Top 200 ATP Players Age Stats

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Nadal will be 30 in 6-7 months..that will be 7/10!
Murray&Djokovic - 29.
Raonic and Nishikori (24/25) look like babies in that group. Dimitrov has disapearred. Will he (ever) join top 10?

It really does feel weird!

Yes but look at the race.....Rao is out of top 10, all those closest to get into top 10 are 30+....except Gasquet (29+).

The only good thing is Fed is still at the top.
How long he can keep going?

Penny for TDs' thoughts...

I wonder whether some don't post here anymore because they are realizing they were wrong on that topic.

It's quite telling that I started to raise this when fed was 29 or 30.....some 5 years ago.....when everything tended to prove that players were peaking at 26/27.....but 5 years later....it's amazing to see all those 30+ players in the top 10.

Some will be too proud to at least recognise that they may have been wrong!

Tenez wrote:I wonder whether some don't post here anymore because they are realizing they were wrong on that topic.

It's quite telling that I started to raise this when fed was 29 or 30.....some 5 years ago.....when everything tended to prove that players were peaking at 26/27.....but 5 years later....it's amazing to see all those 30+ players in the top 10.

Some will be too proud to at least recognise that they may have been wrong!

Probably true, and sad


Yes, there were several big things that have been proven right:

- time taken between the points. That was a huge taboo 6-7 years ago and now - common knowledge

- draw fixing. Although it's not detrimental any more with Nadal (for the time being) being out of the picture, I think some may have acknowledged what went on

- with "declining" of Fed and declaring him dead and buried in 2013, nobody can deny how good he was this year, but some are still coming round to that idea.

The next mission is to convince FK (and others?) he is wrong about players' prime
Faster play seems to be thorn in the flesh!

This is new territory to all, as we have never had this "oldies ruling the top" situation before, but observing how players strike the ball has always been fun and the only source of finding out truth. Not what paid pundits spin...

But I remember I started to have my doubts about age peak in 2010. I was one to believe players were peaking at 26/27. I saw Federer lose at the FO10 v Soderling and thought shame cause he was playing actually better than before. So I started to pay attention.....and then went back to visit some 2006/7 clips and realised that he was indeed playing better, or rather that his shots looked more solid, less shanky, in particular v the RRunners.  

I am actually glad to see that what I was seeing then is now verified statistically. In particular the fact that those people in the past declined ealier than expected due to new generation with new technologies pushing them out.

Today at 28, with no change in fitness, pace or technology, no-one is pushing Djoko out yet...despite having some 24-26 players having more potntial  than him....but they are just too young still and not mature/professional enough.

I was convinced by Fed being better than ever in Wimbledon'12, esp seeing how he beat Murray there.

His game never looked so full and complete up to that point.

Fast-forward to Cinci '15 and it's much more aggressive.

To play S&V and beat Djokovic in 2015 with it is "tennis from another planet."

I posted a link to this thread on tennis.com a few weeks ago and S. Tignor must have picked it up.

The truth starts at OTF

========================
The differences between the seasons are signs of the gradually changing—i.e., aging—times on the men’s tour. Djokovic’s peak, if it is his peak, has come in a year when he turned 28; Federer’s came in a year when he turned 25. Djokovic’s main rival this season has been the 34-year-old Federer, who is the only player to beat the Serb twice. In 2006, Federer’s main rival was a 20-year-old Rafael Nadal, who handed Federer four of his five losses that season. (The other came to a 19-year-old Andy Murray in Cincinnati—things really do change gradually in the men’s game these days).
=========================

An interesting article comparing Nole's 2015 with Fed's 2006:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/10/men-all-seasons/56630/#.ViVEJGK9KSN

Djokovic's peak was 2011.  This year is mostly down to having no challenger except a 33-34 year old Federer, and Murray who is out of sorts, and hit or miss Wawrinka.  The tour is currently very weak.

2011 Djokovic season is statistically greater than 2015 as well.  As much as you don't like it.

Nadal has just had his worst ever season, and Federer also won zero slams, but, of course, that doesn't fit the pattern you want.

You and Tenez try to make exceptions into rules, and cherry pick facts to fit a theory.  That isn't how an informed opinion works.

FedererKing wrote:Djokovic's peak was 2011.  This year is mostly down to having no challenger except a 33-34 year old Federer, and Murray who is out of sorts, and hit or miss Wawrinka.  The tour is currently very weak.

2011 Djokovic season is statistically greater than 2015 as well.  As much as you don't like it.

Nadal has just had his worst ever season, and Federer also won zero slams, but, of course, that doesn't fit the pattern you want.

You and Tenez try to make exceptions into rules, and cherry pick facts to fit a theory.  That isn't how an informed opinion works.

The problem is not your logic or sense of observation....it's your ego...you will never admit you are wrong cause you are too proud. But don't worry, I understand.

Tenez wrote:

FedererKing wrote:Djokovic's peak was 2011.  This year is mostly down to having no challenger except a 33-34 year old Federer, and Murray who is out of sorts, and hit or miss Wawrinka.  The tour is currently very weak.

2011 Djokovic season is statistically greater than 2015 as well.  As much as you don't like it.

Nadal has just had his worst ever season, and Federer also won zero slams, but, of course, that doesn't fit the pattern you want.

You and Tenez try to make exceptions into rules, and cherry pick facts to fit a theory.  That isn't how an informed opinion works.

The problem is not your logic or sense of observation....it's your ego...you will never admit you are wrong cause you are too proud. But don't worry, I understand.

Ad hominems only conclude what I said.  You are incapable of a rational opinion. You come into every debate with your 'absolute truth' already established and, if there are any facts that contravene that 'truth', you just throw out the facts.  I could do that and make Ferrer look like Federer.  It's just lazy and closed minded.