Mega-thread on Tennis Generations and the Changing of the Guard (UPDATED with PART 5 - COMPLETE!)

don_fabio

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
4,424
Reactions
4,870
Points
113
Final Thoughts

One big takeaway from all the above is that we’re past due for another 6+ major winner.
As mentioned, the oldest best candidate is Daniil Medvedev, born in 1996 (again, Thiem, who just turned 28, is probably unlikely to reach 6).

In the next part we will look more in-depth at the younger generations and attempt to predict who—at least based on past precedents—is most likely to take up the mantle of “all-time great,” or at least win multiple Slams.
Always a pleasure to read your graphs and stats @El Dude. Hopefully nothing puts you down and away from tennis like unfortunate events 2 years ago (let's just skip mentioning the names..)

It is indeed very blank after Big 3 dominance and it seems like it is coming to an end, slowly but surely. What strikes me the most is how far the next gen have come in terms of rankings, I think this year has brought a big shift of momentum and as I previously mentioned it can only get better for them in terms of big tournaments and slams count. It would help a lot to their case if next year at this time they have 2 slams more in their pocket.

It is still hard to predict how slams will be collected amongst the most promising young guys, but I can see the next era much closer to Edberg/Wilander/Becker than the Big 3, at least it points in that direction so far. That will also leave some room for a guys like Berettinni who will have a chance without the brutal big 3 always around.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,280
Reactions
6,021
Points
113
Always a pleasure to read your graphs and stats @El Dude. Hopefully nothing puts you down and away from tennis like unfortunate events 2 years ago (let's just skip mentioning the names..)

It is indeed very blank after Big 3 dominance and it seems like it is coming to an end, slowly but surely. What strikes me the most is how far the next gen have come in terms of rankings, I think this year has brought a big shift of momentum and as I previously mentioned it can only get better for them in terms of big tournaments and slams count. It would help a lot to their case if next year at this time they have 2 slams more in their pocket.

It is still hard to predict how slams will be collected amongst the most promising young guys, but I can see the next era much closer to Edberg/Wilander/Becker than the Big 3, at least it points in that direction so far. That will also leave some room for a guys like Berettinni who will have a chance without the brutal big 3 always around.
Yes, agree on all accounts (and thanks).

I'll go into it my next part (or the one after that; I think this will be four parts), but I suspect the same: of the guys we know the names of (basically, top 100 or even 200), maybe a couple win 5+ Slams, but then half a dozen win 1-4 Slams. Meaning, it is going to be really spread out, more like the late 90s/early 00s or 80s.

I mean, if nothing else, it is a simple matter of logic. Rafa and Novak can only win so many more Slams, and there are reasons to think that they have <5 left between the two of them.

I'll plagiarize and simplify some of thoughts that I'll put onto paper, but consider a few things:

1) Let's say Rafa and Novak win 4 more between the two of them. It may be more, but only a bit more, and it may be less. But 4 is one full year's worth, probably spread over two or maybe three years.

2) The "Slam-winning window" seems to have extended a bit, with players peaking a bit later. This is a bit exaggerated by the Big Three, but let's say the new decline age is somewhere between 30 and 33, vs. 28-30ish in the 70s-00s.

3) That means, for future Slam contenders:
- Thiem turns 30 in 2023, 33 in 2026
- Medvedev and Berretini turn 30 in 2026, 33 in 2029
- Zverev, Rublev, and Hurkacz turn 30 in 2027, 33 in 2030
- Tsitsipas and Ruud turn 30 in 2028, 33 in 2031
- Shapovalov turns 30 in 2029, 33 in 2032
- Auger-Aliassime and Korda turn 30 in 2030, 33 in 2033
- Sinner turns 30 in 2031, 33 in 2034
- Musetti turns 30 in 2032, 33 in 2035
- Alcaraz turns 30 in 2033, 33 in 2036

Plus other possible guys who might emerge, especially on the younger side.

But that means that even "old men" Medvedev and Berretini have 20 Slams through the year they turn 30 years old, and 32 Slams through the year they turn 32. And it increases from there, with Alcaraz having 48 and 60 Slams, respectively.

Now let's assume a few things:
- All of the Slams through 2030 are won by the above players, but Rafa and Novak (4 total), plus we'll add in a "surprise" 4. Let's also assume that some of the younger guys keep winning Slams past 2030, but we'll leave that aside.

2022-30 = 9 years x 4 = 36 Slams
- 4 for Rafa and Novak = 32 Slams
- 4 for surprise/unknown players = 28 Slams

Now if we take those 28 Slams and divide them by the 14 players above we get an average of 2 Slams each. Some will win more, some less, some none.

Now I'm sure some Rafa or Novak diehard will come in and say they're going to win another 6 or 7, and the other guy 3 or 4, so 10 more total. But I highly doubt it. I mean, it could happen, but it seems less and less likely. My 4 seems like a good over/under; I could see 6 more between the two, but I could also see only 2.

And maybe there are no surprise players that emerge, or at least not until later on. And of course Alcaraz ill only be 27 in 2030, Sinner 29, and FAA 30...so those guys could win a few more (if they end up being Slam winners).

Anyhow, a long-winded way of saying: the young guys will in bunches of Slams, dozens between guys that we already know about. It is just a matter of who and how much each.
 
  • Like
Reactions: don_fabio

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,818
Reactions
14,976
Points
113
Actually, Nadal and Gasquet are a relevant pair, because one became one of the very best players in tennis history, and the other never won a big title or reached a Slam final. Now it is not that both were viewed as of equal upside in 2003 when they were 16-17 years old, but that no one probably imagined just how greatly their careers would diverge. Both were seen as very promising youngsters, and their career paths represent just how widely players can diverge from a similar starting point. The 1980s, in particular, was filled with players who broke into the top 18 at a very young age, with Aaron Krickstein being a striking example. He is the youngest player in the Open Era to win a title, winning two ATP 250s at age 16 (only Michael Chang and Lleyton Hewitt won titles at age 16), and he reached #9 at age 17 but never won a big title, reached a Slam final, or ranked higher than #7.

