Tennis: an aging game

[El Dude]

I mentioned this in the Jack Sock thread but think it is worthy of its own thread. Going into the fourth round of Roland Garros, Sock is the youngest player left standing at age 22. After him it is Kei Nishikori, at age 25. Here are the ages of the remaining sixteen:

33 - Roger Federer, David Ferrer
30 - Teymuraz Gabishvili, Gilles Simon, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Stan Wawrinka
29 - Tomas Berdych, Rafael Nadal (will turn 29 in a few days), Kevin Anderson*
28 - Jeremy Chardy, Novak Djokovic, Gael Monfils, Andy Murray, Richard Gasquet*
26 - Marin Cilic
25 - Kei Nishikori
22 - Jack Sock

*Gasquet and Anderson are still playing their 3R match as I write this

We've talked about this many times before, but it gives us another data point to look at two views which, I think, explain this phenomena:

1) The sport has aged. Players are peaking a bit later and, perhaps due to improved training regimes, are extending their peaks longer, at least compared to the last few decades.

2) The generation currently in their early 20s, born from 1989 to 1993, is particularly weak - certainly one of the weakest in tennis history. I've talked about this before, but it is probably weaker than the weak 1974-78 Kuerten/Kafelnikov/Rios generation, and may be as weak as the 1939-43 Arthur Ashe generation.

I don't think it is one or the other, but both. Right now there 12 players age 32 or older in the top 100. I did some research, going back every five years - years 2015, 2010, 2005, 2000, 1995, 1990, and 1985, and there are no years that are close. Here is how it broke down:

1985: 6
1990: 1
1995: 0
2000: 3
2005: 7
2010: 6
2015: 15

Now compare that to the number of teenagers in the top 100:

1985: 9
1990: 8
1995: 4
2000: 5
2005: 5
2010: 0
2015: 4

I might do a blog article on all this, but wanted to share some preliminary findings.

 

[Riotbeard]

I was watching a tennis channel interview with Fed from a day or two ago, and he referenced playing on for 3 or 4 more years.

 

[El Dude]

I was watching a tennis channel interview with Fed from a day or two ago, and he referenced playing on for 3 or 4 more years.

I got a little thrill of happiness when I read this - I hope it is true! He's sitting pretty at #2 in the world and is still one of the four or five best players in the sport, so I don't see why he can't go another few years in the top 10. My sense is that when he starts to slip out of the top 10 is when he will call it quits, not necessarily because of the ranking but because of what it indicates.

 

[Riotbeard]

I was watching a tennis channel interview with Fed from a day or two ago, and he referenced playing on for 3 or 4 more years.

I got a little thrill of happiness when I read this - I hope it is true! He's sitting pretty at #2 in the world and is still one of the four or five best players in the sport, so I don't see why he can't go another few years in the top 10. My sense is that when he starts to slip out of the top 10 is when he will call it quits, not necessarily because of the ranking but because of what it indicates.

Yeah, he said he wants the new set of twins to see him play over the next 3-4 years. It was very casually stated when discussing his family life.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I was watching a tennis channel interview with Fed from a day or two ago, and he referenced playing on for 3 or 4 more years.

I got a little thrill of happiness when I read this - I hope it is true! He's sitting pretty at #2 in the world and is still one of the four or five best players in the sport, so I don't see why he can't go another few years in the top 10. My sense is that when he starts to slip out of the top 10 is when he will call it quits, not necessarily because of the ranking but because of what it indicates.

Yeah, he said he wants the new set of twins to see him play over the next 3-4 years. It was very casually stated when discussing his family life.

He usually gently slips these things in to keep the press folks from pestering him about the R word
when his previously announced "deadline" nears.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I was watching a tennis channel interview with Fed from a day or two ago, and he referenced playing on for 3 or 4 more years.

I got a little thrill of happiness when I read this - I hope it is true! He's sitting pretty at #2 in the world and is still one of the four or five best players in the sport, so I don't see why he can't go another few years in the top 10. My sense is that when he starts to slip out of the top 10 is when he will call it quits, not necessarily because of the ranking but because of what it indicates.

I don't think he would be worried about the rankings (at least not directly). If he reaches
a point where it becomes clear to him that he is not a factor anymore in grandslams, I think he would hang it up. I don't think he would be going through the tour grind winning just few small tourneys only (he may end up winning those only, but at least in his mind there should be hope of winning a GS, at least if one or two players got upset, for him to continue).

 

[Federberg]

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I was just listening to Greg Rusedski on Eurosport. He mentioned how the average age of players in the top 100 is older now, but he also observed that the average age to break into the top 100 is still the same at about 21 - 22. If you haven't achieved a top 100 ranking by then, then you probably aren't going to make it. Thought it was interesting. Is that something we've looked at? Average age to break into the top 100?

