First Ferrer and Haas and Tipsarevic, and now Wawrinka: the Age Issue

[calitennis127]

You can also add Fed's awesome run in late 2011 and most of 2012 to that list. And even those who said Nadal's movement had declined at the start of 2013.

What will the age-obsessed say to explain this one? Do you all still deny the objective/empirical reality that it is entirely possible to improve at 27 or 30 or even 32, just as much as it is at 20 or 23?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal's movement has decline compared to what it was in 2006. But it has nothing to do with age. It's just mileage and injuries. He still moves extremely well and is a far better player than he was then so it doesn't matter.

It's not impossible to improve. There will always be exceptions. That doesn't make it the norm though. Wawrinka's 28 by the way. Hardly over the hill. You can't really compare him to guys making runs in their 30's.

 

[Front242]

Soderling hit his stride late in his career too.

 

[herios]

You can also add Fed's awesome run in late 2011 and most of 2012 to that list. And even those who said Nadal's movement had declined at the start of 2013.

What will the age-obsessed say to explain this one? Do you all still deny the objective/empirical reality that it is entirely possible to improve at 27 or 30 or even 32, just as much as it is at 20 or 23?

28 is the new 23.

 

[DarthFed]

Most of the guys improving in their late 20's or early 30's are guys who were not in top shape and decided to dedicate themselves more to fitness. A 23-24 year old working his ass off and doing all the right things is still more explosive athletically than he will be in his late 20's and early 30's, especially when we take mileage and injuries into consideration. But guys like Fish and Roddick who were carrying extra weight for most of their careers could improve at a later age because they weren't doing everything they could to get in ideal shape.

The other exception is someone who matures mentally later in their career. For someone like Stan and even Berdych I think that's the case more than anything. It's not like Stan didn't have a big backhand and serve 2 years ago, but no way would you give him a chance of holding it together in the big matches against the best players.

For the top 4 these guys are in as good as shape as they can be for the most part so you won't see them improve in their late 20's. Rather that is usually when the best players lose a half step due to age/mileage.

 

[Front242]

Speaking of Fish....is he ever coming back? My personal guess is maybe he'll play the US hardcourt swing and officially retire at this year's US Open. A shame how things turned out for him. Thoroughly enjoyed his Cincy match against Fed in 2012. Some fierce fast paced hitting from both guys.

 

[calitennis127]

Darth, Federer played his best ever level on clay at age 29 at the French. He never moved better in his life than he did in the semi against Djokovic.

 

[herios]

Most of the guys improving in their late 20's or early 30's are guys who were not in top shape and decided to dedicate themselves more to fitness. A 23-24 year old working his ass off and doing all the right things is still more explosive athletically than he will be in his late 20's and early 30's, especially when we take mileage and injuries into consideration. But guys like Fish and Roddick who were carrying extra weight for most of their careers could improve at a later age because they weren't doing everything they could to get in ideal shape.

The other exception is someone who matures mentally later in their career. For someone like Stan and even Berdych I think that's the case more than anything. It's not like Stan didn't have a big backhand and serve 2 years ago, but no way would you give him a chance of holding it together in the big matches against the best players.

For the top 4 these guys are in as good as shape as they can be for the most part so you won't see them improve in their late 20's. Rather that is usually when the best players lose a half step due to age/mileage.

I agree with you but the point is many players on tour are either not in the best shape or full strength in the early 20's and even more are mentally weak. That is why several of them get better in their 26-30 range.

 

[El Dude]

"Entirely possible", yes, but likely? No. cali, there are always exceptions to the rule, and the "rule" in this case is just a normative trend. The trend is that players take a half step back around age 27-28 to what I call a "late career plateau," then decline sharply at age 32. I've offered tons of numbers to support this - its just the historical trend. Not an opinion but what the numbers actually show us.

One thing to consider, though, is that it seems that "second tier" players are more likely to have a spike in their late 20s than true elites. The only exception that I can think of is Andre Agassi, who had his best year at age 29 and was #1 as late as his age 33 season, remaining in the top 10 until age 35. But we can't ignore context; Agassi's age 29 season was in 1999, when Sampras was struggling and there really weren't any other great players. Edberg and Becker were gone, and the next tier was Kuertan, Kafelnikov, Martin, etc - all very good players, but no true greats.

Ivan Lendl is another who didn't really start showing signs of decline until after his 30th birthday, and obviously Jimmy Connors maintained a high level deep into his 30s, but both of these guys were at their best in their mid-20s. Then we have players like Vilas, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Sampras, and Federer who started to decline sometime in the age 25-28 range. Not to mention all of the lesser elites that show the same pattern.

I find players like Ferrer and Wawrinka and Haas to be inspirational and good reminders that all trends can be "bucked," but again let's be clear: they are exceptions. Most players start a slow decline around age 27-28 and then fall off a cliff sometime around age 32.

