Where is El Dude with his age stats?

[calitennis127]

He and others have been talking about how the Big 3 have been "too old" since 2008. Is he finally going to look at talent and empirical reality instead of just statistics?

 

[El Dude]

Hi Cali, glad you're back. First of all, I haven't been saying that since 2008...maybe "others." Second of all, you realize that "looking at talent and empirical reality" and statistics are not mutually exclusive? I always find it amusing how simple-minded people can be: that it is either/or, when it clearly isn't. As I've said countless times, statistics are just another angle on looking at tennis...they aren't meant to replace "empirical reality" (and in fact, stats are one way to understand empirical reality).

Aside from your hyperbole, this is a very interesting topic - it is unprecedented, really, what we're seeing. All three of the Holy Trinity have looked "done" at various points over the last years: Roger looked "done" In 2013, and then again in 2016; Rafa looked "done" in 2015-16; Novak looked "done" in 2017. Andy, unfortunately, really looks done and is the first of the four that I don't expect to see come back.

As I've said before, what we're seeing is a combination of factors, in my opinion:

1. The three greatest players in the history of the sport, all of whom not only have the talent but the desire to do the work necessary to stay in form. It isn't just talent, Cali...that's not enough (look at your boy Nalbandian, or someone like Safin). You also need the desire, and the will, to maintain a high level of play like they're doing.
2. New medical and fitness approaches that facilitate players remaining in prime form for longer. Hard to quantify this one, but it does seem like careers in general are being extended 2-3 years on average, longer in some cases.
3. A weak younger generation(s) of players....especially the generation of players now in their late 20s.

Now the younger cohort that is starting to come into their own is stronger than the "LostGen" players, so the gap between the Big 3 and the rest is starting to diminish. But obviously we're not seeing it on Slams yet. It is crazy to think that we still haven't seen a Slam winner born in the 1990s...in fact, the youngest Slam winners are Cilic and del Potro, both born in 1988...they turn 31 this year!

But what remains unclear is to what degree each of the three factors above play a part. It is all three, I think, and maybe other factors I haven't thought of, but my point is I don't think any one of the factors on its own would be enough.

Again, unprecedented - and not easily explained.

 

[calitennis127]

Hi Cali, glad you're back. First of all, I haven't been saying that since 2008...maybe "others." Second of all, you realize that "looking at talent and empirical reality" and statistics are not mutually exclusive? I always find it amusing how simple-minded people can be: that it is either/or, when it clearly isn't. As I've said countless times, statistics are just another angle on looking at tennis...they aren't meant to replace "empirical reality" (and in fact, stats are one way to understand empirical reality).

Point 1: yes, I do think people have been talking about age for far too long. People have been saying Federer is "too old" since 2008 and they have been talking about how Nadal's knees are going to crumble since 2006. These have to go down as the most pointless, premature conversations in sports history.

Point 2: fair enough about your point about how statistics are just one angle.

The three greatest players in the history of the sport, all of whom not only have the talent but the desire to do the work necessary to stay in form. It isn't just talent, Cali...that's not enough (look at your boy Nalbandian, or someone like Safin). You also need the desire, and the will, to maintain a high level of play like they're doing.

Yeah, but I also said that if you looked at their mentalities, there was no reason to believe they would ever lose interest. Meanwhile, everyone else was telling me that when someone turns 30 years old, their bones start disintegrating and their muscles lose 90% of their strength and I am just in denial for not accepting that. Obviously that was not the case and I have been proven right.

Think about this.....people were saying back in 2006 that Nadal's knees weren't going to last another 5 years. And in 2008 - all because Federer lost one 5-set match to Nadal at Wimbledon - they said Federer was getting too old.

Can we now look back on those conversations and say they were quite silly? I think so.

New medical and fitness approaches that facilitate players remaining in prime form for longer. Hard to quantify this one, but it does seem like careers in general are being extended 2-3 years on average, longer in some cases.

Could be.

A weak younger generation(s) of players....especially the generation of players now in their late 20s.

Yeah but I always said that and no one listened to me. I always said that talent was more significant than 5 years of age difference.

Now the younger cohort that is starting to come into their own is stronger than the "LostGen" players, so the gap between the Big 3 and the rest is starting to diminish.

Only because the Big 3 (particularly Federer and Nadal) are not prioritizing Masters Events as much as they once did. But when they bring their best stuff the young guys still aren't in their league. And I still think Djokovic can go on some Masters Series runs where he douses the field.

Again, unprecedented - and not easily explained.

Perhaps not, but my read on it 5 years ago was that this would be the case.

Do you remember when I posted that thread in 2011 entitled "Federer: Top 5 until he's 35" after the World Tour Finals and everyone jumped on me like I was spewing nonsense?

Who was right? If anything, my prediction was too conservative.

