaw, the belief that you are infallible. The belief that he is also infallible. You identify yerself with him.

And finally, you need to stop treating me as your enemy. I am your friend.
 
Top