Or to visualize it:


View attachment 5637

The external factors do mean something. They tell us how all greats have historically progressed, and thus give us a framework within which to consider deeper, subtler factors. But back in 2003, there was no way to tell from statistics and ages the qualities that have made Rafa the player he’s been, as well as the qualities that have kept Gasquet from being better than he was. You can see their divergence in 2005: where Rafa supernova-ed to #2 and never looked back, Gasquet peaked out in the top 20, and only peeked into the top 10 in a few spikes over the course of his career.


Forgive me for pulling this one out, but there is so much in what you write, I feel it's interesting to pick out bits and discuss. The Nadal/Gasquet example has always been an interesting one, because they are almost exactly the same age, had basically the same trajectory, same early promise, even played each other as juniors, and yet had different careers, if you note that one was a supernova, and one just had a really decent career. They are interesting to compare because they are almost as close to twins as you can find in tennis, (except for the Bryans and the Plishkovas, who actually ARE twins.)

But in this context, as to your OP on this chapter: the benchmarks, and their limits, I do think that Nadal and Gasquet are an interesting case-study. If nothing else, it's a cautionary tale of expecting so much. To be fair, Gasquet has had a perfectly adequate career. He's made real money, and cracked the top 10. He's not an utter failure. But the difference between his career, and Rafa's, is astronomic. There was not really anything to distinguish them, in their early displays of talent. So what made Rafa an elite/GOAT, etc., and Gasquet just an also-ran? It has to be some x-factor, as they started out similarly talented. Commitment? Drive? Environment and coaching? Rafa did have a zen-master coach, and an elite athlete uncle to pattern.

With so many controls, though, can we really say why Gasquet and Nadal diverged? I don't think so. I'd be interested in your opinion. But, given that it's hard to say, do graphs not tell us more about the past than the future?
 
  • Like
Reactions: El Dude

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,280
Reactions
6,021
Points
113
Forgive me for pulling this one out, but there is so much in what you write, I feel it's interesting to pick out bits and discuss. The Nadal/Gasquet example has always been an interesting one, because they are almost exactly the same age, had basically the same trajectory, same early promise, even played each other as juniors, and yet had different careers, if you note that one was a supernova, and one just had a really decent career. They are interesting to compare because they are almost as close to twins as you can find in tennis, (except for the Bryans and the Plishkovas, who actually ARE twins.)

But in this context, as to your OP on this chapter: the benchmarks, and their limits, I do think that Nadal and Gasquet are an interesting case-study. If nothing else, it's a cautionary tale of expecting so much. To be fair, Gasquet has had a perfectly adequate career. He's made real money, and cracked the top 10. He's not an utter failure. But the difference between his career, and Rafa's, is astronomic. There was not really anything to distinguish them, in their early displays of talent. So what made Rafa an elite/GOAT, etc., and Gasquet just an also-ran? It has to be some x-factor, as they started out similarly talented. Commitment? Drive? Environment and coaching? Rafa did have a zen-master coach, and an elite athlete uncle to pattern.

With so many controls, though, can we really say why Gasquet and Nadal diverged? I don't think so. I'd be interested in your opinion. But, given that it's hard to say, do graphs not tell us more about the past than the future?
Good thoughts, Moxie.

I don't know why Nadal and Gasquet diverged so much, although I also wasn't following tennis closely at that time. Maybe someone remembers details?

My "tennis memory" is stronger over the last decade or so, so I can remember Coric's early rise and then the general view about his "toothless game," or Grigor Dimitrov having a somewhat lacsadaisical attitude that always kept him from being as good as we thought he'd be. Or now, with FAA...he should be right there in the second tier and on the verge of entering the elite, but something is slightly off, like he has a hitch in his mentality.

And that word is key: I I think a good portion of the Nadal-Gasquet Divergence it is mentality, which is generally quite underestimated among tennis fans, if only because it is impossible to quantify. In Nadal you have possibly the greatest tennis competitor in the Open Era, and in Gasquet....well, he had a case of "Frenchitis." I mean, how many French players have some version of the same? Paire, Monfils...what happened to Lucas Pouille? Benneteau with his 0-10 finals record. Maybe life is too good in France, and culturally speaking, they just don't have that extra edge. So while I'm kind of joking about "Frenchitis," I do think cultural and individual factors play a part.

But it probably is ability as well, and then the combination of the two: Nadal maximizing his already prodigious talents due to his mentality and drive, and Gasquet--if not quite minimizing--not living up to his fullest potential.

Behind every Nadal there is...no one. He is in a very small group of just him, Roger and Novak (and maybe Laver and Gonzales, if we want to go back before the Open Era). And around them you have Sampras, Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker. And that's it: the Open Era all-time greats: just 12 guys who won 6+ Slams. But behind Gasquet there are dozens of similar players who didn't live up to what it seemed they "should" be: What would David Nalbandian or Marat Safin have done with a different mindset? Or Nick Kyrgios, for that matter? Perhaps @Fiero425 could jump in, but why did Aaron Krickstein never become more than a decent player? Etc etc.

How many of these guys had the ability to be all-time greats, but for whatever reason, missed the mark? I think Safin and probably Nalbandian fit that mold, and probably a handful of others over the years.

I think also it doesn't--and usually isn't--either Nadal or Gasquet. Many players end up somewhere in-between, whether lesser greats, elites, or second tier (to use my terms). Nadal is a "super-great" and Gasquet is a "tier 2.5" player.

As for the stats and charts illustrating the past, that's true of course, but I think they also give us a sense of historical trends, which allows us to look at, say, a player like Alex Zverev, and think it highly likely that he'll be a multi-Slam winner and #1 at some point. Or look at Medvedev and recognize that if he does win 6+ Slams, he'll be a historical anomaly. It doesn't mean he won't, and it doesn't mean Sascha will definitely win 2+ Slams, but the charts at least tell us what has come before. And, consequently, allow us to better appreciate when a player does break those historical norms (like Stan did when he won 3 Slams starting at age 28, something never done before in the Open Era, and maybe all of tennis history).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie and Fiero425

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,280
Reactions
6,021
Points
113
One more bit about Nadal and Gasquet. That rankings chart actually tells us a lot, and maybe have allowed us to predict early on that they would diverge significantly.

