ElDude snap out of it, don’t be lured ny these non-number infidels into the trap of “we can’t figure out anything out and everything is possible”
Outliers are outliers for a reason, they are rare freaks. You really think because Brady played to 45 we are now going to get a slew of 45 year old NFL quarterbacks?
Sorry but if your Felix goes 35 Slams without reaching a final im not saying his winning multiple slams is gonna happen.
Numbers can’t predict all but they do give us probabilities and odds of things occurring because of the statistical data.
The fact remains in the last 30+ years close to 85 % of those who won a Slam and made at least 2 finals had reached a final by their 16th attempt. 70% did it by their 12th Slam. If you don’t do it by a certain time on the tour odds are it becomes harder to accomplish. Dimitrov could suddenly blossom and pull a Wawrinka but im not holding my breath. But yes, technically anything is possible.
There are reasons why the three “one and dones” Major winners took 20+ attempts. Think about it.
As to Alcaraz, in the last 60+ years every Major winner who won their first Major by age 20 went on to make at least 3 more finals with 1 exception. Juan Martin Del Potro who only made one more final. Again think about it, the numbers make sense. The wildcard was Del Potro was chronically injured.
Michael Chang is the other outlier along with JMDP in that he reached 3 more slam finals but never won another Slam. All the other aged 20 or minus first time winners won at least one more slam.
But lets narrow the numbers even more, statistically speaking , all champs in the Open era who won their first Major by age 19 ala Alcaraz went on to win at least 6 Slams & reach 10 finals and spend some weeks as #1 in the computer ranking, the range of Slams won is 6 to 22(and counting) The one outlier? Michael Chang who * only* reached 3 finals and got to #2 in the rankings. Alcaraz has already reached #1.
So the odds are good, barring injuries Carlos will win at least 4 more Slams and reach double digit Slam finals. Not a guarantee, but solid indicators.
ETA: forgot to add that all the 19 or younger winners reached the finals of at least 3 different Majors in their career, including Michael Chang.
LOL, "non-numbers infidels."
Yes, probabilities but not certainties.
Dimitrov won't become Stanimal because he's 32 already. Stan started morphing into Stanimal at 28, in 2013, and played at a higher level until age 32 when he dropped off. But that doesn't mean that someone like FAA or Sinner couldn't find a new level in the second half of their 20s.
A lot of guys of the last decade, and not just the Big Three, remained at or near peak form into their 30s, more so than even Roger's gen. Even going back to Ferrer, who peaked at 28-33; crazy to think that he was born the same year as Roddick and Nalbandian. And this addresses
@Kieran 's point: it wasn't just the weak Lost and Next Gens not being able to beat the Big Three. Other guys maintained form a bit later than the last few generations.
Or we can go back to the Kuerten gaggle. It was a weak group, but also marked by earlier decline -- pretty much all of them were done, at least as top 10 players, well before they turned 30 (except for Tommy Haas, sort of). But more recent 2nd and 3rd tier types like Berdych, Tsonga, Isner, Anderson, Gasquet, Monfils, all were still pretty good on their 30th birthdays, and some for a bit after. Oh, and Stan.
What Stan did was open the door of possibility. It doesn't mean the probabilities radically change, but it does show players that it is possible.
On the other hand, Alcaraz and, to a lesser degree Rune, show us that you don't have to wait until 22 to become an elite player. Actually, Zverev was already pretty good at 20 years old, so maybe he was the beginning of the return to normalcy. Before Sascha, you have to go back to Del Potro, born 9 years before, to find a player winning a big title at 20 years old.
So lots of factors involved: The greatness of the Big Three (or Four), the weakness of Lost Gen, and perhaps players maintaining form a bit longer than the last few decades (at least since the 70s, before the game skewed younger in the 80s and on).
