helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Disagree but no point repeating an old argument. I’ll just note that 10 of the current top 12 are 25 or older.
Top players of the CIE are being exposed by next gen
- Thread starter Sputnik Bulgorov
- Start date
Disagree but no point repeating an old argument. I’ll just note that 10 of the current top 12 are 25 or older.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The good wins for Hewitt before Fed truly ascended are the YEC 2002 and the DC match in 2003 - though that's still a prime Fed.
The Asterisk Era is indeed a thing and represents the brief era where covid and player bans interferred with the tour.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I don't think anybody inflates those wins. It's just hilarious to call him a clown when he took both down on the same court when they either holding the title or would hold it the next year.
RS
Bionic Poster
Either that or 2020-2025 as a whole
mike danny
Bionic Poster
The biggest problem for the 90’s born is that 2 of their 3 biggest achievements are heavily asterisked, like Thiem’s slam and Med’s no.1 ranking. Nobody among these guys has actually truly proven themselves.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He is still a clown relatively speaking because he’s done very little in his career since then and he’s 26.
Fed’s win over Sampras is most likely overrated because of who Fed ended up being in the end. It proved to be a clash of the titans in disguise.
Meanwhile, Tsits’ wins seem to have only happened because of their ages and nothing more.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
You are conflating two different things. The current Top 25 does not include Fonseca who is already easily Top 10 in level.
A better way to judge peak age for tennis would be to look at which age ex #1 players had their most dominant year.
Even Novak, who is the exception to the rule, it can be argued that 2011 was his peak, when he was 24.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
That’s fine. If you agree then we don’t have too much to debate.
But the issue is that a lot of posters that agree with you on one issue (Novak‘s competition was weak in 2021-2023) disagree completely on the other (Federer’s competition was overall weaker than Novak’s). So you have posters that will like your posts when you talk about the CIE but deny that Fed’s competition was even weaker even though both are based on the same data.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
What’re you talking about dude? Players clearly peak higher as they get older. It’s all down to practice and experience. Age is just a number, that’s why we have so many legends playing on the senior tour. It just wouldn’t be fair to the younger players playing on the main tour, so the legends have to be ostracized off on their own tour.
I mean, look how much better 2023 Joker was compared to 2013 Joker for example. He totally didn’t decline (sorry I have to specify “physically decline”) and rack up schlems left and right thanks to the weaker successive generations who should still be at or close to their physical best today. To say otherwise would contradict the iron clad mantra that tennis always evolves.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Well he's one of only 26 players to win the ATP Finals since 1970, won 3 Masters (which puts him amongst only 35-40 players to do that), made 2 Slam finals, and was ranked top 3. I wonder if people on the internet who call guys that have this kind of success "clowns" ever even bothered to pick up a racket to see how tough the sport really is.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
No, the most dominant year of #1s is not at all the right way to measure it. The n is just too low to be meaningful and there are other problems with this metric, too. Average age of the tour over time gives a much stronger sense of when players are likely to be at their best. It has clearly gone up in both tennis (men’s and women’s) and other sports (such as football/soccer). These days, 28 is a much better age in most sports than is 21. But we've discussed this before and are no more likely to persuade each other now than we were before. So, believe what you want to believe. I just disagree.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
it’s not just harsh. It’s idiotic. There may be less than 200 (possibly a lot less) players in all of Open tennis history that can claim to be better than him.Weak is relative. Of course Tisi is better than 99.99999999% of players who ever played tennis at professional level by several miles.
But yeah calling him a mug is a bit harsh.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
RS
Bionic Poster
You got me.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
The average age of top players has trended upward and then downward, and currently still trending downward.
These trends reveal valuable info about relative strength of field in neighboring eras, but don’t say much about peak age for the sport.
Otoh, there are 29 players who have held the #1 singles ranking. Plotting the age at which these 29 players (across all eras) achieved statistical dominance will give you peak age for the top players.
RS
Bionic Poster
I would imagine it would be a lot less than 200 in open era but I don't know enough about some of the era's tbf.
Beacon Hill
Hall of Fame
Declined or overtaken?
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
The average age of the tour is a lot higher than it was 30 years ago or even 20 years ago. There are only six teens in the top 200 (and only two in the top 100)! Yes, it has been trending down but it is still a long way off what it was when I first followed tennis in the late 1980s. In the 1980s, three 17-year-old boys won slams. Since the start of 1991, only two teens have won slams (Nadal and Alcaraz).
