Where are the teenagers ? (Top 100 getting older and older) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Where are the teenagers ? (Top 100 getting older and older)

Pages : [1] 2 3

Renaud
05-08-2009, 10:13 PM
No i am not looking for young sex partners.

I just noticed that the youngest top 100 (Del Potro and Cilic) are already 20yrs and 7 months.
It never happened that the youngest top 100 player was so "old" (since the ranking exists).

Nishikori (19yo and 4 months) was the only teenager in top 100 until 2 weeks ago. He is now 118th and the highest ranked teenager. Young (162th) and Klein (188th) are the two other ones in top 200.

I also found out that average age of top 100 players is the oldest since at least 1994 (about 26,5yo.):

http://i40.tinypic.com/24dqwra.jpg

How would you interpet that ?

habibko
05-08-2009, 10:23 PM
mug era!!!

had to say it before some troll does, anyway...

well spotted.

Sunset of Age
05-08-2009, 10:28 PM
Very well spotted like Habib said.
It's undeniable, and I wonder if there's anyone around here who is able to come up with a good theory on the reason why.
I surely can't think of anything aside, perhaps, from the fact that the game has become more 'physical' in the past decade or so, and guys usually tend to become stronger physically until their 23-25 years of age.

cocrcici
05-08-2009, 10:43 PM
the fact that the game has become more 'physical'

MacTheKnife
05-08-2009, 10:47 PM
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but have some thoughts on the US. In this country you can sign one 5 contract in baseball, football, or basketball and make what Federer has in his entire career. If you were a parent, where would you push your kids. Unfortunately tennis is rapidly becoming a distant choice for young athletes in this country, and only recently have we began to try to do something about it. It remains to be seen if we can turn this thing around.
I noticed last week after Rome, I didn't even hear it mentioned on ESPN or any other news outlet who won the damn tournament. They were all to busy rehashing NBA playoff games.

Har-Tru
05-08-2009, 10:49 PM
thought about that some time ago. no idea why. I guess it's just coincidence. we'll see.

El Legenda
05-08-2009, 10:52 PM
No i am not looking for young sex partners.

I just noticed that the youngest top 100 (Del Potro and Cilic) are already 20yrs and 7 months.
It never happened that the youngest top 100 player was so "old" (since the ranking exists).

Nishikori (19yo and 4 months) was the only teenager in top 100 until 2 weeks ago. He is now 118th and the highest ranked teenager. Young (162th) and Klein (188th) are the two other ones in top 200.

I also found out that average age of top 100 players is the oldest since at least 1994 (about 26,5yo.):

http://i40.tinypic.com/24dqwra.jpg

How would you interpet that ?

players are in better shape and are playing longer...not getting injured as much or coming back from injury faster.

Steelq
05-08-2009, 10:59 PM
Very well spotted like Habib said.
It's undeniable, and I wonder if there's anyone around here who is able to come up with a good theory on the reason why.
I surely can't think of anything aside, perhaps, from the fact that the game has become more 'physical' in the past decade or so, and guys usually tend to become stronger physically until their 23-25 years of age.
Definitely, this.Kids just can't keep up in the long baseline rallies against physically much stronger opponents.Talent alone is just not enough anymore.

cocrcici
05-08-2009, 11:00 PM
players are in better shape and are playing longer...not getting injured as much or coming back from injury faster.

:yeah:
(iz kog si grada,ja sam rodjen u bos.gradisci(ako nije tajna))

asabovesobellow
05-08-2009, 11:47 PM
Evo is the highest ranked born 1990 onwards...and he's ranked down at 320!

Boarder35m
05-08-2009, 11:52 PM
This may be pure speculation but this might as well also come from sense that education is important and that you need good grades for the time after yout tennis career, especcially if you keep at future or challenger level.

To be honest if I had a kid that wanted to end school and start a tennis chareer at the age of 15 I would try to keep him from that, as well :p

cobalt60
05-09-2009, 12:32 AM
This may be pure speculation but this might as well also come from sense that education is important and that you need good grades for the time after yout tennis career, especcially if you keep at future or challenger level.

To be honest if I had a kid that wanted to end school and start a tennis chareer at the age of 15 I would try to keep him from that, as well :p

Although I agree with you as I would make sure my kids had an education first; I still find so many of the parents of these guys live off their children.
You know your career is my career so let's get going mentality.

moon language
05-09-2009, 01:50 AM
Perhaps being in the top 100 is more viable financially (as a career) than ever before leading to players sticking around longer. Or maybe players from less wealthy countries are increasingly involved and thus seeing it that way.

GlennMirnyi
05-09-2009, 02:06 AM
Mug era. Older players can keep playing until they're over 30 because competition is a freaking joke.

Moya is the perfect example.

Ivo#1Fan
05-09-2009, 02:49 AM
It's just the Fabrice Santoro effect :). He was hitting 30 years old around the start of that graph (1995) and as he get's older he just pulls the line higher and higher. Now that he's approaching 100 it's going to take at least 10 teenagers entering the top 100 to balance out his impact.

pica_pica
05-09-2009, 12:18 PM
Wow. Nice piece of research :yeah:
Players now pay more attention to their physical endurance and avoid injuries.

Bazooka
05-09-2009, 01:17 PM
Very interesting info, I suspected this was happening but seeing the numbers shows it all. And not only that, if you go to the Juniors, who are the "big talents" that we are expecting to storm the tour as teens in the next years? like Nadal did in 2005, Becker in the 85-86, Hewitt 98-00, Sampras 90.

This may be an important factor in Nadal's future, if no new talents are coming in clay, he may easily pocket many more RGs as I don't see any of the current players getting close to him in clay. I always expected him getting around 6 RGs, but honestly he's just 22, and with no opossition until 26 he would win 9 easily.

its.like.that
05-09-2009, 01:39 PM
Drugs helping players (like Agassi) stay in the game longer.

Bazooka
05-09-2009, 01:44 PM
Drugs helping players (like Agassi) stay in the game longer.

:rolleyes:

You taking them all before posting won't solve the problem, you know. More will be produced.

Renaud
05-09-2009, 01:46 PM
The fact is players don't play longer, Santoro being the exception.
It's the lack of young players that makes the average age so high.

Bazooka
05-09-2009, 01:51 PM
The fact is players don't play longer, Santoro being the exception.
It's the lack of young players that makes the average age so high.

Indeed, there's nothing special at Moya retiring at 32, standard thing.

I can understand early retirement from guys like Federer or Nadal once they don't think they have chances at slams, but for the rest, going over 30 sounds like a good decision if they're earning their money. In the case of Moya, I guess his appearance fee when he was 27-31 would surprise more than one here.

amirbachar
05-09-2009, 05:19 PM
I think the main reason is the transition period between the old and the new ranking systems - the older points are worth more than the new points.

philosophicalarf
05-09-2009, 05:53 PM
Mug era. Older players can keep playing until they're over 30 because competition is a freaking joke.

Moya is the perfect example.


Yup, Moya is the perfect example. That such a weak player could become number 1 tells you all you need know about the late 90s. Alternatively, in the early 90s a 39 year old made the US Open semis.


Anyway, looking at the graph it seems to be something that's happening for 20 years now. Most players now peak after 25, with the exception of the very best.

Burrow
05-09-2009, 05:57 PM
Definitely, this.Kids just can't keep up in the long baseline rallies against physically much stronger opponents.Talent alone is just not enough anymore.

I don't think someone of 19 is a child, you are pretty close to being fully developed when you are 19.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-09-2009, 05:58 PM
The 89-90 generation has not created future champions, the 91-92 will be better (Tomic, Dmitrov, Krajinovic).

Burrow
05-09-2009, 06:00 PM
Yup, Moya is the perfect example. That such a weak player could become number 1 tells you all you need know about the late 90s. Alternatively, in the early 90s a 39 year old made the US Open semis.


Anyway, looking at the graph it seems to be something that's happening for 20 years now. Most players now peak after 25, with the exception of the very best.

There is just a tad difference between Moya 2009 and Moya over 10 years ago. :spit:

GlennMirnyi
05-09-2009, 06:09 PM
Yup, Moya is the perfect example. That such a weak player could become number 1 tells you all you need know about the late 90s. Alternatively, in the early 90s a 39 year old made the US Open semis.


Anyway, looking at the graph it seems to be something that's happening for 20 years now. Most players now peak after 25, with the exception of the very best.

Yup what? I meant something diametrically different.

TennisViewer531
05-10-2009, 09:16 AM
I'm hoping Grigor Dimitrov will make it in the top 100 as a teenager... possible?

Audacity
05-10-2009, 09:17 AM
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but have some thoughts on the US. In this country you can sign one 5 contract in baseball, football, or basketball and make what Federer has in his entire career. If you were a parent, where would you push your kids. Unfortunately tennis is rapidly becoming a distant choice for young athletes in this country, and only recently have we began to try to do something about it. It remains to be seen if we can turn this thing around.
I noticed last week after Rome, I didn't even hear it mentioned on ESPN or any other news outlet who won the damn tournament. They were all to busy rehashing NBA playoff games.

Your spot on mate.

Radalek
05-10-2009, 11:50 AM
I'm hoping Grigor Dimitrov will make it in the top 100 as a teenager... possible?

He has a whole year time to make it I guess?Tomic and Krajinovic should get there as teenagers by any means, but they are much younger than Dimitrov so it's early to tell.Can't see any other notable youngsters atm...

Avon
05-10-2009, 11:55 AM
Out Partying with Gasguet?

:smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke:

Ouragan
05-10-2009, 12:46 PM
Definitely don't see any guy from 1992 winning a grand slam this year like Chang, Wilander or Becker did at 17 :worship:

marcRD
05-10-2009, 12:59 PM
There seems to often be lapses in generations. We had the Federer, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ferrero, Davydenko generation born 81-82 then we had the 86-87 pack of talent with Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga, Gasquet, Monfils and so on..

In between there seems to be almost nothing, players born in between generations like Ancic and Verdasco. I expect the next "new generation" of players to be born 91-92 or something like that, it seems they come every 5 years out of their cavern.

its.like.that
05-12-2009, 02:57 PM
I don't think someone of 19 is a child, you are pretty close to being fully developed when you are 19.

Not at all.

I know that sprinters in running and swimming, are at their physical peak in their mid-late 20's.

Not that tennis players have the same build, but I still believe that a lot of players develop strength in their mid 20's that they did not previously have.

Dougie
05-12-2009, 03:27 PM
If you consider Becker, Wilander and Chang who won GS`s at a very young age, they were professionally trained since they were kids and started playing the sport seriously at a very young age. That made it possible for them to challenge guys that were older than they but who had been considerably older when they starded training professionally.
So why doesn´t this work nowadays? Because everybody starts young and plays at some Bollettieri academy or something since 10 years old. Because of this, the level of play has improved substantially, not to mention the physical aspect of the game. Top players today are so much better and stronger than before, that no 17 year old can beat them. Eventually they will, it just takes longer to get there, because the gap between top juniors and top pros is so much wider than 10-20 years ago.
Let´s face it; a 17-year old Becker wouldn´t win Wimbledon today, just as a 17-year old Chang would struggle to make it past the 2nd round at RG.

TheBoiledEgg
05-12-2009, 03:36 PM
when Mugs like Verdasco can break top 10 and look threatening at 26 when most of his career he's look like a complete non-entity you know somethings gone wrong

martinatreue
05-12-2009, 07:00 PM
There seems to often be lapses in generations. We had the Federer, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ferrero, Davydenko generation born 81-82 then we had the 86-87 pack of talent with Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga, Gasquet, Monfils and so on..

In between there seems to be almost nothing, players born in between generations like Ancic and Verdasco. I expect the next "new generation" of players to be born 91-92 or something like that, it seems they come every 5 years out of their cavern.


The graphic seems to suggest quite a long-term trend so I am not so sure that it's an issue of "generations." I think the older players are stronger physically, MORE EMOTIONALLY MATURE! during matches, MORE DISCIPLINED in SHOT SELECTION and have MORE VERSATILITY and VARIETY in their games. The young guns these days seem to come out and have somewhat one-dimensional, ball-bashing or flashy games but not enough tactical awareness, physical endurance, strength or discipline in matches. The older players play the match and not just the ball basically. The younger ones need more time to learn how to play smarter and get stronger. Andy Murray went out and got himself stronger but he already had the tactical intelliegence. The Gulbises, Monfilses, Cilices of the tour still have a lot to learn about tactics, versatility and conditioning IMO.

JoshDragon
05-12-2009, 07:46 PM
The 89-90 generation has not created future champions, the 91-92 will be better (Tomic, Dmitrov, Krajinovic).

That's not necessarily true. Nishikori and Young are both in that age range. Young, will probably never be a champion but I'm not sure about Nishikori. He's still got a lot of time to improve his game and his prime years will be post Nadal/Federer rivalry. It's very possible that he could be a top 10 player and maybe win a couple majors.

penzias
05-12-2009, 08:10 PM
91-93 looks really promising with Dimitrov, Tomic, Bhambri, Boluda, maybe Harrison...

DartMarcus
05-12-2009, 08:13 PM
I am breaking ATP top 1000 in 2015. Mark my words.
2015 = The year of M.

Horatio Caine
05-12-2009, 08:24 PM
Thought I'd read this somewhere...you made Neil Harman's 'The Net Post' for this week: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article6261489.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

Renaud
05-13-2009, 10:13 AM
Thought I'd read this somewhere...you made Neil Harman's 'The Net Post' for this week: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article6261489.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

I wonder why he did not copy something from the Magic JR thread, it was much more interesting.

Norrage
05-13-2009, 10:17 AM
Pretty interesting actually, cause the top 10 I think is one of the youngest ever? The last years we had really young players getting very high up the rankings, Nadal, Gasquet, Del Potro, Murray, Djokovic...And now they have settled this rush seems to have stopped....What's the reason? I dont believe in the reasons given in this topic, sinds not that much has changed since the aforementioned player have surged up the rankings...Was this a unique group of youngsters? Or indeed a lack of competition back then?

CooCooCachoo
05-13-2009, 01:39 PM
Harrison already holds a win over Cuevas in Houston last year, and just defeated Taylor Dent in Sarasota.

Navratil
07-07-2009, 12:46 PM
It's obviously part of the demographi change: People are getting older and they stay young, fit and healthy much longer than they did 20 years ago. Another reason is probably that people know much more about health, nutrition and fitness than in the past.

