The 30-somethings in the Top 100

[El Dude]

Here's some relevant info from some research I was doing.

Average age of top 30 at Roland Garros:

2014: 27.9 yrs
2004: 25.6 yrs
1994: 24.2 yrs
1984: 24.8 yrs
1974: 26.4 yrs

What I find interesting is that the age of players was much higher in the early 70s, then got lower as the pre-Open Era players retired, before rising again in the late 90s.

Where it gets more interesting is how the age ranges break down each year (or decade) - but I'll save that for another thread (or blog). OK, I won't tease. Here's the breakdown (I'm using mid-May rankings but ages at the end of the month):

2014:
age >30: 8 players
Age 25-29: 18 players
Age <24: 4 players

2004:
age >30: 3 players
Age 25-29: 13 players
Age <24: 14 players

1994:
age >30: 1 player (34-year old Ivan Lendl)
Age 25-29: 12 players
Age <24: 17 players

1984:
age >30: 4 players
Age 25-29: 12 players
Age <24: 14 players

1974:
age >30: 9 players
Age 25-29: 9 players
Age <24: 12 players

The biggest outlier, though, is how few young players there are currently in the top 30. Every other decade was pretty strong in players in their 20s, with some fluctuation but never less than 12 players age 24 and younger.

Another difference is the complete lack of very young players - say, age 21 and younger. In 2004 there was one (Roddick), but in 1994 there were four, in 1984 there were seven (including four teenagers), and in 1974 there were three (including 17-year old Bjorn Borg).

One more thing to note. Right now, if you take out all the players age 24 and younger or age 33 and younger, you're left with 25 of the top 30 being in the age 25-32 range.So what do we think? Is the peak age now more in the late 20s? If so, why? And what happened to all the youngsters?

I've heard some remark that the game is so physical today and requires immense conditioning and stamina. We look at a player like Grigor Dimitrov who is just coming into his own at age 22-23. The biggest weakness in his game a year or two ago was his (relatively) poor conditioning, which seems to support this premise.

Food for thought!

 

[Kieran]

Very good stuff, El Dude! I wonder if the ages being older in the seventies than the nineties could also be down to tennis still finding it's level as a pro sport? Once it did, younger players came through until now, where the age is rising again because the game is so physical, which is compounded by being played mainly from the backcourt...

 

[herios]

The lack of very good teenagers, I think can be attributed to the fact that currently, the players turn pro a bit (1-2 years average) later, than those who are now at the end of their career.
If a very good player turns pro only at 18, then how do you expect him to win Wimbledon at 17 as Becker.
The youngest top 100, Thiem is 20 and he turned pro 2 years ago at 18. The vast majority of the veterans, turned pro at 16, 17 the latest. (Nadal at 15).
How can you overcome that delay?

 

[Moxie]

Here's some relevant info from some research I was doing.

Average age of top 30 at Roland Garros:

2014: 27.9 yrs
2004: 25.6 yrs
1994: 24.2 yrs
1984: 24.8 yrs
1974: 26.4 yrs

What I find interesting is that the age of players was much higher in the early 70s, then got lower as the pre-Open Era players retired, before rising again in the late 90s.

Where it gets more interesting is how the age ranges break down each year (or decade) - but I'll save that for another thread (or blog). OK, I won't tease. Here's the breakdown (I'm using mid-May rankings but ages at the end of the month):

2014:
age >30: 8 players
Age 25-29: 18 players
Age <24: 4 players

2004:
age >30: 3 players
Age 25-29: 13 players
Age <24: 14 players

1994:
age >30: 1 player (34-year old Ivan Lendl)
Age 25-29: 12 players
Age <24: 17 players

1984:
age >30: 4 players
Age 25-29: 12 players
Age <24: 14 players

1974:
age >30: 9 players
Age 25-29: 9 players
Age <24: 12 players

The biggest outlier, though, is how few young players there are currently in the top 30. Every other decade was pretty strong in players in their 20s, with some fluctuation but never less than 12 players age 24 and younger.

