Top 10 Players' Age....

What an abysmal reasoning you have!...so a peak Federer gets thrashed 63 61 60 against not yet peak Nadal in 2008 but 3 years later a past peak federer has a much closer tight match versus 2011 peak Nadal?

the fact is Nadal did struggle in "some" matches all along his career. His stamina always helped him survive the distance most of the time but he did struggle a lot...though as a fan you only remember the wins.

In 2011 he struggled versus the famous Paolo Lorenzi in Rome, then all the way to the FO final...he coudl not put a ball in court.....yet 2 years later he has his best year...according to you. Even look at how he started 2013 as well..terrible, even losing to Zebellos and onl;y scrapping through in previous round by outlasting physically his opponents.

Typical of Nadal's fans....on;y loses cause he is injured and now that his game is very much obsolete, he is declining. Pathetic frankly.

noleisthebest wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:NITB, if I have Nadal in my username, people may jump to conclusions and think I'm a Nadal fan 

So you are not a Nadal fan, then.
That's a relief.

He loves Rafa, so much he does not see his getting bald.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:NITB, if I have Nadal in my username, people may jump to conclusions and think I'm a Nadal fan 

So you are not a Nadal fan, then.
That's a relief.

He loves Rafa, so much he does not see his getting bald.

Yes, and they both seem to be in denial phase

...otherwise, IMBL.

Tenez, I'm not suggesting that Nadal in his prime always played amazing. He had his ups and downs I'm sure.
But now he has permanently declined. You offer no evidence for your case, but for anyone who sees Nadal plays the evidence is clear. It is almost laughable to suggest differently if you watch him play. 
Easy forehands being missed, backhand now basically toothless and half ending up in the crowd or halfway up the net, second serve with no bite and sitting up, second serve returns not even reaching the service line most of the time... this is not the Nadal who was a nightmare for any player.

Remember this thread.....1 year ago (read the first post)? Well in one year the average age of 10 top players has aged by 2 years.!!!!...The AVERAGE age of top 10 players is 30.6!!!

It's not like the other 30+ players (besides federer) are amazing players. They may have the advantage to be, maybe......just older!

Once again, what I observe long before turns out to be proven by stats.

Djoko at 29 holds 3 slams, has twice as many ATP points as his second rival! When you think that according to some he has been declining for 3 years, one wonders what the rest of the tour is bloody doing!!!

Tenez wrote:Remember this thread.....1 year ago (read the first post)? Well in one year the average age of 10 top players has aged by 2 years.!!!!...The AVERAGE age of top 10 players is 30.6!!!

It's not like the other 30+ players (besides federer) are amazing players. They may have the advantage to be, maybe......just older!

Once again, what I observe long before turns out to be proven by stats.

Djoko at 29 holds 3 slams, has twice as many ATP points as his second rival! When you think that according to some he has been declining for 3 years, one wonders what the rest of the tour is bloody doing!!!

That is so true.

LS, Donald, FK etc.....they will agree with you one day when TV pundits say the same on in five  years...remember the days of time between the points being a taboo even on bbc 606...

I bet half of v2 gets educated reading OTF.

We are small but pure quality!

You need to stop this lazy, sweeping statements.

I don't agree with FK and Donald on lots.

luvsports! wrote:You need to stop this lazy, sweeping statements.

I don't agree with FK and Donald on lots.

Ok ok!

Well that was more for Donald and FK...but you as well have disagreed strongly on this issue.

Looks like many posters have left OTF because of it.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is in mechanism of ball-striking.
No offence, but I think only Tenez gets it properly.
He has played with many different racquets, strings, has a very sharp eye (ok,here I have to stop sounding like his fangirl! )

I've been doing the same, but not as long as T, still enough to put 2 and 2 together.

The key is in watching players live and from close up, and also trying to understand why a ball does different things when you play yourself.

How it behaves at the net, on the baseline, sliced, top spinned...it's an art and quite a deep well to explore.

I personally think these last 5 years have been fascinating and in a way brilliant.

Nadal isn't a god and Verdasco and Cuevas some trash so that he can't lose to them. They are both very good players.

Nadal isn't subscribed to win till the day he dies.

Others are improving. He can't as much as he needs to...in order to dominate. So - naturally others are catching up.
They all learn every day, like children when they go to school...nobody knows less after the end of High school than Primary.

Because technology has been stagnant we have seen a great improvement in skill of many players...even Challengers have great schedule of play every day!!!

Peace bro!  

Once again, all you can do is print a list of current players and then deduce an argument that throws out

a. Who is winning most of the slams (Djokovic at 28-29)
b. The entire history of tennis

Federer is the greatest player to have ever lived, and he's declined so far that he is no longer capable of winning Slams.  He's won only one in his 30s.  THAT is highly significant, not a top 10 list of current ages.  The only thing significant about that is it reinforces the idea that this is a terribly weak era (it is).  

You make it sound like 30+ players are winning Slams left right and centre - and they are not.  And here is the most important point:  They never have.  Overwhelmingly, a player's success is largely over as they approach 30.  For some players, they win the odd slam, but for most - they win nothing.

This isn't even an argument and you really need to accept it.  Once Djokovic joins Nadal and Federer, you'll be saying that other players have raised the bar - a ludicrous argument to justify your ludicrous assertion.

I am also tired of having to look at every word I write so that they can't be deliberately misinterpreted. Because once your argument is dead, you seem to then want to beat people on semantics.

FedererKing wrote:Once again, all you can do is print a list of current players and then deduce an argument that throws out

a. Who is winning most of the slams (Djokovic at 28-29)
b. The entire history of tennis

Federer is the greatest player to have ever lived, and he's declined so far that he is no longer capable of winning Slams.  He's won only one in his 30s.  THAT is highly significant, not a top 10 list of current ages.  The only thing significant about that is it reinforces the idea that this is a terribly weak era (it is).  

You make it sound like 30+ players are winning Slams left right and centre - and they are not.  And here is the most important point:  They never have.  Overwhelmingly, a player's success is largely over as they approach 30.  For some players, they win the odd slam, but for most - they win nothing.

This isn't even an argument and you really need to accept it.  Once Djokovic joins Nadal and Federer, you'll be saying that other players have raised the bar - a ludicrous argument to justify your ludicrous assertion.

I am also tired of having to look at every word I write so that they can't be deliberately misinterpreted. Because once your argument is dead, you seem to then want to beat people on semantics.

How many times shoudl I tell you that a player's successful years might not be linked to his best years? That's not difficult to comprehend, is it? Many factors play a role. Competition, technology changes, Pace cond changes, learning tennis v better players, etc....

You have a too simple approach to the game. And more importantly, you are wrong about your stats too. In the pre-open era, the average age of a slam winner was closer to 30 than 26.

I have explained why players were winning slams at a younger age then and why it's different now. But you don't want to learn, do you? You only want to save your face.