Well Nadal, Murray, Djokovic & Del Potro are in their early twenties but did you notice how many players are in their early thirties? :o

I just had a look at the German Top 10 (all Top 100-players):
1. Haas (31)
2. Kohlschreiber (25)
3. Kiefer (32)
4. Becker (28)
5. Zverev (21)
6. Petzschner (25)
7. Beck (23)
8. Phau (29)
9. Schüttler (33)
10. Greul (28)

That makes an average of 28 years! :eek::eek:

Wasn't there a time not long ago when players used to retire in their mid-twenties? :wavey:

It's even more remarkable looking at the doubles-rankings. There is only one player under 30 in the top ten!
The rest could play senior tour! ;)

1. Bryan (31)
1. Bryan (31)
3. Nestor (36)
4. Zimonjic (33)
5. Dlouhy (26)
6. Paes (36)
7. Knowles (37)
8. Bhupathis (35)
9. Moodie (30)
10. Ullyett (37)

Makes an average of 33 years in the top ten! :rolleyes:

What will the rankings be like 2030? Will the average age be 33 in the singles top ten?
Martina Navratilova played until she was almost 50. Will Federer break that record?

By the way: There is a german actor - Johaness Heesters - who is 106 years old and still acting! He even played in a huge cinema movie this year: "1 1/2 Ritter – Auf der Suche nach der hinreißenden Herzelinde". :worship::worship:
Will we have tennis pros in that age one day in the future? :lol:
Who will be the first male Navratilova? What do you think?
Is it good for any kind of sport to have all the old stars around as long as they are competitive?


:confused:

Horatius
07-07-2009, 12:51 PM
You do know that there are/were former male tennis players who played in their forties...

michellej
07-07-2009, 12:57 PM
Players are playing longer also because there is a large amount of money in professional tennis. For example, Daniel Nestor,age 37 has made an average of 440,000 per year as a doubles specialist (and some singles early in his career) in earnings alone, + endorsements, etc. He's going to play until he collects Canada Pension.

There are very few jobs that pay this king of money after retirement to an ex tennis player.

stebs
07-07-2009, 01:04 PM
Everyone is getting older and older. ;)

The singles thing isn't really true. There hasn't been a time in tennis when a large majority of players were retiring in their mid twenties and the current average age in top 10 and 20 is fairly normal I think. A tennis players life span tends to be starting from around 18-20 and finishing, maybe, a dozen years later. Obviously this is a rough average, each player will be different.

HKz
07-07-2009, 01:17 PM
This doesn't really apply to tennis. While the human population has seen longer longevity, the gap between how strong and fit youngings compared to their older counterparts have spread quite drastically in sports. Back in the day, virtually no one seriosuly lifted weights for their main regimine except for the obvious sports that required bulk or strength such as the no brainer strong man competition, body building and American football. But sports like basketball, golf, tennis, etc did absolutely nothing what it does today. Now everyone trains like a body builder and obviously a 20 year old body is a lot fresher than a constantly used up 30 year old even though there is only a 10 year difference.

I don't think you have really read up on the history of tennis. In the past it wasn't as uncommon as it is today to have 30 years go far deep into the tournament. For example, Jimmy Connors came back from 2 sets to love against Aaron Krickstein at age 39 to reach the semifinals or Rod Laver winning 45 titles after age 30 and at one point was even number 4 in the world at age 36. The few "old man runs" I can think of was Jonas Bjorkman when he had a terribly easy draw at Wimbledon 2006 while he was aged at like 31 or 32 he reached the semis and also Pete Sampras's USO win at age 32. Other than that, it has been quite the young man's sport.

Goldenoldie
07-07-2009, 01:24 PM
Nonsense. Ken Rosewall was in the top 20 at age 43, and that was 30 years ago.

These days players are getting younger, not older.

JolánGagó
07-07-2009, 03:19 PM
Crap thread.

Everyone is getting older and older, not only tennis players.

gulzhan
07-07-2009, 03:23 PM
The main reason is that the Earth rotates much quicker and one year/day/minute/second is much shorter now than even 10 years ago :p

n8
03-21-2010, 01:59 AM
The average age of the top 100 have increased from about 25.25 years in the mid 90s to a record (since August 1994) 26.88 years last month (click here for full article and graph (http://statracket.net/?view=articles/ageandranking2.html)).

The increasing nature of this statistic is mainly due to there being less young players (under 21) at the top. Until last year, there was at least one teenager in every year end top 100 since ATP rankings began in 1973. The 2009 year end ranking had not a single teenager, furthermore, not a single 20 year old.

Please discuss why you think the average age of the top 100 is increasing. Is it simply a deviation from the mean or perhaps a weaker younger generation? Another reason could be that the courts are, in general, slower than before and hence more endurance (which usually comes with age) is needed to win matches

My three part article (http://statracket.net/?view=articles/ageandranking1.html) on age and ranking also looks at the average age players achieve their career high and the youngest players to crack the top 5, 10 and 100. I also discuss the average age top players reach certain ranking milestones. For example, on average, number ones (since Edberg) entered the top 500 before turning 17 (16.86) and reach the top 100 before adulthood (17.94).

Smoke944
03-21-2010, 02:03 AM
I have often wondered this myself. Very interesting, thanks :bigclap:

Ibracadabra
03-21-2010, 02:04 AM
Could be a number on reasons but i suggest great knowledge of how the body works and how it is fueled leads to longer game span of players.

Action Jackson
03-21-2010, 02:08 AM
Different kind of game now, plus the younger generation aren't as good, so this gives hope to the older players on the circuit to hang around.

Tennis is a speed endurance sport and with the physical part taking over to a greater extent than previously, it takes longer to get the balance right in that particular field.

Or the MTF scientific diagnoses they are all mugs.

Tutu
03-21-2010, 02:46 AM
yeah. :shrug: There don't seem to be many younger players blazing their way into the top 100 anymore. Ibracadabra, that's a good point too. The WTA's top 100 is getting older too (I know you all hate it but it's relevant here :rolleyes:) so that would certainly support the idea that it's down to the increasing use of science in tennis.

Arkulari
03-21-2010, 05:59 AM
it's a weird thing, but the guys of the older generations, the ones who were taught different things other than the standard hard and harder game (Roger, Hewitt, Duck, Mosquito, Legenda etc) have flourished again in the last year or so

Most of the younger, more physically powerful younger players seems to be made of glass, break so easily and a lot of top players are getting injured left and right, seems like they are just focussed on developing "external" (show-off) muscle but their technique and physical training isn't what it should be

the younger players in the top 50 are Cilic and Juan, right? and they both will be 22 this year, so it's a matter of the fact that most old guns are hanging in there and the youngsters cannot keep up with them

see Murray's example at the AO, he's one of the guys who has one of the most extensive physical training of all the young guns and yet he looked exhausted at the third set TB in the final against Roger, I know it's also about their type of game, but shouldn't he be able to keep up with him for as long as it takes?

it's really a weird thing

abraxas21
03-21-2010, 06:04 AM
It seems to be clear that the younger generations don't seem to be good enough to compete with the current field as well as it happened in the past. The question is why.

ssj100
03-21-2010, 06:10 AM
Obviously a mug era. So easy.

Goldenoldie
03-21-2010, 09:19 AM
I don't have any figures to back this up, it's just a gut feeling, so please feel free to shoot me down.

I think it has something to do with the change in the distribution of ranking points. Established players get higher points from slams and MS so one or two good performances keep them in the top 100. More difficult for new (=younger)players to break through playing lower ranked ATP and challengers.

Bobby
03-21-2010, 09:26 AM
Because the young players basically know three shots. Forehand, backhand and serve. They don't know hot to attack and they don't have the ability to change tactics during the match. It's only one gear from start to finish. Usually no plan B.

Herbie
03-21-2010, 09:35 AM
I don't have any figures to back this up, it's just a gut feeling, so please feel free to shoot me down.

I think it has something to do with the change in the distribution of ranking points. Established players get higher points from slams and MS so one or two good performances keep them in the top 100. More difficult for new (=younger)players to break through playing lower ranked ATP and challengers.

The ranking points distribution change certainly explains the big jump in the last year and a three months that you can clearly see in the graph. Before you could be knocking on the door of top 50 with playing nothing but challengers, but these days it would be virtually impossible to do.

duong
03-21-2010, 12:02 PM
I don't have any figures to back this up, it's just a gut feeling, so please feel free to shoot me down.

I think it has something to do with the change in the distribution of ranking points. Established players get higher points from slams and MS so one or two good performances keep them in the top 100. More difficult for new (=younger)players to break through playing lower ranked ATP and challengers.

not at all.

Look at Zeballos, Lorenzi and a few others : you will see that it's not easy at all to survive at the top when you always have to play top-tournaments rather tahn many challengers like previous year.

I disagree in the importance of last changes about that (challengers have not been really disadvantaged comparing to ATP250 tournaments) and I rather think that challengers are still advantaged in points comparing to main tour tournaments.

And anyway as far as the topic here is concerned, people have noticed here that one main problem is that very young generations (from 1988 apart from the best 4 of that generation to the later years) don't succeed at all.

And they don't even succeed in challengers and even futures ... except 1992 generation (Tomic, Harrison, Krajinovic, Bhambri, Basilashvili ...).

Anyway, for very young talented players, very often they are not regular and endurant and rather reach the top by a few big results (esp many young great talents revealed at slams).

They are not endurant and regular enough to accumulate many big results in challengers like Zeballos, Lorenzi, Devilder, Ventura, Ramirez-Hidalgo, Kim, previous years even Reynolds or Kendrick, Daniel.

Among youngsters, only Dolgopolov (21 years old already) has done it recently, but he couldn't improve his ranking like previous players because he played half less tournaments ! Pere Riba (same age) plays many tournaments but with little success.

Then I don't agree at all with this reason, and God knows that I do follow the rankings :lol:

From the generations point of view, the generations after 1981-1982 were already less good than the previous ones (except generation, 1987 which is quite good for the number of good players), but generations 1988 to 1991 look even worse :eek:

Contrary to what many people say I also think that generation 1981 (Fed-Hewitt-Nalbandian-Davydenko ...) was great : usually every generation has 10 players who reach the top-50, 1981 generation had around 20 of them !

And generations 1980-1982, even 1979 now (Blake-Ljubicic-Stepanek-Gaudio) are also still there.

As for the reasons, there are probably real technical reasons (the game esp is slower and more tactical) and also a generation gap for a few generations.

In the past, many big young generations emerged at the top when there was a change in the game, for instance the new rackets in the end of the 80s (many youngsters playing with a lot of spin like Carlsson, Perez-Roldan or Davin, later Bruguera or Berasategui, rather than attacking players in the beginning), beginning of the 90s (players hitting very hard like Courier-Agassi and players with a big serve like Sampras-Ivanisevic-Krajicek), the game maybe slowing down when Fed-Hewitt's generation emerged. In their time, Borg's generation had also brought a big physical dimension.

This time there's maybe too little change :shrug:

Maybe it will change : from last year we have seen more players very tall and hitting very hard succeeding ... but still the game is so slow that it's not easy for them : see for instance Korolev and Gulbis, they have to add other tactical elements (as Del Potro, Söderling and Cilic did).

Tomic and Krajinovic are tall players, but you can see, even Tomic chose a more tactical game than hitting very hard.

duong
03-21-2010, 12:52 PM
To say more, I think that the tactical reason is the main one : the failure of the "hitting very hard from the baseline" tactics in a context of a slowing and more tactical game.

As far as the composition of the circuit is concerned, as some have mentioned it, I think one point may be mentioned :

many talented youngsters come from Central/Eastern Europe, sometimes also Asia, where there are few tournaments (including on the challenger level) to get wild-cards (esp as there are many countries in this area and a player from Romania won't get a WC in a Czech tournament :lol: ).

there was a time until beginning of the 90s where many of the good youngsters came from the US, or South America where there are many challengers (I'm not sure whether there were as many challengers there in that time though), or Australia if you go still further in the past.

This can play a role.

If you want to give more points to challengers, the effect now would be that ... there would be more Zeballos or Lorenzi !

The reason why challengers are not given so many points is ... because there are so many of them ! Far many more than in the past (less since last year because of the crisis to be honest).

Maybe a situation with less challengers but with better fields / more points would be possible (please note that this year, there are more challengers which are given the maximum points - last year it was only Prostejov, this year for instance this week you have both Marrakech and Sunrise).

but I think you cannot decide that easily

Angle Queen
03-21-2010, 01:57 PM
I think there are several reasons.

First, and probably foremost in my mind, is that it’s easier for players to stay more fit...and stay on tour, on top longer...because of more advanced training, recovery and rehabilitation techniques. And I’m not talking about the banned/illegal substances. But let’s face it, modern medicine and therapy makes it easier to be/act young longer.

Second, the business of the game has changed...in favor of the incumbents, rather than the newcomers. The money the better players make allow them to (mostly) pick their tournaments as well as pay for better coaches, trainers and doctors. Back when you had to play every tournament just to get by, the bodies wore down quicker.

In that vein too, I think it takes even more “startup” money to develop a new player than ever before.

Third, talented and athletic kids have many more options now than they did 20 years ago. If you’re good enough, you can make money at almost any sport these days. In years gone by... there were just a few.

Fourth, I feel (and it’s definitely just my opinion) that tennis was particularly and unusually represented by youngsters (esp on the womens side). I’m a firm believer that mens athletic peaks are in their later 20s...not the earlier part of that decade. And it’s the total package: physical and mental strengths as well as actual skill sets and experience.

Lastly, and perhaps the saddest, I’ll have to agree with Bobby here:

Because the young players basically know three shots. Forehand, backhand and serve. They don't know hot to attack and they don't have the ability to change tactics during the match. It's only one gear from start to finish. Usually no plan B.

The game is changing...but the coaching, especially at the lower levels, hasn’t caught up yet. Baseline bashing is being replaced by a more thoughtful game. I see it at our Club all the time. Me and the lunching ladies will be on court next to some youngsters just pounding away at the ball. They have meaningless points, which invariably end on a go-for-broke mis-execution...and they’re exhausted after less than an hour of “play.”

A few years ago, I had the good fortune to play in the small, charity “open” tournament (no age or skill/rating requirements). My male partner and I (combined age of 70+) ended up in the finals against a pair of male teenagers (top players at a local HS, no less). As we walked off the courts, victorious, my partner laughingly explained to them that “age and treachery” will beat “youth and stupidity” most of the time. Once we got used to the “pace”of their game, adjusted ours...we had an easy time and made them look quite silly lunging for balls that were seeming just out of reach. They had no concept of mixing pace with placement and patience.