The average age at which top players succeed has also trended upwards. Not only Djokovic, but also Federer, Murray, and Wawrinka won more slams after turning 25 than they did before turning 25. Even the early-blooming Nadal did so! (Nine slam titles on his 25th birthday - if you want to count RG 2011, that's fine, but he is then still 10 before turning 25 and 12 after turning 25).
I'm not saying that there are no other factors in the aging of the tour besides changes to the game. There are! There has been a weaker crop of players. But most social phenomena are multi-causal, and this is one of them. One thing that explains results in the last decade is a change in the ideal age at which tennis players (and other sports stars succeed).
It is just not true that 21-25 is the ideal age. If it were, most players would achieve more of their success before turning 25 than after it, not the other way around.
A new generation has now taken over and so the very top players are younger. But it's quite possible that Sinner and Alcaraz will stop be top players into their early 30s, and it's likely that they will be until their late 20s.
But, like I said, this isn't something we'll persuade each other on.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
That’s the point though. Relative to previous generations, the #LostGen and #NextGen players have been abject failures. We can see time and time again how the cycle goes. A group of players enters their prime, establishes themselves in the rankings and are the dominant force for the next half decade-decade or so. They start to decline in their late 20’s and are usually completely dethroned and overtaken by the time they reach their early 30’s by the successive generation(s)…Except that didn’t happen with the #LostGen and #NextGen players. They simply weren’t good enough to overthrow a clearly declined Big 3. That’s why they get called things like MUGs. And that’s why we have a time period called the CIE.Weak is relative. Of course Tisi is better than 99.99999999% of players who ever played tennis at professional level by several miles.
But yeah calling him a mug is a bit harsh.
And anyone saying that players like Tsitsipas could whoop anyone on here is completely missing the point. We aren’t comparing Tsitsipas or other guys in his generation to ourselves. We are comparing him to previous generations of players who were able to accomplish far more than he (and they as a group) could ever hope to. But this wouldn’t be TTW without the strawman arguments.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
You are probably right.
and in any case I don’t think that for pusposes of our debate we need to determine exactly where he ranked.
unfortunately in this place the debate has gotten so ridiculous that you are either a GOAT contender or you are a mug. And this nonsense is being posted by people that imagine themselves to be tennis analysts
RS
Bionic Poster
Yeah this is not a good argument I have seen it a few times as well. But I was comparing him to other players nowhere near this.
GRASScaraz
Hall of Fame
How can we say that when he's only one 1 tour level match in the last few months?
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Eye test doesn’t lie.
Edit: more seriously, his stats for last several months have indicated Top 10 level.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Gabe, my guy, you literally the same guy who said if you aren’t or haven’t been #1 then you’re basically a high fly journeymanYou are probably right.
and in any case I don’t think that for pusposes of our debate we need to determine exactly where he ranked.
unfortunately in this place the debate has gotten so ridiculous that you are either a GOAT contender or you are a mug. And this nonsense is being posted by people that imagine themselves to be tennis analysts
GRASScaraz
Hall of Fame
Eye test doesn't always = consistentcy
With his type of game he might struggle with it after AO
jl809
Legend
OP’s statement, by itself and with no added slant, should not cause Wambulance Bots to get defensive. We have all known for a while that Tsitsipas and Ruud and co are among the worst players ever to be multiple slam finalists relative to the ATG players on tour at the time or past players in similar positions.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
It'll be interesting to see how far Fonseca can go in this tournament and how well he does this year.
I said in a private chat yesterday (while he was 2-0 up against Rublev) that I think he has an outside but decent shot at making the SF in the AO. He should beat Sonego. Tiafoe is tough but I think he can win. Meddy and then Fritz are long shots but not necessarily prohibitively long. Only downside for him if he were to make the SF is that he'd probably lose much more easily against Sinner in an SF than he would in an R2.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Isn't this skewed if you have a longer career though? You have a shorter window for winning Slams younger than 25 as most players tend to arrive on the tour at around 17 or 18. Even if a player is not at their best when they hit 30, they may still be Slam-eligible even in their old age (because they decline slowly, not that they hit a new peak), and will continue to add to their tally over what amounts to a 10-year period after age 25. Federer played on the tour for another 15 years after reaching age 25, while he was playing for only half of that time prior.