In 2007 you had 2 players below the age of 22 in the top 3.
Now in 2016 you have the average age of the top 10 being 30.6 and no one below the age of 22 in the top 10.

It isn't because since 2007 it's got easier for older players.
The main thing is, Nadal and Djokovic are all time greats. Meanwhile the current 'next generation' are utterly shite.

Pardon my French NITB

You are talking nonsense again Donald!
It's not about Nadal and Djoko. It's about Stan, Gasquet, Berdych, Ferrer, TSonga...all 30 or thereabout. Most of them not in the top 10 when they were 26!!!

Stan to be fair was someone who matured late, I think mentally early on in his career he was all over the place but he always had the talent.
Berdych has been consistent for the last 6 years, Ferrer has been recently declining but before that was very steady, Gasquet is a total irrelevance, and Tsonga is not the same threat as he was in 2011 when he was 25.

DONALD TRUMP wrote:Stan to be fair was someone who matured late, I think mentally early on in his career he was all over the place but he always had the talent.
Berdych has been consistent for the last 6 years, Ferrer has been recently declining but before that was very steady, Gasquet is a total irrelevance, and Tsonga is not the same threat as he was in 2011 when he was 25.

Still the one who got closest to Djoko this week!

Tenez wrote:

DONALD TRUMP wrote:Stan to be fair was someone who matured late, I think mentally early on in his career he was all over the place but he always had the talent.
Berdych has been consistent for the last 6 years, Ferrer has been recently declining but before that was very steady, Gasquet is a total irrelevance, and Tsonga is not the same threat as he was in 2011 when he was 25.

Still the one who got closest to Djoko this week!

Again, you choose one match against a trend since 2011.  Do you even understand the difference? Your response isn't even a counter argument.

How many times shoudl I tell you that a player's successful years might not be linked to his best years?

That's convenient for you but wrong.  Generally the better someone is playing the more they will win.  Your idea that there is no or weak correlation is not just false, but laughably so.

Tenez wrote:

DONALD TRUMP wrote:Stan to be fair was someone who matured late, I think mentally early on in his career he was all over the place but he always had the talent.
Berdych has been consistent for the last 6 years, Ferrer has been recently declining but before that was very steady, Gasquet is a total irrelevance, and Tsonga is not the same threat as he was in 2011 when he was 25.

Still the one who got closest to Djoko this week!

Wrong ! It was actually Fratanlego !!

Fratangelo is 22, and he took a set off Djokovic, imagine how good he's gonna be when he reached his peak in 13 years time !!!

DONALD TRUMP wrote:Pardon my French NITB

Pas de probleme

Tenez wrote:You are talking nonsense again Donald!
It's not about Nadal and Djoko. It's about Stan, Gasquet, Berdych, Ferrer, TSonga...all 30 or thereabout. Most of them not in the top 10 when they were 26!!!

None of them have done well so far in 2016. Gasquet is 29th in the race, Berdych 12th, Ferrer 15th (failed to defend any of his 3 2015 titles), Tsonga 22nd. Wawrinka is 5th thanks to lucking out Dubai and winning the weakest pre-AO-tournament. Some of them are in the strongest part of their season.

You must take into account that these guys benefit from easy draws because of their ranking at the moment. And they are usually consistent in beating lower-ranked players. To have such low positions in the race, shows that they have started to lose vs. players ranked lower than them. 

Still - the younger players in physical prime (~25 years) are such a disappointment to date, allowing these perennial top 10ers their prolonged stay. None of those younger players has either a complete game or even the potential to put one together.

AL, tennis is not about physical prime. There is a lot more to it.

First I think the physical prime is not 25, it's between 28-32. The average top performance in all sport is probably closer to 28-30 than 25. Where did you read it was 25?

As mentioned, you have max brain cells at 16.....they stop increasing in numbers at that age and start to die from then on. Doesn't mean you are smartest or more efficient, or have sharper senses at 16. At 25 you already have less brain cells than 16. You recover not as easily and so on.....

Tennis has a lot to do with learning how to cope with the rest of the field. Until Nadal came along we could have thought that Federer was the best player in teh world able to beat all opponents very easily....But then Nadal came and it's a whole new game. Only exposure to nadal game could prepare Federer to timing that ball. Doesn't matter of how young or old you are, peak or not peak, Nadal brings a new different game and for Fed it's about going back to the drawing board and find the solutions.

Unfortanely in tennis there is not one Nadal but 120 and one needs to adapt to them all. And the experience of playing those top players cannot be replaced by the marginal, insignificant loss of physical aptitude from 25 to 30yo.

It's as simple as that.

On the other side, the youngsters have the chance to be trained early(ier) at a higher level than their seniors. This is why the game is constantly evolving cause when they reach maturity, they are almost all better than their predecessors. Granllers would beat Borg and McEnroe for that very reason. Experience is irreplaceable.

The best of Nishi will be better than the best of Djoko....in a few years. Same with most of Nishi's players generation. It doesn't mean they will achieve as much. Achieving is about circumstances and more so how much better one can be compared to the rest of the field....at a given time.

When there is no technology changes, pace conds changes, etc.....tennis players will achieve more with age.

It makes sense and proven by stats like it was proven in the pre-open era too.

You simply cannot say this new generation is bad. They are not. They are just born too late. Like it took Djoko many years to catch up Nadal and Federer...and so despite being just one year older than Nadal.....same with Murray.

The average top performance in all sport is probably closer to 28-30

You've been repeating this from the beginning of time but, if this is so, why is it consistently the 21-27 year olds who win slams (and why are runners and athletes in almost every other sport recording their best times and accomplishments before 28?).  For the last 50 years that has been the trend. 

Can you explain that to us all.

The only way you can make any sense of that is to say winning / high scores / fastest times don't depend at all on age.  Good luck with that   .

Let's take Usain Bolt...

He was 22(?) when he made the World Record at 100m and 200m (in 2009) - His fastest ever times.

He's 29 now - so I expect we'll be seeing him running less than 9.6 reguarly won't we?  Since he's in his prime, according to you.

Any explanation as to why Bolt of 21-22 years old ran the fastest ever times in human history, but can't at 29?

Any?

FedererKing wrote:

The average top performance in all sport is probably closer to 28-30

You've been repeating this from the beginning of time but, if this is so, why is it consistently the 21-27 year olds who win slams.

I have told you many times why....but you don;t want to know cause you don't want to be seen as being wrong all the way.

and why are runners and athletes in almost every other sport recording their best times and accomplishments before 28?).  For the last 50 years that has been the trend.

 That's wrong too. Long distance runners tend to achieve later, TDF winners too, Carl Lewis best time is 29, the longest jump was made by powell at 28 (there light bones are key so obviously being younger helps. Yes he did not do much at 25, Linford Christie was 31 or 32, etc..etc....So your 25y peak remains to be proven. But as I said, in tennis, running after a ball is one thing, what you do with it, and how often you have hit that particular ball is crucial for timing and at 25, players are still learning a lot.

