"Today's 33 is our 27." - Ivan Lendl explaining the Great Age Shift in tennis.
- Thread starter UnderratedSlam
- Start date
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
You haven't read ANY of the posts on these three GAS threads, otherwise you wouldn't ask the same flawed questions posed by others - and replied to by me and others.
Please go and READ the three threads, properly, and don't expect me to repeat myself 100 times for every Tom Dick and Harry who wonders here...
It's not my job to repeat myself. Especially if you are capable of reading.
robthai
Hall of Fame
Just compare the age of the top 10 from 2015 and the current top 10. Very simple. Just take the L on this one. It's okay. I have no beef. I just like exposing flawed theories. Especially when there is evidence that just cannot be ignored.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
This! Ignore all data but pick only top 10( too small of a sample size ) because it doesn't suit their propganda is hilarious. Even before last few years top 10 was full of 30+ players. GaS is a reality in almost all sports and tennis is no exception.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
You are clearly not interested in this subject, otherwise you'd first read the threads, all the data and comments in them, and then post here. After.
The Age Shift is more complicated than you believe. You haven't even analyzed it superficially, you simply decided you dislike it and now you wanna argue armed with zero facts. The fact that you focus only on the top 10 and the CURRENT WEEK'S top 10 (thereby ignoring so many players relevant to this discussion not to mention the many long careers that almost didn't exist 10-15 years ago) proves to me that you are not a serious debater.
robthai
Hall of Fame
many geriatric players choose to continue to play well into their 30s because of financial reasons unlike the past when the money wasn't as lucrative. They cannot be in the top 10 like the past because younger guys replaced them, however they are still good enough to be in the top 50s or30s to make a decent living. This has been covered. That is why the focus is on the top 10. Top 10 players are the ones who contend for big titles on a consistent basis.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
They aren't retiring yet.
They would be, in the 90s and 00s. Retiring at 29, 30 used to be normal. Don't you know your tennis history? (Yes, there were a few exceptions, we know. We're way ahead of you.)
Nobody is claiming that players perform BETTER in their 30s than in their 20s now, which just goes to additionally prove that you don't even understand this thread.
You still refuse to read the previous posts, huh?
robthai
Hall of Fame
lmao this thread is becoming more of a joke every year as more young guys start to break through. Nadal and Djokovic are literally keeping your theory alive. Let's check back in 5 years time and see how many 30 year olds are in the top 10.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Good grief... Whoever said anything about the future...?
This isn't one of those prediction threads. My THREE threads about this (the three you still refuse to read carefully and in detail) simply analyse the changing demographics of the recent decade, and the plethora of facts that completely crush every single agenda "argument" you have... your "arguments" which consist of very little, such as cherry-picking stats that you like, while completely ignoring everything that isn't to your taste.
You can't get upset over reality, you just accept it. Reality is players are older now, and older players are more successful than before, across the board.
Age has gone up in many sports. Not just tennis. Don't you follow the news, results, bios, anything?
davced1
Hall of Fame
Sorry posted something irrelevant by accident here, delete.
Last edited:
robthai
Hall of Fame
exactly. Even the title says "Today's 33 is our 27" so basically we should subtract 6 years from Carlos's current age. 19 - 6 = 13 so Carlos is actually 13 years old in "great age shift" age.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Yes, that is exactly what the thread means. Bravo.
Now go to your calculator and let me know what other brilliant results you get.
And report your findings directly to Lendl, because that's a quote from him.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
You didn't hear it from me though, so why you're complaining here about it is mystifying, or why you're so angry and triggered by this thread that you call everyone you disagree with "an idiot".
This thread is intended to educate, not trigger. The anger is completely unprovoked and very clearly your own little problem.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
They think they can make a case of Federer by discounting slams won By Djokodal , hence the desperation.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
I know, it's mostly RF fans, who struggle with any data that opposes their age-old theories, many of which were proven false a decade or more after they'd been invented.
Most RF fans have abandoned the false theories, the nonsense, but there is that very small but loud/angry minority that not only still believes in the nonsense but they are heavily triggered by anyone and anything that contradicts them. They even secretly believe (but are afraid to say it) that these threads exist just to "destroy" the RF legend. Which is utter nonsense. As if all of tennis and TTW revolves around one player. They like to project.
It's just childish paranoia.
You can't reason with these people. It's like that pigeon/chess saying...