Notice how Gasquet rose first, entering the top 200 just after turning 16, or #172 on July 29 of 2002. His ascent then slowed and he didn't enter the top 100 until over a year later, on Sept 29 of 2003 (#95), and then was pretty up and down until mid-2005, when he went from #152 on March 28 to #12 on October 10. But the key thing is that he hung out in the 100-200 for almost three year, and then once he got up to #12, he didn't keep rising, but pretty much found his level. He rarely rose higher than that.

Rafa, on the other hand, climbed steadily and relatively quickly up to around #50 in July of 2003, and then hung out there for about a year and a half before his "supernova" in the first half of 2005.

The point being, you can tell a lot about a player's future by looking at their "developmental trajectory." If we look at the rankings trajectories of the four greatest players of the last three decades (and more), you can see that while they all had "hiccups" at various stages in their development, none of them stalled out for very long before they got into the top 5. Sampras had those couple years where he had to fight his way from #5 to #1, and Rafa, of course, had several years at #2, and Novak several at #3-4, but once they got to the elite level, they stayed - and there were no long "stays" at lower levels. Roger's trajectory is a bit more mellow, but still shows only a little hiccup in the 10-20 range, and only for about a year.

Screen Shot 2021-10-31 at 10.00.23 PM.png

It is also interesting to note that all four of them dipped in their late 20s to early 30s. Pete ended up retiring, while the other three all found a second wave, and Roger even a small third wave (after his dip at age 35). Rafa is mirroring that dip, so it will be interesting to see if he also has a third wave, like Roger. If Novak follows suit, he should be dipping some time in the next year or less.
 

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,558
Reactions
2,600
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Good thoughts, Moxie.

I don't know why Nadal and Gasquet diverged so much, although I also wasn't following tennis closely at that time. Maybe someone remembers details?

My "tennis memory" is stronger over the last decade or so, so I can remember Coric's early rise and then the general view about his "toothless game," or Grigor Dimitrov having a somewhat lacsadaisical attitude that always kept him from being as good as we thought he'd be. Or now, with FAA...he should be right there in the second tier and on the verge of entering the elite, but something is slightly off, like he has a hitch in his mentality.

And that word is key: I I think a good portion of the Nadal-Gasquet Divergence it is mentality, which is generally quite underestimated among tennis fans, if only because it is impossible to quantify. In Nadal you have possibly the greatest tennis competitor in the Open Era, and in Gasquet....well, he had a case of "Frenchitis." I mean, how many French players have some version of the same? Paire, Monfils...what happened to Lucas Pouille? Benneteau with his 0-10 finals record. Maybe life is too good in France, and culturally speaking, they just don't have that extra edge. So while I'm kind of joking about "Frenchitis," I do think cultural and individual factors play a part.

But it probably is ability as well, and then the combination of the two: Nadal maximizing his already prodigious talents due to his mentality and drive, and Gasquet--if not quite minimizing--not living up to his fullest potential.

Behind every Nadal there is...no one. He is in a very small group of just him, Roger and Novak (and maybe Laver and Gonzales, if we want to go back before the Open Era). And around them you have Sampras, Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker. And that's it: the Open Era all-time greats: just 12 guys who won 6+ Slams. But behind Gasquet there are dozens of similar players who didn't live up to what it seemed they "should" be: What would David Nalbandian or Marat Safin have done with a different mindset? Or Nick Kyrgios, for that matter? Perhaps @Fiero425 could jump in, but why did Aaron Krickstein never become more than a decent player? Etc etc.

How many of these guys had the ability to be all-time greats, but for whatever reason, missed the mark? I think Safin and probably Nalbandian fit that mold, and probably a handful of others over the years.

I think also it doesn't--and usually isn't--either Nadal or Gasquet. Many players end up somewhere in-between, whether lesser greats, elites, or second tier (to use my terms). Nadal is a "super-great" and Gasquet is a "tier 2.5" player.

As for the stats and charts illustrating the past, that's true of course, but I think they also give us a sense of historical trends, which allows us to look at, say, a player like Alex Zverev, and think it highly likely that he'll be a multi-Slam winner and #1 at some point. Or look at Medvedev and recognize that if he does win 6+ Slams, he'll be a historical anomaly. It doesn't mean he won't, and it doesn't mean Sascha will definitely win 2+ Slams, but the charts at least tell us what has come before. And, consequently, allow us to better appreciate when a player does break those historical norms (like Stan did when he won 3 Slams starting at age 28, something never done before in the Open Era, and maybe all of tennis history).
IDK what to say; so much here! We've spoken in the past about players who make a name for themselves due to a huge upset at a major, but never do much else! Mentioning Aaron Krickstein, it was the reverse; his career was over when he couldn't finish off an old man in 5 sets; Jimmy Connors! They had a 4th round match Aaron should have wrapped up in straight sets, but he couldn't close allowing 39 yo Connors to get to another USO SF match entertaining the NY'rs in '91! He didn't do much outside of making AO SF in '95, but was good for an upset of a top player like Lendl or Edberg! Injury probably held him back the most with problem from the knee down to his feet!

When it comes to under-achieving, IDK why more people don't point a finger at Agassi? He waits until late in his career to start taking care of himself winning a few AO in his 30's! I miss that Golden era of tennis with Sampras reigning #1! Too bad for Murray that Fedalovic owned their era for almost 20 years and counting! He might have done better in an earlier era and gotten to 4-5 majors, but he had to overachieve just to get 3 majors from 2012-16! (to be cont,) .... :face-with-hand-over-mouth: :good::fearful-face::)
 
  • Like
Reactions: El Dude

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,280
Reactions
6,021
Points
113
IDK what to say; so much here! We've spoken in the past about players who make a name for themselves due to a huge upset at a major, but never do much else! Mentioning Aaron Krickstein, it was the reverse; his career was over when he couldn't finish off an old man in 5 sets; Jimmy Connors! They had a 4th round match Aaron should have wrapped up in straight sets, but he couldn't close allowing 39 yo Connors to get to another USO SF match entertaining the NY'rs in '91! He didn't do much outside of making AO SF in '95, but was good for an upset of a top player like Lendl or Edberg! Injury probably held him back the most with problem from the knee down to his feet!