It's obvious all those 24/25 yo are going to get better......soon. Believing that Nishi or Dimi are going to decline from now is absurd. They might lose the will to play but if they keep as dedicated as the top players, they will get much better soon. Like Berds, Stan, Ferrer, etc...

FedererKing wrote:Let's take Usain Bolt...

He was 22(?) when he made the World Record at 100m and 200m (in 2009) - His fastest ever times.

He's 29 now - so I expect we'll be seeing him running less than 9.6 reguarly won't we?  Since he's in his prime, according to you.

Any explanation as to why Bolt of 21-22 years old ran the fastest ever times in human history, but can't at 29?

Any?

So is that your only argument???? one athlete?

It's not the case for all. I think in his case there was a lot to do with his mind and professional appraoch to the game. Safin is another perfect example. They get mentally tired, cause they have done somethoing incredible young and are not pushed to keep doing it. Bolt's closest rivals are performing best quite late.

Autumnleaf wrote:

Tenez wrote:You are talking nonsense again Donald!
It's not about Nadal and Djoko. It's about Stan, Gasquet, Berdych, Ferrer, TSonga...all 30 or thereabout. Most of them not in the top 10 when they were 26!!!

None of them have done well so far in 2016. Gasquet is 29th in the race, Berdych 12th, Ferrer 15th (failed to defend any of his 3 2015 titles), Tsonga 22nd. Wawrinka is 5th thanks to lucking out Dubai and winning the weakest pre-AO-tournament. Some of them are in the strongest part of their season.

You must take into account that these guys benefit from easy draws because of their ranking at the moment. And they are usually consistent in beating lower-ranked players. To have such low positions in the race, shows that they have started to lose vs. players ranked lower than them. 

Still - the younger players in physical prime (~25 years) are such a disappointment to date, allowing these perennial top 10ers their prolonged stay. None of those younger players has either a complete game or even the potential to put one together.

Frankly, I don't expect ferrer to play better than a year or 2 ago, even if he says so. My point is 25-27 in tennis is not peaking. And it's pretty clear. If anything I am stunned to see a player relying so much on fitness like Ferrer doing so well still at 34! That's nearly a decade later than your so called peak!

Tenez wrote:AL, tennis is not about physical prime. There is a lot more to it.

Agreed that tennis is not only about physical prime. But it's such a highly physical sport, especially right now, that it seems disingenious to dismiss the importance. It's certainly not chess. Tennis is all about (physical) execution. Be in the right position at the right time to hit a given ball.

Tenez wrote:
First I think the physical prime is not 25, it's between 28-32. The average top performance in all sport is probably closer to 28-30 than 25. Where did you read it was 25? 

It depends on the sport. Endurance sports tend to have a later peak, explosive sports earlier. But I'm not wrong with putting it at around 25. It's an interesting topic, so it's not surprising that it attracted some attention:

Geoffroy Berthelot, Stéphane Len, Philippe Hellard, Muriel Tafflet, Marion Guillaume, Jean-Claude Vollmer, Bruno Gager, Laurent Quinquis, Andy Marc, Jean-François Toussaint. Exponential growth combined with exponential decline explains lifetime performance evolution in individual and human species. AGE, 2011  suggest an irreversible decline post age 30. And frankly, this is what human experience shows as well.

"Athletic performance decreases as people get older and their bodies wear down physically, but new data compiled by French researchers sheds new light on exactly when these declines might start showing up, at least in some sporting disciplines.

"In all, more than 11,200 performances among these athletes made it into the data set, and the results confirm that there reaches an age — a physiological tipping point, if you will — when athletes start to experience an irreversible downturn in their abilities.

"Generally speaking, athletes start to see physical declines at age 26, give or take. (This would seem in line with the long-standing notion in baseball that players tend to hit their peak anywhere from ages 27 to 30.) For swimmers (...) the mean peak age is 21. For chess grandmasters, participating in an activity that relies more than mental acuity and sharpness rather than brute, acquired physicality, the peak age is closer to 31,4.

For setting world records in a given athletic discipline, the mean age is 26.1 (...)."

quoted after: http://www.wired.com/2011/07/athletes-peak-age/

Or this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26088954

"In explosive power/sprint events, estimates decreased with increasing event duration, ranging from ~27 years (athletics throws, ~1-5 s) to ~20 years (swimming, ~21-245 s). Conversely, estimates for endurance events increased with increasing event duration, ranging from ~20 years (swimming, ~2-15 min) to ~39 years (ultra-distance cycling, ~27-29 h)."

Now tennis certainly isn't long-distance running. It's a series of quick, powerful bursts of speed. Explosive power elements are vital to the game which points to an athletic peak at the younger end of the range. And even in long distance running it's been suggested that the later age range at the elite is a result of career path rather than a physiological necessity. I.e. elite long distance runners move to the longer events later in their life. Even in marathon running endurance performance declines by 5-15 percent after age 35 per decade for elite athletes (less for non-elites) as suggested by Dieter Leyk, researcher at Köln university.

Even aerobic capacity drops with age. The reason is this: the max heart rate declines by about a beat a year. (can't be helped) The decline in muscle mass hits athletes even earlier because neurons supplying muscle mass die off and can't be regenerated with increased age: As a result speed falls off before endurance. The loss of muscle mass is also responsible for the loss of ability to recover. Muscles store glycogen - when the muscle mass drops, it takes longer for the remaining muscles to replenish glycogen reserve. Use of anabolic steroids can help here, but a lot of such doping substances are detectable.

In addition the arteries that supply the muscles with the material needed to relieve the stressed muscles, are hardening with age - transport will take more time. By way of metabolism cells in the human body will also accumulate oxidative damage. (can't be helped, will happen even to a hardcore doper) And last but not least - the natural level of testosterone and HGH decreases. (this can be helped by doping)

http://www.runnersworld.com/masters/age-matters-for-marathoning

Taking all that into account, I have no doubt that peak athletic performance in tennis is not 28-32, although that age isn't very far off, because you can counter some of the aging effects with doping.

Tenez wrote:Tennis has a lot to do with learning how to cope with the rest of the field. (...) But then Nadal came and it's a whole new game.

I see. So Nadal came along and didn't have to learn how to cope with the rest of the field. He just brought a whole new game. So I guess that's what a young generation should do then. Not learning how to cope with the rest of the field - bring something else to them! Generation Useless has failed to do that.

Tenez wrote:The best of Nishi will be better than the best of Djoko....in a few years.

Highly doubt it. He isn't even that much younger than Djokovic. He'll be 27 this year. He relies on his speed and movement. He doesn't have a great serve.

Tenez wrote:It makes sense and proven by stats like it was proven in the pre-open era too.