 

[herios]

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I was just listening to Greg Rusedski on Eurosport. He mentioned how the average age of players in the top 100 is older now, but he also observed that the average age to break into the top 100 is still the same at about 21 - 22. If you haven't achieved a top 100 ranking by then, then you probably aren't going to make it. Thought it was interesting. Is that something we've looked at? Average age to break into the top 100?

What do you mean by "make it"?
So if you break into the top 100 at an age greater than 22, you will never be a top 20, or top 50 player?

 

[Federberg]

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I was just listening to Greg Rusedski on Eurosport. He mentioned how the average age of players in the top 100 is older now, but he also observed that the average age to break into the top 100 is still the same at about 21 - 22. If you haven't achieved a top 100 ranking by then, then you probably aren't going to make it. Thought it was interesting. Is that something we've looked at? Average age to break into the top 100?

What do you mean by "make it"?
So if you break into the top 100 at an age greater than 22, you will never be a top 20, or top 50 player?

I think Greg, just meant that the chances of you having any kind of professional career at all are extremely unlikely. I'm sure there are exceptions, I'm not even sure he's done specific analysis on this. I'm just passing on what he said

 

[herios]

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I was just listening to Greg Rusedski on Eurosport. He mentioned how the average age of players in the top 100 is older now, but he also observed that the average age to break into the top 100 is still the same at about 21 - 22. If you haven't achieved a top 100 ranking by then, then you probably aren't going to make it. Thought it was interesting. Is that something we've looked at? Average age to break into the top 100?

What do you mean by "make it"?
So if you break into the top 100 at an age greater than 22, you will never be a top 20, or top 50 player?

I think Greg, just meant that the chances of you having any kind of professional career at all are extremely unlikely. I'm sure there are exceptions, I'm not even sure he's done specific analysis on this. I'm just passing on what he said

Probably he meant to have a very good career.
There are plenty of players these days who find their way later than 22 into the top 100, based on what I am seeing. Since I monitor the career highs for players, almost a year by now, week to week, I am seeing several players charging into the top 100 later, of course some are not able to sustain that position, that is why they have not make it early there in the first place.
There is a big layer of players hovering between 50 or 60 top and 150 bottom for most of their careers. They will never be household names, that does not mean they have not had a professional career. I know the theory is that they are not able to have a positive cash balance if they are such level players, but for some reason they are still around swinging between challengers and main ATP for a decade and still not doing any other job.

 

[Federberg]

^you are probably right

 

[El Dude]

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I was just listening to Greg Rusedski on Eurosport. He mentioned how the average age of players in the top 100 is older now, but he also observed that the average age to break into the top 100 is still the same at about 21 - 22. If you haven't achieved a top 100 ranking by then, then you probably aren't going to make it. Thought it was interesting. Is that something we've looked at? Average age to break into the top 100?

I did do a study similar to that and I came up with the same age range, although my study had to do with being a "great" player, and the age 21-22 was about breaking through to the top 20 or so.

More specifically, I looked at every player who had won at least three Slams in the Open Era, so 19 players in total, and found that all but two of them (Jan Kodes and Guillermo Vilas) played in their first Slam QF by the time they were 21, and all except those two had played in their first Slam Final by the time they were 22. Here are the first Slam QFs by year-end age:

24 - Kodes
23 - Vilas
21 - Laver, Courier, Kuerten
20 - Connors, Lendl, Federer
19 - Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic
18 - Rosewall, Newcombe, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Agassi
17 - Borg, Becker

Again, those are season-ending ages. Also, I did this research a couple years ago and haven't double-checked it, so there might be an error or two. But you get the idea.

I also looked at some recent second and third tier players and did comparable research. The range was much greater, from 19 to 25 for first QF. Some didn't play in a final, but for first QF:

29 - Melzer
26 - Verdasco
25 - Soderling, Wawrinka
24 - Davydenko, Youzhny, Raonic
23 - Ferrer, Tsonga, Dimitrov
22 - Berdych, F Gonzalez, Monfils, Nishikori
21 - Murray, Haas, Gasquet, Cilic, Baghdatis
20 - Safin, del Potro, Nalbandian
19 - Hewitt, Roddick

I'm not sure why I had Melzer and Baghdatis in there, as they're probably what could be called "fourth tier," but there you have it. I also added some more recent younger players in there.

Anyhow, as you can see, the age of "breakthrough" - if we want to call first QF breakthrough - is certainly by age 21 for great players, but more variable for very good players - more like 25 at the latest.

 

[Riotbeard]

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I was just listening to Greg Rusedski on Eurosport. He mentioned how the average age of players in the top 100 is older now, but he also observed that the average age to break into the top 100 is still the same at about 21 - 22. If you haven't achieved a top 100 ranking by then, then you probably aren't going to make it. Thought it was interesting. Is that something we've looked at? Average age to break into the top 100?

