Top 200 ATP Players Age Stats

Based on a PDF detailing the top 200 players age and ranking I have used that gloomy, rainy last day of August to play around with players age amongst the top 200 players.

The form is available through this link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UAOhGRe4mmIq8mTsKykX_fcwnNY1V5NifWCa22usung/edit?usp=sharing

It is a live table telling what is the current average age of top 5, 10, top 50, top 100, top 100 to 200 and top 11-20, 21-30, 31-40 and 41 to 50 players.

It clearly shows what we knew already is that in general the higher the ranking the older the players.

It can be noted that the top 10 players average could reach an unprecedented 30yo average after the USO should Cilic #9  and Raonic #10 be replaced by the next 2 (Simon#11 and Gasquet#12)...though unlikely to happen.

However should Nishikori not reach his USO final, we are going to have the top 5 players averaging above 30yo!!!! Don't think this happened before...even in the pre-open era!

So...Nishi is not going to make the final, and top 5 are now on average over 30.
What is your explanation?

Fed @ 34 is making this look worse and pulling up the average for top-5 and top-10. 
How many 34 year olds have ever been playing like Fed is. 

The average age is on the higher side, maybe because of technology and slow surface that allows so many returns and near-impossible retrieving look regular. This kind of game needs more stamina n it doesn't come early in age.

Most young players were successful at the 'serve n volley' era. Or is it?

Yes Federer certainly tips the balance but we can also that the top 11-20 are 28.4 on average and teh 31-40 are also over 29.

So clearly there is a huge trend of players getting older. More than the Stamina required, I think it is due to the conds and technology remaining the same for the last 10 years really helping those with experience more than the youngsetrs.

Imagine if a new pacy court conds and new technology arrives making SVIng very easy. Those youngsters learning with these new conds will be pushing the old guard very quickly. Rao, Kyrios, Dimi, would be crushing Nole and Murray and woudl shorten the careers of those lungs busters at the top.

I believe this is what has happened in the past. Mc and Borg were simply replaced by those learning the game with big frames and Federer had his success cut short by those fitter players making the most of the new racquet/string technology. had we kept the 2000s conds and old strings, Federer, Blake, Nalby, Dimi, Gasquet could well be the top 5 players.

The aging of the top players just tells me the conds have not changed recently and that of course it's more physically demanding (hence parallel with TDF).

So we need a lot more faster courts, faster than Dubai, Cincy etc because Djoko still made the finals of those.

Really good stats research Tenez, will have a closer look now.

We don't need faster courts. We need harder balls. that would limit the spin string technology, so no more easy shots over the net, in particular easy cross court shots from the trameline.

That will certainly sort the boys from the men.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Really good stats research Tenez, will have a closer look now.

Thanks. When I will have time I will try to expand that research to previous years (from 1970 to now) to see whether there is a correlation between technology and/or court change, competitiveness, etc....

I already noted that the age average amongst the top 5 or 10 was 5 or 6 years younger!!!! Huge gap...for an average.

luvsports! wrote:So we need a lot more faster courts, faster than Dubai, Cincy etc because Djoko still made the finals of those.

One also needs to give time for a game and style to settle. Federer for instance is showing how we can still winning getting to the net nearly systematically, but despite his experience and skills it is a year process at least to get the confidence and reflexes. Youngsters will work on this, the most talented in that department will pick it up quicker....if conds changes of course...otherwise the road will be tougher, espcially as guys like Kooki, Coric and Zverev will get better at retrieving.

Yes, I noticed another thing that separates young players from older ones - footwork.

That skill also takes time to mature.

Also, because older players at the top have developed their game, younger ones need even more time to catch up.

The one that has done quite well there is Thiem.
He has improved a lot since last year.

I am expecting the same from Pouille and Rubi. They are relying on their shotmaking too much losing to B grade grinders because of undeveloped footwork, which is tragic!

You need to be a full package to make an impact these days, so very tough for young ones.

Tenez wrote:We don't need faster courts. We need harder balls. that would limit the spin string technology, so  no more easy shots over the net, in particular easy cross court shots from the trameline.

That will certainly sort the boys from the men.

You are right.
I am sick of plastic tennis.

So after the USO

I have only updated the link in the OP up to number 20..

