Oldest Champions

[El Dude]

Roger Federer won Dubai at age 37 years, 6 months, and 22 days. That makes Dubai the 19th oldest tournament champion in the Open Era, and Federer the 4th oldest player to win a pro title.

Pancho Gonzales, at 43 years, 8 months and 28 days, was the oldest champion when he won the 1972 Des Moines. He won five titles in his 40s. Ken Rosewall won six, and 12 titles in all older than Federer is now. Marty Riessen also won a titlle a couple months older than Federer is now. Gonzales is also the oldest Masters champion, winning the 1971 LA event at 43y4m11d, beating a 19-year old Jimmy Connors in the final.

And of course if Roger wins a Slam, he'll be the oldest Slam winner in Open Era history. Ken Rosewall won the 1972 Australian Open at age 37, 1 month, 24 days. Roger's 2018 AO was 2nd at 36 years, 5 months, 7 days. Rosewall and Federer are the only players to win Slams after turning age 35: both have three apiece.

If we look before the Open Era, Arthur Gore won the 1909 Wimbledon at 41y6m; William Larned won 1911 US Championship at 38y8m; and Bill Tilden won the 1930 Wimbledon at 37y4m.

 

[Federberg]

Interesting thread. I predict an Older watch going forward, just like what we have for the next gen! Of course I would argue that what Federer is doing is different gravy to the achievements in the past. The depth and quality of the tour now is so so much better than back in the day. Particularly when you add in the new equipment that necessitates much faster and powerful play now. It's easier to hang around with those old wooden racquets equalising things a bit. What these guys do now is utterly insane

 

[El Dude]

Agreed, although it is hard not to be impressed with Pancho and Muscles - those guys were winning big matches and staying relevant into their 40s. Rosewall even hung around as the game was changing in the mid to late 70s and won his last ATP matches in 1980, just before turning 46 years old. His 20-year Slam winning span, at age 18 and 37, remains one of the more remarkable feats in tennis history, in my opinion.

I really have no idea what to expect from Roger - whether he wins another Slam or not, how many more titles he'll win, or how long he'll play. As has been said by lots of people many times, he'll probably continue playing until he thinks he has a decent chance at winning another Slam; I don't think he's really any less likely now than he was in 2014-15, and he won three more after that. Now maybe that's partially, even largely, due to Novak's walkabout in 2017-18, but for one, there's no guarantee that Novak will continue playing at this level, and secondly, I'm not convinced that Novak is invincible or that Roger can't beat him at, say, Wimbledon.

It seems that several times each year we keep re-evaluating not only Roger, but Rafa and Novak. The end seems nigh and then it isn't. None of Next Gen seems quite able to breakthrough in a Slam, but it is inevitable.

So yeah: Olderer Watch, indeed.

 

[Federberg]

To be honest I had pretty much given up hope for Roger, but his focus and back court game looked pretty decent today. His movement to the forehand in particular was welcome to see. If he can sustain that then he still has a chance. It's only one tournament, but I'm a bit more optimistic now. Looks like he still wants it after all. He seemed to go on a mental walk about last year. Didn't seem like he wanted it bad anymore.

As for the next gen, Tsitsipas continues to impress me. I like that guy a lot

 

[mrzz]

To be honest I had pretty much given up hope for Roger, but his focus and back court game looked pretty decent today. His movement to the forehand in particular was welcome to see. If he can sustain that then he still has a chance.

I do not know if it was a coincidence, but what I saw on the semis and on the final seemed like a well executed adjustment to the overall game plan. If that is true this is a guy who seriously means business, if he succeeds or not is another matter but as you I was positively surprised.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think it's a question of wanting it or not. He would surely at least believe he wants it when he enters a tournament. He probably came in with rust, which may be harder to shake when you're older, but he found his groove. It seems like he needs to find the sweet-spot between playing too little, and over-playing. But, since this is the Geezer thread, it seems that before the A-game goes, the ability to be consistent with it does. I say this because Martina and Chrissie have mentioned it a lot...that the older you get, the more often you wake up not really feeling it. I've never heard them elaborate on that, so whether that means aches and pains, or lack of motivation, or lack of mojo, or various combinations of all 3. Maybe wanting to win and feeling fire-in-the-belly are different things, in later career.

 

[mrzz]

Naturally, all players "want" to win. But my point above is a bit different. It takes considerable effort to change something on your game (as you know), and the last time Federer did it was pre-2017, where the actual change was in fact minimal, it was more a question of training and willingness to attack using the bh.

Now I got the impression (and I stress it is an impression) that Federer actually changed his gameplan. There is something different in his baseline strokes, it seems that he is hitting it with more net clearance, deeper than usual, only to mix it with some typical hitting-on-the-rise attacks. Maybe it was something surface (or opponent) related, but I got that impression from both Coric's and Tsitsipas matches (would like to see what others think about that).

So, if you are still making successful changes to your game, you "really" want it, you are really paying the price in effort. That is my point. But, again, this all goes down the drain if my impression of a changed approach is wrong.

 

[Moxie]

Thanks for the clarification of your point, @mrzz, though I specifically didn't quote you, as I was more referring to what Federberg had said above, and also thinking of how Darth has been complaining about Roger's lack of motivation, lately. I don't denigrate that they say it, but I find it hard to see that Roger doesn't "care" enough, or whatever. But it was worth the misunderstanding to get further elucidation on your point, which is very interesting.