robthai
Hall of Fame
young carlos is the only young player to beat djokodal back to back in a tournament and he has not even turned 20 yet.
"Today's 33 is our 27." - Ivan Lendl explaining the Great Age Shift in tennis.
- Thread starter UnderratedSlam
- Start date
Of course, the fact that Carlos can be tomorrow the youngest n°1 ever has A LOT to do with the last great players being 35, 36 and 41 years old and the subsequent void of great players of more than 10 consecutive years, and one of great olders (Djokovic) unable to complete because of absurd "personal" reasons.
Under normal circumstances Carlos would have to be fighting against some ATGs aged between 23 and 29 (and his life would be much more difficult) but there aren't any.
robthai
Hall of Fame
Good point. A decade void of any elite players coming through has made fans forget. Especially those who only began watching tennis in 2010s decade.
robthai
Hall of Fame
I am confident Carlos would have destroyed the lost gen, feasting on them like the big 4 did, had he been born in that gen with the likes of Nishi, Dimi, Raonic etc. He would also be top dog among the gen born in 95-2000.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
His life was already difficult when Djokodal were in the draw , remind me how many slams young guns win by beating BiG3? zero. Djokodal stopped theim and Medvedev from winning multiple slams just like Fed stopped Roddick and Hewitt. Djokodal are doing what all superstars in other sports are doing in their mid 30s. Untill Alcaraz don't beat big3 to win his slam it will be as good as Theim's slam. GAS is real.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Calm down son. Big 4 were also dealing with themselves while destroying lost gen. Alcaraz has trouble winning against the depleted filed of this USO and he would destroy filed comprising of big 4 + rest? Cool story.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I want Carlos to win but I will be a little sad to see Hewitt lose this record.
robthai
Hall of Fame
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...
[/QUOTE]
We are all waiting for your rebuttal to the bolded parts.
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...
[/QUOTE]
We are all waiting for your rebuttal to the bolded parts.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
You trolling?
Recency bias strikes again. One slam out of 50 suddenly annihilates all the facts, all that happened in the last 10-15 years...
Some people here would be awesome historians.
Instead of wasting your time pursuing a religion that's a total waste of time (the religion of desperate GAS denial), how about just accepting the very obvious fact that in most sports average age has increased, that careers are longer.
Denialists asking me to reply to them are missing an important thing: WHAT am I supposed to reply to? That Alcatraz might win USO?
You must be assuming that I said that careers are INFINITE, that Big 3 will be winning all slams until 2056.
But I never said anything of the type...
Alcatraz is vulturing the weakest era ever, and he barely beat Cilic who's 34. He should have wiped the floor with him. Khachanov barely beat Carreno who's 32.
And Djokovic didn't even play...
One young player stepping up finally doesn't disprove anything. Lemme know your opinion when he ends up being top 3 aged 37...
... Or just simply READ this thread from the beginning as opposed to just reading THE TITLE, which seems to trigger young fans who want desperately to believe that this is the toughest era ever...
Last edited:
robthai
Hall of Fame
23 year-olds not winning slams anymore
playing their best tennis at around 30
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.
Now they are kicking ass at 30
no player younger than 31 has a slam title!
awwww you got exposed and now your'e mad. Gonna cry? lmao
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
If the GAS theory holds, we can expect Med, Zed, and Tsits to start peaking in about 5 years from now.
He offered some data, a fact (that list of the top-100 players that he posted some 50 times).
But it is his apparent reasoning, of its cause, that I don't agree with.
I don't agree that suddenly players start playing better tennis at 29 or 30, than those same players when they were 23-28. They play worse in general when they reach 30.
But some of them really have had better results or even better ranking than when they were younger, simply because during 10 years there weren't coming many good young players. So they were kind of "filling a void" even if they were now older and worse.
There are many factors involved indeed and some of them have been mentioned in the thread (like different money, better medicine and treatments) but possibly the main reason is that during a very long period of time (about 10 years) the young players that were coming weren't good enough.
But it is his apparent reasoning, of its cause, that I don't agree with.
I don't agree that suddenly players start playing better tennis at 29 or 30, than those same players when they were 23-28. They play worse in general when they reach 30.
But some of them really have had better results or even better ranking than when they were younger, simply because during 10 years there weren't coming many good young players. So they were kind of "filling a void" even if they were now older and worse.
There are many factors involved indeed and some of them have been mentioned in the thread (like different money, better medicine and treatments) but possibly the main reason is that during a very long period of time (about 10 years) the young players that were coming weren't good enough.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
I am mystified that facts have so many opponents.
Why are you hating on facts?
You even make up stuff. I never said that no 23 year-old will ever win a slam again. I never said that anything of this nature yet you claim this.
This was never a PREDICTION thread, it merely described what's been happening in previous years. Which you haven't followed?
Sorry, I have no idea what you want from me. I gave you facts, I explained to you the last decade, and now you want me to DENY that older players dominated it just because of this one USO final...
You want this ONE slam final to be more important than the 50 ones before it?
No.
Last edited:
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
And he has done it when they were in their mid 30s...