Top 5 are now officially over 30yo on average (30 and 2 months to be precise).
top 10 are 29yand 6 months (aging by 4 months in the last 2 weeks)

top 10-20 aged 9months to 28y and 9month in the last 2 weeks.

Obvisouly the top players are not getting younger......aging even faster than biologically.

Yes, the tour/tennis is in a new, uncharterd territory.
Stagnant technology, advancing medicine, big $$$.

Interesting 5 years ahead.

Of the top 10 only Federer and Ferrer are outside the prime age range. Ferrer, unlike Fed, certainly hasn't done anything special this year. So a guy with a less than stellar year is still making the top 10 easily, which is worrying. (Same btw for younger Raonic who missed a ton of tournaments and hasn't come back in greatest shape.) It shows that even when guys are slipping at the top, other guys are not prepared to step in. The top 8 aren't pushed at all at the moment, with the players ranked 9-14 all inside 500 points, but around 1000 behind No. 8, Ferrer.

The problem is Djokovic winning all the big points now with the rest fighting for the scrabs, so few can make even enough points to take over Ferrer who won most of his points at 500 tournaments (Acapulco and Rio) with few elite players participating.

The seeding system also protects the status quo with seeded players rarely facing real threats in earlier rounds.

But Stan, Berdych are also 30. Never in the past woudl you have found 3 out of 5 players being 30 in the top 5. The trend as mentioned is not only in the top 5 but top 50.

What you call prime is very much what is being discussed here. What is it? Or rather what coudl it be?

Yes, but I'd include 30/31 on the fringe of prime athletic age, at least for some athletes. Prime athletic age I consider to be mid 20s to late 20s for most athletes. Obviously 30 is not far off and athletes can still have very strong showings at that age, especially when peaking 4 times a year, like Wawrinka does now.

Not sure, how much longer Berdych will be able to hang on to the top 10. He had a pretty good start to the year losing only to other top 10 players, but since he trailed off and started losing to players outside the top 10 more often. 

His record vs. other top 10 is a terrible 2-9 for the year, with his only wins coming over Nadal at AO and injured Raonic by way of retirement. This indicates that he kept his ranking mainly due to the seeding system that enabled him to avoid top 10 players until the later rounds. Berdych certainly isn't able to challenge the top players anymore. Accordingly he hasn't won a title this year, not even an ATP 250/ 500.

At RG he lost vs. Tsonga, Halle vs. Karlovic, Wimbledon vs. Simon, Montreal vs. Young, Cincinatti vs. Dolgopolov, USO vs. Gasquet. None of these losses to players ranked 11+ (except Karlovic) were even close.

Publish below the 2003 and the top 5 and top 10 are 5 years younger on average. That's a big gap which cannot be explained by luck.

There are reasons why the average age has been increasing. And I certainly do not believe it is down to less talented players nowadays cause if you look at the 2003 year, you do not have particularly talented players bar federer.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KpyyaInyFt8jVgU7lhM9OqUKX3O4oVs99CQX5qeClbg/edit?usp=sharing

No, not by luck. But in 2003 tour environment was changing rapidly with most players switching to Luxilon. Federer himself changed to the half and half combination in 2002. I agree that these technological changes had a huge impact and helped the younger players to push out the older players.

Fed himself seems to think that his generation was very talented and that the recent one who should be in their athletic prime by now is somewhat lacking. Maybe they weren't as hugely talented as Fed, but then again, who is? Certainly not the current top 10 either.

“We definitely had a very good generation of players,” he said. “I still remember my junior years. My year, 1981 and also 1982 and 1980, we were all very strong. It's nice to see that so many actually made the Tour. Personally, I'm surprised to see how many of them are still hanging in there and still playing.” The 17-time Grand Slam champion puts it down to two main reasons. “Number one, it was a good generation,” he said. “Number two, the generation that usually pushes players out wasn't as strong as maybe other ones. I'm talking about the players who are 25 years old right now. That generation only had a few players and the same thing for age 20 right now. There are some good ones, but not like 30 of them when we came along. I think those are usually the guys that push the older guys out. So we're able to hang on. It's nice to see because in a few years, many of them won't be around anymore.”

Interesting. When did he say that?