And to see some of the younger pros making those same kind of errors...just makes me shake my head. I much rather watch a match of “older” pros than one with the younger guys. Yeah, so the serves won’t be as “fast” nor the chase-downs as “spectacular” but I’m usually much more entertained by the whole product.

Nice thread, StatRacket...

stebs
03-21-2010, 02:57 PM
Nice article and stats from the OP and good and interesting (and highly plausible) explanations from duong and Angle Queen. Thanks for those.

Persimmon
03-21-2010, 03:14 PM
I don't see any teens making a breakthrough lately like for example Nadal in 2005. The newest generation doesn't seem that special.

*bunny*
03-21-2010, 03:39 PM
I agree that more players these days are benefiting from progress in sports science and sports psychology. I noticed that when I was watching the Vancouver Olympics too. Many athletes---Alpine skiers, ski jumpers, speed skaters, and so on---were well into their 30s and were appearing in their fourth, fifth, or even sixth Olympics.
Sure tennis and winter sports are different but I think it's safe to say that in general athletes have greater longevity in their career (unless they are forced to retire due to injury/sickness).

As for younger players, I just hope Kei will be fitter and can fulfill the promise he showed in 2008...!

gulzhan
03-21-2010, 03:56 PM
Because time goes by quicker. The today's 18 y'olds are like 16 y'olds in 90th, max.

And I am serious :p

theMEESH
03-21-2010, 04:27 PM
old balls please.

Johnny Groove
03-21-2010, 04:40 PM
Great reasons from most in this thread, interesting topic.

I think the two biggest reasons are because the game these days requires so much more physical endurance on court, something most if not all young players DO NOT have.

Add the ridiculous physical requirement to the mental aspect that you have to stay focused for long periods of time. You have to be a great technical player, you have to be able to play smart and physical whether the moment determines it. The game is so much more these days than just serve and forehand. Young players need time to develop their games.

Start da Game
03-21-2010, 05:09 PM
simply because of the one dimensionality........you create an immediate impact and make your mark right away only when you are somewhat different from others........nadal had a massive breakthrough and won his debut french open itself because he brought variety with him to the tour, not just another routine ball smacker........his topspin was like never before and it added a new dimension to the atp tour on the whole........

even in the 80s and 90s, generally we had players with varied styles and hence it was easier for younger players to surprise the veterans with their variety and spring a surprise........for example chang sprung up in 89 and took everyone by surprise with his lightening speed, tricky low slices, slap forehands and clever passes........he had decent success for his height and whatever talent he possessed, the key was the variety that he brought to the game........

becker broke through in 85 and ran away with wimbledon........he brought that energy and vigor with him along with his tennis........something different to routine........

the possibility of a 'different' player creating an instantaneous impact is much higher than a one dimensional routine hitter........

the upcoming players now are bringing nothing new to the fore........hence the veterans are finding it easy to keep them at their places and the young guns are unable to scalp the big fishes right away........

it took del potro to develop some awesome firepower to his ball bashing and quite a few slam meetings with federer and nadal to finally beat them in slams and win a slam, he did not breakthrough all of a sudden like nadal, chang or becker........you take even djokovic........he took his own time before he finally won a slam........

bottomline: i don't think we will see a teenage slam winner anytime in the near future unless they bring something new to the game.........

n8
03-22-2010, 06:38 AM
Thanks for the many very good responses!

There seems to be many contributing factors:

Could be a number on reasons but i suggest great[er] knowledge of how the body works and how it is fueled leads to longer game span of players.

Tennis is a speed endurance sport and with the physical part taking over to a greater extent than previously, it takes longer to get the balance right in that particular field.


the younger players in the top 50 are Cilic and Juan, right? and they both will be 22 this year, so it's a matter of the fact that most old guns are hanging in there and the youngsters cannot keep up with them

see Murray's example at the AO, he's one of the guys who has one of the most extensive physical training of all the young guns and yet he looked exhausted at the third set TB in the final against Roger, I know it's also about their type of game, but shouldn't he be able to keep up with him for as long as it takes?


Yep, they're the youngest in the top 50, followed by Gulbis (21 years old), Bellucci (22) and Querrey (22).

I don't have any figures to back this up, it's just a gut feeling, so please feel free to shoot me down.

I think it has something to do with the change in the distribution of ranking points. Established players get higher points from slams and MS so one or two good performances keep them in the top 100. More difficult for new (=younger)players to break through playing lower ranked ATP and challengers.

This is an interesting point and very difficult to put numbers to (trust me, I've tried!). The reason being that it is dependant on what Challenger finish (e.g. Winner, finalist or semi-finalist) players get and the number of Challengers. For example, Challenger winners can quickly accumulate points, but frequent Challengers semi-finalists and quarter-finalists are finding it harder.


Because the young players basically know three shots. Forehand, backhand and serve. They don't know hot to attack and they don't have the ability to change tactics during the match. It's only one gear from start to finish. Usually no plan B.


In the past, many big young generations emerged at the top when there was a change in the game,


Yep. It's more difficult to adjust your game to new equipment/courts etc when you're older.

To say more, I think that the tactical reason is the main one : the failure of the "hitting very hard from the baseline" tactics in a context of a slowing and more tactical game.

As far as the composition of the circuit is concerned, as some have mentioned it, I think one point may be mentioned :

many talenetd youngsters come from Central/Eastern Europe, sometimes also Asia, where there are few tournaments (including on the challenger level) to get wild-cards.



Excellent point. I often how many more top players these areas would have if they had more tournaments.

Second, the business of the game has changed...in favor of the incumbents, rather than the newcomers. The money the better players make allow them to (mostly) pick their tournaments as well as pay for better coaches, trainers and doctors. Back when you had to play every tournament just to get by, the bodies wore down quicker.

In that vein too, I think it takes even more “startup” money to develop a new player than ever before.

Third, talented and athletic kids have many more options now than they did 20 years ago. If you’re good enough, you can make money at almost any sport these days. In years gone by... there were just a few.



Money would be a factor too. Once you get near the top of the rankings, it is getting easier to stay there because you can now afford to play less (and prepare better) and pay for better coaching/management teams.


I think the two biggest reasons are because the game these days requires so much more physical endurance on court, something most if not all young players DO NOT have.

Add the ridiculous physical requirement to the mental aspect that you have to stay focused for long periods of time. You have to be a great technical player, you have to be able to play smart and physical whether the moment determines it. The game is so much more these days than just serve and forehand. Young players need time to develop their games.


simply because of the one dimensionality........you create an immediate impact and make your mark right away only when you are somewhat different from others.

bottomline: i don't think we will see a teenage slam winner anytime in the near future unless they bring something new to the game.........

Another good reason. I think this is why Tomic has been so successful so young. His game is very different and even very good players (e.g. Cilic at the Australian Open) have a hard time with it.

Thanks again everyone for the excellent responses and the 'm' word was hardly mentioned (thus far)!

hilluis
03-22-2010, 07:23 AM
I think it has something to do with the changes made in Masters tournaments. The younger players are only used to playing best of 5 set matches in slams and best of 3 everywhere else. Before, players had to win best of 5 set matches in Masters tournaments.... seems to make them hardier. Look at the winners of slams these days( and those who progress to later rounds), mostly they are players who have had to play the best of 5 set matches more frequently ( Juan and Novak excluded).

Arkulari
03-22-2010, 07:24 AM
if you watch Challenger tournaments around the world, you see most guys on it are 25+, specially in South America, where you often see the likes of Gaudio, Puerta, Marcos Daniel, etc

that way younger guns are finding it harder to get a place in the big dogs world, of course it's their fault they can't do it, but most of the time it's more due to the tricks and versatility of the older players

cardio
03-22-2010, 08:25 AM
Money and women, what else.:devil:
More they earn , more they want to stay in top as long as they can. And their glamour chicks have quite expensive taste. You just cant say to your beautiful 22.y.o. girlfriend : Darling, I`m 31, I dont want to make such a painful effort any more, play long matches day after day and practice like a madman and travel from hotel to hotel all year long. I want to retire and be a coach in tennis academy. Do we really need all these diamonds, luxury cars,beach house and Gucci-Prada crap ? Why cant we live peaceful life in village, drive Toyota Corolla and live from my coach salary ? We still have each other, that is all what matters...:angel:

duong
03-22-2010, 03:51 PM
I totally agree with that :

the upcoming players now are bringing nothing new to the fore........hence the veterans are finding it easy to keep them at their places and the young guns are unable to scalp the big fishes right away........

but I don't agree with that :

simply because of the one dimensionality........you create an immediate impact and make your mark right away only when you are somewhat different from others........

even in the 80s and 90s, generally we had players with varied styles and hence it was easier for younger players to surprise the veterans with their variety and spring a surprise........for example chang sprung up in 89 and took everyone by surprise with his lightening speed, tricky low slices, slap forehands and clever passes........he had decent success for his height and whatever talent he possessed, the key was the variety that he brought to the game........

becker broke through in 85 and ran away with wimbledon........he brought that energy and vigor with him along with his tennis........something different to routine........

If I remember big emergences of very young players on tour :

- in the beginning of their carreers, Borg and Lendl had little variety, very limited on backhand ; Noah also had a limited backhand

- a little bit later, Arias, Krickstein had no variety, only big forehands : Bollettieri academy

- Agassi, Courier later still that academy by way, and also emerged very early by hitting very hard

- there was the time of the baseline players using a lot of spin : Carlsson, Perez-Roldan, Mancini, and many others ... not to mention Wilander or Nyström who had little variety when they emerged, even though they had more than the previous ones

- Becker emerged mostly thanks to his big serve at Wimbledon and indoors, not thanks to his variety which he developed a little bit later


All of these players were allowed to emerging thanks to a few shots, and despite their little variety.

But the problem is ... today it's not enough.

By the way, many insisted on the physical aspect, endurance and so on : I'm not sure it's a main factor, I rather see tactical/mental shortages which limit the youngsters when they play against older players.

In the 60s/70s, the game was less physical, and more tactical, technical and mental than in the end of the 70s and in the 80s/90s ... and players could play very well until very old and reached their best later than today (even than today).

Probably there's a matter of physical preparation, maybe playing less as well, anyway taking more care of their health, which allows players to stay fit later.

BUT .. I think the main aspect is tactical and mental, as Angle Queens mentioned in his double match against youngsters.

By the way I read something by Angle Queens about money : if I understand well, it means that top-50 players need to play less than in the past because they get more money. Please note that it's the opposite to what all the people who complain on the calendar say here usually.

This is possible : there was a time when even Lendl or Connors had a silly schedule, playing an incredible number of tournaments ... for money more than points actually (for instance there were WCT tournaments inside). I even read recently that Lendl had an incredible record of 3 tournaments won in 3 weeks ... on 3 different surfaces and even changing continent in that period ! :eek:

Well, Lendl could play very well until quite late ... but here you can surely see the importance of physical preparation.

This is an interesting point and very difficult to put numbers to (trust me, I've tried!). The reason being that it is dependant on what Challenger finish (e.g. Winner, finalist or semi-finalist) players get and the number of Challengers. For example, Challenger winners can quickly accumulate points, but frequent Challengers semi-finalists and quarter-finalists are finding it harder.

Believe me, on the mathematical point of view, I've studied it very precisely, there are one or two threads still left in this forum about that (maybve you've read them actually as what you mention is precisely one of the main things I said) :
you will find nothing special about the last change and on the mathematical point of view.

If you really want to find something, you have to watch on a longer run, and more important than the ranking points will be the composition of the tour, the number of tournaments in the calendar, and the number of tournaments played by players.

It's not only the points which have changed, it's the number/composition of tournaments (far far many more challengers than in the past), it's also ... the density of players at the top.

I mean : if the sport is very developed, you have more players on top ... and then it may be more difficult for youngsters to compete in those challengers and so on.

When you see the 70s, how many players came from the USA ? a big proportion of the best players. It's clear that the situation is completely different in that case : for the composition of the tour, for wild cards ... and also for the density of the Tour ... because one reason why so many of the top-players came from the USA is probably because tennis was not enough developed elsewhere.

I don't think you will find anything about mathematics ... but the composition of the tour itself is much more important.

About Tomic :

I think it's an interesting case, as I said he's very tall but he didn't chose a hitting very hard-bashing game :

it's interesting for his development as I think that later, with size and muscles, he could also develop that.

I mean many people compare him to Hewitt ... but what may be different for him is that he's so tall : he has a lot of further potential development there for the future (see Del Potro when he got some muscle how quickly he raised at this moment).

I mean it's interesting to follow his development : maybe he has a good combination, developing tactically/mentally first (even though he's far from perfect there), then hitting more when he has more muscles/power.

think it has something to do with the changes made in Masters tournaments. The younger players are only used to playing best of 5 set matches in slams and best of 3 everywhere else. Before, players had to win best of 5 set matches in Masters tournaments.... seems to make them hardier.

it was only in the finals, then young players were not concerned by that ;)

Start da Game
03-22-2010, 05:16 PM
If I remember big emergences of very young players on tour :

- in the beginning of their carreers, Borg and Lendl had little variety, very limited on backhand ; Noah also had a limited backhand

hence it took lendl 4 slam finals to win his first and 9 slam finals to finally win his second slam........he really had to master the art of grinding before he could take off and dominate in the mid-late 80s........borg and connors were simply too much of an advanced version of young lendl to allow lendl run away with slams in the early 80s........

as for borg, his topspin and amazing endurance levels itself was variety back then........just imagine, he owned someone like vilas.......

- a little bit later, Arias, Krickstein had no variety, only big forehands : Bollettieri academy

hence they haven't won anything really significant........were they even ever top 30 players? i don't know much about them anyway........

- Agassi, Courier later still that academy by way, and also emerged very early by hitting very hard

now this more of my territory........agassi brought with him the flashy returns and sharp reflexes, he also had an uncanny knack of taking the ball on the rise and spanking them for outright winners........something different to routine.......

- there was the time of the baseline players using a lot of spin : Carlsson, Perez-Roldan, Mancini, and many others ... not to mention Wilander or Nyström who had little variety when they emerged, even though they had more than the previous ones

once again, what are they(mancini, carlson etc.) compared to the real impact creators? i don't know if you are taking random top 100 players from history but i am just offering a viewpoint on why newcomers these days are unable to do something big straightaway unlike in the past........that somewhat translates to answering why the average age of top 100 is increasing which is the point of this thread........

few exceptions like wilander exist but doublehanders were rare back then too........