When it comes to under-achieving, IDK why more people don't point a finger at Agassi? He waits until late in his career to start taking care of himself winning a few AO in his 30's! I miss that Golden era of tennis with Sampras reigning #1! Too bad for Murray that Fedalovic owned their era for almost 20 years and counting! He might have done better in an earlier era and gotten to 4-5 majors, but he had to overachieve just to get 3 majors from 2012-16! (to be cont,) .... :face-with-hand-over-mouth: :good::fearful-face::)
Thanks, Fiero.

I don't know how a player's career can be "over" after losing a single match. Even Coria's development of the yips took awhile, I believe, and was probably more complex than just losing a single match. So I'm not sure I buy your take on Krickstein losing to Connors.

Even more to the point, Krickstein reached #12 in 1984 when he was 17 years old, then fell back and/or stagnated for a few years. So he already stalled out way before that match with Connors. He did rise again and have his best year in 1989, finishing #8, but I think by that time the ship had sailed on him becoming an elite. The loss to Connors was two years later, in 1991, when it was already clear that he wasn't going to be any better than he had been.

Meaning, I'm more interested in what happened with Krickstein after his first rise in 1984 and why he didn't consolidate and then keep improving, rather then what happened after 1991, when it was already clear he wasn't an elite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie and Fiero425

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,818
Reactions
14,976
Points
113
Good thoughts, Moxie.

I don't know why Nadal and Gasquet diverged so much, although I also wasn't following tennis closely at that time. Maybe someone remembers details?

My "tennis memory" is stronger over the last decade or so, so I can remember Coric's early rise and then the general view about his "toothless game," or Grigor Dimitrov having a somewhat lacsadaisical attitude that always kept him from being as good as we thought he'd be. Or now, with FAA...he should be right there in the second tier and on the verge of entering the elite, but something is slightly off, like he has a hitch in his mentality.

And that word is key: I I think a good portion of the Nadal-Gasquet Divergence it is mentality, which is generally quite underestimated among tennis fans, if only because it is impossible to quantify. In Nadal you have possibly the greatest tennis competitor in the Open Era, and in Gasquet....well, he had a case of "Frenchitis." I mean, how many French players have some version of the same? Paire, Monfils...what happened to Lucas Pouille? Benneteau with his 0-10 finals record. Maybe life is too good in France, and culturally speaking, they just don't have that extra edge. So while I'm kind of joking about "Frenchitis," I do think cultural and individual factors play a part.

But it probably is ability as well, and then the combination of the two: Nadal maximizing his already prodigious talents due to his mentality and drive, and Gasquet--if not quite minimizing--not living up to his fullest potential.

Behind every Nadal there is...no one. He is in a very small group of just him, Roger and Novak (and maybe Laver and Gonzales, if we want to go back before the Open Era). And around them you have Sampras, Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker. And that's it: the Open Era all-time greats: just 12 guys who won 6+ Slams. But behind Gasquet there are dozens of similar players who didn't live up to what it seemed they "should" be: What would David Nalbandian or Marat Safin have done with a different mindset? Or Nick Kyrgios, for that matter? Perhaps @Fiero425 could jump in, but why did Aaron Krickstein never become more than a decent player? Etc etc.

How many of these guys had the ability to be all-time greats, but for whatever reason, missed the mark? I think Safin and probably Nalbandian fit that mold, and probably a handful of others over the years.

I think also it doesn't--and usually isn't--either Nadal or Gasquet. Many players end up somewhere in-between, whether lesser greats, elites, or second tier (to use my terms). Nadal is a "super-great" and Gasquet is a "tier 2.5" player.

Gasquet is arguably more of a head-scratcher even than Dimitrov, in terms of under-achieving. He was touted very young (age 9) as the future of French men's tennis, but I don't think it was pressure that accounted for his lack of results. He made a good start, though not as good as his buddy and juniors competitor Nadal. He upset Roger in 2005 MC. (Their first meeting.) He seemed on the right track for a long while, but just sort of faded.

I think that mentality has a LOT to do with it. I don't think it's completely underestimated by tennis fans, in terms of competitiveness, but what I suspect in some of the underachievers is the "drive" you mention. If you win a fair amount in tennis, with big talent, you can settle for the somewhat 'middling' (graded on a curve) path of making a lot of money, wandering around in the top 20-30, with a nip into the top 10 and enjoy the ride. Kyrgios actually gave voice to that attitude, saying something about he'd like to have a career like Monfils...to have fun, and make some money. Which is not a terrible choice, and they are both great entertainers and good for the sport, imo. But it is impossible to pretend that every tennis player with talent has the same "fire-in-the-belly" to compete hard, week in and week out to achieve at the highest levels.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic combine the talent with the x-factors of drive, competitiveness, commitment, ambition...they simply seem to want it more, they have the chops to keep winning, and they have each other to keep this run going longer than anyone would have thought. We can discuss or argue which amount of each thing they have, individually. But if you shake them up in each person, you end with 20 Slams a piece.

To take a moment for the French-factor...I'm with you. It's a bit hard to call it a national trait, but it's hard to ignore it, as well. (I just watched PCB beat Benoit Paire in Bercy.) Sure, it must be nice to live in France. But it's pretty nice to live in Mallorca, as well. Clearly, that didn't make Nadal "soft." I think it has to be "just talented enough," and "just not driven enough."
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,818
Reactions
14,976
Points
113
As for the stats and charts illustrating the past, that's true of course, but I think they also give us a sense of historical trends, which allows us to look at, say, a player like Alex Zverev, and think it highly likely that he'll be a multi-Slam winner and #1 at some point. Or look at Medvedev and recognize that if he does win 6+ Slams, he'll be a historical anomaly. It doesn't mean he won't, and it doesn't mean Sascha will definitely win 2+ Slams, but the charts at least tell us what has come before. And, consequently, allow us to better appreciate when a player does break those historical norms (like Stan did when he won 3 Slams starting at age 28, something never done before in the Open Era, and maybe all of tennis history).
I still think the charts and graphs are only somewhat useful, though certainly interesting. And I appreciate your doing them But I don't buy them so much for predicting the future. That's why I say they tell us more about the past, and they will, in retrospect. Surely, Wawrinka would mess up a graph. Do you want to put another late-bloomer like Karatsev on a graph with Wawrinka and see where that trajectory goes? Let's face it, Wawrinka was a historical anomaly.