Cincinnati this year

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/cincinnati-2015-sunday-federer

“I think I'm a better player now than when I was at 24 because I've practised for another 10 years and I've got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don't have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it's ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I've had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

=============================
There you go. Pete said the same when he retired.

Shoudl I trust what Federer says and what I see on the court...or should I trust Federerking? Now I am at a loss!

He could be a better player, but a worse athlete.

ETA: If you trust Fed saying he is a better player now, do you also believe when he basically says that the young generation sucks?

To me the key is that: "I I've practised for another 10 years and I've got 10 years more experience".....while the conds stayed the same during the last 7 years!
Which means no 23-25yo can push the 27-30 yo out cause they roughly trained under the same conds.
It's clear for instance that Nishi will reach a higher level than Djoko and Nadal but only if he stays healthy and as long as he focuses as much as the other 2. He might not have however the same professionalim/dedication.

Anyway, it's hard to trust athletes on this, because there's a special psychology going on as well.

There's something else where very young players have an advantage over older players which I found quite interesting:

“Experience can be a very good thing,” Federer said to Sports Illustrated’s Jon Wertheim last year, “but sometimes it can also be a hindrance. You’re not playing as freely, you’re playing the percentages too much. It becomes too calculated. I like to play free-flowing­ tennis.”
He meant something more specific than having fun — though there was fun in it. He meant taking the moment. “I know I can hit great shots,” he explained. “But it’s something that goes against logic. One-in-10 [chance] back in the day, one was enough. But today one out of 10 is not enough.”
“I have to remind myself to play like a junior sometimes,”
Looking at a player like Dimitrov, I think this might be a problem today. Coming up he showed great promise and even beat Novak Djokovic in Madrid 2013 in a close match. Two years down the road he is very far from the top of the game.

Tenez wrote:It's clear for instance that Nishi will reach a higher level than Djoko and Nadal but only if he stays healthy and as long as he focuses as much as the other 2. (...)

This is not clear at all because of his physical limitations. He's not only injury-prone, he is also not tall which impacts the quality of his serve. And yes, very good players aged 23-25 should be able to push out players like Ferrer from the top 10.

The younger players may have started later, but they can catch up quicker because they train against the best and can study what they do.

Autumnleaf wrote:He could be a better player, but a worse athlete.

But does it matter? It's the overall picture that counts. Anticipating and reading the game better is more valuable than running fast, especially on a tennis court.

It's also clear that his athleticism was not pushed as hard then as now. So even that is difficult to compare.

Tenez wrote:But does it matter? It's the overall picture that counts. Anticipating and reading the game better is more valuable than running fast, especially on a tennis court.

It's also clear that his athleticism was not pushed as hard then as now. So even that is difficult to compare.

Everybody is a worse athlete at age 34, compared to age 28, no exceptions. And this shouldn't count in the most physical era ever, with the most predictable game, same rallies over and over?

Running fast is very important, just ask Novak Djokovic.

Autumnleaf wrote:Anyway, it's hard to trust athletes on this, because there's a special psychology going on as well.

I think there is less psychology going on there than the psychology of the fan who can only see his idol lose down to some excuse like age.
I however believe that players get tired psychology at 30+ and don;t usually fancy to work as hard especially to face ever increasing competition. Federer is an exception at 34 cause he can make things easy. But the facts are if one wishes to remain at the top one needs to work harder than before cause the tour is only getting tougher.

There's something else where very young players have an advantage over older players which I found quite interesting:

“Experience can be a very good thing,” Federer said to Sports Illustrated’s Jon Wertheim last year, “but sometimes it can also be a hindrance. You’re not playing as freely, you’re playing the percentages too much. It becomes too calculated. I like to play free-flowing­ tennis.”
He meant something more specific than having fun — though there was fun in it. He meant taking the moment. “I know I can hit great shots,” he explained. “But it’s something that goes against logic. One-in-10 [chance] back in the day, one was enough. But today one out of 10 is not enough.”
“I have to remind myself to play like a junior sometimes,”

Well I guess this is what he is trying to do now by being more aggressive..but only because he has to v the RRunners. Against everybody else, he coudl still play percentage tennis and win. He is just trying to save energy there.....cause down the line, at teh business end of tournaments it's getting more physical.