- Becker emerged mostly thanks to his big serve at Wimbledon and indoors, not thanks to his variety which he developed a little bit later

does variety come only with tennis? can't it happen through a player's personality? doesn't becker's energy and power oriented fiery approach translate to variety?

duong
03-22-2010, 05:51 PM
- a little bit later, Arias, Krickstein had no variety, only big forehands : Bollettieri academy

hence they haven't won anything really significant........were they even ever top 30 players? i don't know much about them anyway........

Arias was in the top-10 at less than 19 years old, and in the top-5 at less than 20 years old. He didn't do better, you're right for this part :lol:

Krickstein was in the top-10 at 17 years old :eek: He still owns many records of precociousness. But he will have to wait for a long time to do better, after a dark period (he got number 6 at 22 years old)

- there was the time of the baseline players using a lot of spin : Carlsson, Perez-Roldan, Mancini, and many others ... not to mention Wilander or Nyström who had little variety when they emerged, even though they had more than the previous ones

once again, what are they(mancini, carlson etc.) compared to the real impact creators? i don't know if you are taking random top 100 players from history but i am just offering a viewpoint on why newcomers these days are unable to do something big straightaway unlike in the past........that somewhat translates to answering why the average age of top 100 is increasing which is the point of this thread........

Carlsson has been number 6, Mancini number 8, Perez-Roldan number 13. I could have mentioned many others who had less good results (and even some who had the same like Tulasne who was top-10)

And the topic is top-100 then why concentrate only on Agassi or Nadal ? ;)

Anyway, my examples are quite representative of some times : the time of the big forehands, the time of a lot of spin especially, the time of big serve in a lesser extent.

As for Borg and Becker, they are quite different : they emerged on the very-top winning slams with a limited game which was just enough to succeed :

- in the 1974 RG final against Orantes, Borg had a poor serve and backhand then played only with his forehand and his physical, beating Orantes by exhaustion (being led 2 sets to null, he won the final three sets 6/0 6/1 6/1 ... and I've read he hardly sweat :lol: )

- when Becker won Wimbledon 1985, he had a great serve but was still limited.

But both of them have in common that they developed their game quite quickly afterwards : it's especially why Borg won Wimbledon 1976 with a great volleying game, and why Becker reached RG semifinal in 1987.

Start da Game
03-22-2010, 06:13 PM
yeah i told you i don't know much about arias and krickstein but i don't think you got what i was implying........

And the topic is top-100 then why concentrate only on Agassi or Nadal ?

i took a case of a few breakthrough slam winners and showed you how it was relatively(compared to the modern day) easier to get to the top of ranking charts back in the 80s and 90s........doesn't that make a point for decrease of average age of overall top 100? a few breakthrough players like that would certainly decrease the average age because they would be replacing the older players.......no?

LocoPorElTenis
03-22-2010, 06:15 PM
Good thread. IMO, the main reason (of course already mentioned) is that due to the more physical nature of today's game players need to be fully developed in order to reach the top level.

Is longevity also increasing? How does the average retirement age(or age of dropping from the top 100) now compares with 10 or 20 years ago?

GugaF1
03-22-2010, 07:24 PM
Good thread, but I see the exact opposite. I think that never has the new generation caused so much impact as now. You got Djokovic, JMDP, Cilic, Murray all GS contenders under or 24, some under 22. Even Nadal has been around for a while but he is not exact an older guy.

I think it is basically a good thing that the older guys are having better chances, because for a while it seems like getting into the 30 was a death sentence and tennis was becoming a youngters game. I can't seem to recall many guys into the 30ties doing well lately. So is good to see the Ferrreros, Ljubicic, Stepanek, Haas doing well lately.

But all in all, tennis can not really be considered a very generous sport for much of the older guys. So many sports Guys into the 30 and late 30 are able to reach their peak and be at the top of their game. While in Tennis late 30 is nearly game over professionaly. Problably because these guys all compete from so young already.

JMG
03-22-2010, 07:34 PM
Maybe it is just harder for the younger players to reach the top 100 early, because in this generation the future and challenger tournaments are stronger than in the 90s, so it isn't easy to progress, if you are not a huge talent and it takes longer to reach the top 100. Koellerer for example said that these days in futures all players can play tennis, while that wasn't the case when he started his career.

amirbachar
03-22-2010, 08:25 PM
I don't have any figures to back this up, it's just a gut feeling, so please feel free to shoot me down.

I think it has something to do with the change in the distribution of ranking points. Established players get higher points from slams and MS so one or two good performances keep them in the top 100. More difficult for new (=younger)players to break through playing lower ranked ATP and challengers.
There is some truth in that - for example today the smallest ATP tournaments (250) gives twice the points of the biggest challengers comparing to 1.75 times in 2008. The biggest ones are 4 comparing to just 3 in 2008, and Masters are 8 comparing to 5 in 2008.
That can't be the only explanation as older players did climb up the rankings.

We should remember that last year was a transition year, so player that had good results at the last part of 2008 was overrated up until the very end.

It might be very dangerous for the tour not to give a better chance of breaking through early. Some talented players might retire...

swisht4u
03-22-2010, 09:04 PM
It seems the level of the game is very high taking more time to develop the endurance and skills needed for the youngsters.

On the other side is the older players. They know how to take care of their bodies and have all the latest supplements, training and smart scheduling to keep them going.

amirbachar
03-22-2010, 09:39 PM
Believe me, on the mathematical point of view, I've studied it very precisely, there are one or two threads still left in this forum about that (maybve you've read them actually as what you mention is precisely one of the main things I said) :
you will find nothing special about the last change and on the mathematical point of view.



To prove it's not the case, I've made a simple mathematical model:
I assumed that in each round the probability of winning is the same, but it is different for ATP and challengers.
The question I've tested, is for each winning chance in challengers, what is the required probability in the smallest ATP to have the same points expectancy.
The result are that the required probability is now lower, which means it is easier to get the same amount of points in ATP tournaments that before.
The bigger ATP and Masters have even more significant results.

Here is the Excel file that demonstrate it:
http://www.2shared.com/file/12252478/637dc31b/Ranking_Comparisons.html

duong
03-22-2010, 11:04 PM
To prove it's not the case, I've made a simple mathematical model:
I assumed that in each round the probability of winning is the same, but it is different for ATP and challengers.
The question I've tested, is for each winning chance in challengers, what is the required probability in the smallest ATP to have the same points expectancy.
The result are that the required probability is now lower, which means it is easier to get the same amount of points in ATP tournaments that before.
The bigger ATP and Masters have even more significant results.

Here is the Excel file that demonstrate it:
http://www.2shared.com/file/12252478/637dc31b/Ranking_Comparisons.html

yes there is something like gthat but it's a small effect : I had made a simulation how the rankings do change with the old and new system and the impact was small.

Moreover it's rather older than young players who succeed in challengers :shrug:

The topic here is far more complicated.

I rather think that the person here above who says that the level of the challengers and futures is higher than before has a much much stronger point.

-Valhalla-
03-22-2010, 11:23 PM
I rather think that challengers are still advantaged in points comparing to main tour tournaments.

THIS.

And Duong, you make some excellent observations on the game, but is there any chance you can make your posts a little bit more concise? Tighten things up a bit? Thx ;)

duong
03-22-2010, 11:25 PM
THIS.

And Duong, you make some excellent observations on the game, but is there any chance you can make your posts a little bit more concise? Tighten things up a bit? Thx ;)

no chance ;) (except this one) :haha:

-Valhalla-
03-22-2010, 11:27 PM
no chance ;) (except this one) :haha:

:smash:

Arkulari
03-22-2010, 11:43 PM
duong wouldn't be duong without the epistle-like style of writing :p ;)

(same as it is hard to find a post of mine without emoticons :lol: )

-Valhalla-
03-22-2010, 11:46 PM
duong wouldn't be duong without the epistle-like style of writing :p ;)

(same as it is hard to find a post of mine without emoticons :lol: )

True dat :lol:

n8
03-23-2010, 12:51 AM
Believe me, on the mathematical point of view, I've studied it very precisely, there are one or two threads still left in this forum about that (maybve you've read them actually as what you mention is precisely one of the main things I said) :
you will find nothing special about the last change and on the mathematical point of view.


I haven't read those two threads (I only joined here in July 2009), but it's reassuring that we came up an identical result.

Good thread. IMO, the main reason (of course already mentioned) is that due to the more physical nature of today's game players need to be fully developed in order to reach the top level.

Is longevity also increasing? How does the average retirement age(or age of dropping from the top 100) now compares with 10 or 20 years ago?

Longevity appears to be increasing too. This link (http://tennis28.com/rankings/yearend_youngest_oldest_chron.html) will show you that there were at least 4 players 32 years or older in the year end rankings in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2003. Before 2003, the last time that happened was in 1992. It never happened between 1986 and 1991 but there were at least 5 players aged 32 and older in the year end rankings from 1973 (when the rankings began) to 1985.

So although not at the level of the 70s or early 80s, there looks to be more older players at the top.

Good thread, but I see the exact opposite. I think that never has the new generation caused so much impact as now. You got Djokovic, JMDP, Cilic, Murray all GS contenders under or 24, some under 22. Even Nadal has been around for a while but he is not exact an older guy.

I think it is basically a good thing that the older guys are having better chances, because for a while it seems like getting into the 30 was a death sentence and tennis was becoming a youngters game. I can't seem to recall many guys into the 30ties doing well lately. So is good to see the Ferrreros, Ljubicic, Stepanek, Haas doing well lately.

But all in all, tennis can not really be considered a very generous sport for much of the older guys. So many sports Guys into the 30 and late 30 are able to reach their peak and be at the top of their game. While in Tennis late 30 is nearly game over professionaly. Problably because these guys all compete from so young already.

My article (http://statracket.net/?view=articles/ageandranking2.html) shows that the average age of the top 10 is more or less stable (note how all the excellent young players you mention are in the top 10), but it is the average of the top 100 that is increasing.

Sunset of Age
03-23-2010, 02:15 AM
Good thread, enjoyed reading it, agree with most of all of your comments. :yeah:

amirbachar
03-23-2010, 07:31 PM
yes there is something like gthat but it's a small effect : I had made a simulation how the rankings do change with the old and new system and the impact was small.

Moreover it's rather older than young players who succeed in challengers :shrug:

The topic here is far more complicated.

I rather think that the person here above who says that the level of the challengers and futures is higher than before has a much much stronger point.
This year we might found out if that is the case.


I agree that it might only make a small difference. I do think that it is quite an important change that might make it difficult for youngsters.
There are probably more significant reasons for this, which were discussed in this thread.
However, The transition period effect (points from the end of 2008 were much bigger than points from 2009) might be another reason (it affected seeding of course).

jcempire
03-23-2010, 07:43 PM
cause pete Sampras is better than Federer (100000000% sure)

Ivan is better than Roddick (not sure)

Roddick is better than Djoker (90% sure)

green25814
03-23-2010, 07:53 PM
Modern training/medical health allows older players to continue playing at a high level.

Also younger players seem to be less mentally tough than they once were, as if they are scared to succeed.

duong
03-23-2010, 11:25 PM
I agree that it might only make a small difference. I do think that it is quite an important change that might make it difficult for youngsters.
There are probably more significant reasons for this, which were discussed in this thread.
However, The transition period effect (points from the end of 2008 were much bigger than points from 2009) might be another reason (it affected seeding of course).

Frankly speaking, following the rankings week after week, looking at the players" results quite closely, I don't think it changed anything, simply because :

- in 2009, there were very few emerging young players, coming even near to top-100 : only De Bakker (88), and then you have to go to IStomin (generation 86) and then you have generations. Some players who stayed in the top-100 because of their results in the end of 2008 were also quite young, like Golubev or Mannarino. In older generation, nothing to note in generation 85 (the ones who didn't reach top-100 stayed quite far), and in older generations, players had ups and downs but not really players "emerging in top-100" that year.

- the players who succeeded in challengers last year were pretty old, even older than on the main tour, except Dolgopolov but anyway he mostly succeeded on clay and he wouldn't have got any main draw entry thanks to that.

Previous year it would have been quite different with a little bit more young emerging players, but last year the old players really had even more power than previous years. Actually inside the top-100, many of the players who improved their ranking a lot (and then were damaged by new system) were old players : Haas, Hewitt, Ljubicic, Ferrero for instance.

Anyway what's clear is that challengers have not been a place for young players' successes recently, rather for old ones, many born before 1980, see Luczak for instance :lol:

This year it's better by the way : especially many players born in 1987 emerge this year (I know they're 22-23, it's not considered young by some, but nowadays many players emerge around 22, I mean not the very-top ones but the ones applying for regular top-100) + Dolgopolov and De Bakker for generation 88.

-Valhalla-
03-24-2010, 08:00 AM
Anyway what's clear is that challengers have not been a place for young players' successes recently, rather for old ones, many born before 1980, see Luczak for instance :lol:

The Challenger circuit should be for young up-and-comers instead of aging dinasaurs. Perhaps there should be an age limit? ... 27-28?

Action Jackson
03-24-2010, 08:07 AM
The Challenger circuit should be for young up-and-comers instead of aging dinasaurs. Perhaps there should be an age limit? ... 27-28?

Rubbish of the highest order. That is how the young players develop, learn to win on the very tough Challenger circuit, many tournaments are played in shit conditions, playing against veterans who are trying to make their way back after injuries or their living before they can make the main draws of ATP events.

Especially this is the way through for players who don't have a powerful federation or agents behind them to give them wildcards.

-Valhalla-
03-24-2010, 08:11 AM
Rubbish of the highest order. That is how the young players develop, learn to win on the very tough Challenger circuit, many tournaments are played in shit conditions, playing against veterans who are trying to make their way back after injuries or their living before they can make the main draws of ATP events.

Especially this is the way through for players who don't have a powerful federation or agents behind them to give them wildcards.

Valid point regarding veterans making their way back from injury. But for older journeymen whos livelihood is Challengers, I disagree.

duong
03-24-2010, 08:53 AM
The Challenger circuit should be for young up-and-comers instead of aging dinasaurs. Perhaps there should be an age limit? ... 27-28?

if that's the way you want youngsters to emerge : cutting competition :rolleyes: , it's strange :lol:

why not put an age limit on main tour in that case ?

Anyway, where are players like Ramirez-Hidalgo and Kendrick supposed to play ?

a veterans' tour ?

and 27-28 is so young : well Federer would be allowed to play at 29, but not Gremelmayr, this is utter discrimination :shrug:

I guess the name "futures" means something, but you're all only interested in top-100 (if not only in top-10 for many here :lol: ), and futures are not enough for that.

