Changing Landscape - Age of top 20 in Open Era

[El Dude]

So I created a chart of the year-end top 20 players by page, from 1968 to 2018. I made this because, well, I enjoy doing such things and wanted to get a visual sense of how the landscape has changed. Players age 23 and younger are in green, players age 30 and older are shades of pink, and players age 24-29 are gray. I'm not sure how this will show up, but it is worth a shot. Comments to follow image.

As you can see, the top 20 has gotten older over the last decade or so, and is mirroring the early years of the Open Era, when the tour was even older. So it started pretty old, got younger starting in the 1970s as 30-something players like Rosewall, Laver, Gimeno, Emerson, and Gonzales faded out and were replaced by young guys like Connors and Borg. Then the tour was much younger during the 80s and 90s and pretty much until Rafa's generation (born 1984-88) started entering their late 20s in 2010 or so, and wasn't replaced by LostGen.

It is also interesting to note that are only a couple years when there were no players in their 30s in the top 20: 1994-95. The tour was really quite young through the 00s, with the main exception being Andre Agassi. Actually, you see a series of singular old guys hanging in: Connors in the late 80s, Lendl in the early 90s, Agassi in the early 00s.

The weakest point for young players was probably a few years ago, in the 2013-15 range when you only had a one or two players age 23 or younger in the top 20. 2018 is a big step forward, with six players age 23 and younger in the top 20. Right now you have a nice mix of players in the top 20, from 37 year old Federer to 20 year old Tsitsipas. This is similar to the early years of the Open Era when the range was quite wide.

Anyhow, thought I'd share it with y'all.

 

[mrzz]

A lot of entropy on this graph, but you can see a pattern for sure. But there is an "apparent" symmetry which I would strongly suggest is a coincidence: You see that both extremes are "pinker" than the middle. I will borrow @Federberg's point and remember that the context in both cases (late sixties and now) is so different that there must other factors driving this.

In the late sixties there were social reasons playing around: you did not have that many teenagers trying to establish themselves not only in tennis, but in sports in general -- and in whole society actually. Sure, you have exceptions. But with a less structured tour, less prize money, and less players as a whole, you simply probably had less young players just entering the bigger tournaments (that would be a telling stat to compile).

So, as the tour evolved, and the "tennis career" became an option for more people, the average age of the whole professional field probably got younger.

So why we are seeing the top players get older again? I guess Djokovic nailed it on a recent comment: He said that nowadays you have much more good players around (that is, you have a deeper field), and this makes it harder for a young player. It makes a lot of sense. It is only normal to see a young player losing to an older guy of similar (or even smaller) level due to lack of experience. If he is on a good day, he advances, but in any other case there is a good chance he loses. 20 years ago a "wunderkind" would need to overcome much less players like that to shine on a tournament, now the story is different. That is, now the normal ups and downs of a young player simply cost much more in terms of results.

It is no coincidence that the last really young big champion was Nadal, as he was a tactical monster from the start -- that is, he did not have the basic teenager deficiency. And, among the current Next Gen, Zverev is by far the most tactically obedient player (which is why a lot of people here call him "boring"). Not a coincidence he is the most successful one.

 

[El Dude]

The significance of the "apparent symmetry" is that it clearly points to two phases of change in Open Era history, related to age: The first starting in the mid-70s and completing sometime in the first half of the 80s, and the second starting about ten years ago. In between, roughly 1980ish to 2010ish, and the tour was pretty consistent, although the first half of that period (the 80s into early 90s) was younger than the second half (mid-90s to 2010ish).

There are normal fluctuations, as not all age cohorts are equal in talent. But the larger trend has seen the tour go from older (1970 - no player under 23 in top 20) to very young (1988 - 8 22 and unders in top 20, only one 30+ year old), to older again (2015 - one 22 year old in T20, nine 30+ year olds). And now it seems to be drifting younger again.

