- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reactions
- 6,046
- Points
- 113
You know the idea: players are doing some variation of the following: extending their prime years deeper into their 30s. As I see it, there are three separate questions:
1) Are player's extending their primes longer?
2) Are player's' peaking later?
3) Are player's reaching their prime at an older age?
(I am using the words "peak" and "prime" slightly differently, with the peak being when a player reaches his very best form, while the prime is the extended period during which a player was near peak form, but not necessary always playing his very best. In other words, the prime includes the peak, plus troughs and plateau years)
@Federberg pointed out that we need to look beyond the elite to answer these questions. That said, I do want to focus on Roger and Rafa for a bit, because we're seeing something rather unusual with them - although with the caveat that they aren't exactly your typical players.
It isn't so simple that Roger and Rafa have extended their primes and/or are peaking later. It is that they raised it a notch later in their career. It isn't unlike Andre Agassi's second (and greater) peak that started in 1999, his very best year, when he turned 29 years old, which extended a few years into his 30s.
Now I don't think Roger is going to reach his peak of 2004-07, when he was 22-26 years old. Rafa's best span is 2008-13, or age 21-27 (I'm including beginning and ending ages). Both would have to extend their best form of 2017-18 across all surfaces, and Roger seems unwilling and perhaps unable, and Rafa just unable (on grass, at least).
But what we saw with both Roger and Rafa--as well as Andre--was a career dip in which it looked like they were declining rapidly, and then they pulled themselves out of it and had a a renaissance. Andre had a career crisis in 1997, when it looked like the chronic underachiever and party boy would succumb to personal problems and injury. But he pulled himself out of it and had his best five-year stretch from 1999 to 2003, when he was 28 to 33 years old and won 5 of his 8 Slams.
After winning his first Slam in two and a half years in 2012 just before turning 31, Roger had his worst year in over a decade in 2013, with some saying he should retire so as not to damage his legacy (was this written by our Fiero?). He then bounced back to a good--if not dominant--level in 2014-15, but then struggled with injury in 2016. But then 2017 (and 2018) happened.
Rafa has had his struggles with injuries, but there was real cause for concern after relatively healthy 2015 and 2016 seasons saw (by his standards) mediocre results and no Slams. And then 2017 happened.
So what we're seeing with these three players is not long and drawn out career primes, but resurgent careers and "Indian Summers." We didn't see this with Pete Sampras because, well, he didn't try. After a few years of decline, he retired after winning the 2002 US Open. We don't know if he could have returned to prime form....similarly with Becker and Edberg. To some extend Ivan Lendl, as well, although he played a bit longer.
Now it does seem clear that John McEnroe didn't have a resurgence in him, no matter what. He stuck around a few years into his 30s, and was never the great player he was into his mid-20s. It may also be that the game just changed too much for him. Similarly with Wilander, who had a very unmemorable later career (echoed by Lleyton Hewitt a decade and a half later).
Jimmy Connors is another player who just slowly declined, without any late career resurgence. He missed time, came back, but generally at a lower level.
And then there's the great Man of Mystery, Bjorn Borg. Who knows what he could have done with a year off from the sport that was exhausting and infuriating him. But this idea probably only increases his mystique.
So here's the question: Why (and how) are Fedal doing what they're doing, which is not simply extending their primes but having late career surges, Indian Summers, if you will? Is this repeatable? Will we see Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray follow suit, or will they go the way of McEnroe and Wilander?
I am reminded of something I learned recently, that for most of human history people didn't sleep as we do today, with a single 8-hour sleep shift, but in a segmented 4-2-4 hour pattern of sleep-wake-sleep. Or something like that.
It makes me wonder: Maybe Fedal's late peak is repeatable, if players were to take--intentional or not--late career breaks, even if just a half-year to a year sabbatical. In that regard, both Andy and Novak are well situated for comebacks, although in both cases it may be that their problems are deep and even incurable.
But the main point I want to make and add to the conversation is that the Fedal resurgence is just that: a resurgence, not simply an extended prime. Sure, they're helped by Novak's decline and injury (sorry, Andy, but you don't register in the same way), but they have both been playing better from 2017 to the present than they did in the years before.