It's interesting that while guys like Rosewall managed to win until later age, they still started out young. They won important titles even as teenagers, Rosewall won the AO and FO at age 18, Laver had his breakthrough at age 19.

You simply cannot say this new generation is bad. They are not. They are just born too late.

I can and will say that, until proven otherwise. Until that time they are the worst generation of all time. I see no reason to excuse their complete failure to step up.

Cor Ten you are taking hits from all angles on this issue!

There is a clear mis-understanding of what 'better' means. Did Federer back when dominating have the all round game that he possesses now? No. What he doesn't have so much nowadays then he did back then:

1) Athleticism. This with age I agree with FK does go.

2) Enhanced competition. Djokovic/Murray became even stronger and fitter.

Slam success isn't just the benchmark of success overall. Federer won Cinncy last year for crying out loud short of his 34th birthday!

Al - Sorry but lots of false information in your post. This link you provided is one link amongst many others.

This one below will give you a different view, yet it came in teh first page of of google with yours.

http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/A-Ba-and-timeline/Aging-and-Athletic-Performance.html

Now tennis certainly isn't long-distance running. It's a series of quick, powerful bursts of speed. Explosive power elements are vital to the game which points to an athletic peak at the younger end of the range. And even in long distance running it's been suggested that the later age range at the elite is a result of career path rather than a physiological necessity. I.e. elite long distance runners move to the longer events later in their life. Even in marathon running endurance performance declines by 5-15 percent after age 35 per decade for elite athletes (less for non-elites) as suggested by Dieter Leyk, researcher at Köln university.

Even aerobic capacity drops with age. The reason is this: the max heart rate declines by about a beat a year. (can't be helped) The decline in muscle mass hits athletes even earlier because neurons supplying muscle mass die off and can't be regenerated with increased age: As a result speed falls off before endurance. The loss of muscle mass is also responsible for the loss of ability to recover. Muscles store glycogen - when the muscle mass drops, it takes longer for the remaining muscles to replenish glycogen reserve. Use of anabolic steroids can help here, but a lot of such doping substances are detectable.

In addition the arteries that supply the muscles with the material needed to relieve the stressed muscles, are hardening with age - transport will take more time. By way of metabolism cells in the human body will also accumulate oxidative damage. (can't be helped, will happen even to a hardcore doper) And last but not least - the natural level of testosterone and HGH decreases. (this can be helped by doping)

What is all this? Does it say it happens after 25? And if it does how significant is it? Why then many sprinters are still successful, reach their peak even at 29, 30???? Long distance runners where blood circulation is even more crucial peak at 30?

And tennis is not about fast running. Well it is but nothing like you'd be asked for a 100m. They cover 2miles on average per match and I am sure more on a 5 setter. So there is a huge difference in the phsyical effort type than a 100m. Nothing to compare.

That is why talking about phsyical decline for an athlete of 30 compare to 25 is non-sense. Look at Messi (29 soon), Ronaldo 31, can you find articles about their decline since being 25?

So my very point is even if they were to physically decline from 25 to 30...it's not visible with a naked eye. No way. Whereas one can see so many other progress I mentioned so many times here and this is why we see what we are seeing in tennis.

You do not have explanation for having 5 or 6 30+ players in the top 10 except than blaming a younger generation which you will see will turn out to be better than the previous one like they all have in the past. Whereas what I observed years ago is simply now being proven.

I

t's interesting that while guys like Rosewall managed to win until later age, they still started out young. They won important titles even as teenagers, Rosewall won the AO and FO at age 18, Laver had his breakthrough at age 19.

And when was laver's second grand slam? Don't you think his second GS was a bit more competitive than his first when he only played amateurs?

legendkillar wrote:Cor Ten you are taking hits from all angles on this issue!

There is a clear mis-understanding of what 'better' means. Did Federer back when dominating have the all round game that he possesses now? No. What he doesn't have so much nowadays then he did back then:

1) Athleticism. This with age I agree with FK does go.

2) Enhanced competition. Djokovic/Murray became even stronger and fitter.

Slam success isn't just the benchmark of success overall. Federer won Cinncy last year for crying out loud short of his 34th birthday!

Fed at 34, nearly 35 is certainly feeling it physically. I won't argue against that. Especially in the long distance match in succession. But the way he played in 2015 and in particular how he coped versus players who were not nearly as good (Djoko and Murray) and giving him trouble when he was 27.....was just outstanding. This all round game, and knowledge, better timing is priceless on a tennis court.

When he was at his peak, full of fitness and reflexes, he still was shanking crazy on his BH when faced versus Nadal. En of 2007, he had learnt how to cope with Nadal and was starting to reverse the very bad start H2H he had. Unfortunately in 2008 he had  a physcial issue plus Nadal really started to get stronger and stronger physically.

Tenez wrote:And tennis is not about fast running. Well it is but nothing like you'd be asked for a 100m. 

Where have I ever said that that it's similar to 100 m? In fact it's even more reliant on powerful bursts with the sharp starts, turns and stops. So in theory younger people should be physically very competitive. The endurance aspect is very different from long distance as well - because it's repeated high-powered movement.

I have never claimed that decline visibly sets in after age 25, but peak age certainly isn't at age 28-32. In fact that's exactly when decline sets in. There have been plenty of articles discussing Ronaldo's decline - after just a quick search: 

"Cristiano Ronaldo is dribbling less than ever and has not scored in 50 per cent of Real Madrid's games this season for the first time... but he's adjusting his game (...)" or 

"Statistics show Ronaldo's decline". Those kind of articles have started to appear about Messi as well.

Tenez wrote:You do not have explanation for having 5 or 6 30+ players in the top 10 except than blaming a younger generation which you will see will turn out to be better than the previous one like they all have in the 

I have science on my side and generations of athletes who didn't physically peak at age 28+. Of course there'll be a few exceptions because athletes can e.g. changing their routines and find a better working one or be sidelined with sickness+injury issues earlier.

We will see about those "youngsters". You have predicted for a very long time now that they will rise - it has still not happened.

Autumnleaf wrote:Where have I ever said that that it's similar to 100 m?

erhh in your post above and here below.

In fact it's even more reliant on powerful bursts with the sharp starts, turns and stops. So in theory younger people should be physically very competitive. The endurance aspect is very different from long distance as well - because it's repeated high-powered movement.

So how do you explain that all those youngsters are bad physically? How do you explain that Djoko is better now than at 25? Do you really think Djoko's mouvement is worse now than 3 or 4 years ago? This is a simple question. It deserves an honest answer. How do you explain that many 100m athlete have their best performance at 29 past?

I have never claimed that decline visibly sets in after age 25, but peak age certainly isn't at age 28-32. In fact that's exactly when decline sets in.

Exactly! decline sets in right after peaking...not before peaking, hence 28-32 might well be peaking.