Another difference is the complete lack of very young players - say, age 21 and younger. In 2004 there was one (Roddick), but in 1994 there were four, in 1984 there were seven (including four teenagers), and in 1974 there were three (including 17-year old Bjorn Borg).

One more thing to note. Right now, if you take out all the players age 24 and younger or age 33 and younger, you're left with 25 of the top 30 being in the age 25-32 range.So what do we think? Is the peak age now more in the late 20s? If so, why? And what happened to all the youngsters?

I've heard some remark that the game is so physical today and requires immense conditioning and stamina. We look at a player like Grigor Dimitrov who is just coming into his own at age 22-23. The biggest weakness in his game a year or two ago was his (relatively) poor conditioning, which seems to support this premise.

Food for thought!

Such good analysis.

As to the French Open one, I wonder if the youthful surge between '84 and '04 had anything to do with the new racquet technology. It was a bit of a switch time. (A thought. I could be wrong.)

Beyond that, we're asking why the younger players aren't making so much of a mark as of late. It seems that we're seeing conditioning, maturity and the inability to break through the more established players as issues. Conditioning is one thing that surprises me, because players must be realizing how fit they need to be to reach the top levels. But the top players can afford such great fitness trainers, and they are as fine-tuned as Ferraris. So, the ability to break through the older players seems to be a combination of not having the maturity, or the fitness. A lot of younger players seem to be breaking that glass ceiling now, but I'd say the cogent factor is mental fitness. These are high-pressure times in the men's game, and physical fitness is huge. But if I were to say why the veterans are still prevailing, I'd say that maturity/the mental game is what's carrying the day, for now.

 

[El Dude]

Good point, Moxie - the mental game is huge. I think we're seeing that shift with Dimitrov now. When I watched part of the Berdych match today I was disappointed at how blase Grigor seemed when he started to lose the tiebreak, but then he came back and dominated the next two sets. This speaks not only to increased physical stamina, but mental fortitude.

And I hadn't thought of that, herios. Some players aren't even becoming pro until much later - seemingly around 20 or so.

And I think you're right as well, Kieran - that the sport as we know it didn't really stabilize until the late 70s or 80s. Obviously there is always change, and certain consistent factors, but the game that Connors and Borg ushered in was quite different than Laver, Rosewall, etc.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

If anything, the presence of so many veterans says to me that the younger guys need to step it up. People will say things like the game has changed, it's more physical now, but it was physical when the current top guys broke through, perhaps not Federer, but certainly Djokovic and Murray.

Dimitrov and Raonic are just getting there at age 23 but it's still hard to see them becoming multiple slam winners until the current top guys are gone and that's only if nobody else comes through, do we want to see these guys fulfilling their potential by default?

There's currently three under 21 players in the top 100. Credit to the older guys for prolonging their careers but the kids should be doing more for me.

 

[herios]

Here's some relevant info from some research I was doing.

Average age of top 30 at Roland Garros:

2014: 27.9 yrs
2004: 25.6 yrs
1994: 24.2 yrs
1984: 24.8 yrs
1974: 26.4 yrs

What I find interesting is that the age of players was much higher in the early 70s, then got lower as the pre-Open Era players retired, before rising again in the late 90s.

Where it gets more interesting is how the age ranges break down each year (or decade) - but I'll save that for another thread (or blog). OK, I won't tease. Here's the breakdown (I'm using mid-May rankings but ages at the end of the month):

2014:
age >30: 8 players
Age 25-29: 18 players
Age <24: 4 players

2004:
age >30: 3 players
Age 25-29: 13 players
Age <24: 14 players

1994:
age >30: 1 player (34-year old Ivan Lendl)
Age 25-29: 12 players
Age <24: 17 players

1984:
age >30: 4 players
Age 25-29: 12 players
Age <24: 14 players

1974:
age >30: 9 players
Age 25-29: 9 players
Age <24: 12 players

The biggest outlier, though, is how few young players there are currently in the top 30. Every other decade was pretty strong in players in their 20s, with some fluctuation but never less than 12 players age 24 and younger.