Tenez wrote:“I think I'm a better player now than when I was at 24 because I've practised for another 10 years and I've got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don't have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it's ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I've had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

=============================
There you go. Pete said the same when he retired.

Shoudl I trust what Federer says and what I see on the court...or should I trust Federerking? Now I am at a loss!

You can keep bringing me up all you like.  It doesn't make your argument stronger.  This is why:

1. The statistics on age cannot be argued with.  34 year olds (and 30+ year olds) hardly ever win Slams
2. Sampras and Federer are the least qualified to talk about THEMSELVES. They are not objective.
3. One quote does not equal proof at all.  You are again doing what you always do - finding one contradictory source and then using that as your entire argument as if there requires no further debate.
4. Sampras retired for a reason at that age.  He was having far less success and that was his swan song.  The only player to have really retired at his best was Borg (before he came back).  Sampras was nowhere near his best, as his results show.
5. There are videos of entire matches out there that completely back up the statistics in this matter.

I find it amusing but also very disturbing that you have this insane agenda of pretending Federer, Sampras, and all other players are being beaten more because the opposition is stronger.  As I noted to you many times, even in purely physical sports, this is not the case.  The Long Jump record was set in 1991 and beat the previous record set in 1968 by half an inch (the 1968 record is STILL the Olympic record).  You can look at the olympic records and see there are numerous sports with decade long gaps in their records.  Your idea of human biology and physics is not just wrong - it's absurd.

In a few years, when Murray and Djokovic are not even winning a raffle, your argument will be that the current crop are just too good for them - or that conditions have changed soooo much that they can no longer win.

You're already doing that with Nadal but have no idea how to answer the fact he has lost to rank 100s four times in a row at Wimbledon.

Edit.  You're also already stating that Nishikori's natural progression is to become a better player than Djokovic...  I don't really know what to say to that.

Tenez wrote:I think there is less psychology going on there than the psychology of the fan who can only see his idol lose down to some excuse like age. 
I however believe that players get tired psychology at 30+ and don;t usually fancy to work as hard especially to face ever increasing competition. Federer is an exception at 34 cause he can make things easy. But the facts are if one wishes to remain at the top one needs to work harder than before cause the tour is only getting tougher. 

Where is this ever increasing competition? Ferrer skipped 3 big tournaments and is still safely inside the top 8. Nadal was everything but convincing this year, it's still easily enough for a top 10 spot.

I hope you don't deny the aging of the body, because it does exist unfortunately. Nobody is claiming that age will have an effect at 25, but at 30+ it does. All sports support this and show the typical curve of performance according to age. 

You can of course say, these guys just got lazy and tired of having to work hard. This may be true, but you neglect that the hard work also takes more of a toll on the body of an older athlete and it will be more painful for them. This may be why it becomes unbearable: more effort for less return. Just to keep their athletic ability on a high level they will have to work unbelievably hard and harder with every passing year.

It isn't just the athleticism that age affects.  It affects everything - even the mental. Hand eye coordination and other functions become dulled. Everything gets worse with age - even hearing.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/345519-hand-eye-cordination-aging/

Or does hand-eye coordination not matter now, too?

Effects

Decreasing hand function is associated with aging. There are changes in coordination, visual, touch and auditory processes, along with changes in the muscular, skeletal and nervous systems, according to a 1992 study published in the “Journal of American Physical Therapy Association.” The decline in speed and coordination of movement are related to a decline in neuromuscular function, which happens as you age. Sensory processes that are impaired are a component of decreased motor coordination, resulting in decreased hand-eye coordination as age increases.

@FK, this is true without doubt, but the question would be how much a 30+ yo would be effected. We are not talking about pensioneers here.

Autumnleaf wrote:@FK, this is true without doubt, but the question would be how much a 30+ yo would be effected. We are not talking about pensioneers here.

It clearly lists 20-30+ as a control group in that study.  It found changes from the 20s to 30s, not just very old ages.  In fact a teenager has far better hearing than someone who is 25, among other things.

In the link you provided they cited an article with a control group aged 20-36. The study itself was directed toward the truly elderly.

Please point me to the quote about the changes from the 20s to the 30s.

Autumnleaf wrote:

Tenez wrote:But does it matter? It's the overall picture that counts. Anticipating and reading the game better is more valuable than running fast, especially on a tennis court.