But it might be worth investigating: What makes a player remain in peak form until 30 and beyond, even improve around 30 like Ferrer did? Ferrer got started late, so maybe he simply has more in his tank, and Haas missed a lot of time. But I think there must be other factors. Determination? A training regime? Etc.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Darth, Federer played his best ever level on clay at age 29 at the French. He never moved better in his life than he did in the semi against Djokovic.

Federer's done great at his older age. Just not as good as he did when hew as younger, which is obvious.

 

[calitennis127]

Darth, Federer played his best ever level on clay at age 29 at the French. He never moved better in his life than he did in the semi against Djokovic.

Federer's done great at his older age. Just not as good as he did when hew as younger, which is obvious.

Yes, but if you take Nadal/Djokovic/Murray out of the equation he's sitting pretty around 30 Slams.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Darth, Federer played his best ever level on clay at age 29 at the French. He never moved better in his life than he did in the semi against Djokovic.

Federer's done great at his older age. Just not as good as he did when hew as younger, which is obvious.

Yes, but if you take Nadal/Djokovic/Murray out of the equation he's sitting pretty around 30 Slams.

Yes, but you're essentially saying "if you take out the younger, fitter elite, he'd win all the slams." There's a reason these guys are stopping him, more often than not.

 

[El Dude]

Nadal's movement has decline compared to what it was in 2006. But it has nothing to do with age. It's just mileage and injuries. He still moves extremely well and is a far better player than he was then so it doesn't matter.

Those two aren't mutually exclusive, Broken. I think age increases the likelihood of various things occuring: mileage, injuries, and lack of drive, and/or reduced confidence/mental edge. Nadal's aging pattern - which is inevitable - might be more the first two than the latter two, while with Federer we're seeing a combination of all of the above. But its hard to see Nadal ever losing the drive and mental edge, so what will do him in, in the end, is his body giving out. Mileage and injury simply become larger factors the older you get.

I agree with you but the point is many players on tour are either not in the best shape or full strength in the early 20's and even more are mentally weak. That is why several of them get better in their 26-30 range.

OK, so this explains the question I raised in my longish post as I was writing it and didn't see the others pop up. This would hold that a player like Federer or Nadal simply couldn't improve in their late 20s because they've already show us their best in their early-to-mid 20s, while players that peak in their late 20s were in a way under-performing before - or at least hadn't "maxed out" their potential.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal's movement has decline compared to what it was in 2006. But it has nothing to do with age. It's just mileage and injuries. He still moves extremely well and is a far better player than he was then so it doesn't matter.

Those two aren't mutually exclusive, Broken. I think age increases the likelihood of various things occuring: mileage, injuries, and lack of drive, and/or reduced confidence/mental edge. Nadal's aging pattern - which is inevitable - might be more the first two than the latter two, while with Federer we're seeing a combination of all of the above. But its hard to see Nadal ever losing the drive and mental edge, so what will do him in, in the end, is his body giving out. Mileage and injury simply become larger factors the older you get..

In general, yes. But Nadal has been getting injured since his early twenties. Obviously with age, injuries will increase. But so far, given that he's only "27," his injuries have more to do with wear and tear. Remember, he was missing tournaments due to knee injuries as early as 2006.

 

[herios]

"Entirely possible", yes, but likely? No. cali, there are always exceptions to the rule, and the "rule" in this case is just a normative trend. The trend is that players take a half step back around age 27-28 to what I call a "late career plateau," then decline sharply at age 32. I've offered tons of numbers to support this - its just the historical trend. Not an opinion but what the numbers actually show us.

One thing to consider, though, is that it seems that "second tier" players are more likely to have a spike in their late 20s than true elites. The only exception that I can think of is Andre Agassi, who had his best year at age 29 and was #1 as late as his age 33 season, remaining in the top 10 until age 35. But we can't ignore context; Agassi's age 29 season was in 1999, when Sampras was struggling and there really weren't any other great players. Edberg and Becker were gone, and the next tier was Kuertan, Kafelnikov, Martin, etc - all very good players, but no true greats.

Ivan Lendl is another who didn't really start showing signs of decline until after his 30th birthday, and obviously Jimmy Connors maintained a high level deep into his 30s, but both of these guys were at their best in their mid-20s. Then we have players like Vilas, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Sampras, and Federer who started to decline sometime in the age 25-28 range. Not to mention all of the lesser elites that show the same pattern.

I find players like Ferrer and Wawrinka and Haas to be inspirational and good reminders that all trends can be "bucked," but again let's be clear: they are exceptions. Most players start a slow decline around age 27-28 and then fall off a cliff sometime around age 32.