There have been plenty of articles discussing Ronaldo's decline - after just a quick search: 

"Cristiano Ronaldo is dribbling less than ever and has not scored in 50 per cent of Real Madrid's games this season for the first time... but he's adjusting his game (...)" or 

"Statistics show Ronaldo's decline". Those kind of articles have started to appear about Messi as well.

Well I guess like McEnroe who was talking of Federer losing a step already in 2007. You will always find articles like that but a quick Wiki search establish Messi best performances now and Ronaldo 2014–15: Fastest to 200 La Liga goals, third FIFA/Ballon d'Or at 29/30. So clearly the yare not doing badly.

I have science on my side and generations of athletes who didn't physically peak at age 28+.

errr no. Science tells you that long distance runners peak later, that the more competitive a sport, the hardest for the youngest.

Of course there'll be a few exceptions because athletes can e.g. changing their routines and find a better working one or be sidelined with sickness+injury issues earlier.

There is nothing exceptional in Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Gasquet and Stan . But worse is that they were even less exceptional at 25. That is the simple truth.

We will see about those "youngsters". You have predicted for a very long time now that they will rise - it has still not happened.

Is it because I also predicted that players don't peak at 26 contrary to what everybody thought?

What is interesting in this discussion is to explain how the old (federer's) generation quickly disappeared at the age of 28-30 (Blake, Safin, Davydenko, Nalby, Gozo, Roddick, etc...). Only Federer, Ferrer, have ran the full course.

I think it;s because the first one had teh talent to adapt, while ferrer's game evolution suited his own style. Whereas all the other players of fed's generation were mostly shot makers and the new gruelling game left them with little chance for success. The strings played a huge role in shortening the career of the shot makers, which in the process extended the life of those lung busting players.

Imagine if you speed up the conds now like it was in the 90s. Djoko, as quick as he is woudl have little chance of retruning 150mph serves and guys like Rao, Zverez, Kyrgios would have a good chance to shorten Djoko's reign just now. He had a close call last wimbledon v Anderson but smaller balls woud have certainly tipped the balance and given Kevin a huge boost of confidence.

Usain Bolt is the greatest sprinter of all time, Tenez.  If your theory was even remotely true, he'd be running faster now - not slower than he was at 22.  But you're flat out wrong.  And there are a ton of other records to prove it.

The long jump olympic record was set decades ago - among a whole host of records. So much for this "each year humans get better and better" mantra.  They don't to a large extent.  They reach a peak and then start to fall away through biological degredation. It has happened to every human who ever lived.  It will happen to Djokovic soon, as well.

AS for Nishikori - you're living in   dream world.  As AL says, he hasn't got the serve or the consistency.  A slam isn't beyond hope - but the idea he will surpass Djokovic is absurd.

The Rosewall argument is also poor - he dominated when the game had nowhere near the physicality it does today - precisely the thing age eats at most). Even so, he is an exception and not a rule.  In five years time, the top 10 will look very different - but one truth will remain:  The average age for winners of most competitions and slams will be 18-27 and not 28-35.  Fact.

FedererKing wrote:Usain Bolt is the greatest sprinter of all time, Tenez.

 And? YOu base your whole theory on an athlete?  

And there are a ton of other records to prove it.

Or prove the opposite.

The long jump olympic record was set decades ago - among a whole host of records. So much for this "each year humans get better and better" mantra.  They don't to a large extent.  They reach a peak and then start to fall away through biological degredation.

I don't disagree with this...I disagree to the when in tennis! In the article AL posted it said it happens at around 29 in Baselball. I find tennis quite similar to baseball in a way....except that it requires more stamina...so could even be older than that. In tennis the exposure to the opponent is also crucial....hence the more you get exposed, the better you get at handling them (opponents).

It has happened to every human who ever lived.  It will happen to Djokovic soon, as well.

Yes, but Djoko in already in my "bracket"...not yours. So again you have lost another point here.

AS for Nishikori - you're living in   dream world.  As AL says, he hasn't got the serve or the consistency.  A slam isn't beyond hope - but the idea he will surpass Djokovic is absurd.

His best is already better than Djoko's best. The problem is lack of consistency, nerve, fitness and so on. But the fact is on a good day he can beat Djoko..and he had done it. My point is that he will get even better at 28/30 barring injuries. We could have had that same conversation with Stan who was seen as a loser and yet he played his best at 30 not at 25 or 26.

The Rosewall argument is also poor - he dominated when the game had nowhere near the physicality it does today - precisely the thing age eats at most). Even so, he is an exception and not a rule.  In five years time, the top 10 will look very different - but one truth will remain:  The average age for winners of most competitions and slams will be 18-27 and not 28-35.  Fact

It was as physical for them then. They did not have all the good drugs to last longer, the hard training and so on. SO at the end of the day athletes leave 100% on the court so it was as physically possible as it coudl have been. But the diference you fail to want to see, is that at that time, there was hardly any change in technology, change of pace which coudl have helped some juniors. BUt the most important point is that it was a close circuit with not many new entries in the clubs of professionals.
You underestimate the effect of the pro-era which has contributed in making tennis a local sport to a worlwide sport. SO with wave and wave of youngsters trying to become professional, the older players were face with many new talents to fight off. The game increased in popularity all the way to now.

This is exactly what you are seeing in golf now. First it started with Woods and now you have quite a few youngsters making life much harder for the oldies cause Woods has seriously increased the popularity of the sport.

But the day the sport will mature (no significantly more new players than players retiring) like tennis is nowadays, you will see the average age of slam winners increease again....though maybe not as much as in tennis cause again in tennis the opponents have a direct influence on how you play.

Oh and Laver, Agassi, Connors, Pete, Lendl, etc..all won slams at 30....and the competition was much fiercer for them at 30 than it was at 26. That is what you do not wish to see. The game evolves, even faster in the pro-era and that is why it is harder to win slams later cause the youngsters have a head start typically.

Nishikori's best is better than Djok's?

You've got a lot of convincing to do.  I think you misinterpret your personal observation for the overwhelming facts. His serve alone isn't close - and that's probably the most important shot in the whole of tennis.

Also, way to go deliberately misinterpeting my argument.  No one has denied players have won slams in their 30s (and usually the VERY BEST are the only ones to have done it) - but the number of slams they win are far less than they used to win.  Sampras did not win the majority of his slams in his 30s you know.  I don't think any of the greats did :P The greatest player to have ever lived has only managed one.

Stop making these ridiculous arguments.   Just bow down to science and reality - because pissing against the wind forever is not fun.

Tenez wrote:So how do you explain that all those youngsters are bad physically?

Easy. They are not. Even teens keep good pace now physically - look at Coric/Zverev. And I wasn't even talking about teens, but about tweens. Djokovic is 28, soon to be 29. That's well inside the age where he can STILL be at or close to his best physically. Especially being on the best programme in tennis currently. However, I expect it will be harder to keep it up from now on.