Of the top 10 players that we're looking at for future potential: Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas are not players that I see as mentally sturdy. I'd call them all ambitious, and I'd also say that each has holes in their game, and holes in their head. Will they all stick around and feature for a good while? I think they will. Will they win Majors or many of them? I don't think we can know that. (Obviously Medevev has one, as does Thiem.) You analyze Gasquet's trajectory, but how predictable would it have been earlier on? If feel like men's tennis has gotten less and less predictable. Age means less, starting early or late means less. And once the big 3 are gone, anything could happen. Though, like you, I am looking at the young players with sturdy heads and big ambition. This is why Sinner is everyone's new BFF. And it's also why I think that if Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas and Thiem don't get over their Hamlet phase, and fast, they will get passed by others, and more quickly than we expect.
 

rafanoy1992

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
4,573
Reactions
3,216
Points
113
I still think the charts and graphs are only somewhat useful, though certainly interesting. And I appreciate your doing them But I don't buy them so much for predicting the future. That's why I say they tell us more about the past, and they will, in retrospect. Surely, Wawrinka would mess up a graph. Do you want to put another late-bloomer like Karatsev on a graph with Wawrinka and see where that trajectory goes? Let's face it, Wawrinka was a historical anomaly.

Of the top 10 players that we're looking at for future potential: Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas are not players that I see as mentally sturdy. I'd call them all ambitious, and I'd also say that each has holes in their game, and holes in their head. Will they all stick around and feature for a good while? I think they will. Will they win Majors or many of them? I don't think we can know that. (Obviously Medevev has one, as does Thiem.) You analyze Gasquet's trajectory, but how predictable would it have been earlier on? If feel like men's tennis has gotten less and less predictable. Age means less, starting early or late means less. And once the big 3 are gone, anything could happen. Though, like you, I am looking at the young players with sturdy heads and big ambition. This is why Sinner is everyone's new BFF. And it's also why I think that if Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas and Thiem don't get over their Hamlet phase, and fast, they will get passed by others, and more quickly than we expect.
For me personally, Zverev and Tsitsipas have the most pressure in 2022 in terms of winning a slam. If neither one of them wins a slam in 2022, then there will be some big mental block in there minds, that's for sure.

As for Thiem, I think he is a question mark in terms on how successful he can be on his overall career. He is not like Medvedev or Zverev in which he wins a lot of Masters 1000 titles. But, at the same time, he does have 1 slam title. That's why I am curious to see on how he fares in 2022 and what are his goals/intentions going into 2022 presumably he is healthy and has time to recuperate mentally from winning his maiden slam.

As for Medvedev, he is fine at least on hard-courts. He knows the experience on maintaining his high level of play. Yes, there will be bumps on the road (like you said about holes in the head). But I think he will be fine knowing that he has experienced this before and he has finally won his maiden slam. I do not expect him to dominate, at the same token, I do not expect him to be in a "drought" in terms of winning hardcourt titles or titles in general (aka Tsitsipas) neither I expect him to be in a "mental slump" after winning his first slam (ala Thiem). I think he will manage the situation like he has always does in his career. The only thing I am curious about him is his play on Clay and Grass courts on whether not he is willing to improve his game on those specific courts.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,280
Reactions
6,021
Points
113
I still think the charts and graphs are only somewhat useful, though certainly interesting. And I appreciate your doing them But I don't buy them so much for predicting the future. That's why I say they tell us more about the past, and they will, in retrospect. Surely, Wawrinka would mess up a graph. Do you want to put another late-bloomer like Karatsev on a graph with Wawrinka and see where that trajectory goes? Let's face it, Wawrinka was a historical anomaly.

Well, I've pretty much included some version of disclaimer in every part that the charts and graphs are "only somewhat useful," so it sort of goes without saying. But it isn't either/or: either they clearly predict the future or they are useless. They illustrate historical trends. I mean, it is meaningful to consider that no eventual 6+ Slam winner hadn't reached #1 or won their first Slam before their 25th birthday. It doesn't mean it won't happen--and I think it eventually will--just that the weight of the past implies that it is unlikely.
Of the top 10 players that we're looking at for future potential: Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas are not players that I see as mentally sturdy. I'd call them all ambitious, and I'd also say that each has holes in their game, and holes in their head. Will they all stick around and feature for a good while? I think they will. Will they win Majors or many of them? I don't think we can know that. (Obviously Medevev has one, as does Thiem.)
Again, the historical records imply that it is very likely both both Zverev and Tsitsipas will join Medvedev, especially Zverev. Consider that Sascha now has 18 titles, 7 of them big. Here's a couple fun facts:

Most titles without a Slam: Tom Okker 34.
# of players with 18+ titles and no Slams: 14 (including Zverev)
Number of players with 18+ titles and at least one Slam: 36
#of players with 7+ big titles and no Slams: 1 (only Zverev) out of 26

That last line is particularly telling: Zverev is the only player in the Open Era with 7 big titles and no Slams. Actually, only he and Rios have 5+ big titles and no Slams, out of 34 players.

Even more striking: of those 26 players with 7+ big titles, only three have less than 2 Slams: Zverev, Chang, and Muster.

Again, none of this tells us that Zverev will win 2+ Slams, but it does tell us that if he doesn't, he'll be one of the biggest under achievers in Open Era history.

By the way, once we get to 10+ big titles, every player in the Open Era has won at least two Slams. Chances are Zverev will blow by that number within the next year or two. Even more so: Of 17 players with 12+ big titles, only Nastase and Murray have fewer than 6+ Slams.

