Do players become worse or better once they get into their 30's?

-As athletes body gets older and they have more wear and tear of playing matches, on average (most of the time) will start to lose their spring in their step and sharpness in movement and reflexes.
-Furthermore at an older age, with great mileage of matches played, mentally keeping a high intensity for longer periods of time is more difficult. Federer has shown signs of that, with more ups and downs compared to when he was in his prime.
-Moreover when the body is older, injuries are more likely to occur, and it take longer to recover from them.
-This applies to the vast majority of players, however I am aware there may be a few rare exceptions. Haas is not one of them though, as his match-playing time was limited in his 20's due to injuries.

-As for your question of how Stepanek troubled him today despite being 3 years older, the reason is this:
~~~let's say Federer's level during his prime is 95/100; while Stepanek's is 85/100. As they both play consistently on a day to day basis in their prime, Federer is likely to win the vast majority of matches they play.
~~~however when they are both older, they will both tend to fluctuate more. In terms of H2H, this will BENEFIT the WORSE player, in this case Stepanek. The reason for this is simple, let's say Federer fluctuates now between 80-97 (out of 100), and Stepaek fluctuates between 70-87. So thus there will be more occasions where Stepanek's level is close to or even higher than Federer (if Stepanek can get himself over 80, and Federer drops below that), while as I have shown at their prime as they are more consistent the stronger player (Federer) is favoured.
That is why it's more likely Stepanek can trouble Federer when they're both old compared to when they're both around prime, due to greater possible fluctuations in both their performances.

Julia Santamaria wrote:
And I agree with you that people's prime may be nowadays around 25-27, but certainly by the age of 32 I believe most players are declining due to the reasons I've listed.

FedererKing wrote:It's a statistical and biological fact that they do.  Every piece of available evidence supports it.  Federer's back is also a direct result of his age, coupled with a punishing past regime of practice and games played.

Julia Santamaria wrote:No!

Look. Federer at this age will not be able to produce his 'best' performances so consistently or regularly.
And his best level now, not only does he reach it less often, I'd say it's not as good as his best level in the past.

Tenez wrote:
you made the clear mistake to think that at 32, eyesight, timing and reflexes drop and that is plain wrong! Fed was extremely alert today showing amazing reflexes, movement and timing!

I never said he could play day in day out at his best.

FedererKing wrote:No, timing and reflexes do go worse with age.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Exercise_and_aging_Can_you_walk_away_from_Father_Time.htm

Along with other things.  

Tenez wrote:

FedererKing wrote:No, timing and reflexes do go worse with age.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Exercise_and_aging_Can_you_walk_away_from_Father_Time.htm

Along with other things.  

Coyld you point out where it says that exactly. I ran through it quickly and I did not see it clearly. This study does not not seem to talk precisely of what happens right after 30. If there is a slight drop of reflexes, it's most likely compensated by better anticipation. the more you play the more you know where to expect the next shot.

If timing was getting worse how can you explain that most pianists and singers get their peak performances after 30? ..if not well into their 50s? More so for the Orchestra chiefs for whom timing is essential.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Answering to the original post: it largely depends on how much physicality the sport has involved. More physically demanding the sport it, aging starts to show greater impact.

A cricketer can survive easily through his mid-30s and nowadays rarely anyone retires before 40. But aspects like ground fielding sharp catching ( reflexes ) and timing on the shots starts to deteriorate.

A 100m sprinter can't win anything substantial in his 30s, its just too physical a sport. Tennis is also physical, most physical it ever was.

Julia Santamaria wrote:His reflex is still not as good as it was during his prime.
He is playing better this year than last, as his back injury is not troubling him and his new racket is helping him.

FedererKing wrote:Federer may be playing better than last season, but he is not playing like his prime. We will assess this again at the end of the season, where, instead of having 3 slams, he may have 1, or even 0.

FedererKing wrote:His prime was 2002 to 2009, his peak (which was unfortunately disrupted by mono)  was 2004 to 2007

Tenez wrote:
So he wins he is in his prime he loses he is not. Fed is not playing against stopwatch or distance. He is playing a living and improving opposition. The fact is that Djoko, Nadal and Murray are way better now than in 2007 and Fed was struggling against them then....he would have no chance to beat them today if he had not improved since that time....unless he had a special day.

bluenose wrote:What I'm seeing is that Federer is again drawn toward the magnet of the ball.  Don't know why - maybe his success in meeting it has reawakened the thrill, maybe he has found the fluid movement he used to have. He seems to be feeling the fierce joy again, and even when he's caught out of position he often finds a way to get his racquet on the ball.

I don't think he can be used as an example in this debate because he has that rare gift of "seeing" a tiny bit faster.  That's why he is successful against such a variety of styles.  So many people expect him to decline any day, and pick apart everything he does, but the big picture says that when he feels free he still has it all.

Plenty of post-30 players show superb reflexes and movement still - but have not shown the deadly focus needed to win majors or have been hampered by injury.