Mens Tennis Forums banner

Coincidence or not?

  • 28 Is a better age than 29-30 for GS

    Votes: 9 32.1%
  • Coincidence

    Votes: 13 46.4%
  • Yea kinda..

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • Definitely

    Votes: 1 3.6%
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This may be just a coincidence but.. just 6 GS wins at 28 years of age
Then something weird happens.. 29 years of age 8 GS wins... and at 30 9 GS wins!


A hope for Nadal after all? at 28, not many people have won..

Maybe something happens to the body at 28? preparing for middle ages.. a change..? players need to adjust their playstyle.. i.e not relying so much on the physical part, but more on the tennis IQ/positioning/improving serve etc..

Imho Nadal has hit that age and he needs to adjust, if he is able to.. at age 29 he should have a higher chance of winning GS, and even more so at 30..

Coincidence or not? Discuss
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,839 Posts
It's not a matter of age, we have this number because the translation after the Open Era began. Actually there are 6 GS win at 28 (Newcombe, Lendl, Becker, Sampras, Federer and Wawrinka) → 5 "Open Era Wins", 8 GS at 29 (Agassi x3, Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Lendl, Ivanisevic) → 6 "Open Era Wins", 9 GS at 30 (Laver x3, Newcombe, Connors, Gomez, Korda, Agassi, Federer) → 5 "Open Era wins". At 31 were Connors and Sampras, at 32 only Agassi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
It's not a matter of age, we have this number because the translation after the Open Era began. Actually there are 6 GS win at 28 (Newcombe, Lendl, Becker, Sampras, Federer and Wawrinka) → 5 "Open Era Wins", 8 GS at 29 (Agassi x3, Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Lendl, Ivanisevic) → 6 "Open Era Wins", 9 GS at 30 (Laver x3, Newcombe, Connors, Gomez, Korda, Agassi, Federer) → 5 "Open Era wins". At 31 were Connors and Sampras, at 32 only Agassi.
I dont really get it? i kinda see what your aiming at..

Open Era started 1968.. So my calc is accurate?
6 28, 8 29, 9 30.. since open ERA.


A fun fact:
Rod laver gs wins at 28 = 0..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,165 Posts
If you want to analyze in the context of Nadal, you should not add the slams won by all players at ages 28, 29, 30 etc.

How many can Rafa win from now on is the question? How many slams a particular player had won once he was past 28?

I am going to ignore Laver and Rosewall because tennis was not as physical as it is of late. But, Agassi won 5, Connors 3, Federer, Sampras, Lendl 2 each.

Nadal already won 1 (i.e. RG 2014)

Bad news for Nole's fans because Nole's game is similar to Agassi's? Nole will end up with 13 slams (8 + 5) at the most?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
If you want to analyze in the context of Nadal, you should not add the slams won by all players at ages 28, 29, 30 etc.

How many can Rafa win from now on is the question? How many slams a particular player had won once he is past 28?

I am going to ignore Laver and Rosewall because tennis was not as physical as it is of late. But, Agassi won 5, Connors 3, Federer, Sampras, Lendl 2 each.

Nadal already won 1 (i.e. RG 2014)

Bad news for Nole's fans because Nole's game is similar to Agassi's? Nole will end up with 13 slams (8 + 5) at the most?
Its just an interesting perspective.. after 47+years of Grandslams.. the law of average, and coincidence should be even out.. but it has not.. we see a steady grow of Gs winners from 28>30.. before dropping like concrete at 31.

Rod Laver won 0 GS at 28.. won 3 at 30, and tennis was physical.. and a younger body had an advantage over an older.

Agassi won 0 Slams at 28.. but had a multislam year at 30..

What i most shocked about is the sheer low amount of winners by the age of 28.. its a nice age one would think..
But apparently at that exact age decline starts for real.. and true champions recognize it.. change playstyle and start winning by 29-30 again..

Bad news for Nole's fans because Nole's game is similar to Agassi's? Nole will end up with 13 slams (8 + 5) at the most?
Dont really get this one?
First of all.. if Djokovic ends up with 13 GS = Good news? Considering he had 1 in 2011..finishing his career at 13 is excellent..

But its also good news for Rafa.. people seem extremly shocked by his decline.. but its all perfectly natural according to statistics.. and he should gain speed next year.. 1 or 2 more GS 29-30 years.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
6,665 Posts
Its just an interesting perspective.. after 47+years of Grandslams.. the law of average, and coincidence should be even out.. but it has not.. we see a steady grow of Gs winners from 28>30.. before dropping like concrete at 31.

Rod Laver won 0 GS at 28.. won 3 at 30, and tennis was physical.. and a younger body had an advantage over an older.

Agassi won 0 Slams at 28.. but had a multislam year at 30..

What i most shocked about is the sheer low amount of winners by the age of 28.. its a nice age one would think..
But apparently at that exact age decline starts for real.. and true champions recognize it.. change playstyle and start winning by 29-30 again..

Dont really get this one?
First of all.. if Djokovic ends up with 13 GS = Good news? Considering he had 1 in 2011..finishing his career at 13 is excellent..