It's also clear that his athleticism was not pushed as hard then as now. So even that is difficult to compare.

Everybody is a worse athlete at age 34, compared to age 28, no exceptions. And this shouldn't count in the most physical era ever, with the most predictable game, same rallies over and over?

Running fast is very important, just ask Novak Djokovic.

You are only fractionally worse at 34. I remember McEnroe saying that Fed lost a step in 2008 already 7 years ago. And I have been hearing posters for the last 4 years telling me they can see he lost a step. Strangely whoever plays him doesn't think so. So if he lost a step, it woudl be fraction hardly noticeable with the naked eye.

What I however clearly saw on Sunday is that comes the end of the 3rd set he is tired and then certainly loses a step. ...But again is that down to age or is it the fact that he has to run much more now than in 2007. He was already showing fragility against the very young RRunners back then. He never had a great 5 setter record.

Have you seen the thread which clearly shows that his way to Wimby and USO 15 finals were as good as in 2006 despite facing overall a field which also improved a lot in the last 10 years?

Autumnleaf wrote:@FK, this is true without doubt, but the question would be how much a 30+ yo would be effected. We are not talking about pensioneers here.

If it is so true "without a doubt", how can you explain that the best doubles players are over 40 (Nestor and Paes), How old are the Bryan? 38?. I am not saying that you keep improving at 40 but if the decline started at 25 like FK says, surely the guys would have the reflexes of an arthritic water buffalo and be no good for doubles. Fed's volleying has never been as good.  

And Nestor and Paes are certainly not known for their serving so surely they must rely on other skills.

Tenez wrote:You are only fractionally worse at 34.

Yes, but margins at the top are very small. It may not matter vs. Gasquet, but it will matter against the very best currently. That he gets tired earlier (despite doing everything in his power to shorten the points) also supports the theory that he is a worse athlete now.

He may get through the draw easier now, because he has learnt to efficiently dispatch inferior players with his highly aggressive game. In that sense he truly is a better player now. He is playing so fast now, they feel as if he himself were faster when he is rushing them. He's even incorporating low percentage play like his return on the service line.

He needed to learn it and add more variety (always had it, but didn't need to use it as much) or he wouldn't be relevant by now. Back then, it didn't matter if he lost a set or 2 on the way to the final or even in the final (unless it's Nadal). He'd still arrive there in a good enough shape.

FedererKing wrote:

Autumnleaf wrote:@FK, this is true without doubt, but the question would be how much a 30+ yo would be effected. We are not talking about pensioneers here.

It clearly lists 20-30+ as a control group in that study.  It found changes from the 20s to 30s, not just very old ages.  In fact a teenager has far better hearing than someone who is 25, among other things.

You are mixing things up once again. Hearing and eyesight are receptors and they certainly are sharper when younger but the connections between the receptors and the brain evolve and get better even after 30.

How can you explain then FK that average age of a top tennis player has moved from the 25yo to 30 over the last decade or so, if you think that a player peaks at 25?

Tenez wrote:If it is so true "without a doubt", how can you explain that the best doubles players are over 40 (Nestor and Paes), How old are the Bryan? 38?. I am not saying that you keep improving at 40 but if the decline started at 25 like FK says, surely the guys would have the reflexes of an arthritic water buffalo and be no good for doubles. Fed's volleying has never been as good. 

I don't subscribe to the theory of a decline after 25 (this is peak athletic age), it starts later (age 28-30). It's true without a doubt for people at 60+, I was questioning it for younger people.

Autumnleaf wrote:

Tenez wrote:You are only fractionally worse at 34.

Yes, but margins at the top are very small. It may not matter vs. Gasquet, but it will matter against the very best currently. That he gets tired earlier (despite doing everything in his power to shorten the points) also supports the theory that he is a worse athlete now.

You do not know whether he gets tired earlier or he is simply asked to deliver much on the court. As I mentioned during commentating, Djoko made Fed cover twice as much ground than Gasquet or Stan. He may have been lucky in his hey days that no-one coudl make him run as much. Only Nadal and we know how much trouble he had then. In fact Nadal was doing most of the running then. Now Djoko makes him run more than him! A fact we cannot ignore. Djoko sends fed in both corners at a faster pace than he had to do in the past. That;s why I am saying that if he was really slower he woudl get bagelled by Djoko. Djoko is a completely different animal than in 2009 and 2010.