Another difference is the complete lack of very young players - say, age 21 and younger. In 2004 there was one (Roddick), but in 1994 there were four, in 1984 there were seven (including four teenagers), and in 1974 there were three (including 17-year old Bjorn Borg).

One more thing to note. Right now, if you take out all the players age 24 and younger or age 33 and younger, you're left with 25 of the top 30 being in the age 25-32 range.So what do we think? Is the peak age now more in the late 20s? If so, why? And what happened to all the youngsters?

I've heard some remark that the game is so physical today and requires immense conditioning and stamina. We look at a player like Grigor Dimitrov who is just coming into his own at age 22-23. The biggest weakness in his game a year or two ago was his (relatively) poor conditioning, which seems to support this premise.

Food for thought!

This is basically what I kept saying for the last 2 years or so. There is an age shift in tennis (not just men's) because in the ladies also the teenagers became a rarity.
It is the physicality, the stamina, power, and mental toughness which most of the times comes with it.
Rafa had that early success, because he was a lot more muscled than your usual teenager player. He could power through all those numerous matches, outlasting his opponents, although his shots were not as technically sound like in this mid twenties.

 

[herios]

If

There's currently three under 21 players in the top 100. Credit to the older guys for prolonging their careers but the kids should be doing more for me.

Good luck with that. They will not come out of nowhere. Until you see a 20 or 21 year old winning at least an obscure small ATP event, or at least get to a final, no chance in hell you will see again a slam winner at such an age.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

If

There's currently three under 21 players in the top 100. Credit to the older guys for prolonging their careers but the kids should be doing more for me.

Good luck with that. They will not come out of nowhere. Until you see a 20 or 21 year old winning at least an obscure small ATP event, or at least get to a final, no chance in hell you will see again a slam winner at such an age.

I'm not saying they should be winning slams at that age but I don't think it's unreasonable to hope to see more than three players of 21 or under in the top 100 for the sake of the future. The great hopes of this generation are Raonic and Dimitrov who have a handful of minor titles and what, one quarter-final each at slam level? That's at the age of 23, compared to the current crop, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer (and Delpo) were all slam winners by 21 and Murray made his first slam final at that age.

Sure it might be harsh to compare them to a very strong generation but all I said is that they should be doing more. Tomic, for example, has no excuse. Wimbledon quarter-finalist aged 18 and barely heard of him since.

 

[herios]

If

There's currently three under 21 players in the top 100. Credit to the older guys for prolonging their careers but the kids should be doing more for me.

Good luck with that. They will not come out of nowhere. Until you see a 20 or 21 year old winning at least an obscure small ATP event, or at least get to a final, no chance in hell you will see again a slam winner at such an age.

I'm not saying they should be winning slams at that age but I don't think it's unreasonable to hope to see more than three players of 21 or under in the top 100 for the sake of the future. The great hopes of this generation are Raonic and Dimitrov who have a handful of minor titles and what, one quarter-final each at slam level? That's at the age of 23, compared to the current crop, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer (and Delpo) were all slam winners by 21 and Murray made his first slam final at that age.

Sure it might be harsh to compare them to a very strong generation but all I said is that they should be doing more. Tomic, for example, has no excuse. Wimbledon quarter-finalist aged 18 and barely heard of him since.

The best of all among the younger players was Janowicz who reached a SF at Wimbledon. Indeed it is time for them, as few as they are to get better in slams, especially Raonic, Nishikori and Dimitrov, who are now all top 12, therefore, their seeding will be more favorable in the upcoming slams.

 

[Kieran]

I don't see Kei or Raonic winning slams or reaching finals. I see Dimi as a guy who's set his face towards the sun, but will he get there?

I think the youngsters have been a let down. I think if we exclude the only ones who won anything the last ten years - in other words, maybe four players - then you can see where the younger crew have gotten their example. The young should devour the old. That's the way it happens. Except, it isn't happening...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Kei is a tough one to call because I am not sure he has what it takes to win a 7 match, 2 week tournament, health wise, yet.