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Anyone with a brain can see players career have been prolonged in almost every sports , don't know why Tennis will be an exception. They refuse to believe it even when it was dominated by older players and still older players make a good percentage in top 100.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
And this is why there are people who still believe in a flat Earth.
Because for fanatics, no amount of evidence is enough.
They ignore evidence and they hate evidence.
You could literally fly a Flat Earth Society lunatic into orbit, show him the Earth, fly him to other planets, and he will come back to Earth with a new dumb "theory" of how he was "tricked".
Same here. These users aren't on this thread to learn anything, they are just here to vent frustration, which is so childish. They believe they know everything about tennis. They are convinced they have all the answers. I know there are so many questions to answer. I don't have all the answers. This thread is an observation of a trend but WHY it's happening isn't entirely clear.
But to deny that age has drastically increased since the 00s and that careers are much longer is truly asinine. It is just childish stubbornness, like the 5 year-old who sulks when you prove to it that he was wrong about something.
That there are more players 28 years old and older inside the top 100 is a fact.
The controversy is the different "reading" of that fact, that different people make.
There is probably more than one factor in it, but in my opinion one clear reason for that bare fact is that the younger generations in the last 10 years have been much worse than normal (and that again because of a number of different reasons: more dispersed with social media and such, homogenized conditions making them having a less varied repertoire, polystrings and training methods to children giving rise to "faulty" forehand technique in some aspects...)
In spite of all that, I think that any really good young player will be able to raise to the top 10 and top 5 as "easily" as always, as Alcaraz is showing now.
But for different reasons, such kids are not coming in the same numbers as in previous generations.
The controversy is the different "reading" of that fact, that different people make.
There is probably more than one factor in it, but in my opinion one clear reason for that bare fact is that the younger generations in the last 10 years have been much worse than normal (and that again because of a number of different reasons: more dispersed with social media and such, homogenized conditions making them having a less varied repertoire, polystrings and training methods to children giving rise to "faulty" forehand technique in some aspects...)
In spite of all that, I think that any really good young player will be able to raise to the top 10 and top 5 as "easily" as always, as Alcaraz is showing now.
But for different reasons, such kids are not coming in the same numbers as in previous generations.
Last edited:
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
More like “todays gen’s best would be bottom 30 in our era”
old players dominating are still an anomaly. They have to be freaks of nature like Nadal and Nole. But they are rare instances. Just because the big 3 did it. Doesn’t mean this gen will
old players dominating are still an anomaly. They have to be freaks of nature like Nadal and Nole. But they are rare instances. Just because the big 3 did it. Doesn’t mean this gen will
Good question. I don't think there's a simple explanation for this. I'm just throwing ideas around but my theory is this: For the men, I don't think the overall skill level was as good 40 years ago. Many of the players back then weren't professionally coached since the age of 5. These days, good luck finding any player who wasn't professionally coached since an early age. And, not all the players trained as religiously and as smartly as they do now. In such a situation, when a young guy with generational talent comes along, he can do well. But young men have a disadvantage that don't get exposed if they're not constantly facing well trained athletes all the time - men's bodies, especially in areas of endurance, don't fully develop until mid 20's. essentially, younger men haven't had enough time for skills and fitness training to really compete day in/day out, even if they have the talent.
This scenario does not fully apply to women.
First, women's bodies mature much earlier than men so younger women are not necessarily in as much of a physical disadvantage. And as for professionalism in women's tennis, it might not be as pervasive as in men's tennis but it's pretty close. The fact is, yes, younger women are still doing well but they're are not dominating like they were 30-50 years ago. There's no Tracy Austin, Martina Hingis around who's consistently winning at the age of 17. Swiatek hasn't been dominating until this year. She is young, at 20 though. I have no idea how much I'm saying is really true, so have at it. tell me I'm wrong
Typical dyslexic fanatics complimenting each other.
Iam sure i will see more desperation and change in tunes when your idols will be routed in upcoming years.
The same high altitude brains will cry foul about ageing and fatigue when in upcoming months their idol will lose to a journey man
Silverbullet96
Hall of Fame
To be honest it looks like this "Great Age Shift" applies only to the very top players which is Big 3, others are more or less fading as normal.
Lleytonstation
Bionic Poster
Not this again.