You should compare across equivalent time periods. Since the other poster specified a five-year period (21-25), it makes sense to compare across equivalent five-year periods. Our sample size is again low because there are very few multi-Slam winners in this era compared to prior ones.
Note: because birthdays don't align with each other and because the Slam schedule is a bit different for those with different birthdays, I've decided to just record wins during the season in which a player turned a certain year (for instance I count AO 2007 as 26-30 even though Fed won it at age 25; 2007 was the season he turned 26).
| 16-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-35 | 36-40 | |
| Djokovic | 0 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 3 |
| Federer | 0 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 3 |
| Nadal | 2 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 2 |
| Murray | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Wawrinka | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
This is a much better look at things IMO because it compares a time period to an equivalent time period.
Personally, I wouldn't put prime at 21 to 25 these days. It'd be more like 23 to 27, which matches up pretty well with Fed's prime and most of Djokovic's. Nadal hit his prime a bit earlier and Stan a bit later.
GRASScaraz
Hall of Fame
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
He is favorite against neither, for sure. If Meddy were on better form, I'd give Fonseca almost no chance. Fritz isn't really as good a player as Meddy, but he's on much better form.
GRASScaraz
Hall of Fame
In challengers Fonseca was losing to guys who could serve big and hit flat consistent enough ground strokes
GRASScaraz
Hall of Fame
Also guys with elite defense like Bonzi
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
Someone pointed out that Fonseca has until Wimbledon 26 to be a teenage Grand Slam champion.
He could turn out to be a case of over-hyping but I don't think most of us would want to bet our mortgage on him not doing it.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
One thing that most people don’t realize is that the current ranking system props up the ranking of older players and keeps younger players ranked lower.
There is a “bottleneck” at roughly the Top 100 threshold between challengers and main tour.
Many players ranked outside the Top 100 are actually higher in level than players ranked between 50 and 80.
To break past the bottleneck, a top challenger player must have an outlier run and win several challenger titles in a row to escape onto the main tour. This usually happens when luck and conditions align after several years of grinding at the challenger level.
Once the player breaks thru to main tour, his ranking is sticky. He only has to win at about 25% of his previous win rate to stay ahead of the challenger players below him who only get 1/4 of the ranking points per win.
The net result is ranking for a typical player who peaks at Top 50 will peak in the late 20s even though his peak level actually happened several years earlier when he was in the challengers but getting less credit for his victories.
There is a “bottleneck” at roughly the Top 100 threshold between challengers and main tour.
Many players ranked outside the Top 100 are actually higher in level than players ranked between 50 and 80.
To break past the bottleneck, a top challenger player must have an outlier run and win several challenger titles in a row to escape onto the main tour. This usually happens when luck and conditions align after several years of grinding at the challenger level.
Once the player breaks thru to main tour, his ranking is sticky. He only has to win at about 25% of his previous win rate to stay ahead of the challenger players below him who only get 1/4 of the ranking points per win.
The net result is ranking for a typical player who peaks at Top 50 will peak in the late 20s even though his peak level actually happened several years earlier when he was in the challengers but getting less credit for his victories.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Fair enough to this - I would personally use age brackets that are one year younger (as I do on my Round of 32 by Age thread), so 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, etc, but this is fine given that travelerjm stipulated 21-25. For what it's worth, even in your table, three of the five had their most successful period between 26 and 30! And as I am a stickler for counting by birthdays, I edited the table for how I would count it! In my table, Federer, too, won more slams in the 25-29 range than in the 20-24 one. (N.B. I could have made some mistakes, as I got a bit confused about the 25/26 turning point and I'm too tired to think it through now!)
I agree that players decline more slowly nowadays than they improve. But I'm not sure that that has always been the case and I think it is one of the changes in the tour's aging that is meaningful It seems to me that past players often fell off a cliff at a relatively young age, whether because of injury or burnout (Borg, Wilander, McEnroe most notably). Nowadays, it seems that players still can fall off a cliff, but usually after they have previously had long periods of slow and steady decline (mixed with some stagnation and uptick).