Tenez wrote:erhh in your post above and here below.

Autumnleaf wrote:In fact it's even more reliant on powerful bursts with the sharp starts, turns and stops.

You quoted a part, where I pointed out differences to sprinting. But yes, it's physically more comparable to sprinting (which are also repeated several times a day after all) than to long-distance running. It relies MUCH more on fast-twitch muscle.

Tenez wrote:Exactly! decline sets in right after peaking...not before peaking, hence 28-32 might well be peaking.

Or else, physical shape could plateau for a time with ever increasing effort to keep that plateau before finally not being able to hold that level anymore and falling off.

Tenez wrote:errr no. Science tells you that long distance runners peak later, that the more competitive a sport, the hardest for the youngest.

We are not talking about long distance because tennis isn't really comparable to it. You ignore evidence that for a large data set of athletes their peak was at an average age of 26,1.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682058/

Tenez wrote:There is nothing exceptional in Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Gasquet and Stan . But worse is that they were even less exceptional at 25. That is the simple truth.

Their results certainly weren't worse at age 25. Tsonga reached a major final and was WTF runner-up in what seems like ages ago. Berdych reached his only major final when he was 25 years old.

Now that they are the wrong side of 30 we will see very soon if they will be slipping. Tsonga/Gasquet surely have had to fight with injury a lot already. Berdych lost twice in a row to Kyrgios. Ferrer said that he's lacking motivation (caused by putting in such effort for decreasing returns?) and feels fatigued. Wawrinka's level hasn't convinced this year so far and he very likely won't defend his RG title.

Tenez wrote:Is it because I also predicted that players don't peak at 26 contrary to what everybody thought?

Nishikori is soon-to-be 27, when can we expect him to peak?  Physically he should be at his peak already, only way is down from now on. What has he even shown after his great USO 14 run? He lost in the first round in the USO last year, he lost in a very disappointing way vs. Djokovic in the AO QF this year, he just lost in a disappointing way vs. Nadal in IW, vs. Querrey in Acapulco and Tomic in Brisbane. Those are not exactly encouraging results. He is a very good player, but he won't reach even close to Djokovic level.

If 28-32 is the best age are you also saying that Djokovic has just entered his peak and will sweep up the majors/tournaments for the next few years? Because since the peak age for the "youngsters" is still far off (27+?), there's nobody to stop him, right?

ETA: To defend your theory that a player in modern times can't play at an extraordinary (slam + MS1000 winning) level well before age 28-32, you are forced to ridiculously overrate the Nishikoris, Raonics, Dimitrovs of this world and overlook their weaknesses.

Autumnleaf wrote:

Tenez wrote:So how do you explain that all those youngsters are bad physically?

Easy. They are not. Even teens keep good pace now physically - look at Coric/Zverev. And I wasn't even talking about teens, but about tweens. Djokovic is 28, soon to be 29. That's well inside the age where he can STILL be at or close to his best physically. Especially being on the best programme in tennis currently. However, I expect it will be harder to keep it up from now on.

Of course it will be harder...only because the younger player have a great head start. When Djoko started to be exposed to the tour, the best he had to face was Federer and Nadal, the rest were really good for the time but did not have the game to push him to the next level. And he found solutions to both! The better youngsters are now facing their first experience on the tour against simply "better" players than Djoko and Nadal had to, offering a tougher challenge. If those youngsters were training in the 80s, they would be as good as Borg and McEnroe...not better.

This is why Federer says nadal and Djoko made him a better player....but so did Goran, Pete, Ferrero, at the beginning of his career. Another perfect example of this is why you have 15 French or Spanish players in the top 100 and much less UK players. The base of the pyramid is higher in the former countries.

You quoted a part, where I pointed out differences to sprinting. But yes, it's physically more comparable to sprinting (which are also repeated several times a day after all) than to long-distance running. It relies MUCH more on fast-twitch muscle.

But this is why footwork is so important. It's more like dancing that sprinting, tough dancing certainly but the body is constanstly trained to go back to neutral. Djoko is one player who turns and twist more than anybody. We shoudl see a significant drop from his 25/26 years...but we are not seeing any of it, are we? Nadal the same. In IW, he was moving as well as ever. It will certainly be harder the following day from now on. That I have always said.

Or else, physical shape could plateau for a time with ever increasing effort to keep that plateau before finally not being able to hold that level anymore and falling off.

So if it plateaus from 25......surely with all the extra learning and experience, exposure, you are likely to be better at 28/29 than 25...if the fitness remains the same?

We are not talking about long distance because tennis isn't really comparable to it. You ignore evidence that for a large data set of athletes their peak was at an average age of 26,1.

because I read otherwise. I can tell you the evidence in cycling or long distance is different. A tennis match is physical not because of the speed needed, it's physical because of the speed and length of a match. Nowadays it's all about stamina and we know this improves with age. They are not concerned by the few 100th of second on speed, more important is the footwork, and being able to maintain it for 3 hours!

Their results certainly weren't worse at age 25. Tsonga reached a major final and was WTF runner-up in what seems like ages ago. Berdych reached his only major final when he was 25 years old.

Berdych only reached his slam final cause fed was injured that year. so you are only left with Tsonga as clearly Stan, Ferrer did much better later. Tsonga certainly did well. but his career was plagued with injuries, so a difficultplayer to gauge.....but despite all that he played best by winning his first TMS at 30! and again in a more competitive world than when Djoko was 21! So I am afraid you have not answer that one convincingly.

Now that they are the wrong side of 30 we will see very soon if they will be slipping. Tsonga/Gasquet surely have had to fight with injury a lot already. Berdych lost twice in a row to Kyrgios. Ferrer said that he's lacking motivation (caused by putting in such effort for decreasing returns?) and feels fatigued. Wawrinka's level hasn't convinced this year so far and he very likely won't defend his RG title.

I don't disagree with this. Especially as i said because teh younger generation has a head start as explained above. But their tennis on the day will still be better than then til 32 probably. This is why Pete, Agassi and so on said their best tennis was player late in their career. However, it doesn't mean it will bring them success.

Nishikori is soon-to-be 27, when can we expect him to peak?  Physically he should be at his peak already, only way is down from now on. What has he even shown after his great USO 14 run? He lost in the first round in the USO last year, he lost in a very disappointing way vs. Djokovic in the AO QF this year, he just lost in a disappointing way vs. Nadal in IW, vs. Querrey in Acapulco and Tomic in Brisbane. Those are not exactly encouraging results. He is a very good player, but he won't reach even close to Djokovic level.

Well Nishi just turned 26....not soon to be 27. And that is exactly my point. He has not achieved much so far but bar injury he will. If he stays injury free and focused he has all the talent to improve for another 4 years and win slams in the process.