I'm not sure I buy Novak's explanation. I mean, were there significantly fewer players 20 years ago? And if there were, why were the old guys phasing out at a younger age? To me that's the question. Most of Roger's generation was still of the prior pattern of the previous three decades: decline in late 20s, retired by 30-32. Actually, Roger looked to be on a similar trajectory but was able to plateau deep into his mid-30s. At 36-37 the last two years he's the first player age 35 or older to finish in the top 5 since Jimmy Connors in 1987, and before him Rod Laver in 1974.

Speaking of 1974, it is a fascinating year because it represents "peak age diversity." The top 20 saw players from 18 (Borg) to 40 (Rosewall), with everything in-between, including five 18-22 year olds and nine 30+ year olds. Just six years later in 1980 and there is only one 30 year old in the top 20, 33-year old Bob Lutz at #20.

But what is most relevant to us today is the aging of the tour that started about a decade ago. Part of this is because of a corresponding stronger older generation (Nadal-Djokovic-Murray-etc born 1984-88) and a weaker LostGen (1989-93, but also early NextGen at 94-95). But we're starting to see more young players break through, with 2018 seeing five 22 and younger players in the top 20, the most since 2008, when Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray were all 22 or younger. So there's a skipped generation of young players.

But this doesn't adequately explain the sheer amount of pink (30+ year olds) over the last five years. In 2014 you had four hold-outs from Roger's generation, including Roger, Ferrer, Lopez, and Robredo in the top 20. This is noteworthy because only Roger and Ferrer were among the best of that generation. Missing are Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Coria, and Davydenko - all better than Lopez/Robredo.

So while Roger (and to a lesser degree Ferrer and Lopez, maybe Verdasco) led the way towards older players maintaining peak form, it wasn't until the next group reached their 30s that it became clear that they weren't just outliers, but it was a new trend. By 2015 you had players like Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych, and Isner entering their 30s, then Rafa, then Novak and Andy, now Cilic and del Potro.

On the other hand, 2018 also sees Roger's last peers phasing out and the older members of Rafa's generation also aging, while the rankings are being taken over by players born in the 90s. LostGen seemed to peak in 2017, but is still filling out the ranks a bit lower down.

I suspect 2019 will see 20-somethings really taking over the top 20. We might even see a teenager and a 37-year old in the top 20 at the same time, if Shapovalov makes it before his 20th birthday in April.

OK, enough rambling. Just thinking out-loud.

 

[mrzz]

I'm not sure I buy Novak's explanation. I mean, were there significantly fewer players 20 years ago? And if there were, why were the old guys phasing out at a younger age?

The point is not the absolute number of players (which probably grew, but that is not exactly the point, even if important). The point is that the field is deeper in terms of quality. Probably, 20, 30 years ago, if you were an up coming player, and you faced, say, the guy number 100# in the world, he was significantly bellow the top level. Nowadays we get, for example from 96 to 100 (so nobody can say I am pick and choosing):

95 Filip Krajinović 26.7

96 Ernests Gulbis 30.2

97 Marcel Granollers 32.6

98 Evgeny Donskoy 28.5

99 Radu Albot 29

100 Reilly Opelka 21.2

There is a decent amount of quality here (and I have seen full matches of five of them). Those are the guys you need to consistently beat just to reach the quarters of an ordinary ATP 250. If we take, for example, guys just inside the top 50:

45 Malek Jaziri 34.8

46 Matthew Ebden 31

47 Damir Džumhur 26.5

48 Dušan Lajović 28.4

49 Taylor Fritz 21

50 Robin Haase 31.6


Hell, we even got one of my favorite players in this group, and we are not even talking about seeds in majors (up to 2018, when we had 32 seeds). If we would now take a look at the equivalent positions, say, in 1990, I really doubt there would be so much quality. The point is, the barrier to get to top 20 nowadays demands that you consistently beat this kind of opposition. And maybe this consistency is exactly what it is hard for a young player to have. That's how I read Djokovic's explanation, and frankly is the best I have heard so far.

 

[El Dude]

OK, but I still don't understand why these guys are better than the similarly ranked guys 20 years ago. I'm not saying he's wrong, I just don't have anything to go on as far as it being true.

