El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,324
- Reactions
- 6,090
- Points
- 113
Well, consider that Novak and Andy turn 30 this month, and we already have a group of 30-somethings dominating. But presumably what is and will happen is that the ages of top players becomes more diversified.
I am reminded of the 1974 rankings, when the year-end top 10 was extremely diverse in terms of age:
1. Connors (22)
2. Newcombe (30)
3. Borg (18)
4. Laver (36)
5. Vilas (22)
6. Okker (30)
7. Ashe (31)
8. Rosewall (40)
9. Smith (28)
10. Nastase (28)
You had a player in his 40s, four in their 30s, two in their late 20s, two in early 20s, and one teenager. Interestingly enough, there were no players between age 23 an 27 - the traditional prime years. This is because of a weak group of players born in the late 40s, after Smith/Nastase (1946) and before Connors/Vilas (1952) - although Manuel Orantes (1949) was #11 that year, and there were others in the 11-20 range.
But my point is, I think we are entering a period of similar age diversity. We probably won't see any teenagers in the top 10 any time soon, but we're going to see more players in their early 20s. In fact, I think within the next year or two, the top 20 will become dominated by players in their early 20s and 30s, with fewer players in their mid-to-late 20s.
Before the Open Era, lots of players continued playing a tournament here and there into their 40s and even 50s. As you say, the configuration was different, and a lot of play was more localized. To that extent it is probably best to separate Open Era and pre-Open Era, which I usually do. But we're still left with the reality that tennis didn't really become a young man's sport until the mid-70s or even 80s. Even during the 70s when Connors and Borg were at their best, a lot of the old guard was hanging around. Rosewall was in the top 20 as late as 1977, when he turned 43 years old and finished #12 in the world. What an amazing guy. Arthur Ashe hung on in the top ten as late as 1979 at age 36. It wasn't really until the 80s that the average age of players dropped substantially - so we're only talking about 30 years or so in which the average age of players was lower than it is today.
So for me, the key and unresolved questions are:
1) Are players peaking later, or is it more a matter of prime years being extended, or some combination of both?
2) If either of the above is true, why? Is it because of a particularly strong older generation (nowin or entering 30s), a particularly weak younger generation (now mid-20s), or possibly some new element or elements of training and play style, or (as I suspect) some combination of all of the above?
3) If players are peaking later, does this also mean that young players will reach their peak form later than usual, or is it more than we're seeing a real drop in talent?
I think some of these questions will be better answered in another year or two. For instance, I think we can definitely look at the Dimitrov/Tomic generation and say weak talent, but I'm not ready to say that about Zverev, Tiafoe, etc. They're just too young.
I am reminded of the 1974 rankings, when the year-end top 10 was extremely diverse in terms of age:
1. Connors (22)
2. Newcombe (30)
3. Borg (18)
4. Laver (36)
5. Vilas (22)
6. Okker (30)
7. Ashe (31)
8. Rosewall (40)
9. Smith (28)
10. Nastase (28)
You had a player in his 40s, four in their 30s, two in their late 20s, two in early 20s, and one teenager. Interestingly enough, there were no players between age 23 an 27 - the traditional prime years. This is because of a weak group of players born in the late 40s, after Smith/Nastase (1946) and before Connors/Vilas (1952) - although Manuel Orantes (1949) was #11 that year, and there were others in the 11-20 range.
But my point is, I think we are entering a period of similar age diversity. We probably won't see any teenagers in the top 10 any time soon, but we're going to see more players in their early 20s. In fact, I think within the next year or two, the top 20 will become dominated by players in their early 20s and 30s, with fewer players in their mid-to-late 20s.
Before the Open Era, lots of players continued playing a tournament here and there into their 40s and even 50s. As you say, the configuration was different, and a lot of play was more localized. To that extent it is probably best to separate Open Era and pre-Open Era, which I usually do. But we're still left with the reality that tennis didn't really become a young man's sport until the mid-70s or even 80s. Even during the 70s when Connors and Borg were at their best, a lot of the old guard was hanging around. Rosewall was in the top 20 as late as 1977, when he turned 43 years old and finished #12 in the world. What an amazing guy. Arthur Ashe hung on in the top ten as late as 1979 at age 36. It wasn't really until the 80s that the average age of players dropped substantially - so we're only talking about 30 years or so in which the average age of players was lower than it is today.
So for me, the key and unresolved questions are:
1) Are players peaking later, or is it more a matter of prime years being extended, or some combination of both?
2) If either of the above is true, why? Is it because of a particularly strong older generation (nowin or entering 30s), a particularly weak younger generation (now mid-20s), or possibly some new element or elements of training and play style, or (as I suspect) some combination of all of the above?
3) If players are peaking later, does this also mean that young players will reach their peak form later than usual, or is it more than we're seeing a real drop in talent?
I think some of these questions will be better answered in another year or two. For instance, I think we can definitely look at the Dimitrov/Tomic generation and say weak talent, but I'm not ready to say that about Zverev, Tiafoe, etc. They're just too young.