But its also good news for Rafa.. people seem extremly shocked by his decline.. but its all perfectly natural according to statistics.. and he should gain speed next year.. 1 or 2 more GS 29-30 years.
Agassi was actually 29 when he won 3 out of 4 Slams from the 1999 French and USO, and then the 2000 AO.
He won 2 more Slams (AO's) after 30 as well, but he is the exception rather than the rule.
Connors also had a late career spike as well.
But other than that, 28 has traditionally been an age of decline, and some have been done and dusted after 25 - eg Mac and Wilander.
Not good news for Novak either, who turns 28 in May - ie just before the start of RG.
Hence the reason he must convert his chances this year.
Nadal could still conceivably win at least 1 Slam a year for 2-3 more years as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
Agassi was actually 29 when he won 3 out of 4 Slams from the 1999 French and USO, and then the 2000 AO.
He won 2 more Slams (AO's) after 30 as well, but he is the exception rather than the rule.
Connors also had a late career spike as well.
But other than that, 28 has traditionally been an age of decline, and some have been done and dusted after 25 - eg Mac and Wilander.
Not good news for Novak either, who turns 28 in May - ie just before the start of RG.
Hence the reason he must convert his chances this year.
Nadal could still conceivably win at least 1 Slam a year for 2-3 more years as well.
Not good news for Novak either, who turns 28 in May - ie just before the start of RG.
Hence the reason he must convert his chances this year.
Yes and No, im more confident now that he will convert GS wins at 29 and 30... he can do alot of things even if he would fail this year.

-Both Nadal And Djokovic will be in that Jinx year of 28... And Fed at that age (Almost impossible to win GS)
Also Murray at 28.. We could actually see someone else winning the RG outside of the big 4..
I doubt it though.. but you never know..

But if this is just a coincedence.. i.e 28>29>30 better tennis player.. than the law of average will even it out sooner or later.. maybe Djokovic is on that mission to fix those numbers to appropriate messaure
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,839 Posts
I dont really get it? i kinda see what your aiming at..

Open Era started 1968.. So my calc is accurate?
6 28, 8 29, 9 30.. since open ERA.


A fun fact:
Rod laver gs wins at 28 = 0..
I count only "Open Era Players" these are the ones who played his full career in the Open Era. By this reason I try to don't count Laver, Rosewall, Kodes, Newcombe, Smith and Nastase in these kind of stats. By this reason I have 28→6 29→6 30→5

Rod Laver was 28 between 1966 and 1967, impossible for him to win an slam.

PD: You are making a big mistake, Nadal already won an slam at his 28 (Roland Garros last year), if he won RG this year will be at 29, only for a couple of days ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,026 Posts
Yes and No, im more confident now that he will convert GS wins at 29 and 30... he can do alot of things even if he would fail this year.

-Both Nadal And Djokovic will be in that Jinx year of 28... And Fed at that age (Almost impossible to win GS)
Also Murray at 28.. We could actually see someone else winning the RG outside of the big 4..
I doubt it though.. but you never know..

But if this is just a coincedence.. i.e 28>29>30 better tennis player.. than the law of average will even it out sooner or later.. maybe Djokovic is on that mission to fix those numbers to appropriate messaure
This man:

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,682 Posts
any day you win a grand slam is a good day :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
Surely there's no bad age to win a Grand Slam. If you win a slam who cares what age you are?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,080 Posts
It's not a matter of age, we have this number because the translation after the Open Era began. Actually there are 6 GS win at 28 (Newcombe, Lendl, Becker, Sampras, Federer and Wawrinka) → 5 "Open Era Wins", 8 GS at 29 (Agassi x3, Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Lendl, Ivanisevic) → 6 "Open Era Wins", 9 GS at 30 (Laver x3, Newcombe, Connors, Gomez, Korda, Agassi, Federer) → 5 "Open Era wins". At 31 were Connors and Sampras, at 32 only Agassi.
Ken Rosewall in the open era, 1968-1972, won slams at ages 33, 35, 36, 37.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
237 Posts
No. Nadal is just bad at taking care of his body. 28 is a young age still, in the future it will be someone absolute peak.
In reality, players at age of 28 are way behind their peak, especially in today's ATP when you have to be perfect in every imaginable sense. We watch an illusion run by the sole ATP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,639 Posts
Well one could argue that a player has premature 30s crisis at that age. However, statistically speaking the number of trophy winners aged 28 is normal...



As you can see above: winners aged 28 are slightly below curve but it's likely just normal variance.

Open Era started 1968.. So my calc is accurate?
6 28, 8 29, 9 30.. since open ERA.
You forgot that Nadal was 28 when he won 2014 RG...

The correct ages and slam counts for Open Era are:

Code:
Age    Slams
28	7
29	8
30	9
31	4
32	1
etc
Its just an interesting perspective.. after 47+years of Grandslams.. the law of average, and coincidence should be even out.. but it has not.. we see a steady grow of Gs winners from 28>30..
It's just variance aka luck, we're dealing here with small numbers...

As you can see from my graph above the expected amount of slams for 28 year olds is around 6% from total. As there are 189 slam winners in open era that means the expected number of slams won by 28 year olds is 189*0,06 = 11.
So... expected slams 11... true 7. The probability for that aka seven or less slams is 0,115.

So it's perfectly normal, and likely Djokovic will improve the number a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
obviously the age thing is somewhat random- a Nadal at like age 24 would have had more wear / miles on his body than most players on tour have at like 30, just based on matches played and time on court, miles run, whatever

so obviously a Nadal at 28 is not equivalent to, say, and Agassi at 28

just saying. because of the different mileage on players age comparisons can be kind of irrelevant in terms of what is expected at a certain point. an exstention of that, or start, is the fact that many players improve competitively at different ages and then some players will never be constantly making it deep into tournaments to get mileage on their body
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top