Omega_7000
Legend
Yup...Raonic Nishikori and Dimitrov should be peaking now
robthai
Hall of Fame
@UnderratedSlam where are the oldies in the us open semis ????? Where is the peaking lost gen who should be peaking now that they are in their 30s.
robthai
Hall of Fame
why not?
In fact I have just checked it, and since 1990, only in 2008 and in 1992 there was a younger combined set of players in the SF of the US Open.
Someone with more spare time could check it all until 1968, my guess is that this year is the third youngest combined set of SF of the US Open in the whole Open Era.
Someone with more spare time could check it all until 1968, my guess is that this year is the third youngest combined set of SF of the US Open in the whole Open Era.
robthai
Hall of Fame
Youngest slam final in open era if accounted for great age shift.
33-27= 6 years so subtract 6 years from both Alcaraz and Ruud which means Alcaraz and Ruud are 16 and 20 years old if their age is adjusted according to Ivan Lendl.
Anyways, OP is getting exposed once again and is nowhere to be seen.
33-27= 6 years so subtract 6 years from both Alcaraz and Ruud which means Alcaraz and Ruud are 16 and 20 years old if their age is adjusted according to Ivan Lendl.
Anyways, OP is getting exposed once again and is nowhere to be seen.
Clay lover
Legend
Yeah the problem with this theory is the absolute lack of a more accomplished "middle age" class of high twenties to early thirties. Now it's more like the two extremes of mid thirties and young to mid twenties.
robthai
Hall of Fame
@UnderratedSlam Where are you hiding? Says you were online yesterday according to your profile. I will await your response to your now debunked theory (if you have one that is).
robthai
Hall of Fame
someone call the mods to have these threads deleted to save OP the embarassment lol.
I remember several forum members said it would be impossible for a 19y old to ever win a slam again, because tennis had become "too physical"
robthai
Hall of Fame
If Alcaraz wins tomorrow I think he becomes the youngest number 1 in open era history. Which begs the question, how is that even possible in the era of great age shift?I remember several forum members said it would be impossible for a 19y old to ever win a slam again, because tennis had become "too physical"
Yes,
Yes, if Alcaraz wins tomorrow, he will become the youngest n°1 since the ATP rankings started in 1973.
Yes, if Alcaraz wins tomorrow, he will become the youngest n°1 since the ATP rankings started in 1973.
robthai
Hall of Fame
They have to be freaks of nature like Nadal and Nole + be fortunate enough to have 2 generation of useless players as the next gen.
Just because the big 3 had 2 b2b weak gens. Doesn’t mean this gen will also be followed by 2 generations of players who can't even compete at masters 1000 events let alone win a single gs (cough cough lost gen).
Fixed it for you.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Yes, Lleyton Hewitt has the current record for the youngest male world number 1. Hewitt first became world number 1 in November 2001 at age 20 years and 9 months, while Carlos Alcaraz at the moment is age 19 years and 4 months.
We all know what it really was about, some Djokodal fans wouldnt admit how weak the post 2016 era really was.
robthai
Hall of Fame
Exactly. Bunch of hypocrites.
QFs was 19, 21, 23, 24, 24, 26, 26, 27. Some age shift.
robthai
Hall of Fame
OP (if he does muster up some courage to reply) will say something about avg age of top 50. lmao as if that matters. Those gerriatrics in the top 50 are irrelevant at the highest level of the sport and are simply hanging around due to increase in prize money. Why is an old player like Gasquet still on tour for example? It's mostly a financial reason. Yes, advanced nutrition and training methods have helped prolongue his career but would have been retired long ago if prize money was similar to that of previous eras.
dadadas
Semi-Pro
Its because tennis is a skill sport. Just look at how clueless next gen players are when they play on grass.
In sport like football where clubs have to give players long term contracts, 30 years old players are considered to be aging players and have no resell value because their physical performances are on a downward slope.
In sport like football where clubs have to give players long term contracts, 30 years old players are considered to be aging players and have no resell value because their physical performances are on a downward slope.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Let's not pretend that this has nothing to do with Djokovic not being able to play and Nadal being a part timer. Hypocrites are those who ridiculed Theim's us open because he didn't beat a big 3 to win it but now same doens't apply now even though Theim's draw had much better players.
robthai
Hall of Fame
Thiem was already almost 28 when he won. Young Carlos in not even 20 yet. Nice try tho
Similar threads