You analyze Gasquet's trajectory, but how predictable would it have been earlier on? If feel like men's tennis has gotten less and less predictable. Age means less, starting early or late means less. And once the big 3 are gone, anything could happen. Though, like you, I am looking at the young players with sturdy heads and big ambition. This is why Sinner is everyone's new BFF. And it's also why I think that if Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas and Thiem don't get over their Hamlet phase, and fast, they will get passed by others, and more quickly than we expect.
Yeah, that was kind of my point, re: Gasquet. But in terms of age, it really varies, depending upon era. The early 70s were dominated by older players, until Connors and Borg ushered in a youth movement. Players of past eras played much longer, and you'd even find guys playing deep into their 40s, sometimes their 50s - if sparingly so. For instance, I was surprised to find that Frank Sedgman--a star of the late 40s and 50s--played at least one tournament until 1976, the year he turned 49 years old. He even played 11 tournaments in 1971 at age 44. And of course Pancho Gonzales played until 1973 (age 45), winning titles as late as 1971. And Ken Rosewall played until 1980, just before turning 46. Most of them were far from their prime years by that point, although Pancho still could bring a high level in his early 40s. For instance, he won the 1969 Las Vegas Masters equivalent, defeating many of the top players to get there: Newcombe, Rosewall, Smith, and Ashe. He also beat prime Laver a few times in 1968-70, and then beat a 19-year old Jimmy Connors a couple years later. And of course Rod Laver was still very good through 1975, when he finished #10 at age 37.

And then the tour got much younger, and players started declining earlier, perhaps unable to keep up with the more powerful game. Jimmy Connors was seen as somewhat of an anomaly, although to some extent he wasn't. Even near-contemporaries like Ilie Nastase and Stan Smith hung around into their late 30s.

Agassi was also considered a guy with great longevity, although that may largely be in comparison to Sampras and other top players of the 80s-90s, most of whom were in decline by their late 20s and gone in their early 30s. Agassi had that second career peak, after he got his act together in the late 90s, and was still a top player through 2005 at age 35.

In a way, Agassi provided a model for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic: that life is possible after 30, if you want it bad enough and take care of yourself.

Here's another fun fact: None of the "Holy Trinity" were #1 on their 30th birthdays. They all had a dip around then, then resurged for a bit.

Actually, all of this gives me an idea for a (shorter) article on player aging.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,818
Reactions
14,976
Points
113
Well, I've pretty much included some version of disclaimer in every part that the charts and graphs are "only somewhat useful," so it sort of goes without saying. But it isn't either/or: either they clearly predict the future or they are useless. They illustrate historical trends. I mean, it is meaningful to consider that no eventual 6+ Slam winner hadn't reached #1 or won their first Slam before their 25th birthday. It doesn't mean it won't happen--and I think it eventually will--just that the weight of the past implies that it is unlikely.
Yes, you have made all of the requisite caveats, and yes, I understand them. And what you're trying to do.
Again, the historical records imply that it is very likely both both Zverev and Tsitsipas will join Medvedev, especially Zverev. Consider that Sascha now has 18 titles, 7 of them big. Here's a couple fun facts:

Most titles without a Slam: Tom Okker 34.
# of players with 18+ titles and no Slams: 14 (including Zverev)
Number of players with 18+ titles and at least one Slam: 36
#of players with 7+ big titles and no Slams: 1 (only Zverev) out of 26

That last line is particularly telling: Zverev is the only player in the Open Era with 7 big titles and no Slams. Actually, only he and Rios have 5+ big titles and no Slams, out of 34 players.

Even more striking: of those 26 players with 7+ big titles, only three have less than 2 Slams: Zverev, Chang, and Muster.

Again, none of this tells us that Zverev will win 2+ Slams, but it does tell us that if he doesn't, he'll be one of the biggest under achievers in Open Era history.
Tom Okker? And you just told me you haven't been watching tennis long enough to tell what happened to Richard Gasquet?

Anyway, my point is that Zverev CAN become one of biggest underachievers in Open Era history. It's not like he doesn't trend that way.

By the way, once we get to 10+ big titles, every player in the Open Era has won at least two Slams. Chances are Zverev will blow by that number within the next year or two. Even more so: Of 17 players with 12+ big titles, only Nastase and Murray have fewer than 6+ Slams.
Very interesting stat.

Yeah, that was kind of my point, re: Gasquet. But in terms of age, it really varies, depending upon era. The early 70s were dominated by older players, until Connors and Borg ushered in a youth movement. Players of past eras played much longer, and you'd even find guys playing deep into their 40s, sometimes their 50s - if sparingly so. For instance, I was surprised to find that Frank Sedgman--a star of the late 40s and 50s--played at least one tournament until 1976, the year he turned 49 years old. He even played 11 tournaments in 1971 at age 44. And of course Pancho Gonzales played until 1973 (age 45), winning titles as late as 1971. And Ken Rosewall played until 1980, just before turning 46. Most of them were far from their prime years by that point, although Pancho still could bring a high level in his early 40s. For instance, he won the 1969 Las Vegas Masters equivalent, defeating many of the top players to get there: Newcombe, Rosewall, Smith, and Ashe. He also beat prime Laver a few times in 1968-70, and then beat a 19-year old Jimmy Connors a couple years later. And of course Rod Laver was still very good through 1975, when he finished #10 at age 37.

And then the tour got much younger, and players started declining earlier, perhaps unable to keep up with the more powerful game. Jimmy Connors was seen as somewhat of an anomaly, although to some extent he wasn't. Even near-contemporaries like Ilie Nastase and Stan Smith hung around into their late 30s.

Agassi was also considered a guy with great longevity, although that may largely be in comparison to Sampras and other top players of the 80s-90s, most of whom were in decline by their late 20s and gone in their early 30s. Agassi had that second career peak, after he got his act together in the late 90s, and was still a top player through 2005 at age 35.

In a way, Agassi provided a model for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic: that life is possible after 30, if you want it bad enough and take care of yourself.
I think in the old days, some players did play into a great age. I don't think that has anything to do with why players are doing well into their 30s now. The game is well-different. And I do think Agassi was a model for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

I'm really not trying to give you a hard time about putting these stats out there, just trying to balance with projected vs. the particulars of individual players. And different eras.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,280
Reactions
6,021
Points
113
Yes, you have made all of the requisite caveats, and yes, I understand them. And what you're trying to do.