He may get through the draw easier now, because he has learnt to efficiently dispatch inferior players with his highly aggressive game. In that sense he truly is a better player now. He is playing so fast now, they feel as if he himself were faster when he is rushing them. He's even incorporating low percentage play like his return on the service line.

They are not inferior, they are better than those he faced in 2007. Everybody learnt to improve in 10 years. And he certainly did too. It seems he has done so at a faster pace than anybody else..bar Djoko.

He needed to learn it and add more variety (always had it, but didn't need to use it as much) or he wouldn't be relevant by now. Back then, it didn't matter if he lost a set or 2 on the way to the final or even in the final (unless it's Nadal). He'd still arrive there in a good enough shape.

I don;t believe Fed lost sets by being careless. He has been too much of a professional and mature to simply let sets go. It cost him the AO05 (v Safin) and knew too well teh danger of it. Besides, I woudl certainly expect a 34yo to lose more focus than a 26yo. So I don;t buy that argument that "it did not matter if he lost a set or 2". He is simply a better match player today.

Autumnleaf wrote:

Tenez wrote:If it is so true "without a doubt", how can you explain that the best doubles players are over 40 (Nestor and Paes), How old are the Bryan? 38?. I am not saying that you keep improving at 40 but if the decline started at 25 like FK says, surely the guys would have the reflexes of an arthritic water buffalo and be no good for doubles. Fed's volleying has never been as good. 

I don't subscribe to the theory of a decline after 25 (this is peak athletic age), it starts later (age 28-30). It's true without a doubt for people at 60+, I was questioning it for younger people.

ok - To me it;s still very difficult to see what is peaking for a tennis player. Simply because there are way too many factors and the most important one is the opposition. Had no-one got better in 2007...federer woudl still be winning 3 to 4 slams a year....playing worse than today.

But from what I have been seeing, since technology had a lesser impact is that peaking should at least start at 28 (if we consider that all players have been improving till then) and I guess be starting declining at 33/34. And when I say 33 or 34 I mean down to the physicality of today's game, otherwise I would probably have extended that to 35/36...maybe fed will convince me of it next year....hopefully.

Your argument stands or falls with the theory that a 34 yo aged guy can be a better athlete than the same guy at 28. 

Maybe Djokovic can run Fed more, because Fed gets rushed now and can't bring the shots back with authority? Or is Djokovic simply the better player with the better timing? I cringe everytime Fed has to hit a running forehand, because he will be late on it quite often. The proven way to beat Fed is to keep him busy on the backhand side and then change direction to the forehand. Djokovic applied this tactics several times in the match.

I meant, the players in the earlier rounds are inferior to Federer. Maybe he didn't lose sets by being careless, but he certainly didn't see the need to change up his game to avoid losing them. He was quite comfortable, winning a few majors a year. Obviously that changed with the arrival of the new generation and here I think, he didn't make the most of his talent. I'd have loved to have seen his current game a few years earlier.

Now he is aware that every lost set could cost him a shot at the title.

Tenez wrote:You are only fractionally worse at 34.
------

Are you serious?  It's not a small amount and even if it were, at this level it is MASSIVE.  Also, doubles is in no way the same standard as singles.

Tenez wrote:To me it;s still very difficult to see what is peaking for a tennis player. Simply because there are way too many factors and the most important one is the opposition.

I agree here, that's why I was talking athletic age. It's far easier to determine this and across sports prime athletic age is 23-30.

Obviously it won't be fast at first and it's possible to compensate for loss of physicality up to a point. How much a player is effected, depends on his game. A Nadal will be effected more than a Federer, because he is unable to compensate his loss of physicality with the strength of his basic game. Federer has compensated for his loss of physicality with radically shortening points and using more of his variety.

A basic game can get you very far in tennis already if it's coupled with great physicality. But you can be the greatest shotmaker of all time, it won't help if you can't keep up with the physical demands.

Autumnleaf wrote:
Maybe Djokovic can run Fed more, because Fed gets rushed now and can't bring the shots back with authority? Or is Djokovic simply the better player with the better timing?