Given that, I'd say that the best age range is probably longer than a five-year span nowadays and might put it at closer to seven years, so something like 23-29 or perhaps 22-28. It does vary by player, as well as over time.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Interesting. I'll think about this one. You reminded me of the reverse phenomenon that I've often observed in football (soccer), which wouldn't apply to tennis, because it's not a team sport. Older players often lose the confidence of their manager and so stop getting picked and soon enough buy a replacement. In that sense, the widespread belief that players must be significantly declining by a certain age becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus, one reason why a whole bunch of players started going on longer at the same time as each other was that when there was a critical mass of older players still playing well, managers weren't in such a rush to replace them.
Another thought I have is that one reason why a player's breakthrough season as a very top player often turns out to be their most successful season (as, arguably, with Djokovic in 2011 - though 2015 is not far behind if it is behind) is that when they make improvements, it takes some time for other players to figure out how to respond to them, so in their initial burst of form they do better than they ever manage again later even if their later form is actually just as good, because they're not playing in a vacuum and so their results depend not only on their own level but also on what other players know about their game.
Nonetheless, I agree that you raise an interesting and thoughtful point.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Which is why I said relatively. He's a good player. But at the end of the day, he's the 3rd best of his generation and he's won no slams and has never been no.1. So in the grand scheme of things he's not gonna be someone people will remember in the long term.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I think players of the past used to live harder while at the top. Today’s top players take better care of their bodies.
Also, S&V style was very reliant on explosive athleticism and more difficult to sustain top level into late 20s than a baseline game that can keep getting refined by more reps.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
But also remember how many claimed that there is no way a really young player can succeed in this super-duper physical era
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
This is all true. Also players in the 80s and 90s seemed to be more susceptible to psychological burnout. Someone pointed out recently in a past player thread that all three of the great Swedes burned out to some extent, not just Borg and Wilander, but even Edberg. It might be that more players see psychologists or that young people these days are less likely to navel gaze about the point of life and more satisfied with materialistic pursuits than they used to be. (Becker, too, was perpetually prone to self-doubt about the meaningfulness of tennis success).
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
But also remember how many claimed that there is no way a really young player can succeed in this super-duper physical era
But also remember how many took the success of multiple 30-somethings as proof that there was a weak era but the success of one teenager as proof that nothing had changed!
Yikes. Thinking of Sissy as the third best of his generation is a scary thought. Who are you ranking ahead of him? Meddy and Zeddy? And what are you taking his generation to be? 96-00?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
You're usually a good poster but this has to be one of the worst posts I've seen from you. Tsitsipas may be awful now but it's ridiculous to say he was awful during his best years and this is something any rightminded person that knows the slightest thing about the sport should agree on regardless of who they support.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Little hyperbole there. Obviously no one who cracks the top 10 or really the top 5 can really be considered awful in the grand scheme of things, I was hamming it up a little bit.
But I do think he was a big disappointment relative to the expectations we had of him, even in his best years which weren't all that impressive to begin with.
GRASScaraz
Hall of Fame
Peak TSITSIPAS>>> Peak Roddick
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
One of the things that has happened to Tsitsipas is that he has realized that he will never be as good as he previously thought he would become and another is that he is probably doubting that he can ever win even a single slam title. And this realization and these doubts are making it impossible for him to do as well as he could still do, because he can't get motivated to battle through to round 4 of the AO and face a battle royal with De Minaur all for the right to lose comprehensively against Sinner. As a result, he is not just stagnating but going backwards.
It reminds me of how when Venus Williams lost four straight slam finals to Serena, she then found it really hard to bounce back from her injuries and it was a couple of years before she could really knuckle down and produce her best tennis again.
Becker got so demoralized by his inability to compete against Sampras at Wimbledon that he stopped playing slams even though he was arguably still the second-best player on grass and was certainly one of the top four or five.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Other players have outright stated this about themselves.
Meddy at the end of last year sounded resigned to no longer being a legit slam threat after he had gotten passed by Sinner.
Courier also after he got passed by Pete.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
It was also an era when people just didn't see being "the greatest" as a definable target.
Old school British commentator Dan Maskell said that McEnroe was the greatest player he'd ever seen at a time when McEnroe had won relatively little and the idea he might match Borg's records at RG was for the birds.
So the incentive to pile up Slams just wasn't there - Borg could easily have had more and still retired at the same age.
The concept of GOAT as a title that automatically changes hands as soon as someone reaches a certain target will change the way players look at their careers.
Similar threads