If 28-32 is the best age are you also saying that Djokovic has just entered his peak and will sweep up the majors/tournaments for the next few years? Because since the peak age for the "youngsters" is still far off (27+?), there's nobody to stop him, right?

Certainly not. That is my point. I have always made a difference between reaching your peak and having your most successful years. That is not difficult to understand. In tennis you are fighting an opponent which gets better year in year out. McEnroe was saying the tour was getting harder, Pete was saying it too at the end of his career and Djoko said that again recently. And I am sure federer will tell you that it's tougher now than when he was 26.

ETA: To defend your theory that a player in modern times can't play at an extraordinary (slam + MS1000 winning) level well before age 28-32, you are forced to ridiculously overrate the Nishikoris, Raonics, Dimitrovs of this world and overlook their weaknesses.

Dimitrov is a special case in teh sense that I don't think he is as motivated and dedicated as the likes of Djoko or Federer. But the other 2 will prove me right soon. they have already got to TMS finals and will improve from there. I think you are underestimating Nishi badly.

Stop ignoring facts

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682058/

Also, I don't think you even understand how bizarre what you are saying actually is.

A. Prime starts at 28 years old (already scientifically inaccurate)
B. That players don't win the majority of Slams in this period of their life because...  younger players are technically better than the players in "their prime"

Do you honestly not see how ridiculous that is?  Tell me you are trolling us all.

Certainly not. That is my point. I have always made a difference between reaching your peak and having your most successful years

Since Sampras, Federer, Connors, McEnroe, Nadal - and other giants all had worse careers after 27 than before 28, can I just get a YES OR NO answer from you?

a. Were they in their prime after 27?
b. Did they lose more at 28+ because of the strength of the opposition below them, despite being in their prime years (your interpretation being 28+)?

c. So all the players above [I think we can assume Nadal is going same way] fared much worse in success after 27 while also in their prime years?

Tenez wrote:So if it plateaus from 25......surely with all the extra learning and experience, exposure, you are likely to be better at 28/29 than 25...if the fitness remains the same?

It's likely all things being equal if the player can keep his form and make the right decisisions gamewise which some don't. But beyond that it's getting more difficult which is my point.

Tenez wrote:Tsonga certainly did well. but his career was plagued with injuries, so a difficultplayer to gauge.....but despite all that he played best by winning his first TMS at 30! 

Sorry, you are wrong here. He won his first TMS aged 22-23 and beat Nalbandian in 3 sets.  Regarding Berdych: you can say the same thing about Ferrer who also made his only F + his CHR because of other player's difficulties + luck of the draw. It happens and is part of the game. The changing tour environment seemed to have helped Ferrer as well.

Tenez wrote:In tennis you are fighting an opponent which gets better year in year out.

I believe that there is progression over time (hence their statements), but not that it is linear, much less for one player. All sort of things can impact negatively on a player's development, you see throwbacks/ jumps in performance all the time.

Tenez wrote:But the other 2 will prove me right soon. they have already got to TMS finals and will improve from there. I think you are underestimating Nishi badly.

You hope! I do too, but I am very sceptical. IW was Raonic' 3rd TMS final. He had his first one in 2013 vs. Nadal, lost 2 and 2, his second vs. Djokovic, lost 2 and 3. His recent IW final was disappointing because of his uncompetitive level, though it wasn't entirely unexpected tbh. Without a doubt he improved since that time, but he's still VERY far off and I question his potential (movement, recurrent injuries).

Nishikori was very close to a TMS win in 2014, but hasn't been to a final since and not close either. The other players who beat him presumably improved more than him (he lost to both: older and younger)? Can he ever catch up with the limitations inherent to his game (serve! Handling of power? recurrent injuries)? I doubt it, although I'd love to be wrong.

I honestly think that Raonic is more likely to win something big in the near future, because unlike Nishikori he can overwhelm with power.

Autumnleaf wrote:It's likely all things being equal if the player can keep his form and make the right decisisions gamewise which some don't. But beyond that it's getting more difficult which is my point.

I am not sure what is your point? Are tennis players playing worse at 29 than 26? Is this your point? We have this discussion for years and now you give a vague answer "it;s getting more difficult!"....that's not an answer. It's a vague statement. please clarify as this is the core of our discussion!

Sorry, you are wrong here. He won his first TMS aged 22-23 and beat Nalbandian in 3 sets.  Regarding Berdych: you can say the same thing about Ferrer who also made his only F + his CHR because of other player's difficulties + luck of the draw. It happens and is part of the game. The changing tour environment seemed to have helped Ferrer as well.

Ok....I overlooked his first TMS but still, who did he play then who did play last year? Do you think, unlike all the pros, that tennis 7 years ago was as easy as now?

I believe that there is progression over time (hence their statements), but not that it is linear, much less for one player. All sort of things can impact negatively on a player's development, you see throwbacks/ jumps in performance all the time.

Of course it can be true for one player. But the tour is made of 100s of player and on average they have to improve cause if they don;t they slip down the ranking. So you agree it's harder now than 7 years ago?

You hope! I do too, but I am very sceptical. IW was Raonic' 3rd TMS final. He had his first one in 2013 vs. Nadal, lost 2 and 2, his second vs. Djokovic, lost 2 and 3. His recent IW final was disappointing because of his uncompetitive level, though it wasn't entirely unexpected tbh. Without a doubt he improved since that time, but he's still VERY far off and I question his potential (movement, recurrent injuries).

Reg Nishi, it's not that I hope, I can see it. He is a better player. Problem is that he is erratic, lacks confidence, etc...I coudl see the same when watching Stan. He was better but unable to sustain it. This is where experience is so crucial. Those extra years of timing the ball gives you a huge advantage. When you think that they are really playing the best players from 20 to 25....and in 5 years they learn so much (Nishi came from being 200 in the world to number 5), in the next 3 or 4 years they can go a few gears up.

I honestly think that Raonic is more likely to win something big in the near future, because unlike Nishikori he can overwhelm with power.

I think he is even more prone to injuries than Nishi actually and his mind is actually weaker.

Tenez wrote:I am not sure what is your point? Are tennis players playing worse at 29 than 26? Is this your point?

My point is simple: It depends on the individual, on their choices, their health, their committment, the limits of their tennis talent. However: Barring rare exceptions they won't get better physically than at 26.

ETA: There is no fixed age where tennis players play their best, but I assume it's below 30 on average.

Tenez wrote:So you agree it's harder now than 7 years ago? 

It's clearly easier now with no push from the younger generation. Where are the new challenges to the top players?

Nadal and Ferrer easily made top 10 despite being in a slump. Back then (in 2009) the young generation actually advanced in the game and 20/21 yo DelPotro won the USO. It's hard to even imagine nowadays.

Autumnleaf wrote:

Tenez wrote:I am not sure what is your point? Are tennis players playing worse at 29 than 26? Is this your point?