To add to the original post:

Oldest Players in Year-end top 20, by Generation
Birth Year Generation: Player (oldest age in YE20)

1934-38: Rosewall (43), Laver (37), Emerson (37), Gimeno (35), Stolle (31), (maybe more in late 60s, before Open Era)
1939-43: Ashe (36), Pilic (34), Cox (33), Riessen (33), Drysdale (33), Jauffret (32), Taylor (32), Barthes (30)
1944-48: Lutz (33), Nastase (32), Roche (32), Fillol (31), Newcombe (31), Okker (31), Kodes (30), Smith (30)
1949-53: Connors (37), Vilas (31), S Mayer (31), Higueras (30), Tanner (30), Orantes (30)
1954-58: Curren (31), Gerulaitis (30)
1959-63: Lendl (33), McEnroe (33), Gomez (30), Gilbert (30)
1964-68: Edberg (30), Korda (30)
1969-73: Agassi (35), El Aynaoui (32), Sampras (31), Pioline (31), Ivanisevic (30)
1974-78: Haas (35), Moya (31), Stepanek (31), Henman (30), Spadea (30), Pavel (30)
1979-83: Federer (37), Karlovic (37), Lopez (34), Ferrer (33), Robredo (32), Ljubicic (31), Youzhny (31), Fish (30).
1984-88: Isner (33), Nadal (32), Anderson (32), Wawrinka (32), Tsonga (32), Berdych (32), Djokovic (31), Simon (31), Cilic (30), Del Potro (30), Fognini (30), Querrey (30), Murray (30), Gasquet (30), Monfils (30).

This is another way of pointing out how there was a transition from the first few generations, with the fewest older players in the three generations born in years 1954-68, then it gradually getting older, with a big jump with the current generation.

That said, some of those guys might be done as top 20 players, or at least not be in the top 20 beyond 31-32. But several will probably be in a few more years, so we shall see.

 

[mrzz]

OK, but I still don't understand why these guys are better than the similarly ranked guys 20 years ago.

Now I get your point. Ok, he is explaining one thing with another which needs to be itself explained. Maybe this is in its turn explained by a larger number of professional players, increase in prize money (that is, incentive) and maybe even better training to prevent injuries in seasoned players.

 

[El Dude]

Now I get your point. Ok, he is explaining one thing with another which needs to be itself explained. Maybe this is in its turn explained by a larger number of professional players, increase in prize money (that is, incentive) and maybe even better training to prevent injuries in seasoned players.

And not to belabor the point, the question for me is why has this shift occured when it has occured (or is occuring), and to what degree is it just circumstantial to the strong/weak generations, even coincidental, versus the other factors you mention and more? In other words, has training really improved that much between Roger's generation and Rafa's? Or is the main difference a weaker younger generation? (e.g. not that players like Berdych, Tsonga, and Gasquet seem to be aging out at 31-32ish, which isn't much older when Roddick/Nalbandian/etc aged out...but the former group had a weaker younger generation than the latter, so might have had their peaks artificially extended).

As a side note, what is the difference between a player like Agassi who remained an elite into his mid-30s, versus Edberg and Becker who were essentially done as elites in their late 20s?

Mostly just open-ended musings...

 

[Moxie]

It is no coincidence that the last really young big champion was Nadal, as he was a tactical monster from the start -- that is, he did not have the basic teenager deficiency. And, among the current Next Gen, Zverev is by far the most tactically obedient player (which is why a lot of people here call him "boring"). Not a coincidence he is the most successful one.

I know you and El Dude have gone on down the road talking about the aging of the top players, mostly. I didn't want it to get too far down the road before I cited your point about the younger edge, which I though was interesting, above. Seems like, by topic, we should also talk about the young ones. Interesting point that you make about Nadal being tactically mature, and you put Zverev in there. Also interesting, I thought, that you reckon how that's why some find him "boring." But you have pegged a kind of maturity. I'm not sure if it's the only key to early success, but it's a very interesting point, and worth exploring. I'll get back to you guys on the other part, later.

