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

[dadadas]

There is a study that compares the average age of soccer players who played in UCL 1992-93 season with the average age of those who played in UCL 2017-18 season and they found out that there is an increase in the players’ average age (>1.6 years). However 6 years are simply a strech too far.

Tennis is first of all a skill sport. Secondly not all athletes can afford to play competitive tennis. So what you have is big 3 domination but many other tennis players who are in the same generations of the big 3 have faded away.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

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

When did you realize that you were smarter than Lendl?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

There is a study that compares the average age of soccer players who played in UCL 1992-93 season with the average age of those who played in UCL 2017-18 season and they found out that there is an increase in the players’ average age (>1.6 years). However 6 years are simply a strech too far.

Tennis is first of all a skill sport. Secondly not all athletes can afford to play competitive tennis. So what you have is big 3 domination but many other tennis players who are in the same generations of the big 3 have faded away.

Isner, Karlovic, Busta, Cilic, Murray, Stan, just to name several.

Just several.

All would have retired at age 29-30 a few decades ago.

All peaked or played great tennis at ages that used to be considered retirement or post-retirement.

But they still play, almost till 40.

To deny this is childish.

Back in the 90s anyone who played after 30 was considered very old. There were very few exceptions.

Duh.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

There is a study that compares the average age of soccer players who played in UCL 1992-93 season with the average age of those who played in UCL 2017-18 season and they found out that there is an increase in the players’ average age (>1.6 years). However 6 years are simply a strech too far.

Tennis is first of all a skill sport. Secondly not all athletes can afford to play competitive tennis. So what you have is big 3 domination but many other tennis players who are in the same generations of the big 3 have faded away.

Lendl didn't take out a calculator and work out "hey, 33 is EXACTLY like 27 used to be!"

He said it off the cuff, an approximation to make a point, and failure to understand this simple point is Primary School Level Reasoning.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

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.

Averages.

This thread is about averages, not about ONE player.

When you understand this you will understand the thread. Until then, keep seeking for exceptions...

In statistics, exceptions are almost irrelevant.

Besides, take Alcatraz... He is the first teen slam winner in 17 years. In former eras we had a teen champ every few years.

Or do you notice any OTHER teen players ready to do what Alcatraz did?

There are none at the moment. None at all.

17 years of no teen slam champs. Interesting fact.

Meanwhile Cilic and Stan and Murray all won slams aged 26, 30, and 29. Stan and Cilic never won anything big when they were in their early 20s.

Not exactly spring chickens. So this notion that it's JUST Big 3 being old is junk.

 

[mike danny]

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.

But it only proves that they're anomalies, together with Federer. No one else that old is winning anything.

It's not a great age shift if it only applies to 3 individuals.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

But it only proves that they're anomalies, together with Federer. No one else that old is winning anything.

It's not a great age shift if it only applies to 3 individuals.

Busta is fiction?

Players retiring at 35 or 40 instead of 28-30 is fiction?

 

[InsideOut900]

So a 13 years old Alcaraz just won a Slam then?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

So a 13 years old Alcaraz just won a Slam then?

Apparently.

And him winning USO negates the last 7-8 years when late 20s and 30s dominated tennis, on all levels.

The fact that only two players younger than 30 currently hold slams.

2 slams.

That fact seems to more important to some people.

2 is bigger than 30.

Even little children understand math better.

Not to mention people like Isner, Busta winning their biggest events after 30...

 

[dadadas]

Not to mention people like Isner, Busta winning their biggest events after 30...

Bo3 (meaning anything can happen), draws opening up, favourable surface conditions, etc...

 

[robthai]

@UnderratedSlam

Teenager Holger Rune shocks Novak Djokovic to claim Paris Masters title | CNN

Teenager Holger Rune stunned Novak Djokovic in the final of the Paris Masters on Sunday, winning 3-6 6-3 7-5 against the 21-time grand slam champion.

edition.cnn.com

Tell me about that GAS again

 

[robthai]

When was the last time 2 teenagers were in the top 10?