But it might be worth investigating: What makes a player remain in peak form until 30 and beyond, even improve around 30 like Ferrer did? Ferrer got started late, so maybe he simply has more in his tank, and Haas missed a lot of time. But I think there must be other factors. Determination? A training regime? Etc.

They lose a step at 27-28, but on the same token become more smarter and confident. Maturity I think in fact counts more than the fact that physically they lost a step.
Yes they are not elite, is true. But the elite are the "exception" are not the other way around. Just do the math, we have now 3 elite, out of the top 100. Sorry that I do not count Murray as an elite, by the way.

 

[DarthFed]

Darth, Federer played his best ever level on clay at age 29 at the French. He never moved better in his life than he did in the semi against Djokovic.

It's a stretch to say that's the best he has ever moved. It might be his best ever level on a clay court though. And a factor had to do with them changing balls for that RG making conditions noticeably quicker than normal.

 

[calitennis127]

Darth, Federer played his best ever level on clay at age 29 at the French. He never moved better in his life than he did in the semi against Djokovic.

It's a stretch to say that's the best he has ever moved. It might be his best ever level on a clay court though. And a factor had to do with them changing balls for that RG making conditions noticeably quicker than normal.

The rallies were insane and daunting. Please give me one example of a clay match where Federer ever moved better than the 2011 French Open semi.

 

[El Dude]

In general, yes. But Nadal has been getting injured since his early twenties. Obviously with age, injuries will increase. But so far, given that he's only "27," his injuries have more to do with wear and tear. Remember, he was missing tournaments due to knee injuries as early as 2006.

Yes, I know. But I think the older you get, the harder (and longer) the recovery time. I mean, remember what a hangover was like when you were 20? Quick and easy. There's a marked difference at 30 and then at 40 its agonizing :blush:

At some point, I fear, its just going to pile up on Rafa and he won't be able to bounce back to his former great level. That could lead to frustration, which in turn hurts the mental edge, and when he goes he could go fast. Hopefully that's not for a few years yet.

They lose a step at 27-28, but on the same token become more smarter and confident. Maturity I think in fact counts more than the fact that physically they lost a step.
Yes they are not elite, is true. But the elite are the "exception" are not the other way around. Just do the math, we have now 3 elite, out of the top 100. Sorry that I do not count Murray as an elite, by the way.

Yeah, I think there's a compensation that can occur in the late 20s to maintain a very high level.

When I did one of my studies on aging, I think I found that age 24 was the most common year to have one's best year. But the high peak range was 22-26, or 21-28 for a slightly wider peak-plateau.

Its a weird thing, tennis, because a professional's career spans 25 years or so - including childhood training, which I assume starts somewhere between 5-10. But for only about 5 years of that, or 20%, are you at your very best. Half of it is developing towards your best, maybe a quarter at your best, and a quarter in decline.

Actually, what you say makes me think about human life span in general. If we look at a life of 80 years (although we're going to see people living longer and longer), if we're not talking about an athletic career, we could say that it takes until you're about 40 or so to reach your "peak," and then you're in that zone of 40-60ish where you are at the height of your powers. After that, those that can maintain a high level of performance do so by being physically fit and mentally adept. A lot of people "decline" rapidly once they reach their mid-50s or so, while some maintain health and vitality deep into their 70s. But here's the point: the people who thrive after 70, are those that maintain a healthy attitude, that become wiser (and, in a way, also more child-like - playful). Those that reject or deny the aging process end up bitter and unhappy.

Maybe the players that thrive after 30 are those that make adjustments that befits a 30+ year old body, rather than trying to play like they did when they were 22.

 

[DarthFed]

So you can respond and say "no way" and start 80 pages of posts? I will pass. I'm sure his clay matches in 05-07 are at least as good movement wise. That semifinal match was probably one of his best ever serving performances on clay as well.

 

[Haelfix]

It is historically unprecedented to have so many old players relatively speaking at the upper echelon of tennis. My personal theory is that age still matters as much as it always has (eg it's better to be Dimitrov than Nadal) it's just that we have had a really historically bad or late blooming crop of young players who haven't been able to capitalize in their elders diminished state.

Things basically were par for the course up until 2011 or so. We had Sampras generation surpassed by Federers peers and then his generation was eventually passed by Rafa/Murray and by Novak ( who eventually surpassed Rafa) but then it became weird. Instead of transitioning to a new younger player it went back to Federer in 2012 and Rafa in 2013. Meanwhile the old guys were still dominating the top ten or twenty.

It's totally clear that Rafas best tennis was like six years ago, and Rogers best was nearly a decade ago, yet here they still are playing semis. Yes they are still that good, but these things don't happen in a vacuum. Simply put, no one has stepped up other than maybe Dimitrov and it's a bit disheartening.