 

[Moxie]

Going back 20 years, it does seems that players came from a smaller pool of countries. Could this have anything to do with it? Greater diversity could bring in a higher general raft of players and somehow account for the longevity? A thought.

 

[mrzz]

Well, @El Dude, given that we don't have that much data, still one or another abnormal cases can mislead us easily. My impression is that current level of training and equipment (both for training and playing) got to the current level around early 2000's, simply because I think that the overall level basically stalled since then (apparent fluctuations only due to talent of a few). But this is my personal opinion, obviously.

But a higher number of players, keeping all the rest equal, implies in a higher number of good players. Extended careers (due to better conditioning), also lead to more players. So, yes, I can see a chain of events that "explains" the change in age of the top players tracing back to the basic "truth" (in quotes as I don't have the data) that the number of players increased. @Moxie's clever observation about players from all over the world just adds to that (apart from the fact that it makes the landscape more technically interesting). Also, it makes it harder for a young player: he would be more prone to be frustrated when playing for the first time a guy with a completely unknown style.

 

[El Dude]

I am reminded of how baseball changed in the 40s and 50s, once black players were allowed in the major leagues. And then the "Latino Wave" a bit later, with smaller surges of talent from Japan and Cuba more recently. The talent pool deepens, although there is no perceptible statistical change, as far as I can tell.

But the similarity is that the deeper the pool--of possible players--the more the talent level goes up. On the other hand, we see a decline in the former top country for men's tennis talent, the US of A. Gone are the days of Connors-to-McEnroe-to-Courier/Sampras/Agassi. Roddick was supposed to be the next great American but he was diminished by Mr Federer. And the best American since Roddick has been...John Isner? Jack Sock?

I would also guess there's a cultural shift, as I've mentioned before. "Kids these days" are just...different, and not really in a good way. I see it as the influence of smart-phones and media technologies in general. Now I'm not sure how or if this is impacting tennis players, considering that the iPhone came out in 2007 and this would mostly impact those kids born in the mid-90s or later; the LostGen were already late teens at that point, and maybe less directly impacted. But it could also be the so-called "entitlement generation" of the Millenials, which we see more in the latter half of the generation (born late 80s through 90s). As Clint Eastwood said, "they're a generation of pussies."

 

[atttomole]

To digress a little, I think the characterization of people’s behavior based on the time they were born is exaggerated. It’s amazing how sociologists can earn money just for saying banalities.

 

[herios]

While the top 20 got without a doubt younger this year, the top 10 got actually older than a year ago.
Average age of the top 10 is 29.9 and before the new season will start, it will be exactly 30, because Kei will turn 29 in late December.
Two of the top 10 members, Anderson and Isner had their best year, at 33 y of age.
More and more players nature later, that is a fact which contributed to the aging factor.
The players are staying in longer.

 

[El Dude]

While the top 20 got without a doubt younger this year, the top 10 got actually older than a year ago.
Average age of the top 10 is 29.9 and before the new season will start, it will be exactly 30, because Kei will turn 29 in late December.
Two of the top 10 members, Anderson and Isner had their best year, at 33 y of age.
More and more players nature later, that is a fact which contributed to the aging factor.
The players are staying in longer.

Yes, although I think the top 10 age will go down soon in the next year or two as players like Isner and Anderson are pushed out by players like Tsitsipas, Coric, Khachanov, Shapovalov, de Minaur, etc. Cilic and del Potro also probably won't be in the top for more than another year or two, and Rafa/Novak aren't getting any younger. And of course once Roger drops out, that drops the average substantially.

On the other hand, maybe Wawrinka and/or Andy have comebacks.

But the point is, even if some of these guys continue to hang in there, not all of them will - especially as young and hungry NextGenners continue to push them.

 

[herios]

Yes, although I think the top 10 age will go down soon in the next year or two as players like Isner and Anderson are pushed out by players like Tsitsipas, Coric, Khachanov, Shapovalov, de Minaur, etc. Cilic and del Potro also probably won't be in the top for more than another year or two, and Rafa/Novak aren't getting any younger. And of course once Roger drops out, that drops the average substantially.