 

[Rosstour]

But it only proves that they're anomalies, together with Federer. No one else that old is winning anything.

It's not a great age shift if it only applies to 3 individuals.

Murray would be doing the same if not for his hip

 

[DSH]

Murray would be doing the same if not for his hip

Murray from the US Open 2016 vs wonder boy, who wins?

 

[ewiewp]

Yeah definitely age shift but slow bouncy surfaces help. Plus other factors such as ranking and tournament seeding systems which are more protective for existing top players.

 

[davced1]

Averages.

This thread is about averages, not about ONE player.

When you understand this you will understand the thread. Until then, keep seeking for exceptions...

In statistics, exceptions are almost irrelevant.

Besides, take Alcatraz... He is the first teen slam winner in 17 years. In former eras we had a teen champ every few years.

Or do you notice any OTHER teen players ready to do what Alcatraz did?

There are none at the moment. None at all.

17 years of no teen slam champs. Interesting fact.

Meanwhile Cilic and Stan and Murray all won slams aged 26, 30, and 29. Stan and Cilic never won anything big when they were in their early 20s.

Not exactly spring chickens. So this notion that it's JUST Big 3 being old is junk.

Rune looking good

 

[mike danny]

Possibly year end 1990?

May 2007 apparently.

 

[mike danny]

Murray would be doing the same if not for his hip

Considering how bad he's been, I'd say it's unwise to make such a statement.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah a week before Murray's birthday since he is the older one, right.

Apparently so.

 

[travlerajm]

You are right @UnderratedSlam

Top 100 Stats
When Roger was 36 in 2017, 6 People aged 36+ were in the top 100 in 2017
When Nadal is 36 in 2022, 4 people aged 36+ are in the top 100 in 2022 as of now

When Agassi was 32 in 2002, only 2 people aged 32+ were in the top 100

So Agassi's generation was older at 32 than what Fedal generation were at 36, this means 36 is the new 31.


Number of people 33+ in top 100
1988 - 1 person
1990 - 0 people
1993 - 1 person
1995 - 0 people
1998 - 2 people
2000 - 2 people
2002 - 0 people
2004 - 1 person
2006 - 2 people
2008 - 2 people
2010 - 2 people
2012 - 6 people
2014- 11 people
2015 - 11 people
2017 - 17 people
2020 - 18 people
Today - 13 people



Extension in Span from 1st Grand Slam Final till Last Grand Slam Final also has been observed for Top 2 ATGs per decade.

1970s Athletes
Bjorn Borg - 7.2 years
Jimmy Connors - 10.5 years (outlier)

1980s Athletes
Ivan Lendl - 9.7 years
Boris Becker - 10.6 years

1990s Athletes
Pete Sampras - 12 years
Andre Agassi - 15 years (outlier)

21st Century
Roger Federer - 16 Years
Rafael Nadal - 17 Years
Novak Djokovic - Almost 15 years running (he will also be taking it to 17-18 years)

Your first chart is about to hit a dropoff.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Lendl lawballed it! Today's 33 is theirs 23, not 27! LOL

 

[travlerajm]

I feel 90s gen will manage the double digit figure of 33+ when they are older, lot of them are darn good to be in the top 100 for another decade, just not good enough to win slams, thats it.

Nah. I think Zverev will be retired and on the party circuit before he hits 33.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

8:42.

For all the non-believers, denialists and others who still don't understand this.

 

[big ted]

if 33 is their 27 then what is 27?

 

[Lazuras_Long]

if 33 is their 27 then what is 27?

21?

 

[duaneeo]

It's no wonder Dimitrov lost (in straights) in the third round. He's still a year or so shy of his peak.

 

[Lleytonstation]

It's no wonder Dimitrov lost (in straights) in the third round. He's still a year or so shy of his peak.