Tom Okker? And you just told me you haven't been watching tennis long enough to tell what happened to Richard Gasquet?

Anyway, my point is that Zverev CAN become one of biggest underachievers in Open Era history. It's not like he doesn't trend that way.


Very interesting stat.


I think in the old days, some players did play into a great age. I don't think that has anything to do with why players are doing well into their 30s now. The game is well-different. And I do think Agassi was a model for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

I'm really not trying to give you a hard time about putting these stats out there, just trying to balance with projected vs. the particulars of individual players. And different eras.
Yeah, I agree about balancing statistical projections with particulars. This is one reason why I'm still high on FAA: I just have a feeling about him, love his game, and I think he's one of those guys that is going to "pop" and become almost an insta-elite. By the end of 2022, I think he and Sinner will be right there with Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas. Of course I felt similarly about Dimitrov, and he never became the player I thought he would be (he did win a couple big titles, at least - unlike guys like Raonic, Nishikori, and Gasquet).

Re: Okker, I didn't see him play - just to clarify! Just looking at the record. The first tennis match I remember watching was Borg-McEnroe, but only vaguely. I watched a bit on and off throughout the 80s to 00s, but got much more serious about 10 years ago. Up until that point, baseball was the only sport I truly loved, and I merely liked tennis and football. But something clicked for me...still not sure what it was, I just started watching and researching and was hooked.

One thing to note about players aging better, it isn't everyone. Or rather, it seems more common overall, but only Roger, Rafa, and Novak are (or were) playing close to their prime form into their mid-30s or later. Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, del Potro, etc, are all in the early-to-mid 30s and none are the players they were five years ago. Berdych and Ferrer retired, and Tsonga seems close.

Meaning, the biggest outliers are the "Holy Trinity." Everyone else seems to be extending their prime into their early 30s, but no one is doing what those three are doing, except maybe Isner. As I think I remarked before, this may partially because they were so good at their best, that dropping a notch still leaves them better than the herd. But I think, also, it may have something to do with each other.

I mean, there's an alternate reality where Roger wins 2012 Wimbledon, then struggles in 2013 as he did, but rather than re-motivating and remaking his game, decides to retire in 2014. And again with his off-year in 2016 and his resurgence in 2017-18. A mere mortal likely would have retired after 2013 or 2016.

Rafa had that poor spell in 2015-16 where even most of his diehard fans were expecting imminent retirement. But, like Roger, he resurged in 2017 and played really well through 2020. Like Roger did in 2016, he seems to be going through a second drop, and so bears watching in 2022 to see if he can rise again.

And Novak did the same in 2017, then resurged, and will likely have a second drop sometime in the next year or two.

So with all three, once they hit the latter half of their careers, we see off-years coming every few years. For Roger, it was 2013, 2016, and then 2020-21. For Rafa, 2015-16 and 2021. For Novak, 2017. In the past, most elites never recovered and/or retired. But these guys all fought back and came close to previous levels, if perhaps at a slightly lower level than their previous best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,558
Reactions
2,600
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Yeah, I agree about balancing statistical projections with particulars. This is one reason why I'm still high on FAA: I just have a feeling about him, love his game, and I think he's one of those guys that is going to "pop" and become almost an insta-elite. By the end of 2022, I think he and Sinner will be right there with Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas. Of course I felt similarly about Dimitrov, and he never became the player I thought he would be (he did win a couple big titles, at least - unlike guys like Raonic, Nishikori, and Gasquet).

Re: Okker, I didn't see him play - just to clarify! Just looking at the record. The first tennis match I remember watching was Borg-McEnroe, but only vaguely. I watched a bit on and off throughout the 80s to 00s, but got much more serious about 10 years ago. Up until that point, baseball was the only sport I truly loved, and I merely liked tennis and football. But something clicked for me...still not sure what it was, I just started watching and researching and was hooked.

One thing to note about players aging better, it isn't everyone. Or rather, it seems more common overall, but only Roger, Rafa, and Novak are (or were) playing close to their prime form into their mid-30s or later. Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, del Potro, etc, are all in the early-to-mid 30s and none are the players they were five years ago. Berdych and Ferrer retired, and Tsonga seems close.

Meaning, the biggest outliers are the "Holy Trinity." Everyone else seems to be extending their prime into their early 30s, but no one is doing what those three are doing, except maybe Isner. As I think I remarked before, this may partially because they were so good at their best, that dropping a notch still leaves them better than the herd. But I think, also, it may have something to do with each other.

I mean, there's an alternate reality where Roger wins 2012 Wimbledon, then struggles in 2013 as he did, but rather than re-motivating and remaking his game, decides to retire in 2014. And again with his off-year in 2016 and his resurgence in 2017-18. A mere mortal likely would have retired after 2013 or 2016.

Rafa had that poor spell in 2015-16 where even most of his diehard fans were expecting imminent retirement. But, like Roger, he resurged in 2017 and played really well through 2020. Like Roger did in 2016, he seems to be going through a second drop, and so bears watching in 2022 to see if he can rise again.

And Novak did the same in 2017, then resurged, and will likely have a second drop sometime in the next year or two.

So with all three, once they hit the latter half of their careers, we see off-years coming every few years. For Roger, it was 2013, 2016, and then 2020-21. For Rafa, 2015-16 and 2021. For Novak, 2017. In the past, most elites never recovered and/or retired. But these guys all fought back and came close to previous levels, if perhaps at a slightly lower level than their previous best.

By the time I seriously started playing tennis in ''73, Okker was more a doubles specialist! He had won most, if not all his titles before I started paying attention! Bud Collins called him the "Flying Dutchman" b/c he was from The Netherlands, his court movement, & technique used in the flailing style of play! :face-with-hand-over-mouth: :shushing-face: :clap: :good::)
 
  • Like
Reactions: El Dude

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,818
Reactions
14,976
Points
113
Yeah, I agree about balancing statistical projections with particulars. This is one reason why I'm still high on FAA: I just have a feeling about him, love his game, and I think he's one of those guys that is going to "pop" and become almost an insta-elite. By the end of 2022, I think he and Sinner will be right there with Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas. Of course I felt similarly about Dimitrov, and he never became the player I thought he would be (he did win a couple big titles, at least - unlike guys like Raonic, Nishikori, and Gasquet).