So Djoko would have hardly improved from 2007 to 2015 but the difference now is that Fed slowed down and that Djoko finally gets the better of him. You are clearly overlooking teh progress Djoko has made over the last 7 years. It's a huge progress which took him from number 3 or 4 to number 1 with millions ATP points ahead of everybody else. That simple fact cannot be ignored.

I cringe everytime Fed has to hit a running forehand, because he will be late on it quite often. The proven way to beat Fed is to keep him busy on the backhand side and then change direction to the forehand. Djokovic applied this tactics several times in the match.

Yes but the difference is that Djoko is on every ball with time to spare whereas in teh past Fed's FH was rushing him....just. Now it doesn't anymore cause Djoko lightening fast. Fed's FH is as good, if not better against everybody else it seems.

I meant, the players in the earlier rounds are inferior to Federer. Maybe he didn't lose sets by being careless, but he certainly didn't see the need to change up his game to avoid losing them. He was quite comfortable, winning a few majors a year. Obviously that changed with the arrival of the new generation and here I think, he didn't make the most of his talent. I'd have loved to have seen his current game a few years earlier.

But he was already losing matches, Masters 1000 to the very young road runners. He had a ridiculous close 3 setter versus 20yo Djoko at the still fast 2007 USO. So things were getting difficult for him already down to the 3 usual suspects. Those were only 20/21 bach then....that's a bloody young age to trouble the "best player ever" at his peak!
The reason is simple. Technology, fitness and technique was changing. Fed was old school and the guys on the block had new weapons. Without adapting Fed woudl have ended up like Roddick, Hewitt or Nalby. Thankfully he was able to adapt and progress. And that gives him the chance to have another look at slams today. Had he been the same as 2007. he would be completely overwhelmed. However I believe had he changed his racquet earlier, he would have won another 4 slams easily, including one more on clay. But surely He has been a better player now than in 2007. 2010/11 were really good too...though it did not bring him any slam.

Now he is aware that every lost set could cost him a shot at the title.

yes...but had he played Djoko 2015 in 2007, could have been the same problem. he was already losing 3 setters to 20yo Djoko in Montreal!

[quote="Autumnleaf"]

Tenez wrote:A basic game can get you very far in tennis already if it's coupled with great physicality. But you can be the greatest shotmaker of all time, it won't help if you can't keep up with the physical demands.

Who is demanding this physical level? Only the 2 roadrunners left. So for the rest of the tour fed's fitness is perfectly fine. You are basing you athleticism theory on 2 or 3 freak players who have a ridiculous fitness level. We might be comparing apples and oranges there. I am still not very convinced about this gluten free diet. Fed is only beaten by 1 very fit player. Nothing wrong with Fed here or his age it seems. There is just a guy out there who has again elevated fitness to a new level. No different than when it was Borg, Chang, Hewitt or Nadal.

Tenez wrote:Yes but the difference is that Djoko is on every ball with time to spare whereas in teh past Fed's FH was rushing him....just.

Just to be sure. Are you saying that Djokovic is simply faster than e.g. in 2011?

I believe he has improved most importantly his serve, also his consistency, but not his speed. His greatest strength has always been impeccable depth on both sides and great defense, also due to his extraordinary flexibility. He was lacking stamina before getting to know Dr. Cetojevic in 2010 who managed to fix that problem.

Federer has improved game-wise and can easily beat non-Djokovic players most of the time with that game. After all he is one of the most talented players to have played the game. 

Most notably a large number of players find it incredibly tough to return his serve. He has also improved his first strike on return (also notably in the final, unfortunately not on BPs). He got much more aggressive on that shot compared to the slice returns he used earlier to just start a point neutrally. 

These improvements + reinvented netgame alone enabled him to beat other players more easily. At the same time the improvement on the first strike shots reduced the needed physicality. He ran at least 50% less than the next best SFist (Wawrinka) at the USO! Incredible number that tells everything you need to know.

However, when he meets Djokovic he is faced with a player who will return his serve when it's not placed pitch-perfect and drag him into baseline rallies. This is where he fails now, even when his game is good enough like on sunday, the pressure to have to produce winnings shots over and over with so much on the line got to him.

6 out of the top 10 players are 30 or over!...in the race....and by year end...most likely.

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!

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+).