Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,489 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
What a time to be alive.

A truly staggering stat not just for tennis, but sports in general, really. Sure it coincides with the stronghold of the Big 3 over the last decade - not relinquishing even a season of tennis to let the youngsters steal a slam or two - but still. The average age of Slam winners just goes up with the Big 3's age. Insane. 2019/20 should really be interesting in that aspect as well.


There Are Officially Zero Men’s Grand Slam Winners In Their 20s


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Ashe won US Open in 1967 and turned 30 only in 1973. By that time Kodes, Smith and Nastase already won slams. When they turned 30, Connors already started winning slams.
Okay.

Why did you quote me, though?
You may have misunderstood OP. It was not about all slam holders being over 30, but all slam winners ever. Hence the correction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,052 Posts
Well I think this is definitely in large part due to the big 4 generation of domination in slams but also let's remember that the sport of tennis has changed a lot. The advances in sports medicine and the way players are looking after themselves means that players are lasting much longer than they did in the past. Experience has become more important. In addition, tennis as a sport, the way it's played has also changed considerably in the last 30 years due to advances in racquet technology and change in court speeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,574 Posts
The last under-30 winners were 29 y.o. Murray and Djokovic at Wimb'16 and RG'16.

Since Delpo and Cilic are 30+ now, Thiem is currently the only under-30 slam finalist in the period (Wimb'16 (Raonic) - today).

Also, currently there are just three slam finalist in their 20s, and come AO'19 they will be 29 (Nishikori), 28, 25.3 y.o.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
Fedalovic literally took tennis to the next level.

Still, Zverev is coming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
519 Posts
Well I think this is definitely in large part due to the big 4 generation of domination in slams but also let's remember that the sport of tennis has changed a lot. The advances in sports medicine and the way players are looking after themselves means that players are lasting much longer than they did in the past. Experience has become more important. In addition, tennis as a sport, the way it's played has also changed considerably in the last 30 years due to advances in racquet technology and change in court speeds.
Lasting much longer is one thing, dominating the sport is another. We have seen players lasting longer in the past as well- Connors being a prime example. He played great matches in his 30s, but never dominated. Now we are seeing players dominating in their 30s, and interestingly enough all these players went through a period of decline, losing to all and sundry, with slowing of their movements and reflexes, before bouncing back stronger than ever before. Let's hope that it is only due to advances in sports medicine and nothing else.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
47,137 Posts
30 yo player in a vacuum has more experience and more coaching and a finished product physically compared to a 20 yo player, who is still figuring it all out

Also the technology and popcorn generation tends for younger players to be more distracted and not as engaged in training. Sure the 30 yo player had PlayStation back in the day, but that's it. Now guys have every game imaginable on their phone, available anywhere anytime

30 used to be it because guys did not take care of themselves like they do now with nutrition and recovery. Also the game is more physical now and requires patience as well as power

Real question is why should any 20 yo kid who hasn't even finished growing, beat a 30 yo fully grown man in the middle of his prime?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,633 Posts
If the Big 3/4 dominate again in 2019, then the likes of Thiem and Zverev deserve serious criticism. I have been one of those to say, maybe we are a bit too harsh on these young guns. I'm losing my patience. Much as I respect the achievements of the big 3/4, there is a dire need of new blood. When new stars are born it's good for the sport. When a legend is beaten by a promising young player, there is excitement and renewed energy.

The ATP marketing department must be working overtime to generate excitement for the young guns. Unless the young guns start winning bit titles, you can only do so much to promote them. Fognini was bashing the ATP for hyping the young guns, but they have no choice but to do so. 2019 is huge for the young guns. I expect big things from Thiem next year. I think he is ready to win his first major.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,281 Posts
30 yo player in a vacuum has more experience and more coaching and a finished product physically compared to a 20 yo player, who is still figuring it all out

Also the technology and popcorn generation tends for younger players to be more distracted and not as engaged in training. Sure the 30 yo player had PlayStation back in the day, but that's it. Now guys have every game imaginable on their phone, available anywhere anytime


30 used to be it because guys did not take care of themselves like they do now with nutrition and recovery. Also the game is more physical now and requires patience as well as power

Real question is why should any 20 yo kid who hasn't even finished growing, beat a 30 yo fully grown man in the middle of his prime?
Because one would assume that the 20 year old should have more stamina, considering their body is younger and could/should have more power.... assuming that they are training properly. But I have a feeling that the #NextGen doesn't train as hard as Federer and Nadal.

The big reason that the 30 year olds are the slam winners is because of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and their self belief and mental game.

If these 20 year olds believed that they could win, then they probably would win. They find ways to choke, instead of clutching out wins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,175 Posts
30 yo player in a vacuum has more experience and more coaching and a finished product physically compared to a 20 yo player, who is still figuring it all out

Also the technology and popcorn generation tends for younger players to be more distracted and not as engaged in training. Sure the 30 yo player had PlayStation back in the day, but that's it. Now guys have every game imaginable on their phone, available anywhere anytime

30 used to be it because guys did not take care of themselves like they do now with nutrition and recovery. Also the game is more physical now and requires patience as well as power

Real question is why should any 20 yo kid who hasn't even finished growing, beat a 30 yo fully grown man in the middle of his prime?
We are not talking about only 20 year olds. Why can't players aged between 21 and 29 win grand slams, nowadays? A vast majority of players/individuals are fully grown between age 23 and 26 (a year give or take) physique-wise.

It all boil downs to work ethic and training. Youth don't seem to have the same work ethic as fedalovicstanray and players of older generations, any more. I am looking past Nishikori-Raonic-Dimitrov age group already and looking at Zverev-Coric-Tsitispas-de Minaur-Shapovalov age group for a tennis prodigy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,780 Posts
30 yo player in a vacuum has more experience and more coaching and a finished product physically compared to a 20 yo player, who is still figuring it all out

Also the technology and popcorn generation tends for younger players to be more distracted and not as engaged in training. Sure the 30 yo player had PlayStation back in the day, but that's it. Now guys have every game imaginable on their phone, available anywhere anytime

30 used to be it because guys did not take care of themselves like they do now with nutrition and recovery. Also the game is more physical now and requires patience as well as power

Real question is why should any 20 yo kid who hasn't even finished growing, beat a 30 yo fully grown man in the middle of his prime?


Teenage sensation Bjorn Borg captured the French Open at Roland Garros as he turned 18. He would later go on to be the only player in history to win the French Open on the slow clay and Wimbledon on fast grass (Channel Slam) back to back 3 consecutive years.




Sweden's Mats Wilander won 3 majors before age 20; his first at Roland Garros at 17.




Unseeded Boom Boom Boris Becker became a superstar when he won Wimbledon at age 17.




Dogged American Michael Chang stunned Stefan Edberg at age 17




Pistol Pete Sampras beat Andre Agassi in straight sets to become the US Open's youngest-ever male singles champion at the age of 19 years and 28 days





Rafael Nadal, the last teenager to win a major, won his 1st of 11 French Open titles thus far in 2005, affectionately known as the "King of Clay".

It has been 13 years since we have seen a teenage major champion. Will we see another in this decade?

Respectfully,
masterclass
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top