I know you have a very odd theory about age not affecting tennis players. IMO, all players diminish post 30.
Lol.....how can you possibly say this in light of the recent successes of Wawrinka, Ferrer, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic? It defies belief that you are still insisting on this after all this evidence to the contrary.
There is no question that they are no longer in their peak or prime.
Why not? And how do you define "peak" or "prime"? Djokovic won Cincinatti for the first time at age 31, in addition to doing the Wimbledon-US Open double. Nadal at 33 just won the French Open, the Rogers Cup, and the US Open. To win the French Open, he beat a guy age 26 and to win the latter two he defeated a 23-year-old. In that sense, undoubtedly, I was happy that Nadal won because he proved me right on this issue.
They lose a step, or a nano-second of reaction time.
Is that why Djokovic won Cincinnati for the first time age 31? Did Nadal not have sufficient reaction time in his win over Medvedev? Did Federer not display sufficient reaction time in his two 5-set wins in Australian Open finals post-35?
Time wears, and injuries come up more often, even for the more rarely-injured Fed and Novak.
That is true of Federer, but in Federer's case we are talking about someone who is over 35. I view 35 more the way you and El Dude view 30.
But still, would you say that Roger was better in 2017 than he was in 2004?
No, but that's not due to skill diminishing so much as subtle declines in quickness and durability. My point has always been that these changes are much more minor than they are often made out to be and often are used as excuses for bad losses when something more significant is at play.
Yes, Djokovic was better in 2019 than he was during his 2-year walkabout, but he's also more susceptible to injury and upset than he was in, say, 2015/early-16.
Right, and who did he lose to early in the year? Bautista-Agut (who is 31) twice - at Doha and Miami, and Kohlschreiber at Indian Wells, who is 35 (3 years older than him). So you're citing three losses to other players 30+ as proof of his decline.
So do you think 35-year-old Kohlschreiber was too young for Djokovic? I guess Kohlschreiber's fresh young legs were too much for him. (Also, Wawrinka is 2 years older than Djokovic.)
For Nadal to be better in 2017-19 than he was in 2015 doesn't mean that age doesn't factor into it. He got past a fallow period, as did Djokovic, as did Fed. Are they better than in their primes? Smarter, probably, but not faster and stronger.
I think you are getting far too down on Djokovic too soon. With Federer I can understand, given how ugly his loss to Dimitrov was and the way he fell apart in the last two sets. But Djokovic has not showed any signs of visible decline yet. Yes, he lost to Bautista-Agut, but that is a major match-up challenge for him and always has been. And the Medvedev loss doesn't look as bad now as it did a couple months ago.
You are being mulish as to what I said about Tsitsipas. Remember that this conversation about the young players being a pool of potential upsets predates Djokovic's loss to Stefanos. Either you've forgotten the point or are deliberately evading it. It's not Tsitsipas himself. It's about a raft of young players who will become increasingly more dangerous.
Like who? Bautista-Agut, Kohlschreiber, and Wawrinka (two of whom are actually older than Djokovic and one of whom is only a year younger)?
Just look at the current top 100...weighing it in my hand, I'd say it's skewing younger than it has in a decade.
You are totally getting ahead of yourself simply because of Medvedev's run lately.....Medvedev could become a problem for Djokovic but there aren't 10 of him. I simply do not see Tsitsipas or Zverev or any of the others (including Mr. Berretini) becoming a serious problem for Djokovic on a regular basis.
I could be wrong and Fedalovic will just keep winning big titles and the youngsters are just another field of Manila Folders. To me, that defies logic.
Yes, because you look at labels and conventions over substance. And 5 years ago when I told people to stop talking about age and look at talent instead, they also told me I was "defying logic." And where are we now? Exactly where I said we would be. I said that Federer would be Top 5 until 35 and that Nadal's movement would not be an issue as he approached 30 and I of course thought Djokovic would keep rolling.....you have to look at the play on the court before all else.
I have also maintained that the issue should not be whether a star player measures up to his best year ever.....that is a ridiculous standard. The fact is that the changes in level with age are so often minute and miniscule and are not as significant as the particulars of certain match-ups or tactics.
Did Djokovic lose to Bautista-Agut and Wawrinka more because of age or the match-up problems posed by those two? Clearly the latter. Djokovic lost to Wawrinka in the French Open final of 2015 and the US Open final of 2016, when you say he was better than he is now. Yet all of the same problems we saw him have in those two matches appeared again this year at the US Open against Wawrinka. The issue is the match-up.....age is just a lazy, weak-minded, unassertive excuse.
:cuckoo: 