I guess it's quite normal that youngsters have to prove something first, and improve.

If they need more time than before because the game is more tactical/mental (I guess it's the main reason), then let it be : I like than being a ballbasher isn't enough to succeed in tennis :shrug:

-Valhalla-
03-24-2010, 09:01 AM
if that's the way you want youngsters to emerge : cutting competition :rolleyes: , it's strange :lol:

why not put an age limit on main tour in that case ?

Oh let's not get carried away here. It was just an idea I threw out and yes, 27 is probably a bit too young.

Here in America every major sport has a farm system and if a prospect isn't able to prove himself by a certain age, they're generally let go. This was my line of thinking.

duong
03-24-2010, 09:10 AM
Oh let's not get carried away here. It was just an idea I threw out and yes, 27 is probably a bit too young.

Here in America every major sport has a farm system and if a prospect isn't able to prove himself by a certain age, they're generally let go. This was my line of thinking.

yes I understand but some people also like watching old players : they have memories with them and enjoy their game :shrug:

Esp many people prefer a more developed game like Cipolla than watching ballbashers like Korolev.

-Valhalla-
03-24-2010, 09:42 AM
some people also like watching old players : they have memories with them and enjoy their game :shrug:

As do I ... but on the Champions Series Tour :p

Action Jackson
03-24-2010, 11:18 AM
Valid point regarding veterans making their way back from injury. But for older journeymen whos livelihood is Challengers, I disagree.

Tennis is a global game or have you forgotten about that? There is a reason the challengers is called the jungle, very hard to get out of and stay out of there to make it to the promised land of the top 50-75 and consistently be there.

Stick to following the top 10.

-Valhalla-
03-24-2010, 11:46 AM
Stick to following the top 10.

Keep up the wry humor.

n8
03-24-2010, 11:46 AM
The Challenger circuit should be for young up-and-comers instead of aging dinasaurs. Perhaps there should be an age limit? ... 27-28?

Obtuse suggestion but thanks for reigniting the thread.

Tennis is a global game or have you forgotten about that? There is a reason the challengers is called the jungle, very hard to get out of and stay out of there to make it to the promised land of the top 50-75 and consistently be there.

Stick to following the top 10.

Jungle is a pretty good analogy but jungles don't try to get you back in once you're out... Can't think of anything better though.

Navratil
09-24-2010, 08:30 AM
Not sure what Thomas Muster's comeback will be like and I don't know if he will break into the Top 50 next year like 40-year-old Kimiko Date Krumm did this year on the WTA-tour but it's obvious that players are getting older and older. :cool:

There are no teen-sensations at all. Yes, Filip Krajcinovic reached a semifinal at an ATP-event this year and looks like the next big thing from Serbia but it was not that sensationell that an 18-year-old reaches a semi at a small event. Grigor Dimitrov and Bernard Tomic struggle. Ryan Harris is not there yet.

Fact is, that there is no teen in the Top 100 right now!
The best teen is Federico del Bonis from Argentina - # 148.

Back in the 80ties Chang won his first Slam when he was 17, Becker did too, so Mats Wilander. Sampras at Edberg won their first Slams when they were teens. Then Hewitt was the youngest # 1 ever in the 90ties...

More and more players (like Melzer this year) have their breakthrough when they are almost 30. Most of the successful doubles players are way over 30 (although they still look like college-teens - e.g. the Bryan-brothers).*

This is definitly part of the demographic change.

But also I think that the very young players can't compete with the twens because the game got more and more physical. And the body needs time to develop.

The same on the women's side where players at 14 or 15 used to have their breakthrough in the 80ties and 90ties: Austin, Capriati, Hingis, ...
:)

*By the way: I made a similar thread here a year ago:
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=147308

latso
09-24-2010, 08:59 AM
Grigor Dimitrov ain't struggling anymore

he's on his third consecutive Challenger final, aiming at the third consecutive tittle

There will be a teen top 100 very soon imo

He jumped some 80 places in no time and if he copes physically and follows up the eventual B2B tittles in Bangkok with a solid Thai Open, he might do it more sooner than later


A fact is though that tennis has become much moe phisical and there will be small chances to see a teenager enter the top ranks in the future, what to say about winning ATP tournaments

and from now on should be impossible for an under 20 player to win a GS like it has happened in the last

at least in the men part

latso
09-24-2010, 09:00 AM
and Dimitrov is higher ranked than Del Bonis atm btw

or will be in the next update of the ranking

FedererBulgaria
09-24-2010, 10:08 AM
I hope Grigor will be very soon!If he wins tomorrow he will be wround 133 ;)

Navratil
09-24-2010, 10:09 AM
@latso

I really believe that Dimitrov will be a great player but he's didn't reach the Top 100 yet and is almost not a teen anymore!!

Navratil
09-24-2010, 10:11 AM
Fact is that the average age of the ATP-players is getting higher and higher (same on the WTA-tour):

Average Age 1990 (of Top 100 players): 24 years old
Average Age 2010 (of Top 100 players): 26,41 years old

WTA tour:
Average Age 1990 (of Top 100 players): 22,35 years old
Average Age 2010 (of Top 100 players): 24,24 years old

And even more extrem in the doubles rankings (ATP / WTA)!

mrclyde
09-24-2010, 10:13 AM
Yes, Dimitrov is going up, he needs more and more points - about 150 and he will be in top 100.

EDIT
Federer also said that, but he thinks this is because more players are mentally stable and that's why hard to break.

FedererBulgaria
09-24-2010, 10:14 AM
@latso

I really believe that Dimitrov will be a great player but he's didn't reach the Top 100 yet and is almost not a teen anymore!!

Before 3 months he was like 333 now 133 it seems that he tried too hard against big names early is his career,but now he did it step by step :worship: 1-2 good ATP 250 and he will be in top 100 ;)Now he is soooo tired with all that mathes...

Navratil
09-24-2010, 10:24 AM
Is this getting a Dimitrov-thread??

DanaKz
09-24-2010, 10:27 AM
Remove this pic from here.

FedererBulgaria
09-24-2010, 10:31 AM
Remove this pic from here.

whats the problem man

DanaKz
09-24-2010, 10:40 AM
whats the problem man

It's too wide, stretched the screen.

Upd. Great, thank you.

mrclyde
09-24-2010, 11:03 AM
OK I'm following Tomic and Krajinovic and they're still young Grigor is 19,5 years. Kraijnovic recently didn't present well... Mouratoglou says he has mentality, where's this mentality to be new Agassi at least like Bollettieri said? I think Harrison gonna break into top 100 soon. Just he need to play more tournaments. Tomic too. They're receiving too much WC for big tournaments and want to break from there, not from challengers. From what I've seen Harrison has the best mentality, Grigor is maybe 2nd, and maybe Tomic has the best game.

Helevorn
09-24-2010, 11:14 AM
Bulgaria has invaded this thread :lol:

by the way this is good for tennis and this is one of the reasons why tennis is better now than before, ridiculous mugs like Chang winning slams at 17 were not exactly what I want to see, this is not WTA

The Magician
09-24-2010, 11:16 AM
This is a huge problem for tennis. People say the new generation will step up, but there is no new generation. Everyone winning the big tournaments is in their late 20s or even early 30s, and the future "prospects" are all clowns. Good news for Faker and Muzza fans, they'll be at the top of the game for a long time, and will eventually collect some slams just because no one will step up to replace Fed and Nadull in the next few years.

Just another chapter in the book called: The Death of Tennis by Uncle Tony and the ATP

Audacity
09-24-2010, 11:45 AM
Bulgaria has invaded this thread :lol:

by the way this is good for tennis and this is one of the reasons why tennis is better now than before, ridiculous mugs like Chang winning slams at 17 were not exactly what I want to see, this is not WTA

:retard:

flipsider
09-24-2010, 11:49 AM
18 year old(best rankings)

Murray 41
Del Potro 50
Gulbis 79
Cilic 101

Not the biggest talants in the next years, but players like Berankis, Dimitrov,Del Bonis, Harrison, Tomic, Krajinovic be the top30 players for sure.

n8
09-24-2010, 12:35 PM
18 year old(best rankings)

Murray 41
Del Potro 50
Gulbis 79
Cilic 101

Not the biggest talants in the next years, but players like Berankis, Dimitrov,Del Bonis, Harrison, Tomic, Krajinovic be the top30 players for sure.

Nice first post and the stats are right! Welcome to MensTennisForums.

Filo V.
09-24-2010, 12:36 PM
Well, look at the top players on the ATP and WTA tours. Federer. Serena. Venus. Nadal. Djokovic. Clijsters. These are powerfully built, strong and fast athletes, and mature adults. So, none of this is a surprise. The fact of the matter is, conditioning more than ever is important as a tennis professional. You need to be strong, you need to be fast, you need to have great endurance, you need to be injury tough. The older you are, the more likely you will be tougher physically.

Also, the difference in mental toughness, maturity and experiences is invaluable. The older players understand the grind of tennis, the focus you need to play your best every point, the fight, the training, they know the ins and outs of the game and being on tour. Younger players go through more ups and downs, and instability, emotionally, mentally, and aren't able to handle potentially pitfalls as effectively.

So, the combination of mental and emotional stress and the physicality of the game is why you are seeing fewer teen stars. And that is something that will only continue as the sport continues moving forward. You have to really earn your way and pay your dues and there is much more depth in the game overall. Only the strong survive.

Poirot123
10-29-2010, 08:56 PM
I ask this question "is the peak age of tennis players getting older" because the state of the ATP tour has remained relatively static since 2008. After the Federer dominated years of 2004-2007, three world class players in the form of Nadal (a world class clay player as a youth who has developed the rest of his game to be the undisputed world number 1 by some margin), Djokovic (a grand slam winner) and Murray (a multiple masters champion and grand slam runner up) have now emerged to challenge Federer's domination. And these four players have dominated the men's game since 2008, with the exception of Soderling and Berdych (who are ranked 5 and 6 in the world at the moment). There has been virtually no change in the status quo since 2008, with the top 4 players dominating, with the rest of the field being noticably weaker - even a top 8 player like Verdasco is not expected to even get close to the top 4 player in most matches. There has been no emergence of new young stars who even look likely to break into the top 10 - the likes of Monfils, Tsonga, Cilic are never going to be world class players at the pinnacle of the sport whilst the top 4 guys are around playing like they are. Even Roddick and Lubijic in their old ages are still top players beating down the lower ranked talent. Hell, even Melzer at the grand old age of 29 looks more of a threat than any of the newbies on the scene and with all due respect, I think we can safely say he'll never win a grand slam.

So that is my point - why aren't there any new players emerging? As far as I can say, I haven't seen any new player who looks like he can get close to the top 10. Anyone currently playing will never be a top 10 player who hasn't already reached that level based on what I've seen. So my question is: is the peak age of tennis players getting older, and if so, why?

oranges
10-29-2010, 09:02 PM
Anyone currently playing will never be a top 10 player who hasn't already reached that level based on what I've seen.

What? You must be joking.

Poirot123
10-29-2010, 09:06 PM
What? You must be joking.

Who then?

Of course in time people will rise up when the current top players start to decline, but from what I've seen, the standard of tennis at the top the ATP tour will decline if established guys like Monfils get into the top 10 as they are no where near as good as the guys at the top at the moment. This is my point. Unless there are new guys starting out who can rise to that level, I don't see anyone who is an established player at the moment who has the talent to reach the current standards at the very top. That is the whole point of this thread. And why I have speculated that the players are peaking at older ages. If the hypothesis is wrong, then the current crop of younger players are just not as good as the older guys.

philosophicalarf
10-29-2010, 09:08 PM
Melzer could, but then he's almost there already. Gulbis if he can get back to the level he had before his injuries.

But then these are well established. Dolgo perhaps? Lots of talent there to be tapped.


That's pretty much it in the top100, the rest who might make it back to top10 have already been there.

Poirot123
10-29-2010, 09:14 PM
That's my point though. There's absolutely nothing in the top 100 at the moment that we can all sit there and think "yes, he's going to a grand slam champion" beyond the top 4 guys (possibly Soderling and Berdych and Del Potro if he returns to full fitness and form).Players like Roddick who have been around for a decade still have a better chance of winning grand slams than the newer players like Cilic and Gulbis. There really is no new talent, and there hasn't been since Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (and I'm forgetting Del Potro) emerged to challenge Federer. Are these guys really that much better than everyone else. Why are there no new young guys emerging? The ATP tour is ageing, such that the Lujubic, Davydenko, Youzney, Melzer and Roddick are still top 20 players in their late 20s / early 30s.

ApproachShot
10-29-2010, 09:20 PM
Yes - I recommend reading StatRacket's analysis.

Infinity
10-29-2010, 09:55 PM
That's my point though. There's absolutely nothing in the top 100 at the moment that we can all sit there and think "yes, he's going to a grand slam champion" beyond the top 4 guys (possibly Soderling and Berdych and Del Potro if he returns to full fitness and form).Players like Roddick who have been around for a decade still have a better chance of winning grand slams than the newer players like Cilic and Gulbis. There really is no new talent, and there hasn't been since Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (and I'm forgetting Del Potro) emerged to challenge Federer. Are these guys really that much better than everyone else. Why are there no new young guys emerging? The ATP tour is ageing, such that the Lujubic, Davydenko, Youzney, Melzer and Roddick are still top 20 players in their late 20s / early 30s.

No, they are not. Even in their very worst year (aside Nadal), no one challenged them.

May be an injured Del Potro who had a chance this year to rise to #3 after being absent for several months.

They were not holding young talents from rising. If this was the case, this year was a good opportunity to anyone. No one emerged ...

HKz
10-29-2010, 10:34 PM
It appears more and more difficult for teenagers to have breakthroughs now, especially at Grand Slams, than it was years ago. I mean look, you had Becker/Chang who were 17, Borg who was 18 when they won their first slams, and now it is quite difficult to find a GS winner under 20. If I remember correctly, in the last 10 years, Nadal was the youngest at 19. Then of course you have a couple 20/21 year olds with Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Djokovic/Del Potro.

Then again, they are only a few years off each other as 17-21 isn't a HUGE difference, but I think it would make sense especially how the game has evolved into a very physical sport. Players' bodies need to become more mature and stronger, which obviously takes time. You don't see these skinny 16-18 year olds from the 80s running around doing some damage at the slams.

oranges
10-29-2010, 10:41 PM
Who then?