My point is simple: It depends on the individual, on their choices, their health, their committment, the limits of their tennis talent. However: Barring rare exceptions they won't get better physically than at 26.

The question is simple, your answer is not. Whether they are physically at the top and declining at 26 or plateauing till 30 is very different. And whether they are physically at the top or not at 26 is not the question anyway. We are talking tennis players improving till a certain age before declining. I have always maintained that this peak time is a combination of physical peak performance plus knowledge, experience, and better skills gained well after 26. And this for the vast majority of players, they peak well after 26.

ETA: There is no fixed age where tennis players play their best, but I assume it's below 30 on average.

AH! So closer to 30 or 26? this is the whole debate. And in the same way you come up with precise peak for athletes being 26.1, I'd like to know your view about a tennis player. Is it 26.1 also? For me, if the player is dedicated and not just happy with the money earned for 10 years, his peak will come between 28-32. Closer to 32 if dedicated and hard working, 28 if relying mostly on his talent. But most likely in between more most (30).

It's clearly easier now with no push from the younger generation. Where are the new challenges to the top players?

I think the top players have made the most of the little change in pace and technology. They also can make the most of the money earned. Better facilities, better coach, better team, better science etc...
According to you the level of tennis will drop now, since the top players can only decline and the youngsters are not as good. You will see however that the tennis will get better regardless.

Nadal and Ferrer easily made top 10 despite being in a slump. Back then (in 2009) the young generation actually advanced in the game and 20/21 yo DelPotro won the USO. It's hard to even imagine nowadays.

yeah but again, you might say Delpo was lucky not to have played Djoko but Federer in the Final...and a federer who blew that final badly! Yet very good performance from Delpo. But has Delpo won a TMS yet? Just shows that this USO final was a bit of a fluke. But good on him, I like him. The reason he did well though is that he was extremely physical. I think Rao is already a better player without having a slam (better serve and better at the net).

Tenez wrote:AH! So closer to 30 or 26? this is the whole debate. And in the same way you come up with precise peak for athletes being 26.1, I'd like to know your view about a tennis player.

I believe that not every individual is the same and so the peak age won't be the same either. How dependent is their game on physicality? How well can they compensate for their failing physicality?

There's every reason to believe that a player can still play at a very high level at age 30, barring injuries. Noticeably higher than at 28 though? Rarely.

Tenez wrote:According to you the level of tennis will drop now, since the top players can only decline and the youngsters are not as good.  

Maybe this will be the first generation that must decline before the young players can make their move?  They simply bring nothing new to the table, nothing exceptional, which is needed to win young. In all other sports young players mix with the older ones, they are not exclusively dominated by >30.

It's certainly possible that the top level drops for a time. It would drop right now, if Djokovic were out of the game for an extended period. Imagine Murray to win the AO and Nadal IW. Without a doubt much weaker players.

Autumnleaf wrote:
There's every reason to believe that a player can still play at a very high level at age 30, barring injuries. Noticeably higher than at 28 though? Rarely.

I like th eway you are much more precise with athletes' peak (26.1) but suddenly happy to be as vague as possible when it come to tennis. We are not discussing a player mindset of focus etc..cause then that is very subjective. We are talking physical ability plus skills. It is now clear that the peak is much closer to 30 than 26. Now that the wave of youngsetrs entering the game is stabilising (though we have to see whether Asia wil embrace the game) and more so that no major technical changes revolutionised the game since the new strings came up.

Maybe this will be the first generation that must decline before the young players can make their move?  They simply bring nothing new to the table, nothing exceptional, which is needed to win young. In all other sports young players mix with the older ones, they are not exclusively dominated by >30.

Nadal did not bring anything new on the table, neither did Djoko. They simply made the most of the new string and diet science. If Nadal or Djoko were to come back they woudl struggle at least as much as this new youngsters. the next technological change will help the youngsters but until then, they can only make a difference with their natural fitness and talent...and that's hard work versus guys who have been playing versus the best best players for 5 years. It;s like playing in your local club and then trying to be successful at the national or international level. It woudl help them if they had technical tools like Nadal had. Nadal coudl not have played his game with nat gut. zero chance.

It's certainly possible that the top level drops for a time. It would drop right now, if Djokovic were out of the game for an extended period. Imagine Murray to win the AO and Nadal IW. Without a doubt much weaker players.

The loss of a number one certainly drops the level at the very top...but so far Djoko is playing better than ever....yet he will find his master soon.

Having said that Lendl stayed at the very top for quite a long period and is probably the only player who was overthrown only by his decline.

Tenez wrote:

FedererKing wrote:Let's take Usain Bolt...

He was 22(?) when he made the World Record at 100m and 200m (in 2009) - His fastest ever times.

He's 29 now - so I expect we'll be seeing him running less than 9.6 reguarly won't we?  Since he's in his prime, according to you.

Any explanation as to why Bolt of 21-22 years old ran the fastest ever times in human history, but can't at 29?

Any?

So is that your only argument???? one athlete?

It's not the case for all. I think in his case there was a lot to do with his mind and professional appraoch to the game.

You should have just answered "no". And that argument has just been pulled out of your ass. I can do it too: The reason the sun rises is because the mighty god Ra ordered it to.

ATP live race ranking:

1. Djokovic (28,8)
2. Raonic (25,2)
3. Andy Murray (28,8)
4. Dominic Thiem (22,5)
5. Kei Nishikori (26,2)
6. Stan Wawrinka (31)
7. David Goffin (25,3)
8. Roberto Bautista Agut (27,9)
9. Gael Monfils (29,5)
10. Pablo Cuevas (30,2)

Average: 27,5 --> below Djokovic

11. Tomas Berdych (30,5)
12. Nick Kyrgios (20,9)
13. Roger Federer (34,6)
14. Rafael Nadal (29,8)
15. David Ferrer (33,9)

Expectations: Kyrgios to make Race top 10 maybe as soon as today, that would further drop the average. Cuevas certainly won't stay inside the top 10, Monfils questionable, RBA as well. We might soon see the establishment of a few players younger than Djokovic inside the top 10.

Observation: Fed generation is now well on their way out. Fed himself is injured, no way of knowing in which shape he will come back. Ferrer has dropped off considerably, might lose his top 8 ranking before Roland Garros. Next best player left of the Fed generation is Feliciano Lopez at rank 30 in the race.

The rise of the younger players has already started,  meanwhile the older guard's slam wins have virtually dried up, aside from Djokovic and perhaps Wawrinka.

Kyrgios and Goffin and Thiem are three examples.  They're on their way up and Kyrgios and Thiem especially will be part of the next batch of winners.

It doesn't matter about facts, though.  Tenez will just say the younger players have caught up.  If the older players win, it's because they are "in their prime" - and if the younger players win, it's because they have caught up in ability.  Heads Tenez wins, tails we lose.