The generational sea change is happening...sort of

[El Dude]

We're now through the first two months of the season which, while still being rather limited, gives us some data to work with. Here are a couple of charts that compare the ATP earnings of different generations (five-year birth years) through February in each of the last three years.

The first chart includes all ATP title points:

As you can see, a gradual increase overall from the younger generations, especially "NextGen" (b. 1994-98), with Roger's generation taking a huge hit due to him not defending the Australian Open. But that doesn't tell the whole picture. Take a look at this next chart, with the Australian Open taken out:

As you can see, Roger's generation holds steady, with two ATP 250s in 2017 (Muller, Estrella Burgos) and one ATP 500 in each of the last two years (Federer at Rotterdam and Dubai). But 1984-88 loses a ton, while the younger generations are now earning the larger share of smaller titles.

Obviously Slam points matter, but what this chart does show us is the performance of non-elite players, who tend to win the lower tournaments. All of those points in the second chart are for ATP 250 and 500 tournaments: the AO is taken out and there haven't been any Masters yet. So it does show us how the younger generations are taking over more and more share of the non-elite titles.

It is also worth noting that the so-called "LostGen" (light green) has held pretty steady, even down from 2017, while the NextGen continues to improve, and we even have a touch of the 1999-03 group in there, with de Minaur's title.

Maybe I'll revisit this later in the year, perhaps after Roland Garros, which is about the midpoint of the season. That will give us a larger data set to get a clearer picture of to what degree the "sea change" is occuring.

 

[Moxie]

I can't see the charts, for some reason.

 

[El Dude]

I can't see the charts, for some reason.

Weird. Can anyone else?

Are you using Tapatalk? I can't see them on that - maybe it requires a web browser.

 

[mrzz]

Me neither, using firefox on a laptop.

 

[El Dude]

Hopefully that worked.

 

[Moxie]

Oh, now I see it! Thanks.

 

[Moxie]

First question: do you mean "first two months of every year between 2017 and now," or all months between Jan 1 2017 and the first 2 months of this year? Could you clarify a little more your parameters?

 

[El Dude]

January and February of each year: 2017, 2018, 2019.

The chart style makes it a bit confusing as it implies continuity from year to year, when in actuality there are ten months missing between each of 2017/18 and 2018/19, but I wanted to envision it this way because it allows for easy comparison.

 

[Moxie]

Forgive me, but why would you chose the first 2 months of each year? We've spoken recently about the subjectivity of these kinds of stats, and "where you set the camera," but this is kind of the weirdest one ever, to me. Can you make a good argument for why judging players on the first two months of each of several years is an interesting measure, other than that we've just passed the first two months of the year? I don't see why January and February are especially significant markers for the field at large. I don't get your basic thesis.

 

[El Dude]

Because it is March 3, Moxie - that's all. If I did the same thing a month from now, I'd have Indian Wells and Miami. As I said in the post, I might do the same thing after Roland Garros or at the end of the year and get better results. But I was bored and curious so I did some research.

It isn't a "thesis" and it isn't "judging players," it is just comparing the first two months of the last three years because we're two months into the season and I was interested to see how different generations started the year.