On the other hand, I can totally see Raonic winning a slam in the same way Krajicek and Ivanisevic won Wimbledon. Short matches, not too physical, serve on fire for two weeks, forehand working, winning your TBs ...Plus Milos IS getting better. Backhand is improving, ROS is improving, movement is getting there. I think there is a chance for him.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

I can see Nishikori competing at the French and Raonic at Wimbledon, at least, I actually think Milos has come on quite well in the past 12 months after climbing very high, very young and then stagnating. Dimitrov, I'm unsure. With all three I think it's a case of somebody has to win the big tournaments when Nadal, Djokovic etc. are no longer around and if nobody else comes through, these are the guys you're looking at.

If

There's currently three under 21 players in the top 100. Credit to the older guys for prolonging their careers but the kids should be doing more for me.

Good luck with that. They will not come out of nowhere. Until you see a 20 or 21 year old winning at least an obscure small ATP event, or at least get to a final, no chance in hell you will see again a slam winner at such an age.

I'm not saying they should be winning slams at that age but I don't think it's unreasonable to hope to see more than three players of 21 or under in the top 100 for the sake of the future. The great hopes of this generation are Raonic and Dimitrov who have a handful of minor titles and what, one quarter-final each at slam level? That's at the age of 23, compared to the current crop, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer (and Delpo) were all slam winners by 21 and Murray made his first slam final at that age.

Sure it might be harsh to compare them to a very strong generation but all I said is that they should be doing more. Tomic, for example, has no excuse. Wimbledon quarter-finalist aged 18 and barely heard of him since.

The best of all among the younger players was Janowicz who reached a SF at Wimbledon. Indeed it is time for them, as few as they are to get better in slams, especially Raonic, Nishikori and Dimitrov, who are now all top 12, therefore, their seeding will be more favorable in the upcoming slams.

Yeah, I'd say Janowicz is certainly the most talented of the ones of this generation but I've almost forgotten about him as a potential star because he's done literally nothing since his run at Wimbledon.

I don't see Kei or Raonic winning slams or reaching finals. I see Dimi as a guy who's set his face towards the sun, but will he get there?

I think the youngsters have been a let down. I think if we exclude the only ones who won anything the last ten years - in other words, maybe four players - then you can see where the younger crew have gotten their example. The young should devour the old. That's the way it happens. Except, it isn't happening...

The young should indeed devour the old. I sympathise with the current crop to an extent because the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer don't exactly lend themselves to being devoured, but I can't buy into the reasoning that many people use of "oh the game's changed, it's more physical now so it'll take them longer to develop". No thanks, 5 years ago you had a 21 year old Djokovic winning in Australia, a 21 year old Murray reaching the US Open final and a 20 year old Del Potro winning the US Open the following year.

Now we have three players total in the top 100, let alone threatening slam finals. The game can't have changed so much in 5 years that it's suddenly impossible to be good until you're 23+, this generation just simply isn't any good. Besides, if it's that physically demanding how is a 36 year old, notoriously injury-prone Tommy Haas still holding his own in the top 20.

 

[Kieran]

Krajicek and Ivanisevic were helped by having a super fast surface. Their serves were like bullets on ice. I don't see Raonic winning majors because as soon as a classy player gets him involved in actually playing tennis, he hasn't got much to say for himself. Plus, his movement is something akin to an old wardrobe being hefted around an elevator.

I'm not looking for players who are going flat out to scrape noble losses. Instead, look for the gifted blokes who haven't found it painful enough to lose. Once they hate the losing, they'll make others suffer with their gifts...

 

[El Dude]

I can see Nishikori competing at the French and Raonic at Wimbledon, at least, I actually think Milos has come on quite well in the past 12 months after climbing very high, very young and then stagnating. Dimitrov, I'm unsure. With all three I think it's a case of somebody has to win the big tournaments when Nadal, Djokovic etc. are no longer around and if nobody else comes through, these are the guys you're looking at.

I think that's just it. 23 year old Dimitrov and Milos can't beat 28 year old Rafa or 27 year old Djokovic, but what about 25-year old Dimitrov and Milos vs. 30-year old Rafa and 29-year old Djokovic? The tide will shift at some point and even though this is a very weak young generation, at some point they'll start over-taking the older guys. Might still be a couple years away.

