UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
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...
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...