Back in the 80s and 90s this would have been no big deal...
Why?
Because back then players often retired at 30 or earlier so whoever stayed around till 35 got his ass kicked by young players.
Now, even Busta gets to win his maiden M1000 aged 32.
Comprendido? Mucho logicato, perhaps too logicato.
robthai
Hall of Fame
lmao stop deflecting. The trend is heading the other way now as useless gen starts to fade and younger players break through. This final will be the youngest slam final since Sampras Agassi way back in the early 90s. Where are these peaking 27-30 year olds ?
You like facts? OKay how about this, If Carlos wins tomorrow, he becomes the youngest player in open era history. So much for your great age shift theory. It literly just went poof. You are out of arguments. FINISHED LOL
Last edited:
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
But you fail to understand everything.......... again.
Alcatraz is one player.
One.
He isn't 57 players.
Just one.
This thread is about averages, statistics.
Comprendido?
No, too logicato por comprendido... yet againo...
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Well, when you manage to DELETE DELETE DELETE the results of the last 10 years, get back to me...
Use the delete function. I am sure it will delete the domination of the late 20somethings and 30somethings and mid 30s...
dadadas
Semi-Pro
All of this just to discredit Fed's longevity. You know why people like Federer's brand of tennis? Because he makes tennis look easy and effortless.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
I don't even recall what's in that clip...All of this just to discredit Fed's longevity. You know why people like Federer's brand of tennis? Because he makes tennis look easy and effortless.
But whatever it is, must have forced you to search this out, which is an interesting stat.
You have more respect for people who have to work LESS to get far than for people who have to work harder?
To each their own...
dadadas
Semi-Pro
Winning is one thing but winning with much less efforts than most other players? That takes skills.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
dadadas
Semi-Pro
I doubt it. Do you even have stats of Kyrgios's or Karlovic's total distance in a deep slam run?
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Do I need it?
Pretty self-evident.
Bots move LESS, guys with weaker serves move A LOT.
A little thing we call "free points".
dadadas
Semi-Pro
I find no reason to continue this debate with you. When you offer nothing but just words, its just pointless.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Words are kinda the foundation of every forum.
Besides, denying that servebots cover less mileage would be futile because it's so obviously true.
A servebot like Karlovic will run a lot less than a far more talented player such as Nalbandian. Does this prove he's better?
dadadas
Semi-Pro
1st
how many bots made it to USO SF
2nd
find the numbers/stats.
If not, your just lazy. Or maybe you are a uni/college dropout and unfamiliar with academic works.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Speaking of lazy, proper spelling is important too, just as the mileage...
All I'm saying is that guys with big serves RUN LESS, for obvious reasons, but truth never stopped people from believing in fallacies, so...
dadadas
Semi-Pro
How would you rate Stan's and Cilic's serve then?
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Weaker than Fed's.
dadadas
Semi-Pro
So i will go back to my 1st arguement. How many bots make slam SF? Comparing Fed's playstyle to Karlovic's?
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Why would you limit this to slam SF runs? How is the tennis played in slams any different than in BO3 M1000s?
Is the net higher? Two bounces? What?
ghostofMecir
Legend
Obviously there’s been some changes but LOL! that most of this is to discredit Federer.
“Age related excuses.” LOL. I saw those very same excuses for Nadal at this USO but for Federer it’s “age excuses.”
A 19 year old, a 5’11 19 year old no less, can be become #1, the youngest #1 ever and a slam champion. Federer came back to be #1 at 36 (when Nadal and Djoko were 31 and 30) and should have beaten Nadalito and Djoko back to back as a 38 year old because he’s a singular talent. Since 2005, he has been using inferior racket technology and an antiquated game best suited for a different era against one (2005-2006) or two younger ATGs (2007 to 2019) and has managed to achieve what he has.
Nadal and Djoko are also these types of talents but have also now benefitted from a generation of sub standard talents who’ve allowed a 5’11 19 year old to knock on the door for world #1.
Current top 15 in the live rankings. Should be different with Wimbledon points but whatever
1. Carlitos, 19
2. Ruud, 23
3. Rafito, 36
4. Meddy, 26
5. Chainz, 25
6. Stefanos, 24
7. Djoko, 35
8. Norrie, 27
9. Rublev, 24
10. Hurkacz, 25
11. Sinner, 21
12. Fritz, 25
13. FAA, 22
14. Busta, 31
15. Matteo Ber, 26
Avg Age: 26.6, median age: 25, mode: 25
1991 Year end rankings (the year you mention)
1. Edberg, 25
2. Courier, 21
3. Becker, 24
4. Stich, 23
5. Lendl, 31
6. Sampras, 20
7. Forget, 26
8. Novachek, 26
9. Korda, 23
10. Agassi, 21
11. Bruguera, 21
12. Gustafsson, 24
13.Rostagno, 26
14. E. Sanchez, 26
15. Chang, 19
Avg Age: 23.6, median age: 24, mode: 26
1991 is younger on average because of Rafito and Djoko.