It doesn't ever matter who. The very idea that no one currently playing who hasn't made it to top 10 so far will never do it is ludicrous. What will happen for it to come true, current top 10 will continue to do so for 10 more years?

philosophicalarf
10-29-2010, 11:58 PM
The "next generation" after murray/djoko seemed to be delpot/cilic/gulbis, a year younger, and all born within a few days. Only DelPot really did anything so far.

fast_clay
10-30-2010, 12:05 AM
yeah, major winning youth and even tour ready youth seems to be in a lull right at this moment in time...whether that has something to with tour rigour or the 09 pts change or whatever i'm not sure...but, i believe for sure that the elder statesmen have never had it so good in the last 2 decades as right now should they want to hang around beyond their 30th bday...

Jaz
10-30-2010, 12:37 AM
Someone should analyse the average Age of finalists.

n8
10-30-2010, 01:20 AM
Yes - I recommend reading StatRacket's analysis.

Cheers buddy!Here's the first page of my three part article on age and ranking (http://statracket.net/?view=articles/ageandranking1.html) in men's tennis.

Unfortunately, we cannot say for sure what the average age of peak performance will be among today's players as the date of their career high ranking is still uncertain. However, we can look at the average age of career high of the top players in the past. The top 50 players of 1980 reached their career high at 25.74 on average. The 1995 top 50 had an average career high age of 25.02.

I suspect that the average age of peak performance will still be around 25, but players are now performing close to their career best for longer (or at least at older ages). For example, players like Ljubicic, Chela and Nieminen are performing well at older ages but aren't reaching new career highs. This phenomenon increases the average age of the top 100 but doesn't increase the age in which players peak.

nadal_slam_king
10-30-2010, 01:25 AM
Players are developing slower. Federer was ranked 14 before his 20th birthday. Nadal was ranked 2 when he was 19-years-old. Now there are no teenagers in the top 100. So none of them will be playing hectic schedules (aka winning) until they are in their 20s. So the prime age of emerging players today should be later because of that.

moon language
10-30-2010, 01:52 AM
Yes, but I would also guess that the potential length of that peak is shorter due to the physicality of the sport today.

Action Jackson
10-30-2010, 11:54 AM
Statracket did this properly.

Renaud
11-05-2010, 04:51 PM
1 year and half later, still no teenagers in the top 100, and the youngest player in the next ranking will be Dolgopolov (22y 0m 1d). :eek:

Certinfy
11-05-2010, 04:52 PM
Out Partying with Gasguet?

:smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke:
:haha:

Mungo
11-05-2010, 04:58 PM
Prodigy teens are born in Mallorca once in a while

Sham Kay
11-05-2010, 05:14 PM
Doesnt this just suggest this is not a mug era? The fact that talented teens can't in fact break into the top 100 and challenge the top guys from this era shows how tough the competition has become, NOT how weak the quality of the pool of teens (poor D.Young).

To be honest, spindly 17 and 18 year olds breaking through and winning a GS or two like Chang and Becker doesnt say much for the overall quality of the guys at the very highest levels in those apparently "strong" eras.

Pirata.
11-05-2010, 05:23 PM
Doesnt this just suggest this is not a mug era? The fact that talented teens can't in fact break into the top 100 and challenge the top guys from this era shows how tough the competition has become, NOT how weak the quality of the pool of teens (poor D.Young).

To be honest, spindly 17 and 18 year olds breaking through and winning a GS or two like Chang and Becker doesnt say much for the overall quality of the guys at the very highest levels in those apparently "strong" eras.

Not really, more like it shows how hard it is to break through as a youngster when everyone ranked ahead of you plays virtually the same or similar style. There's no room for a talented youngster with a well rounded game to stand out because the surfaces and styles of play have become so homogenized.

Johnny Groove
11-05-2010, 05:29 PM
Not really, more like it shows how hard it is to break through as a youngster when everyone ranked ahead of you plays virtually the same or similar style. There's no room for a talented youngster with a well rounded game to stand out because the surfaces and styles of play have become so homogenized.

I don't buy that, love.

It is all mental. If a player has the mindset of your post, then he definitely won't break through.

The difference between top 100 and top 200 is mostly the mental game. Everyone is good, matches turn on a few points :shrug:

Sham Kay
11-05-2010, 05:37 PM
Not really, more like it shows how hard it is to break through as a youngster when everyone ranked ahead of you plays virtually the same or similar style. There's no room for a talented youngster with a well rounded game to stand out because the surfaces and styles of play have become so homogenized.
You must mean the tall, strong, hard-hitting types and slowed down surfaces. You're right there, especially looking at the challenger circuit, where these burly guys serve and out-hit the underdeveloped teens. I'm not sure this means everyone plays exactly the same though, that's like saying the S&V's from the past were all the same.. oh wait :rolleyes:

Homogenized or not, the quality of the players these teens have to fight with in order to get anywhere near the top guys (i.e challenger players who most MTF guys aka Fedal nuthuggers would never have heard of) is FAR greater than it was in the past. Basically the strength in depth of mens tennis is immense in this era, regardless of how robotically (a word?) similar they are, or how boring you might find it.

decrepitude
11-05-2010, 07:53 PM
To be honest, spindly 17 and 18 year olds breaking through and winning a GS or two like Chang and Becker doesnt say much for the overall quality of the guys at the very highest levels in those apparently "strong" eras.

Chang maybe, but Becker "spindly"? :confused: Did you *see* Becker at 17? He was built like an ox.

Beat
11-05-2010, 10:25 PM
I don't think someone of 19 is a child, you are pretty close to being fully developed when you are 19.

yes, but by then you should already be in the top 100 to qualify for OP's diagram.
same thing on the women's side. i have no idea why :shrug:

Pirao666
11-05-2010, 11:26 PM
Maybe the peak age of tennis players is getting older? I don't know.

Filo V.
11-06-2010, 12:22 AM
Game is more physically demanding today than always, and in turn is more mentally exhausting. Players at 18 are not really ready to compete with men match in and out for the most part, unless they have the games of men, and most have not matured to that level. Also there is a limit to the amount kids under 18 can play I think, which obviously plays a factor.

Paylu2007
11-06-2010, 02:04 AM
They are haunted, so they cant win :(

FairWeatherFan
11-06-2010, 02:44 AM
Wow, a thread making a valid and interesting point. A nice change from all the 'I LUV NADAL LOL' garbage that gets posted on here.

dombrfc
11-06-2010, 02:46 AM
Wow, a thread making a valid and interesting point. A nice change from all the 'I LUV NADAL LOL' garbage that gets posted on here.

:worship::worship:

SlicedAce
11-06-2010, 02:55 AM
Wow, a thread making a valid and interesting point. A nice change from all the 'I LUV NADAL LOL' garbage that gets posted on here.

As opposed to pearls of wisdom like this?

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=160840

:worship::worship:

Fools seldom differ.

Matchu
11-06-2010, 10:14 AM
Perhaps it has to with the fact that the average male fully develops at 23 and once they are fully developed and can hone their game it takes on average about 4 years to establish yourself inside the top 100. Not every top 100 player was a junior star, not every top player had an ATP ranking before they were 18 etc.

Another reason could be the fact that Tennis players now realise they have to do something with their life (ie. go to College ala Isner) before they go pro. Perhaps it is the fact that 27/28 is the age where players hit their physical peak and therefore hit their ranking peak and then start to decline physically from then onwards.

That may explain it, but it is a very strange statistic, Maybe the stress on young body from the more travel professional players do these days has taken them a longer time to get up to the professional standards?

Purple Rainbow
11-06-2010, 12:05 PM
Interesting point. I'd go for rhe following factors:

1) Nowadays, you can't win matches on talent alone. To come up with big results you also need to be in excellent physical health, be extremely tough mentally and be able to make smart decisions. It takes time to hone these skills. You won't see teenagers make deep runs into slams because of this. I don't think we'll see the likes of McEnroe, who felt no need to practise, make even one slam nowadays.

This means that even the most talented youngsters have to take the traditional route of futures - challengers - atp events. Which brings me to problem #2.

2) Tennis has become globalised and there are more dedicated pros than ever. The challger tour is packed with players who want to make that final jump towards the top 100. It is not easy to survive this jungle. Especially for players who have had it easy in juniors and are suddenly faced with opponents who are stronger and fitter.
It takes dedication to take on the challenger tour for a few years. The pay isn't good, there isn't much attention, travel can be killing, injuries mean you'll have to start all over again. Anybody who is fan of a player perpetually ranked between 100 and 200 will acknowledge this.
It takes a few years to get battle ready for the big tournaments, so most players who do make the top 100 will do so well past 21.

Ouragan
11-06-2010, 03:16 PM
It reminds me of this good British film 'Children of men' in which women can't procreate anymore...is this what's happening? Nobody under 20 to play tennis, anywhere in the world?

Sham Kay
11-06-2010, 03:45 PM
Well one things for certain. 6-7 years from now will be the official MUG ERA.

CasualFan
06-05-2011, 01:32 AM
Federer at 29 is past his prime and now #3 in rankings and considered old.

When comparing to another physically demanding sport you got Bernard Hopkins who won title at 46 and he had more stamina than his opponent, Glen Johnson at 42 vs Carl Froch at 33 tonight and Froch is in his prime.

Pacquiao at 29 would have been the absolute pinnacle of his powers, so why is Tennis different?

Capuccino
06-05-2011, 01:39 AM
Because it's the most physically demanding.

Ibracadabra
06-05-2011, 01:48 AM
Movement is vital in tennis. Boxing less so as the opponent has to come to you but in tennis you need to move to the ball.

Johnny Groove
06-05-2011, 02:11 AM
Because it's the most physically demanding.

This, combined with the fact that most tennis players get onto the main tour at 16/17/18 and are done by their late 20's.

Meanwhile, you have guys in other sports that take the college route and don't get to the pros until 22-23, and last until their mid 30's.

Also, the tennis schedule is insanely demanding as well as mentally draining.

Silvester
06-05-2011, 02:51 AM
demanding on the body, all the lateral movement is very hard on joints etc.

kindling
06-05-2011, 06:09 AM
Because it's pushed into everyone's heads that you're on your way out by 30 and most every player just believes it because they've heard it their whole life. They're mentally tuned to lose it in their late 20's / early 30's.

tennisfan856
06-05-2011, 06:46 AM
The schedule and ranking system with prize money differential. If ATP players had a genuine offseason, quality of play would increase and we would have less mechanical, heartless tennis in ATP 250 and 500's.

LawrenceOfTennis
06-05-2011, 07:25 AM
Because it's the toughest sport?

tests
06-05-2011, 07:29 AM
Because it's the toughest sport?


i disagree. Basketball is tougher than tennis (not extremely tougher, but it is indeed tougher)

green25814
06-05-2011, 07:43 AM
The scheduling in tennis is pretty brutal, and these days the sport is less and less about technical skill and more and more about raw athleticism.

sco
06-05-2011, 07:57 AM
i disagree. Basketball is tougher than tennis (not extremely tougher, but it is indeed tougher)

NBA has a long off-season. If they don't make the playoffs, they're off from mid-April to Nov. If they play all the way to the Finals, then they're off from mid-June till November. Good NBA players probably play about 30-35 mins per game (usually every other day).

tests
06-05-2011, 08:09 AM
NBA has a long off-season. If they don't make the playoffs, they're off from mid-April to Nov. If they play all the way to the Finals, then they're off from mid-June till November. Good NBA players probably play about 30-35 mins per game (usually every other day).

What would your ranking consist of when it comes to most difficult sports?

BackhandMissile
06-05-2011, 08:11 AM
An active boxer might fight 4 times in a year, over a period of about 45 minutes at most.

Tennis players have got a crazy schedule. If they only played Grand Slams, they could easily keep going until their late 30's.

tennis2tennis
06-05-2011, 09:50 AM
the mileage

Jelena
06-05-2011, 11:21 AM
The Challenger circuit should be for young up-and-comers instead of aging dinasaurs. Perhaps there should be an age limit? ... 27-28?
This would mean a prohibition of doing their job once they're older than a limit set. No matter on which court you went to as player, you'd win the case. Remember, they're doing their job as every other person does.

LawrenceOfTennis
06-05-2011, 11:25 AM
The youngest player in the top 100 is Dimitrov and he's already 20. Back in the days teenagers won slams.

MaxPower
06-05-2011, 12:25 PM
In many sports you can compensate for loss of quickness with experience. Like knowing where to be and what to do. Good example is team sports. It's not always obvious that a star player has lost speed/quickness because they are always in the right position and try to not put that much mileage on their body in the match. In a short rush over 20-30m a 35-40 year old can definitely be competitive. It's just when you do it over and over day after day you wont heal as fast as a 20-25 year old and the risk for injury is higher as well.

On the other side of the coin a male 16-17 year old that want to compete with a 25 year old will have to rush the development of muscles and such and that comes at the price of endurance. Many endurance sports like long distance running/cross-country skiing or what not it's very clear that young juniors can't compete because it takes a few years of hard pressure on the body to develop the kind of endurance needed.

So I'd say tennis right now is neither a young mans sport or an old man's sport. It is for men in their peak physical condition. No matter when that comes. Some might reach that at 20-22 and keep it, others take until 25. Some might even peak at 27-29! Most men will decline post 30 though because then the decline in testosterone production etc is a factor (unless you use doping)

And as people said in this thread you are actually covering the court and chasing a ball. You can't "cheat" in tennis by just covering the right side of the court or something like an old soccer player might decide that he will not move as much over the field. There is no-one else to fill in for you and cover for you like a young and up and coming talent can cover for veterans in team games. Doesn't work to be 35-40. Sure you can give your all for a few points and look competitive. Then you would be tired in no time. Or you can decide to not cover far out or run down dropshots etc. Your opponent will use that and you lose badly

Also I think the kids 16-17 years old and alike has problems with the power. The ball is hit so hard that either you will have to rush build muscle (maybe even illegaly to have time!) while you work on the endurance and technique OR you can take it easier with the endurance and technique and work hard to build muscle in the gym. It is a limit how much your body can "build" per year so to speak so you can't have everything. Once in a full moon there will come a guy like Del Potro that seems to have the entire package <20. Maybe also count Nadal in there who was also a physical freak at young age. Del Potro doesn't remind me of a kid like Wilander who could move in as a 17 year old and win a slam without having much power. Wilander would have been blown off the court if he came with that body today for example

Dougie
06-05-2011, 12:39 PM
In many sports you can compensate for loss of quickness with experience. Like knowing where to be and what to do. Good example is team sports. It's not always obvious that a star player has lost speed/quickness because they are always in the right position and try to not put that much mileage on their body in the match. In a short rush over 20-30m a 35-40 year old can definitely be competitive. It's just when you do it over and over day after day you wont heal as fast as a 20-25 year old and the risk for injury is higher as well.