I did do a study similar to that and I came up with the same age range, although my study had to do with being a "great" player, and the age 21-22 was about breaking through to the top 20 or so.

More specifically, I looked at every player who had won at least three Slams in the Open Era, so 19 players in total, and found that all but two of them (Jan Kodes and Guillermo Vilas) played in their first Slam QF by the time they were 21, and all except those two had played in their first Slam Final by the time they were 22. Here are the first Slam QFs by year-end age:

24 - Kodes
23 - Vilas
21 - Laver, Courier, Kuerten
20 - Connors, Lendl, Federer
19 - Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic
18 - Rosewall, Newcombe, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Agassi
17 - Borg, Becker

Again, those are season-ending ages. Also, I did this research a couple years ago and haven't double-checked it, so there might be an error or two. But you get the idea.

I also looked at some recent second and third tier players and did comparable research. The range was much greater, from 19 to 25 for first QF. Some didn't play in a final, but for first QF:

29 - Melzer
26 - Verdasco
25 - Soderling, Wawrinka
24 - Davydenko, Youzhny, Raonic
23 - Ferrer, Tsonga, Dimitrov
22 - Berdych, F Gonzalez, Monfils, Nishikori
21 - Murray, Haas, Gasquet, Cilic, Baghdatis
20 - Safin, del Potro, Nalbandian
19 - Hewitt, Roddick

I'm not sure why I had Melzer and Baghdatis in there, as they're probably what could be called "fourth tier," but there you have it. I also added some more recent younger players in there.

Anyhow, as you can see, the age of "breakthrough" - if we want to call first QF breakthrough - is certainly by age 21 for great players, but more variable for very good players - more like 25 at the latest.

Great stuff, I would Gasquet, Youz, Dimitrov (for now), and Verdasco to the fourth tier. Baggy did make a slam final. A bigger single achievement than any of those four can muster.

 

[El Dude]

I don't know, Riotbeard - it depends what we mean by the tiers. First of all, I generally use them to describe current ability level and recent results. My definitions would be something like this:

1st Tier - elite player, serious candidate at most Slams, top 5 player - potential #1.
2nd Tier - very good player, top 10. Darkhorse at Slams and Masters.
3rd Tier - good player, perennial top 20. Serious contender at ATP 250/500s.
4th tier - solid player, top 50 or so. Probably will win several ATP 250s.
5th tier - decent player, top 100.

Or something like that. The first four tiers roughly correspond with Slam, Masters, ATP 500, ATP 250 - so in order to be a given tier, I think you need to win the equivalent tournament, although winning a tournament of a given level doesn't guarantee you a spot. For instance, I'd say Wawrinka is a 2nd tier player. Cilic is teetering on the edge of 3rd and 2nd, even though he won a Slam. He hasn't won anything else above an ATP 250. But he looks good now and could be a top 10 player for a few years; I think another year ending in the top 10 and he's in. Kei Nishikori is similar - he has the ability of a 2nd tier player, even the best of the second tier players, but hasn't quite put together the big title yet to solidify his placement. I think a second year in the top 10 puts him in.

Of course this isn't black and white. I'd call Andy Murray a first tier player, but for years--until he won his first Slam--he was described as "the worst of the best or best of the rest", so was kind of the bridge between first and second tier. With Roger and Rafa somewhat faded, I'd have to include Andy in the first tier. Kei might be filling the role Andy used to have, but we need to see more consistent results.

Gasquet, to me, is the definition of a third tier player - same with Gilles Simon, Nicolas Almagro, John Isner, etc, although some of these guys are slipping to fourth tier. I think Grigor is third tier now, although could still rise higher. Youzhny is slipping and is probably a fourth or even fifth tier right now. Baghdatis has been all over the place, but was a third tier player at his best. Now I'd call him a fifth tier player.

I'd use a different system for careers - maybe "circles"? But that's another discussion.
In terms of career, I'd use a different system. Maybe "circles" rather than tiers. The first circle would be the best of the best, which I have narrowed to a group of eight, chronologically: Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, and Nadal. The second circle would be all-time greats like Perry, Budge, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, Djokovic, etc. The third circle would be lesser greats like Kramer, Hoad, Newcombe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, etc, and the fourth would be players like Ashe, Kodes, Nastase, Vilas, Courier, Hewitt, Murray, etc. Then you have a fifth circle of players that are mainly one-Slam wonders like Gerulaitis, Noah, Ferrero, Roddick, etc. Sixth and seventh circles would. It is tempting to put the second and third circles together, as it is hard to draw the line, but I think there is a noticeable difference between the two.

I think Novak has a good chance of entering the first circle of greats, but needs at least a few more Slams - maybe 12+? But I like his chances.