 

[El Dude]

Point 1: yes, I do think people have been talking about age for far too long. People have been saying Federer is "too old" since 2008 and they have been talking about how Nadal's knees are going to crumble since 2006. These have to go down as the most pointless, premature conversations in sports history.

I don't remember such conversations because I wasn't participating on tennis message boards back then, and was also far more of a casual fan than I am now. But I believe you.

That said, again, it isn't either/or. Federer wasn't "too old" in 2008, but he clearly wasn't the same player he had been in 2004-07, and it wasn't just Rafa. He was playing worse against everyone. Still elite and in his prime, but not his absolute peak anymore.

This isn't to make excuses for him, but just to point out that the claims of his demise--while over-blown--were based on a marked drop in his level.

Yeah, but I also said that if you looked at their mentalities, there was no reason to believe they would ever lose interest. Meanwhile, everyone else was telling me that when someone turns 30 years old, their bones start disintegrating and their muscles lose 90% of their strength and I am just in denial for not accepting that. Obviously that was not the case and I have been proven right.

Well, look at the historical precedents, at least in recent decades: from the 80s through the 00s, most players retire by the time they reach their early 30s.

Now what is interesting is that there is a precedent for players extending their prime years into their mid-30s: the early to mid-70s, when both Laver and Rosewall maintained prime form deep into their 30s, and Rosewall still playing well into his 40s. A few years before, Pancho Gonzales was the same.

Actually, what is interesting is that the "young era" of the 80s-00s is more of a historical anomaly. In the 70s and before, players would maintain prime level into their 30s and many even played into their 40s, especially the further back you go.

So it may be that rather than ask why are players lasting longer these days, the real question might be why did players decline earlier during the 80s, 90s, and 00s? There are outliers--usually but not only elite players--but for the most part, the "young era" started with players born in the 50s and seems to be ending with those born in the mid-80s and later. Roger's generation is mixed--most of the elites aged out young, but a few lasted longer--while Rafa/Novak's is aging much more slowly.

Think about this.....people were saying back in 2006 that Nadal's knees weren't going to last another 5 years. And in 2008 - all because Federer lost one 5-set match to Nadal at Wimbledon - they said Federer was getting too old.

Can we now look back on those conversations and say they were quite silly? I think so.

Yes, and if you dialed back their careers even 10 years earlier and I think that would have been the case.

It is easier to say they were silly in hindsight--and certainly anyone that said Roger was done in 2008 was silly even then--but I'm guessing no one--including your bragging self--predicted that Roger would win Slams in 2017-18, or that Rafa would win his 12th Roland Garros at age 33.

Yeah but I always said that and no one listened to me. I always said that talent was more significant than 5 years of age difference.

While I will admit that a few years back I gave too much credence to the age gap, I think you are over-exagerrating all of this a bit. But I can only speak for myself and what I remember of those discussions.

Only because the Big 3 (particularly Federer and Nadal) are not prioritizing Masters Events as much as they once did. But when they bring their best stuff the young guys still aren't in their league. And I still think Djokovic can go on some Masters Series runs where he douses the field.

Hmm...maybe. I don't think that is the only reason young players are starting to erode Masters dominance; I think the best of 3 format allows for more variance in results.

Do you remember when I posted that thread in 2011 entitled "Federer: Top 5 until he's 35" after the World Tour Finals and everyone jumped on me like I was spewing nonsense?

Who was right? If anything, my prediction was too conservative.

No, I don't remember a random thread of yours from eight years ago.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Well, look at the historical precedents, at least in recent decades: from the 80s through the 00s, most players retire by the time they reach their early 30s.

Now what is interesting is that there is a precedent for players extending their prime years into their mid-30s: the early to mid-70s, when both Laver and Rosewall maintained prime form deep into their 30s, and Rosewall still playing well into his 40s. A few years before, Pancho Gonzales was the same.

Actually, what is interesting is that the "young era" of the 80s-00s is more of a historical anomaly. In the 70s and before, players would maintain prime level into their 30s and many even played into their 40s, especially the further back you go.

So it may be that rather than ask why are players lasting longer these days, the real question might be why did players decline earlier during the 80s, 90s, and 00s? There are outliers--usually but not only elite players--but for the most part, the "young era" started with players born in the 50s and seems to be ending with those born in the mid-80s and later. Roger's generation is mixed--most of the elites aged out young, but a few lasted longer--while Rafa/Novak's is aging much more slowly.

.

In the 60 and 70s there was not much money being made even by the pros and hence most of them extended their careers. In the 80s and 90s with a lot of money easily coming, I guess players did not have the motivation to put in enough (mental and physical) work needed to put in to keep the youngsters at bay. [Sort of like Tomic's recent statement after losing early in AO: I am a millionaire at 22 and I cannot do whatever I want].

It really requires lot of passion and worrying about legacy (beyond that an even successful professional tennis player has) to prevent decline with age and motivation afresh.