Cilic and berdych just now entering.

 

[thrust]

Rosewall won open era slams at 33, 35, 36,37. He reached 2 slam finals at 39, being nearly 40 at the USO in 1974. He played and won more matches than any other player since WWII, at least. He also won 2 WCT finals at 37 and nearly 38 with all matches that were best of 5. He was a to 10 player from 1952 or 53 till the end of 1975. Therefore, according to this thread and my opinion, he is still the longevity GOAT

 

[Graf1stClass]

I don’t believe there has been an age shift. The younger guys are just worse due to a backwards shift in training techniques. They all hit with wristy forehands that are great when the incoming ball is slow, but terrible for returning pace on the rise. The old guys that learned the game pre-poly have superior technique better for making clean contact.

The median age of ATP pros will return to the early 20’s within the next 3 years when the current crop of old guys finally fades away and we are left with the best of the worst generation in the modern era.

Do you mean to say the NG could never compete in the 90s?

 

[travlerajm]

Do you mean to say the NG could never compete in the 90s?

They couldn’t compete in the 2010s, and I don’t believe they would have done any better in the 90s.

They will start winning slams only because the last of the good gens before them has finally succumbed to Father Time.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

"Ooh another barrel."

 

[MichelaDe]

Rosewall won open era slams at 33, 35, 36,37. He reached 2 slam finals at 39, being nearly 40 at the USO in 1974. He played and won more matches than any other player since WWII, at least. He also won 2 WCT finals at 37 and nearly 38 with all matches that were best of 5. He was a to 10 player from 1952 or 53 till the end of 1975. Therefore, according to this thread and my opinion, he is still the longevity GOAT

1971 and 1972 Australian Open had a garbage field. Not Slam worthy

 

[mike danny]

Ahhh, ATG's spewing BS and people with clear agendas eating it up. Gotta love it.

 

[thrust]

1971 and 1972 Australian Open had a garbage field. Not Slam worthy

Not true about 71, which had most top grass court players competing, including Laver and Newcombe. Back then there was a big difference between grass and clay courts speed, etc..

 

[Jonas78]

Is that why everyone in top10 except Djokodal is between 19 and 25?

 

[Jonas78]

Cilic and berdych just now entering.

Birdman is doing a comeback?

 

[Mustard]

1971 and 1972 Australian Open had a garbage field. Not Slam worthy

Not true at all about 1971. The 1971 Australian Open, and the 1975 Australian Open final between the top 2 players in the world (Connors and Newcombe), were the only times in the 1970s that the Australian Open was proper top level. The first Australian Open in 1969 was also proper top level.

Beyond that, 1982 was the start of the revival by getting the event out of the death slot around Christmas/New Year time and into late November and early December. 1983 saw more top players come in, 1987 saw the event go to its current mid-late January or early February slot, and 1988 saw the new/current venue and more top players. It took until 1995, I believe, until the Australian Open had the same number of ranking points as the other 3 majors.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Well it helps when the younger generation isn't motivated to be great either. When you coddle every teen-28 year old, the only ones with any drive will be the 30-40 year olds. Alot of is the wussification of humans now. Lets be real. DJokovic now would struggle to even win games against. his 2011-2015 self. Fed of 2017-2019, probably wouldn't win a game at all against his Peak 2006 self. LOL. 2022 Nadal would be bageled, breadsticked, Rye Breaded 50 times over against his 08-10 self.


Its not that athletes are so good when they get older, this younger generation is the weakest of anything ever seen in all sports. Especially mentally. Most of these guys are essentially just satisfied getting paid to do NOTHING but be on TV.

 

[Jonas78]

Well it helps when the younger generation isn't motivated to be great either. When you coddle every teen-28 year old, the only ones with any drive will be the 30-40 year olds

They are super motivated, they just need to wait another 10 years to peak at 33 before they win anything, just like Nishikori, Goffin, Raonic, Dimitrov, you name it.