On the other hand, maybe Wawrinka and/or Andy have comebacks.

But the point is, even if some of these guys continue to hang in there, not all of them will - especially as young and hungry NextGenners continue to push them.

Of course, the top 10 will become younger.
But you have to keep in mind, it is not a clean slot that the youngers are all moving higher. Some will, some may linger, some will fall back.
Two examples of big drops this year:
Rublev and Donaldson. Also older guys will not give up as easily either.

 

[El Dude]

Of course, the top 10 will become younger.
But you have to keep in mind, it is not a clean slot that the youngers are all moving higher. Some will, some may linger, some will fall back.
Two examples of big drops this year:
Rublev and Donaldson. Also older guys will not give up as easily either.

Absolutely. I was thinking of doing a research project into players that reached the top 100 at younger ages and how high they peaked at rankings-wise, based upon the year they were first in the top 100. There are plenty of guys who reached the top 100 at age 21 and younger that didn't amount to much. One example is LostGenner Ricardas Berankis, who entered the top 100 at age 20 in 2010--one of the youngest of his generation to enter the top 100--but has never ranked higher than #50.

Or we could look at Ryan Harrison as another recent example.

 

[Moxie]

I am reminded of how baseball changed in the 40s and 50s, once black players were allowed in the major leagues. And then the "Latino Wave" a bit later, with smaller surges of talent from Japan and Cuba more recently. The talent pool deepens, although there is no perceptible statistical change, as far as I can tell.

But the similarity is that the deeper the pool--of possible players--the more the talent level goes up. On the other hand, we see a decline in the former top country for men's tennis talent, the US of A. Gone are the days of Connors-to-McEnroe-to-Courier/Sampras/Agassi. Roddick was supposed to be the next great American but he was diminished by Mr Federer. And the best American since Roddick has been...John Isner? Jack Sock?

I would also guess there's a cultural shift, as I've mentioned before. "Kids these days" are just...different, and not really in a good way. I see it as the influence of smart-phones and media technologies in general. Now I'm not sure how or if this is impacting tennis players, considering that the iPhone came out in 2007 and this would mostly impact those kids born in the mid-90s or later; the LostGen were already late teens at that point, and maybe less directly impacted. But it could also be the so-called "entitlement generation" of the Millenials, which we see more in the latter half of the generation (born late 80s through 90s). As Clint Eastwood said, "they're a generation of pussies."

USA has dropped way down, as has Britain and Australia (though both are currently producing a better crop, esp. Australia.) All 3 were big power houses in tennis many years back. In the US it is certainly relative to how popular tennis is in relation to other sports, (no so much,) and how much effort the USTA puts into young players. (I think there is a resurgent effort, which may bear some more fruit soon, especially in WTA.) I wonder how much the younger generation is distracted by technology, unmotivated, or has just yet to produce really great, focused players. I think we'll see pretty soon.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

To digress a little, I think the characterization of people’s behavior based on the time they were born is exaggerated. It’s amazing how sociologists can earn money just for saying banalities.

Yes. The oldies always complain about new generation. But, world keeps on moving, not to mention improving. This clearly means that all the complaints are bogus.

 

[mrzz]

The oldies always complain about new generation.

True.

But, world keeps on moving, not to mention improving.

Partially true. And even if we assume that the world has improved up till now, it does not necessarily mean it will keep improving forever.

This clearly means that all the complaints are bogus.

Untrue. Assume for a moment that the world in fact kept improving all the time. In that case, at some point things could get really good. right? At this point, new generations just have everything too easy. Hence "the generation of pussies."

 

[Jelenafan]

True.



Partially true. And even if we assume that the world has improved up till now, it does not necessarily mean it will keep improving forever.



Untrue. Assume for a moment that the world in fact kept improving all the time. In that case, at some point things could get really good. right? At this point, new generations just have everything too easy. Hence "the generation of pussies."

At least in the United States, an increasing percentage of young people are living at home with their parents because they can’t afford all their expenses on their own. That’s certainly a change from previous generations, the question is , Is it an improvement?