 

[Jelenafan]

Players in the 60’s-70’s had more grass-court and clay tennis, easier on the body and the timely allure of a full professional career which included the now open Majors unlike earlier players who had the abbreviated amateur tennis life. ( Didn’t Pancho Gonzalez and others turn pro by age 24/25 to make money kissing away any Majors until 1968)

My own unproven theory is that the transition to mostly hard courts in the 80’s & 90’s proved hard on the ATP players, hence the “ aging” where many players were done by age 28; whereas with the corresponding conditioning/training/nutrition that has increased body awareness some of the players from the 2000 era have been able to extend their careers.

Look at sports such as swimming where athletes are now still competing past what was once considered “prime” athletic years.

I just don’t think it’s as pat as concluding Stefan Edberg/Boris Becker’s, etc had less passion and drive for the game.

 

[El Dude]

Good stuff, Game and Jelena...I think you're both bringing in pieces of the puzzle.

Jelenafan, I think your "unproven theory" is a good one and one I hadn't considered...I will have to think more on it.

 

[Federberg]

I've said for a long time now that the paradigm has shifted. There is limited utility in looking at the past as template for the future. Too many things have changed. Equipment technology, player depth, money, improvements in technology, how the slams have evolved and how the narrative for what constitutes greatness. You might as well draw a red line from the mid-80s onwards in comparison to prior years.

I bring up the mid-80s because the Australian Open becomes more globally relevant and players start assigning more importance to competing in all slams around the same time that racquet technology fundamentally changes. You simply can't compare the importance to legacy attending all slams becomes for the likes Fedalovic vs the likes of Lendl and Borg who were more selective about where and when they were going to compete. It's unfair

 

[Jelenafan]

I've said for a long time now that the paradigm has shifted. There is limited utility in looking at the past as template for the future. Too many things have changed. Equipment technology, player depth, money, improvements in technology, how the slams have evolved and how the narrative for what constitutes greatness. You might as well draw a red line from the mid-80s onwards in comparison to prior years.

I bring up the mid-80s because the Australian Open becomes more globally relevant and players start assigning more importance to competing in all slams around the same time that racquet technology fundamentally changes. You simply can't compare the importance to legacy attending all slams becomes for the likes Fedalovic vs the likes of Lendl and Borg who were more selective about where and when they were going to compete. It's unfair

IIRC Borg didn’t play the Australian Open the six consecutive years he made the finals at Wimbledon ( winning 5). Ditto Johnny Mac and the first few years of Lendl’s dominance. Events like the long defunct WCT finals had a lot more weight in those days than playing in OZ. Also in the mid 70’s many players with World Team Tennis skipped the French.

Before 1968 the top professionals couldn’t even play the Majors.

The “Majors count “ really only applies to the Pete Sampras era onward

 

[tented]

IIRC Borg didn’t play the Australian Open the six consecutive years he made the finals at Wimbledon ( winning 5). Ditto Johnny Mac and the first few years of Lendl’s dominance. Events like the long defunct WCT finals had a lot more weight in those days than playing in OZ. Also in the mid 70’s many players with World Team Tennis skipped the French.

Before 1968 the top professionals couldn’t even play the Majors.

The “Majors count “ really only applies to the Pete Sampras era onward

Borg said he would have gone to Australia if he had ever won the USO (after first winning RG & Wimbledon), thus completing the calendar-year GS.

 

[El Dude]

IIRC Borg didn’t play the Australian Open the six consecutive years he made the finals at Wimbledon ( winning 5). Ditto Johnny Mac and the first few years of Lendl’s dominance. Events like the long defunct WCT finals had a lot more weight in those days than playing in OZ. Also in the mid 70’s many players with World Team Tennis skipped the French.

Before 1968 the top professionals couldn’t even play the Majors.

The “Majors count “ really only applies to the Pete Sampras era onward

All of which is why I think rankings might be the most accurate way of assessing greatness. The #1 player is the player who has been the best player over the last year, regardless of era or which tournaments won. Now I know there are ways that this is questionable, or that the ranking isn't 100% accurate. For instance, some people took issue with Andy being #1 in 2016 because he padded his points with tons of ATP 500s, while Novak was better at Slams. Or in 2017 Roger was clearly the best player on tour, he just didn't play as much as Rafa. But that is a feature of ranking: it is depth and breadth.

We only have official rankings from 1973 to the present, with the records of a few years in the early 80s being dubious and/or lost. But Ultimate Tennis Statistics has complete Open Era rankings (1968), extrapolated using equivalent points.Maybe one way to assess and compare greatness and dominance across eras would be to look at weeks at different rankings. It is an over-simplication, but it at least focus on how dominant a player was at the time they played rather than using a standard that is more relevant today than it was back in the day (e.g. Slam count).