 

[thrust]

Not true at all about 1971. The 1971 Australian Open, and the 1975 Australian Open final between the top 2 players in the world (Connors and Newcombe), were the only times in the 1970s that the Australian Open was proper top level. The first Australian Open in 1969 was also proper top level.

Beyond that, 1982 was the start of the revival by getting the event out of the death slot around Christmas/New Year time and into late November and early December. 1983 saw more top players come in, 1987 saw the event go to its current mid-late January or early February slot, and 1988 saw the new/current venue and more top players. It took until 1995, I believe, until the Australian Open had the same number of ranking points as the other 3 majors.

Laver, Ashe, Newcombe, Rosewall, Roche, Okker, Emerson, among others were in the 71 AO. Laver was the #1 seed, but lost in an early round, I think to Roger Taylor.

 

[Mustard]

Laver, Ashe, Newcombe, Rosewall, Roche, Okker, Emerson, among others were in the 71 AO. Laver was the #1 seed, but lost in an early round, I think to Roger Taylor.

Mark Cox beat Rod Laver, another Brit causing an upset. Roger Taylor beat Laver in one of the most famous upsets in Wimbledon history in 1970, which was Laver's first loss at Wimbledon in 10 years.

 

[thrust]

Mark Cox beat Rod Laver, another Brit causing an upset. Roger Taylor beat Laver in one of the most famous upsets in Wimbledon history in 1970, which was Laver's first loss at Wimbledon in 10 years.

True, I knew it was a Brit who beat Laver in the 71 AO. I think, that Rosewall then beat Taylor in the Wimbledon he upset Laver. Then Ken lost to Newcombe in a five set final.

 

[Mustard]

True, I knew it was a Brit who beat Laver in the 71 AO. I think, that Rosewall then beat Taylor in the Wimbledon he upset Laver. Then Ken lost to Newcombe in a five set final.

Yes, Rosewall beat Taylor in the 1970 Wimbledon semi final. Taylor had a quarter final win over Clark Graebner after beating Laver in the Round of 16. Probably Rosewall's best chance to win Wimbledon. The crowd were really behind Rosewall, wanting him to win the title that had eluded him for so long, but Newcombe won. The irony is that Rosewall later beat world number 2 Newcombe at both 1974 Wimbledon and the 1974 US Open.

 

[robthai]

It sure is because other than Novak, all the other semifinalists at this years RG are over 30, right @UnderratedSlam ?

 

[thrust]

It sure is because other than Novak, all the other semifinalists at this years RG are over 30, right @UnderratedSlam ?

It takes more energy to beat another good or great player on clay, than any other surface. Lendl was correct.

 

[mike danny]

It takes more energy to beat another good or great player on clay, than any other surface. Lendl was correct.

No, he wasn't LOL.

 

[thrust]

No, he wasn't LOL.

So you think you know more about tennis than Lendl and the other top players who agreed with him? Now that would be really funny. The fact IS that you are either ignorant of tennis history or in denial.

 

[Hood_Man]

I said this in another thread but it's probably not relevant here;

It's the financial crash surely?

Players born in the early 90s up until the early 2000s would have been junior age or young enough to just be starting out when the crash happened, and a whole bunch of kids would have been prevented from starting or continuing their tennis training.

Anyone born in the early to mid 2000s like Rune or Alcaraz would have missed that.

Basically things appear to be returning to normal because members of the 2000s cohort were less affected than the 90s kids.

 

[mattennis]

In the top-20 we have 18 aged 27 or less,
16 of them are 26 or less.

Now that the "bad" generations are being displaced, everything seems to turn to normal again

 

[mike danny]

So you think you know more about tennis than Lendl and the other top players who agreed with him? Now that would be really funny. The fact IS that you are either ignorant of tennis history or in denial.

I guess that's why we don't see anyone 33 or older in the top 10 or top 20 anymore....But yes, I'm ignorant.