Re: Okker, I didn't see him play - just to clarify! Just looking at the record. The first tennis match I remember watching was Borg-McEnroe, but only vaguely. I watched a bit on and off throughout the 80s to 00s, but got much more serious about 10 years ago. Up until that point, baseball was the only sport I truly loved, and I merely liked tennis and football. But something clicked for me...still not sure what it was, I just started watching and researching and was hooked.

One thing to note about players aging better, it isn't everyone. Or rather, it seems more common overall, but only Roger, Rafa, and Novak are (or were) playing close to their prime form into their mid-30s or later. Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, del Potro, etc, are all in the early-to-mid 30s and none are the players they were five years ago. Berdych and Ferrer retired, and Tsonga seems close.

Meaning, the biggest outliers are the "Holy Trinity." Everyone else seems to be extending their prime into their early 30s, but no one is doing what those three are doing, except maybe Isner. As I think I remarked before, this may partially because they were so good at their best, that dropping a notch still leaves them better than the herd. But I think, also, it may have something to do with each other.
I see what you're saying but it is a bit ridiculous to compare the Big 3 to anyone, at any point in their careers. I'm reminded of many folks commenting on how gorgeous Sophia Loren looked at 80, maybe on the Pirelli calendar. Everyone said they wanted to look like La Loren at 80. My comment was that I think you had to look like Sophia Loren when she was 20 to look like she did at 80. Likewise, you kind of had to play the great tennis that the Big 3 played in their early-mid 20s to play the kind of tennis they are playing in their early-mid-late 30s.

But you skim past Wawrinka, who was a late-bloomer, even if we're sure he's done, now. And Feliciano Lopez, while no world beater, is playing at his relative level, to some extent, even now. Isner is still in because he went to college and started late. For sure, a lot of players have quit by now. But isn't this part of the conversation we were having about motivation, too? Murray is still playing, but with reinforced hips. Del Potro wants to come back, we'll see; Cilic, IMO, he's always been the same, except for one anomalous win at the USO. I don't think age has reduced him. He's just never been that great.

I mean, there's an alternate reality where Roger wins 2012 Wimbledon, then struggles in 2013 as he did, but rather than re-motivating and remaking his game, decides to retire in 2014. And again with his off-year in 2016 and his resurgence in 2017-18. A mere mortal likely would have retired after 2013 or 2016.

Rafa had that poor spell in 2015-16 where even most of his diehard fans were expecting imminent retirement. But, like Roger, he resurged in 2017 and played really well through 2020. Like Roger did in 2016, he seems to be going through a second drop, and so bears watching in 2022 to see if he can rise again.

And Novak did the same in 2017, then resurged, and will likely have a second drop sometime in the next year or two.

So with all three, once they hit the latter half of their careers, we see off-years coming every few years. For Roger, it was 2013, 2016, and then 2020-21. For Rafa, 2015-16 and 2021. For Novak, 2017. In the past, most elites never recovered and/or retired. But these guys all fought back and came close to previous levels, if perhaps at a slightly lower level than their previous best.
I think you said this above, but if it weren't for them pushing each other, at the very least, Roger and Rafa would be retired by now. I guess we'll see what's left in them. But, like Sophia Loren, they still look fairly gorgeous, because they ever did.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,280
Reactions
6,021
Points
113
Ahh...Sophia Loren. I was also thinking of one of my person favorites, Susan Sarandon. But I think that is a good analogy to an extent, although the quality of beauty is largely subjective, while the performance of a tennis player is not.

Anyhow, just to comment on some of the players you mentioned. I don't think you're entirely fair to Cilic. He had a nice little peak from 2014-18, with a Slam in 2014, a Masters in 2016, a Slam final each of '17 and '18. He turned 30 in Sept of 2018 and has declined since.

Stan peaked late, but in a pretty short window: he was in the top ten from 2013-17 (age 28-32), with a Slam in each of 2014-16. By 2017 he wasn't quite the same "Stanimal" and has fallen to an even lower level, and playing only 3 Slams over the last two years.

Andy was done as a top player at age 30...he was #1 on his 30th birthday, #45 on his 31st birthday. Yes, that's injury related, but that's part of aging. While we all cheer for him, he hasn't even made it back to the top 100.

Every player ages differently, but the majority follow certain patterns. Or rather, all improvise and vary from certain patterns.

I do think players are A) peaking a bit later, and B) extending their prime years. But as we both agree, the Trinity creates a bit of noise, so we really have to look at them as exceptions and instead focus on everyone else or, at least, take everyone into account, see the averages, and then look at players individually. But we're really just looking at an age-adjustment of 2-3 years, I think. Meaning, historically speaking, they typical player of the mid-70s to around 2010 entered their prime around 21, peaked around 24-25, and started their decline around 30 (plus or minus 1-2 years, depending upon the player). If we add 2 years to that, then we get prime starting around 23, peaking around peaking around 26-27, and ending around 32. That looks about right and fits the trajectories of most players over the last decade, imo (other than the Trinity).

Even with those three, can we say that they are anything close to what they were in their mid-20s? Novak won three Slams this year, but I don't think we can say that he was anywhere near as dominant as he was in 2015 to early 2016 when he was 27-28 years old. Still better than everyone else, but the gap has narrowed. Part of that is an improved field, but a lot of it is natural age-related decline.

As I've pointed out before, Roger started showing signs of slippage from his absolute peak all the way back in 2007. If you look at his losses from 2007 on, what is striking is not as much the rise of Nadal and Djokovic, but that Roger started losing to lesser players. 2008 is hard to assess due to his health, but in that healthier 2009-12 span, when he was 27-31, he was clearly playing at a lower level than he did in 2004-07, and better than everyone else but two guys closer to their peak form. Rafa, too: he was great in 2017-20, but wasn't the Rafa of 2008-13.