On the other side of the coin a male 16-17 year old that want to compete with a 25 year old will have to rush the development of muscles and such and that comes at the price of endurance. Many endurance sports like long distance running/cross-country skiing or what not it's very clear that young juniors can't compete because it takes a few years of hard pressure on the body to develop the kind of endurance needed.

So I'd say tennis right now is neither a young mans sport or an old man's sport. It is for men in their peak physical condition. No matter when that comes. Some might reach that at 20-22 and keep it, others take until 25. Some might even peak at 27-29! Most men will decline post 30 though because then the decline in testosterone production etc is a factor (unless you use doping)

And as people said in this thread you are actually covering the court and chasing a ball. You can't "cheat" in tennis by just covering the right side of the court or something like an old soccer player might decide that he will not move as much over the field. There is no-one else to fill in for you and cover for you like a young and up and coming talent can cover for veterans in team games. Doesn't work to be 35-40. Sure you can give your all for a few points and look competitive. Then you would be tired in no time. Or you can decide to not cover far out or run down dropshots etc. Your opponent will use that and you lose badly

Also I think the kids 16-17 years old and alike has problems with the power. The ball is hit so hard that either you will have to rush build muscle (maybe even illegaly to have time!) while you work on the endurance and technique OR you can take it easier with the endurance and technique and work hard to build muscle in the gym. It is a limit how much your body can "build" per year so to speak so you can't have everything. Once in a full moon there will come a guy like Del Potro that seems to have the entire package <20. Maybe also count Nadal in there who was also a physical freak at young age. Del Potro doesn't remind me of a kid like Wilander who could move in as a 17 year old and win a slam without having much power. Wilander would have been blown off the court if he came with that body today for example

Some very good points here, excellent post. The game is just so much more physical than it used to be that young talents ( like Chang and Becker, for example) don´t just surprise everyone and win Slams. It takes so much more time to develop the physique.

thegreendestiny
06-05-2011, 12:41 PM
This is definitely a trend in the entire sport. Even in WTA, which used to easily produce a myriad of teenage prodigies has seen a maturity in top players and the young ones are having difficulty breaking in.

For ATP, the game has evolved so much in the last 10 years that mental fortitude can only be improved over time. Surely, the kids are talented but the mental aspect of their games are no longer enough to push them easily to the top.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
06-05-2011, 01:21 PM
A brief comparison of generations suggests it may be getting harder to achieve a high ranking as a teenager, although it may also be the case that the current generation of teenagers are weak, or something is going wrong with their training.

1990s generation: Sampras finished 1990 (age 19) at world no 5. Chang hit the top 5 at 17. Becker was ranked world No 2 at 19. Agassi was world no 3 at 18.

2000s generation: Safin hit world No 1 at age 20 and so did Hewitt. Both players were well into the top 5 in their teens. Roddick hit world No 1 at 21 (although wasn't top 10 until age 20). Federer was a late bloomer and didn't hit the top 10 until 21; ditto Nalbandian.

2010s generation: Nadal obviously world No 2 in his teens. Murray hit the top 10 about a month after his 20th birthday. Nole hit the top 10 a month before his 20th birthday and was No 3 aged 20. Delpo, like Murray, hit the top 10 just after his 20th birthday.

Next generation - who is there exactly? A couple of players in the top 100? There is no question that every one of the players listed above was well into the top 100 as a teenager.

There does seem to be an increasing trend for 'top' players to hit the top 10 at about 20/21, whereas in the 1990s they would hit the top 10 as teenagers. Nadal is probably an outlier. Except for Rafa, Safin and Hewitt were the last players to be well into the top 5 as teenagers. Worryingly for Rafa, both burned out very early.

However, even players iike Federer, Murray and Djokovic who weren't top 10 as teenagers (or only just scraped in) were showing a lot of promise as teenagers e.g. Fed beating Sampras at Wimbledon at age 19.

One explanation of the above stats is that the 'breakthrough' age for top players is getting older. Unfortunately, a more simple and logical explanation is that the next generation has no top players.

Maybe something is going wrong with the coaching? Perhaps the current ideas about how to train young players are wrong but there is a bit of groupthink going on and coaches are sticking dogmatically to them?

garson
07-02-2011, 12:25 PM
This not only happens in ATP, but also happens in WTA as well. I don't know the answer. I'm curious though. When Boris Becker won Wimbledon (he was 17 at the time, right), were there junior competitions in grand slams? 5

Nowadays, more and more players are staying and playing longer than what it used to be. I believed Bjorn Borg retired when he was 25 (correct me if I'm wrong), while today 25 and above seems to be when a player peak his/her performance.
In the future, there will be more and more players playing in their 30s (I'm not predicting, but it would seem that way.)

Action Jackson
09-11-2011, 04:02 AM
Some very good points here, excellent post. The game is just so much more physical than it used to be that young talents ( like Chang and Becker, for example) don´t just surprise everyone and win Slams. It takes so much more time to develop the physique.

Unless there is another major shift soon, then it's not changing soon.

Super Djoker
09-12-2011, 01:46 AM
Beacause the next genaration is badly overrated! Tomic Eaten alive by Cillic by 1 love and 2! Dimitrov Couldent stay on his feet to save his life when I saw him at Wimbledon! these kids are not guna become challengers!

Adri89
09-12-2011, 01:55 AM
From my point of view, the top 100 is mainly getting older for two reason :

1- the game is more and more physic, and it takes more time to get the level of the top 100 in this department. This is a "long term" explanation due to how evolved the game in the 2000's.

2- there was an incredible generation of players born between 1980 and 1982 (Federer, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Safin, Gonzalez...) which was very talented both physically and also technically. They have in this last aspect a huge avantage of the new generation because they had to be very good to compete against the top guys of the late 90. They are far more commplete. This is the "short term" explanation due to the ages of those players now.

Vorst Myschkin
09-12-2011, 08:51 AM
Anything with climbing up the rankings is ridiculous. If you're not good enough to beat the 150th player of the world in a challenger, why would you be in the top 100. If you do have the skills to beat him, you'll get in the top 100 soon enough.
Remember Thiemo de Bakker, played around the 200th and 300th spot for 2 years, than all of a sudden got it going, won 4 challengers in 5 attempts or something and reached the top 100 (to fall out of it, just 2 years after).
All young tennisplayers suck ass, that's why Djokovic has only lost once to a player younger than him, and that's why they don't reach the top 100.

Time Violation
09-12-2011, 09:11 AM
Beacause the next genaration is badly overrated! Tomic Eaten alive by Cillic by 1 love and 2! Dimitrov Couldent stay on his feet to save his life when I saw him at Wimbledon! these kids are not guna become challengers!

Agree... some people are almost desperate to get a new Federer or new Sampras, but it's not going to happen so easy. Basketball for example, is far more popular/widespread compared to tennis, but you don't see new Jordans or new Magics appearing very often (or at all some would say) :)

Navratil
09-12-2011, 09:11 AM
It's the same on the WTA. The doubles world # 1 in 38 years old! Navratilova won a slam with almost 50 years!

Kimiko Date is still a dangerous player with over 40 years and there are almost no teenagers anymore at the top.

Remember when players like Capriati, Hingis, Seles, Jaeger & Co turned pro with 14 or 15 years of ago!!

AndyNonomous
10-11-2011, 01:50 PM
Tignor laments the lack of new talent in tennis today.

http://tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=14729&zoneid=9




Why are so few new players making the breakthrough today ?

jcempire
10-11-2011, 02:49 PM
Just take a look at Top ten
seven guys out of Top ten at age 25 +
six guys of Ten at age 26 +
four guys of ten at age 27 +
three guys of then at age 29 and half +


2. Nadal age 25 + 4.5 months
3. Federer age 30
5. Ferrer Age 29 + 6 months
6. Soderling Age 27 + 2months
7. Berdych Age 26 + 2 months
8. Tsonga Age 26 + 6 months
9. Fish Age 30

Pirata.
10-19-2011, 08:25 PM
I am just wondering in the last ten years or so, what's up with these veteran players still hanging around, despite injuries or age. For example, there have been guys like Ferrero, Hewitt, Roddick, Haas, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, etc. whose peak was around the 2003-05 years, but within the last two years, they have been making comebacks and several of them winning titles against younger guys. Is it due to experience? The fact that they have been former top ten players who know what it takes to compete? That despite having injuries, their playing style doesn't cause a huge detriment to their bodies? Of course they aren't consistently competing with the top guys, but they are still in the picture. Some of them had long-term injuries, or problems that kept them out for patches of the season, but they are still doing pretty well.

Federer aside, there seem to be a lot of guys 28+ who are enjoy their peak success now rather than at a younger age. You have Ferrer who will be 30 next May, who is having a great year, reaching a career high ranking, has been in the top ten almost a year now.

Mardy Fish who will be 30 this December, reached the top ten for the first time earlier this year. Feliciano Lopez is 30 and he is probably going to reach a career high by the end of the year. Steps and Ljubicic aren't at career highs but they're both 32 and still hanging around the top 30--and Ljuba won a Masters last year.

We're starting to get more youngsters (Nishikori, Raonic, Tomic, Dimitrov, Young, Harrison, etc.) but we still have lots of these "veterans" doing some damage. Is it good for the game? Bad for the game?

Sunset of Age
10-19-2011, 08:35 PM
Perhaps these old geezers aren't exactly those 'mugs from a weak era' (:rolleyes:) as certain posters claim so very often, but actually rather great tennis players whose sheer amount of talent allows them to still be a force to be reckoned with, even when in their thirties. These guys deserve genuine respect! ;)

Fat Camel
10-19-2011, 09:07 PM
I don't know why but i'm always for old guys on tour.
Great to see somebody playing nice tennis for a really long time. Even if i didn't like him as a youngster at his peak, i start to feel for him near his 30-s.

Saberq
10-19-2011, 09:17 PM
I hope Fed,Novak and Rafa play for 15 more years on this level...all these young guns suck....Rafa was winning GS at 19,Nole had 2 masters GS final and a GS title at 20...well Raonic,Dimitrov and other guys will have 19,20 years next year and do you really think they can do any of these things?

Nathaliia
10-19-2011, 09:24 PM
They are usually nice or charismatic guys (or sometimes both), these who are not tired with contact with fans / press conferences etc. big experience at different situations helps them. They are ambassadors of tennis and great for the game.

xdrewitdajx
10-19-2011, 09:30 PM
yeah, Ljubicic is definitely doped up. Case closed, everyone. Back to work.

Mateya
10-19-2011, 09:34 PM
Because they love the game, just like some of us do. :)

tennizen
10-19-2011, 09:41 PM
I think playing at the later stages of career must be more fun and less stressful and probably one of the causes for these comebacks. Many talented players who don't quite make the cut during their young years probably don't do so because of expectations/ nerves/lack of mental strength. When I watch the older players, I see a relative lack of panic during key moments. They probably lose a bit of their shot-making prowess and foot-speed but can compensate with more "clever" play. It's pretty nice to watch imo. But they can only go so far.

Naudio Spanlatine
10-19-2011, 09:43 PM
THESE GUYS RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:inlove:

ROCK ON DUDES:rocker2: :rocker2: :rocker2: :rocker2: :rocker2:

marquez
10-19-2011, 10:21 PM
no one mentioned chela here

chela being ranked that high and having that much success at his age and despite the fact that he has serious problems to run is the biggest surprise in this context for me

you can accuse him of being a fixer and many other things, but the fact that he is still around at his age, with his injury problems and most of all, with the exhausting style he plays, just shows what a tough nut he is

Ibracadabra
10-19-2011, 10:39 PM
chela was the highest ranked argentine not too long ago

SetSampras
10-20-2011, 12:38 AM
I dunno.. Being in your late 20s really aint that old, unless you are some supreme early bloomer.. But most guys don't peak until their early- mid 20s. Most guys dont see a whole lot of success in until their 20s.

Fujee
10-20-2011, 12:40 AM
God I miss peak Davydenko

oranges
10-20-2011, 12:42 AM
God I miss peak Davydenko

You're not alone :sad:

Naudio Spanlatine
10-20-2011, 12:44 AM
God I miss peak Davydenko
:scared: :scared: :scared:

leng jai
10-20-2011, 12:45 AM
They will never win any slams.

Buts its nice that they can continue failing until they're old and gray.

Naudio Spanlatine
10-20-2011, 01:14 AM
I think its great that the veterans in our sports is peaking at a later age, i mean WHY NOT, its always nice to see guys do better at an older age:shrug:

Sunset of Age
10-20-2011, 01:31 AM
Hass will never win a slam.

Who? :confused:

MatchFederer
10-20-2011, 01:41 AM
Because with each passing day we get a little bit older.. the top 100 collectively gets older for at least 6 days of every week. Staggering stuff!

Topspindoctor
10-20-2011, 01:45 AM
Top 100 is getting older for one reason and it's not that the sport is getting "more physical"

The real reason is that the new generation are a bunch of arrogant, no talent clowns who think they are too big to practice all day or try their best at small tournaments. Blatant tanking, umpire abusing, temper tantrums are all a staple of clowns like Tomug and Dimugtrov.

I am really hoping none of the "new generation" will ever win a slam or even make a top 5 - they are a taint on tennis legacy Federer and Nadal have created. Tennis should remain a "gentlemen's sport" - not a bunch of jerks trying outdo each other in classless behavior :help::tape:

jonas
10-20-2011, 01:48 AM
I don't think you have really read up on the history of tennis. In the past it wasn't as uncommon as it is today to have 30 years go far deep into the tournament. For example, Jimmy Connors came back from 2 sets to love against Aaron Krickstein at age 39 to reach the semifinals or Rod Laver winning 45 titles after age 30 and at one point was even number 4 in the world at age 36. The few "old man runs" I can think of was Jonas Bjorkman when he had a terribly easy draw at Wimbledon 2006 while he was aged at like 31 or 32 he reached the semis and also Pete Sampras's USO win at age 32. Other than that, it has been quite the young man's sport.

He was in fact 34. :p Quite amazing when you come to think about it.
We're definitely writing alot of players off to early these days.
I mean a player like Murray can for sure do as Bjorkman did and reach SF in Wimby the year 2021.
Fed can have 5 years left in the top 5/top 10.
The top players are so well trained these days. Barring injuries it's only lack of motivation and drive (read: borg) that is really stopping them from success post 30 years.