So far, it looks like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are singular types of talents and there’s no real great age shift but a slight one if that.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Cherry-picking? Well done. A career in law might be next.
If you've read anything here properly and if you'd followed men's tennis since the 80s, you'd know how drastically age has changed. I explained everything - in three threads about GAS. But yeah, it doesn't fit your fan agenda so you deny it... Your right...
And you know tennis better than Lendl. Maybe you should coach Murray instead?
robthai
Hall of Fame
Oops he did it again @UnderratedSlam
You've been owned. Just admit you were wrong on this one or I will keep trolling you. Youngest number 1 in open era HAHAHAHAHA
You've been owned. Just admit you were wrong on this one or I will keep trolling you. Youngest number 1 in open era HAHAHAHAHA
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, I was waiting for you and your awesome "logic".
Obviously one outlier disproves years of old guys domination...
You got any other slam-winning teenagers to show me?
M1000 finalists at least?
No?
20somethings?
Yeah, Medvedev.
So that's 2 slams for guys younger than 30.
Wow. That's a lot.
Which means all those 30plus guys winning tons of slams means nothing...
And all those older players in the top 50, more than ever before...
Let that sink in, won't you...
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Nothing what happened this year gives a reason to bump this thread. 3 slams out of 4 were won by 35-36 years old players, and old Nadal is the only one who beat Djokovic in a slam. Young players are being awful against them.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
I doubt logic helps here.
Some people HATE the fact that old guys are dominating. And so they completely deny all facts.
Imagine the hilarity of using ONE slam result and ONE player to disprove the facts that involve dozens of players.
Too funny.
It's like saying "I'm the best ever poker player" after winning 10,000 dollars - but omitting to mention that you'd lost 5 million in previous matches...
robthai
Hall of Fame
As we can see, this result has dented @UnderratedSlam ego.
Youngest number 1 in history and great age shift cannot coexist. It is one or the other.
He is having a hard time explaining this one.
Youngest number 1 in history and great age shift cannot coexist. It is one or the other.
He is having a hard time explaining this one.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
I already explained it...
Pretend you never read this...
I expect that.
robthai
Hall of Fame
HAHA you cannot come to terms with the fact that what just happened is unprecedented in open era history. How can you have the GREAT AGE SHIFT Yet have YOUNGEST NUMBER 1 IN HISTORY? This thread will continue to be the bane of your embarrassment.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Math class.
Averages. Outliers. Sample size.
Re-visit that course. You might pass it this time.
Fingers crossed, we're all pulling for you.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
One teenager won one slam since 2006.
A bunch of teenagers won slams in the 70s, 80s and 90s.
This doesn't deem to compute with some people.
Hatred of older players is silly.
A bunch of teenagers won slams in the 70s, 80s and 90s.
This doesn't deem to compute with some people.
Hatred of older players is silly.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
I think there are both truth and myth in this theory. Athletes in general stays healthy longer thanks to advancement of science these days, but there are plenty of examples still who retire or become the shell of their old selves by their mid 30s. Big 3 are just enormous abnormality to stay this good for this long. However, there have been players with longevity in the past as well, Roswell, Laver, Connors, Agassi all come to mind. Uber talented players can last longer even when their athleticism declines a bit. On the other hand, plenty of players of modern era have retired or become pretty much second tier before they hit mid 30s. Look where most of Nadal's and Djokovic's generation are. Tsonga, Berdych, Delpo, etc. have been forgotten for years now. Even younger generation consisting of Dimitrov, Nishikori, Cilic have fallen from their peak. And look how Thiem is struggling at the age where he is supposed to hit his peak. Longevity of Big 3 may have aberrated the reality a little and caused a bit of misconception that longevity is now a normality.
Also, severe lack of young talents in the past decade might have made it easier for Big 4 to dominate. It seems their age and Carlos Alcaraz may put an end to the Big 4 era, finally. I'm not sure if we will have an era like this Big 4 era again. They are top 5-10 level players ever who were active at the same time. A true Golden Era. Had a young talent like Carlos arrived earlier, the Big 4 era might have ended long time ago. If you put 2 similarly talented players on court, the younger one(if age gap is significant) will win most of the times. Big 4 haven't had that one or two guys who could stop them and that contributed to their longevity as well.
Also, severe lack of young talents in the past decade might have made it easier for Big 4 to dominate. It seems their age and Carlos Alcaraz may put an end to the Big 4 era, finally. I'm not sure if we will have an era like this Big 4 era again. They are top 5-10 level players ever who were active at the same time. A true Golden Era. Had a young talent like Carlos arrived earlier, the Big 4 era might have ended long time ago. If you put 2 similarly talented players on court, the younger one(if age gap is significant) will win most of the times. Big 4 haven't had that one or two guys who could stop them and that contributed to their longevity as well.
robthai
Hall of Fame
Great explanation. Too bad OP will never see it. His fragile ego won't allow it so he would rather remain in denail and defend his stance (which has now blown up in his face). He seems like an intelligent guy so I doubt it's because he is too stupid to understand but he very well could be. @UnderratedSlam
Similar threads
