First Ferrer and Haas and Tipsarevic, and now Wawrinka: the Age Issue

[herios]

It is historically unprecedented to have so many old players relatively speaking at the upper echelon of tennis. My personal theory is that age still matters as much as it always has (eg it's better to be Dimitrov than Nadal) it's just that we have had a really historically bad or late blooming crop of young players who haven't been able to capitalize in their elders diminished state.

Things basically were par for the course up until 2011 or so. We had Sampras generation surpassed by Federers peers and then his generation was eventually passed by Rafa/Murray and by Novak ( who eventually surpassed Rafa) but then it became weird. Instead of transitioning to a new younger player it went back to Federer in 2012 and Rafa in 2013. Meanwhile the old guys were still dominating the top ten or twenty.

It's totally clear that Rafas best tennis was like six years ago, and Rogers best was nearly a decade ago, yet here they still are playing semis. Yes they are still that good, but these things don't happen in a vacuum. Simply put, no one has stepped up other than maybe Dimitrov and it's a bit disheartening.

It is not disheartening for me. I enjoy the current stage and I keep looking to the guys playing now who is getting better and move to the next level. Like Stan just did last yaer or so.
For me is less important the age of the new guy on the block, as long we have a new guy.
As far as I am concerned if Stepanek would win a GS next, I would not mind either, I would be cheering as loud.
I have just one desire, I want Nole and Delpo to add to their tally in the mean time.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It is historically unprecedented to have so many old players relatively speaking at the upper echelon of tennis. My personal theory is that age still matters as much as it always has (eg it's better to be Dimitrov than Nadal) it's just that we have had a really historically bad or late blooming crop of young players who haven't been able to capitalize in their elders diminished state.

Things basically were par for the course up until 2011 or so. We had Sampras generation surpassed by Federers peers and then his generation was eventually passed by Rafa/Murray and by Novak ( who eventually surpassed Rafa) but then it became weird. Instead of transitioning to a new younger player it went back to Federer in 2012 and Rafa in 2013. Meanwhile the old guys were still dominating the top ten or twenty.

It's totally clear that Rafas best tennis was like six years ago, and Rogers best was nearly a decade ago, yet here they still are playing semis. Yes they are still that good, but these things don't happen in a vacuum. Simply put, no one has stepped up other than maybe Dimitrov and it's a bit disheartening.

I'd say Nadal's physical peak was 5-6 years ago. I know some don't like to admit it, but in terms of physicality and stamina, he was unlike anything I've ever seen back then, including his current self, and he's not quite the same now. But as far as level of tennis, I'd say he was playing his best clay court and grass court tennis, but he's been a much better hard court player since 2010. His hard court run last year was probably the best hard court tennis he's ever played.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It is historically unprecedented to have so many old players relatively speaking at the upper echelon of tennis. My personal theory is that age still matters as much as it always has (eg it's better to be Dimitrov than Nadal) it's just that we have had a really historically bad or late blooming crop of young players who haven't been able to capitalize in their elders diminished state.

Things basically were par for the course up until 2011 or so. We had Sampras generation surpassed by Federers peers and then his generation was eventually passed by Rafa/Murray and by Novak ( who eventually surpassed Rafa) but then it became weird. Instead of transitioning to a new younger player it went back to Federer in 2012 and Rafa in 2013. Meanwhile the old guys were still dominating the top ten or twenty.

It's totally clear that Rafas best tennis was like six years ago, and Rogers best was nearly a decade ago, yet here they still are playing semis. Yes they are still that good, but these things don't happen in a vacuum. Simply put, no one has stepped up other than maybe Dimitrov and it's a bit disheartening.

It is not disheartening for me. I enjoy the current stage and I keep looking to the guys playing now who is getting better and move to the next level. Like Stan just did last yaer or so.
For me is less important the age of the new guy on the block, as long we have a new guy.
As far as I am concerned if Stepanek would win a GS next, I would not mind either, I would be cheering as loud.
I have just one desire, I want Nole and Delpo to add to their tally in the mean time.

Yes, but when the new block are younger, it means they have more of a chance to hang around more. The older new block are likely just going to be a flash here and there. For instance, yeah Haas had good results, but where is he now? And how likely is it that he'll continue? Obviously it's better to make a splash as you're younger.

 

[Rose]

I have been a great fan of Tommy Haas for years, but at his age and with his medical history I think he should retire this year. Because this year he has been losing to players I never would have thought he would lose to like Jack Sock!

 

[Front242]

I have been a great fan of Tommy Haas for years, but at his age and with his medical history I think he should retire this year. Because this year he has been losing to players I never would have thought he would lose to like Jack Sock!

Na. Fed lost to Hewitt and Robredo which isn't much better given they peaked years ago. So did Fed but he's been playing obviously a afar higher level than either of them for like, ever. Tommy will hopefully bounce back. People wrote Fed off after his dismal 2013 and he just made another slam semi. Tommy is ranked the highest he's been in years and I'm sure he'll improve. His shoulder flared up again this AO which was unfortunate.

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal's movement has decline compared to what it was in 2006. But it has nothing to do with age. It's just mileage and injuries.

I can live with this characterization. However, you have to explain Nadal's forehand shot at deuce off of Federer's put-away volley in the final game of their semifinal match. Like Nadal's similar shot in their IW quarterfinal last year, it was pretty much the same thing as the running forehand you are fond of from the 2005 Roland Garros semifinal.

Of the three, I would actually have to say that, considering the surface, this latest one in Melbourne was the best. At the risk of sounding like huntingyou, I will readily concede that that was a sick shot.

He still moves extremely well and is a far better player than he was then so it doesn't matter.

His court coverage is still excellent.

It's not impossible to improve. There will always be exceptions. That doesn't make it the norm though. Wawrinka's 28 by the way. Hardly over the hill. You can't really compare him to guys making runs in their 30's.

Well, the issue for me is that Wawrinka is the type of player who has been written off as too far into his career to make significant leaps in level or results. He obviously showed that isn't the case with his year in 2013 and then winning a Slam at the start of 2014.

 

[calitennis127]

"Entirely possible", yes, but likely? No. cali, there are always exceptions to the rule, and the "rule" in this case is just a normative trend. The trend is that players take a half step back around age 27-28 to what I call a "late career plateau," then decline sharply at age 32. I've offered tons of numbers to support this - its just the historical trend. Not an opinion but what the numbers actually show us.

I respect your data, but that isn't really what the issue is about to me.

The reason for me starting this thread is simply the attitude about age that I so often see from everyone, and the way it is talked about in many contexts.

For instance, I cannot stand when I have heard Federer fans from the day he turned 27 blame every loss on age. That has been utterly ridiculous and stupid.

I also don't like the sullen and defeatist attitude about "age" or "aging" and what it supposedly means. If anything, this attitude makes people old. It has much less to do with the science of the human body than it does social norms and social conventions. Yes, players most of the time have not had their best career moments around 30. But does that mean a player should not strive to get better? Does that mean a player can't get better?

The answer is "no" to David Ferrer, and I'm afraid he is one of the few who gets it.