Naudio Spanlatine
10-20-2011, 01:55 AM
Who? :confused:

Haas, sweetie ;)

misty1
10-20-2011, 01:58 AM
you do have to give these guys a ton of credit. To be able to stay at the top for so long is a great credit to them. Show a passion for this sport that is great to see.

and as far as that kimiko date remark goes..you really cant have anything but respect for her.

Naudio Spanlatine
10-20-2011, 02:00 AM
KIMIKO I FREAKIN LOVE HER:inlove: :worship:

Renaud
12-03-2011, 02:05 PM
Two and a half years after the thread was created, the average age of members of top 100 has not stopped increasing. It's now about 27.1 (see graph in 1st post). Despite emergence of young players like Tomic, Stebe, Harrisson and Dimitrov and Santoro's retirement ( ;) )

AndyNonomous
12-04-2011, 06:44 AM
Same thing happened in baseball a few years back. You had guys playing into their late 30s, and early 40s, performing better than they did in their late 20s, and early 30s (traditional peak for a baseball player).

I forget why baseball was like that, but it isn't like that any more (I think they called it the "something era"). Maybe there is some relationship between baseball 5 to 15 years ago, and tennis today ?

EddieNero
12-04-2011, 09:22 AM
At school, were they're supposed to be.

Start da Game
12-04-2011, 09:49 AM
the sport now wears a totally new outlook......current day game is based mainly on defense, endurance, athleticism and most importantly consistency......

variety and offense have been reduced to mere utility tools in this era......the ones who are utterly consistent from the back, defend well and force the issue when needed are usually the winners at australian open, french open, wimbledon and us open......

outright aggressive serving and outright aggressive hitting(often the traits you find among rising young players) from the back means asking for trouble......that is too risky......just look at tsonga among top 10 players......that's just not how you can march on and expect to win slams......

the game begs for some serious application and persistence from the back and teenagers are simply not capable of all that at a high level......

now add the improved training methods and we have players over 30 competing equally with others as if they are still 25.......seasoned campaigners with all their experience pushing the kids back to school......hence the significant shift in average age......

nadal will be the last teenager to win a slam for several decades to come......

xdrewitdajx
12-04-2011, 03:25 PM
Same thing happened in baseball a few years back. You had guys playing into their late 30s, and early 40s, performing better than they did in their late 20s, and early 30s (traditional peak for a baseball player).

I forget why baseball was like that, but it isn't like that any more (I think they called it the "something era"). Maybe there is some relationship between baseball 5 to 15 years ago, and tennis today ?

i bet you patted yourself on the back vigorously after making that post.

LOL U R CLEVER

Forehander
12-04-2011, 03:57 PM
It's pretty clear. The teenagers of this generation are just purely shit.

AndyNonomous
12-04-2011, 04:01 PM
i bet you patted yourself on the back vigorously after making that post.

LOL U R CLEVER


I have no idea whether you are being sarcastic or not, but, :devil: just the same.

You have to limit your thoughts to vague hints, if you don't agree with the groupthink around here.

xdrewitdajx
12-04-2011, 04:12 PM
but you are agreeing with the groupthink! It's not like you're implying something everyone here denies or neglects to talk about...far from it. It's actually quite tiresome, in my always humble but never misguided opinion. Yawnsiessss

AndyNonomous
12-04-2011, 04:29 PM
...It's not like you're implying something everyone here denies or neglects to talk about...far from it.


Right. There aren't any deleted posts, threads, bannings of members to keep out the thoughts that the mods disagree with.

finishingmove
02-18-2012, 07:07 PM
so uhm...

what's the deal with this...

Johnny Groove
02-18-2012, 07:42 PM
Good for me. Good for the game too.

Too often we had teenagers breaking through in the past and mentally and maturity wise, they simply aren't ready for it. Now, it is tougher to break through, and guys experience success later. Which also prolongs your career. A guy can play Top 150 level or better tennis for about 10 years. When guys break through at 16 or 17, they are done physically by 26-27, mentally maybe earlier than that.

But if a guy doesn't break through until 22-23, then he can play until his early 30's or beyond at a high level.

A lot also has to do with playing style and the individual player's level of love and commitment for the game.

Alex999
02-18-2012, 08:29 PM
Good for me. Good for the game too.

Too often we had teenagers breaking through in the past and mentally and maturity wise, they simply aren't ready for it. Now, it is tougher to break through, and guys experience success later. Which also prolongs your career. A guy can play Top 150 level or better tennis for about 10 years. When guys break through at 16 or 17, they are done physically by 26-27, mentally maybe earlier than that.

But if a guy doesn't break through until 22-23, then he can play until his early 30's or beyond at a high level.

A lot also has to do with playing style and the individual player's level of love and commitment for the game.

it's not gonna happen. like your post tho. being a Nole fan I'm kinda happy that he started winning majors now when he is 24. I think all players need to mature. I simply can't see any of these young guys coming even close to Nole, Rog or Rafa.

I've been watching tennis for a very long times. The first match I saw was Borg vs. Jmac 1980 I think. I truly believe that what we are seeing nowadays are the best tennis players ever. these guys are simply creating history.

munZe konZa
02-18-2012, 09:03 PM
The number #1 is 24 , how is that old?

DemiCrayanhan
02-18-2012, 09:25 PM
I was just referring to this in another thread. I, for one, miss the teen major winners. My first tennis match was Becker winning Wimbledon. Mesmerized. Graf in '88, Hingis...there was something special about discovering someone so early on, watching them grow up on court and getting excited about possibly many years of greatness ahead. I haven't felt this since Rafa 7 years ago and that's a century in tennis time. I've already given up on the so-called next gen. I've found myself watching the junior slam finals this past year to see if anyone catches my eye, no such luck yet.

Whatever it is, physicality, slower courts, new technology, attitude...whatever have stopped the prodigy phenomenon, I need it dealt with yesterday.

Having said that, I have no problem with the, well, more experienced players getting their long overdue 15 mins of fame...God knows Sam, Na, Fran on the women's side had paid their dues.

Pirata.
02-18-2012, 09:50 PM
The number #1 is 24 , how is that old?

One player =/= the entire 100 :rolleyes:

fast_clay
03-17-2012, 01:13 AM
there are no wunderkinds because the slow tour grind rewards slow tour grind...

key FACT: endurance peaks at age 35 in men

leng jai
03-17-2012, 01:14 AM
there are no wunderkinds because the slow tour grind rewards slow tour grind...

key FACT: endurance peaks at age 35 in men

So just a few more years to wait for Hass' golden slam then mate?

Ajde.

Poirot123
03-17-2012, 01:17 AM
The tour is ageing as there is no new talent in the young age groups. Simples really. If Raonic, Harrison, Young, Dimitrov were the real deal they'd be getting results today. That the top four have been Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray for 2 years solid, and Ferrer has been top 8 for 3 years solid, has said everything you need to know about mens game. Defenders with great consistency, or top top talents (Federer) are required to at the top of the mens game. No young guys come anywhere near to the level required.

fast_clay
03-17-2012, 01:55 AM
So just a few more years to wait for Hass' golden slam then mate?

Ajde.

correct

Haas knows best

End da Game
11-09-2012, 05:01 PM
Tomic, Raonic, Harrison, face it they're all mugs. And I was hearing the other day that there are far fewer teenagers in the top 100 right now than any other time. There are no 18-22 year olds who look like taking the tennis world by storm. Compare this to the likes of sampras, aggassi, safin, federer, roddick, hewitt, ferrero, nadal, djokovic, del potro, murray - these guys have all at least got to grand slam finals when they were youngsters, and most won them.

So what is the main/most likely cause for this?

BauerAlmeida
11-09-2012, 05:05 PM
They're not good enough, except some cases like Dolgopolov who is just a headcase, but he has the talent.

Time Violation
11-09-2012, 05:13 PM
Simply not good enough. Anyway, there's no rule that there shoould be a Sampras or a Federer every 5 or every 10 years :)

Last but not least, several other sports got massive gains in cash/popularity/etc in the last 20 yrs or so compared to tennis - if you are +190cm tall, tennis isn't going to be high on the list most likely. NBA finals used to be on tape delay in the 80s, but look at them now - even a complete scrub who never gets up from the bench is making close to $1 mil. per year, and if he doesn't totally suck, it could be $2 mil. easily.

Nole Rules
11-09-2012, 05:14 PM
Mugness I guess.

rocketassist
11-09-2012, 05:18 PM
The fact it's become so physical puts younger guys at a disadvantage to the fully developed and also to get to the top of the game you need to have a brilliant defensive game and excellent conditioning for long rallies and battles.

All of the newer generation are considered clowns, but the truth of the matter is they would transcend better to more 'skill-friendly' eras. For example Raonic in the 90s and Dimitrov in the 80s. Only Tomic if he ever grows some stamina and fighting spirit has the defensive game and possible finishing power to be competitive.

HKz
11-09-2012, 05:23 PM
1. We are expecting too much from them. We are already looking for the next Federer or GOAT contender in general, but that is unfair to think that way.
2. We have a very strong field (regardless of what people think) especially at the top, and it is going to take a lot for anyone, youngsters or not, to dethrone them..
3. The game has become heavily physical. No more can players just rely on their talent like perhaps in previous decades. That being said, naturally for most people, their physical peak comes much later than when they first get on the tour, which is why you see all these what people the past few years have been calling "late-bloomers" when in reality, I think they aren't really late for today's game.
4. Since it has become tougher to win a point outright in general, the game has become more mental at least to some degree. Only way players can surpass the mental aspect is to get experience, and obviously that requires time.
5. Luck. All players need a little bit of fortune, and it is no different for the youngsters. It could be anything, off day for the top player they face, a great draw opening up, some important points going their way, etc. I mean once that fortune comes along and gives them a breakthrough, their game could blossom and suddenly they are mentally strong.

BauerAlmeida
11-09-2012, 05:28 PM
Simply not good enough. Anyway, there's no rule that there shoould be a Sampras or a Federer every 5 or every 10 years :)



The thing is there always used to be one of those. There was a Borg, or a Lendl, or a Sampras, or a Federer or whatever. The next generation seem to be 90% mugs.

Time Violation
11-09-2012, 06:01 PM
The thing is there always used to be one of those. There was a Borg, or a Lendl, or a Sampras, or a Federer or whatever. The next generation seem to be 90% mugs.

Again, even in the poor basketball or football or baseball/whatever clubs you get decent money. Not only that - you get head coach, assistant coach, goalie/big men/etc coach, physios, doctors; your accommodation and traveling is arranged, pretty much you just need to play.

From the little I picked up reading the forums, many players - especially younger ones/who didn't break through can't afford a coach or a physio, travel alone, can easily lose a match just because they were too tired or couldn't find a decent place to hit or a decent hitting partner. AJ mentioned in other topic that Challengers money didn't go up in the last 20 years or so.

How many top sports talents would even consider picking up tennis these days, when they could be so much more successful (and rich) in many other sports.

BackhandDTL
11-09-2012, 06:24 PM
The fact it's become so physical puts younger guys at a disadvantage to the fully developed and also to get to the top of the game you need to have a brilliant defensive game and excellent conditioning for long rallies and battles.

All of the newer generation are considered clowns, but the truth of the matter is they would transcend better to more 'skill-friendly' eras. For example Raonic in the 90s and Dimitrov in the 80s. Only Tomic if he ever grows some stamina and fighting spirit has the defensive game and possible finishing power to be competitive.

This.

These guys are all coming onto the tour at a time when the game is more physical than ever. Some of these juniors come on with weapons that simply don't cut it on the much more demanding pro tour, which in turn takes a mental toll as well.

I don't think it's a coincidence that some of the players to make a bit of noise early are the more physically mature ones like Raonic or Janowicz.

It'll take someone truly exceptional to have an early breakout to the extent that any of those greats did.

gulzhan
11-09-2012, 06:41 PM
Time goes by quicker now, a second/minute/hour became shorter, so the 19 y.olds are like 15-16 y.olds in the previous era.

Time Violation
11-09-2012, 06:43 PM
This.

These guys are all coming onto the tour at a time when the game is more physical than ever. Some of these juniors come on with weapons that simply don't cut it on the much more demanding pro tour, which in turn takes a mental toll as well.

Well, Haas is nearly 35, had more injuries than a stuntman or a pro wrestler, and still had better results than any youngster, except maybe Raonic. He cannot possibly have easier time on tour than a healthy 19 or 20 year old. Haas played 6 matches at RG and went on to win Halle beating Federer no less in the finals, dropping only 1 set (!!!) on the way. While Tomic gave a RET in R1 :p

Mark Lenders
11-09-2012, 06:46 PM
Ever since Federer and Nadal raised the bar, you need exceptional technical and physical talents to break through/win a Slam as a youngster.

Freak3yman84
11-09-2012, 06:48 PM
They're all mugs. End of discussion.

Fumus
11-09-2012, 06:51 PM
bla bla bla...we all want to see the youngsters break through. I'm as impatient as anyone else but just because they haven't won a grand slam or major title yet doesn't mean that they won't or that they are a weak crop of talent.

The GOAT didn't win his first grand slam until 23 years old. Not every young player can be like Boris Becker or Nadal and win tournaments and slams as a teenager. I think that's the exception to the rule.

It is a good point that times have changes the surfaces have gotten dramatically slower, points have gotten longer and players can't just serve their way through tournaments anymore like they used to. Thus, the older more mature, fitter, stronger guys can outlast a 19/20 year old who isn't fit enough to make it through a best of 5 set match.

BackhandDTL
11-09-2012, 06:55 PM
Well, Haas is nearly 35, had more injuries than a stuntman or a pro wrestler, and still had better results than any youngster, except maybe Raonic. He cannot possibly have easier time on tour than a healthy 19 or 20 year old. Haas played 6 matches at RG and went on to win Halle beating Federer no less in the finals, dropping only 1 set (!!!) on the way. While Tomic gave a RET in R1 :p

The conversation isn't restricted to stamina, there's much more to physicality than that. Have you seen Haas? Injuries or not, the guy is ripped as far as tennis players go. He has always been and continues to be a very athletic, physical player. On average, he can put much more on the ball than most of these up-and-comers.

Moreover, the mileage on his body isn't like that of a typical, seasoned 36 year old pro because so much of his playing career was sidelined by injuries and rehab.

And to top it all off, he's highly experienced, and he can work a point much better than most of these youth.