@herios, again, I am not saying it isn't true just that we don't know yet, unless you think the "lost generation" is just late blooming and about to reach peak form.That's basically my point: the data is skewed by a talent-poor cohort of players. And further: we don't know if players are starting their primes later because we haven't seen any new elite-level players emerge since del Potro in 2009 (I know Delpo isn't elite now, but when he broke through in 2009, he was looking like an elite player), or Stan more recently. But Stan could just be an outlier.
I personally don't think Nishikori, Raonic, et al are going to get any better, or at least not significantly so. Maybe someone of that group "does a Wawrinka" and blossoms in his late 20s, but like Stan, he too would be a historical outlier. Or maybe Milos finally has a great run and wins Wimbledon - but that doesn't mean he'd be any better than he is now, just that he played well and the opportunity was there.
One more thing: we're really talking about two things: the age at which players reach their prime form and the age at which they decline. I'm more inclined to agree that the latter is true - that players are extending their primes much later. But again, the data is inconclusive as to whether their primes are starting later...again, unless Kei, Milos, etc are all about to spike in performance and become elite players. I just don't see it. I just think that group is historically weak, and we need to look at the next wave of players to get a better sense of whether the prime has shifted.