1) Are player's extending their primes longer?
2) Are player's' peaking later?
3) Are player's reaching their prime at an older age?
(I am using the words "peak" and "prime" slightly differently, with the peak being when a player reaches his very best form, while the prime is the extended period during which a player was near peak form, but not necessary always playing his very best. In other words, the prime includes the peak, plus troughs and plateau years)
@Federberg pointed out that we need to look beyond the elite to answer these questions. That said, I do want to focus on Roger and Rafa for a bit, because we're seeing something rather unusual with them - although with the caveat that they aren't exactly your typical players.
It isn't so simple that Roger and Rafa have extended their primes and/or are peaking later. It is that they raised it a notch later in their career. It isn't unlike Andre Agassi's second (and greater) peak that started in 1999, his very best year, when he turned 29 years old, which extended a few years into his 30s.
Now I don't think Roger is going to reach his peak of 2004-07, when he was 22-26 years old. Rafa's best span is 2008-13, or age 21-27 (I'm including beginning and ending ages). Both would have to extend their best form of 2017-18 across all surfaces, and Roger seems unwilling and perhaps unable, and Rafa just unable (on grass, at least).
But what we saw with both Roger and Rafa--as well as Andre--was a career dip in which it looked like they were declining rapidly, and then they pulled themselves out of it and had a a renaissance. Andre had a career crisis in 1997, when it looked like the chronic underachiever and party boy would succumb to personal problems and injury. But he pulled himself out of it and had his best five-year stretch from 1999 to 2003, when he was 28 to 33 years old and won 5 of his 8 Slams.
After winning his first Slam in two and a half years in 2012 just before turning 31, Roger had his worst year in over a decade in 2013, with some saying he should retire so as not to damage his legacy (was this written by our Fiero?). He then bounced back to a good--if not dominant--level in 2014-15, but then struggled with injury in 2016. But then 2017 (and 2018) happened.
Rafa has had his struggles with injuries, but there was real cause for concern after relatively healthy 2015 and 2016 seasons saw (by his standards) mediocre results and no Slams. And then 2017 happened.
So what we're seeing with these three players is not long and drawn out career primes, but resurgent careers and "Indian Summers." We didn't see this with Pete Sampras because, well, he didn't try. After a few years of decline, he retired after winning the 2002 US Open. We don't know if he could have returned to prime form....similarly with Becker and Edberg. To some extend Ivan Lendl, as well, although he played a bit longer.
Now it does seem clear that John McEnroe didn't have a resurgence in him, no matter what. He stuck around a few years into his 30s, and was never the great player he was into his mid-20s. It may also be that the game just changed too much for him. Similarly with Wilander, who had a very unmemorable later career (echoed by Lleyton Hewitt a decade and a half later).
Jimmy Connors is another player who just slowly declined, without any late career resurgence. He missed time, came back, but generally at a lower level.
And then there's the great Man of Mystery, Bjorn Borg. Who knows what he could have done with a year off from the sport that was exhausting and infuriating him. But this idea probably only increases his mystique.
So here's the question: Why (and how) are Fedal doing what they're doing, which is not simply extending their primes but having late career surges, Indian Summers, if you will? Is this repeatable? Will we see Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray follow suit, or will they go the way of McEnroe and Wilander?
I am reminded of something I learned recently, that for most of human history people didn't sleep as we do today, with a single 8-hour sleep shift, but in a segmented 4-2-4 hour pattern of sleep-wake-sleep. Or something like that.
It makes me wonder: Maybe Fedal's late peak is repeatable, if players were to take--intentional or not--late career breaks, even if just a half-year to a year sabbatical. In that regard, both Andy and Novak are well situated for comebacks, although in both cases it may be that their problems are deep and even incurable.
But the main point I want to make and add to the conversation is that the Fedal resurgence is just that: a resurgence, not simply an extended prime. Sure, they're helped by Novak's decline and injury (sorry, Andy, but you don't register in the same way), but they have both been playing better from 2017 to the present than they did in the years before.