The young should indeed devour the old. I sympathise with the current crop to an extent because the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer don't exactly lend themselves to being devoured, but I can't buy into the reasoning that many people use of "oh the game's changed, it's more physical now so it'll take them longer to develop". No thanks, 5 years ago you had a 21 year old Djokovic winning in Australia, a 21 year old Murray reaching the US Open final and a 20 year old Del Potro winning the US Open the following year.

Now we have three players total in the top 100, let alone threatening slam finals. The game can't have changed so much in 5 years that it's suddenly impossible to be good until you're 23+, this generation just simply isn't any good. Besides, if it's that physically demanding how is a 36 year old, notoriously injury-prone Tommy Haas still holding his own in the top 20.

You're probably right. Also, as I've found in some other research projects, great players are always very, very good by the time they're 21-22.

That said, with Dimitrov at least, I'm pleased with his development. Look at his year-end rankings, including this year's current rank, starting with 2008, the year he turned 17:

493, 288, 106, 76, 48, 23, 12

I actually think he has a good chance to rise even further; his Race to London rank is #8 and considering that Del Potro will be out of the top 10 in a couple months, Dimitrov has a good chance of finishing the year in the top 10, even playing at the World Tour Finals. That's steady progress.

I don't think Dimitrov will be of the same caliber as the Big Four, but he does seem similar in upside to second tier players like Del Potro, Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, and Wawrinka, and we know that two of those five have won Slams and all have been in Slam finals. But unlike poor Ferrer, Berdych, and Tsonga, Dimitrov (and Raonic) will still be in their prime when Rafa, Novak and Andy are starting to show signs of age, so I wouldn't be suprised to see those two win 2-3 each before the next elite players show up.

 

[Kieran]

There's stages to these things for youngsters. The worry is that they're making such a big deal over relatively small steps, if we measure a big step as actually winning a slam. They make such a big deal out of making a QF at an MS event, every six months or so. In fact, they're fairly indistinguishable from the pack, whereas that searing red beam that reflects from future greats is usually already apparent and bulging to turn white.

I think Grigor will challenge, but when? And you've pointed this out before El Dude, and I think it's astute of you: it might be the white light skips a generation and burns holes through these serial losers and shrinking violets. As TennisFanatic says, it can't be that this is such a tough era, because then how is Haas collecting better scalps now than he did in his prime? And trust me, Haas in his prime was no shrinking violet. He was shrunk...

 

[TennisFanatic7]

It's just that I like to see some overlap to be honest. In my eyes it devalues (not sure if that's the right word for it) the day that Dimitrov and Raonic win their first major if they have to wait until Rafa/Novak/Andy's legs go, rather than stepping up and saying "it's my time now" and beating the top dogs in their prime.

I'm very impressed by Dimitrov this year, I have to say. He beat Djokovic in Madrid last year but didn't really build on it until he hired Roger Rasheed. He's now won three titles in the space of about 6 months, on three different surfaces too, he beat Murray at Acapulco, he's pushing the top 10, then he suddenly puts in a woeful performance against Rafa in his first Masters semi-final and you kind of think, come on, you're getting there now and you're still losing this badly to Rafa? Hopefully that performance was a one-off because based on that one, he's still miles away from contending the Masters events, let alone the slams.

Raonic has been the more impressive of the pair. He's been consistent, reached his first Masters final late last year and built on it by establishing himself in the top 10 and reaching the quarter finals of 4/5 Masters events this year. He hasn't had an impact on the slams though and that needs to change for him.

I think it's a good point made comparing them to Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer. That's probably the kind of level they'll reach.

 

[El Dude]

Here's something I put together a couple months ago, comparing the Big Four (first column), current young guns (second column), and second tier players (third column) through the year they turned age 23.

As you can see, the young guns look pathetic compared to the Big Four.

 

[El Dude]

If Grigor is "Baby Federer," then he's about where Fed was at age 20 - so three years behind the trajectory.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Nice work, that. Yeah they're definitely in line with Ferrer and Stan and actually a bit behind Berdych.