Edited: No player currently 30 or younger has won a major

[Alesana]

Nah the game has "shifted". It's all about 36-year-olds now. Ask Alesana.

And the average age of the top 100 continues to climb, now 28 years 7 months. Kind of supports what I've been saying, doesn't it? And the opposite to what you're saying, which is what - "no one's taken the next step", the elusive 'next step'. You chase your own tale, yet wonder why you can't catch it

 

[Sweet Jesus]

And the average age of the top 100 continues to climb, now 28 years 7 months.

What's that got to do with the guys winning the major titles?

Kind of supports what I've been saying, doesn't it?

Not unless you think being 36 provides some kind of inherent advantage at grand slams. Is that your argument?

And the opposite to what you're saying, which is what - "no one's taken the next step", the elusive 'next step'.

Yeah, pretty much. How is that wrong?

Zverev and Dimitrov both won big titles last year so that's something. But en route to winning the Australian Open, the biggest obstacles faced by Federer were Berdych (32) and Cilic (29). Then he ran into Dimitrov in the final at Rotterdam a few weeks back and wiped the floor with him. It's an indictment on the younger generation. They don't actually appear to be getting much closer when it counts.

I'd say they've failed to take the next step. Do you disagree? How would you characterise that failure?

The game has changed and now you're better off being 36 than 26? I don't think so.

You chase your own tale, yet wonder why you can't catch it

Not really. Even in your attempt to make my claims sound ridiculous, you actually describe a situation that has been pretty much borne out by events. Guys in their mid-20s haven't taken the next step. And you've got a 36-year-old who's back to #1, having won three of the past five grand slams.

And your explanation for this is that "the game has changed"? If so, that's farcical.

Do you think a 36-year-old now has more advantages physically than a 26-year-old?

Tell Djokovic and Murray how much easier it gets to stay on court once you hit 30.

 

[Alesana]

What's that got to do with the guys winning the major titles?

If you don't understand the correlation between the age of this population and the likelihood of winning a slam then there is no point going any further. You think that because this guy won a slam at this age the next guy should too. This like arguing that God doesn't exist, you can't disprove something that isn't there (your perceived failure of the next wave of players)

 

[Flameboy]

Guys in their mid 20's haven't taken the next step coming up against the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Gee, what a shock. What the **** do you expect?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If you don't understand the correlation between the age of this population and the likelihood of winning a slam then there is no point going any further.

That's a cop out. That's just something you say because you can't make your point stick.

The average age of the top 100 doesn't explain why the best players under 29 have struggled to break through. There's no connection between those two pieces of information. The average age of the top 100 has nothing to do with how Dimitrov or Thiem or Zverev performs when it counts.

The average age of the top 100 doesn't explain Federer winning three of the past five majors and getting back to #1 aged 36. There's no connection.

You want to claim that it's some smoking gun that explains everything. But it doesn't. It's irrelevant.

You think that because this guy won a slam at this age the next guy should too.

I think that when you have no player under the age of 29 having won a grand slam and Federer again the dominant figure in th sport, that indicates that younger players haven't taken the next step. That seems to me an utterly uncontroversial observation.

You, however, insist on tying yourself in knots to suggest this is merely a symptom of how the whole sport has changed, conferring some mystical advantage on older players. It's ridiculous.

Do you think players are better off being 36 or 26?

How much easier are Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka finding it now they're 30+? They should be on easy street at that age, according to you. Instead, they can barely get on court because their bodies are packing it in. In short, your explanation is bullshit. And it doesn't stand up to more than 30 seconds of examination.

This like arguing that God doesn't exist, you can't disprove something that isn't there (your perceived failure of the next wave of players)

What are you talking about?

Pointing out that the younger generation of players haven't taken the next step (which is self-evidently true) is like arguing God doesn't exist?

This is totally incoherent. Try again.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Guys in their mid 20's haven't taken the next step coming up against the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Gee, what a shock. What the **** do you expect?

Wawrinka has won three majors. Is he a superstar as well?

 

[Flameboy]

Wawrinka has won three majors. Is he a superstar as well?

In what context?
Compared to you and I? Absolutely.
Compared to Federer and Nadal? Not even close.

Why are you asking?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

In what context?

In the context of professional men's tennis.

What other context is there?

Why are you asking?

Because you suggested younger players hadn't taken the next step because the established stars are simply too strong. But Wawrinka winning three majors undermines that. It proves there have indeed been opportunities for players on the tier below Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[Roobs321]

Wawrinka is a lot older than Djokovic and Murray, even Nadal.

Stan has (on and off) been a quality player for over a decade now as well. Hell, he won his first title against Djokovic in 2006. More of a "little four" type than relevant to the 90s born players, who happened to get it together and peak later in his career. Even so, he still routinely has early exits, hardly the implacable dominance of the big 4.

 

[Flameboy]

In the context of professional men's tennis.

What other context is there?

Because you suggested younger players hadn't taken the next step because the established stars are simply too strong. But Wawrinka winning three majors undermines that. It proves there have indeed been opportunities for players on the tier below Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

What the **** are you on about?
Wawrinka is about to turn 33.

Of course there have been opportunities but they have been few and far between. You know that. Everyone knows that.

Wawrinka managing to win 3 slams is a brilliant effort in this era, but he’s not young. He doesn’t undermine anything.

 

[Alesana]

That's a cop out. That's just something you say because you can't make your point stick.

The average age of the top 100 doesn't explain why the best players under 29 have struggled to break through. There's no connection between those two pieces of information. The average age of the top 100 has nothing to do with how Dimitrov or Thiem or Zverev performs when it counts.

The average age of the top 100 doesn't explain Federer winning three of the past five majors and getting back to #1 aged 36. There's no connection.

You want to claim that it's some smoking gun that explains everything. But it doesn't. It's irrelevant.

I think that when you have no player under the age of 29 having won a grand slam and Federer again the dominant figure in th sport, that indicates that younger players haven't taken the next step. That seems to me an utterly uncontroversial observation.

You, however, insist on tying yourself in knots to suggest this is merely a symptom of how the whole sport has changed, conferring some mystical advantage on older players. It's ridiculous.

Do you think players are better off being 36 or 26?

How much easier are Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka finding it now they're 30+? They should be on easy street at that age, according to you. Instead, they can barely get on court because their bodies are packing it in. In short, your explanation is bullshit. And it doesn't stand up to more than 30 seconds of examination.

What are you talking about?

Pointing out that the younger generation of players haven't taken the next step (which is self-evidently true) is like arguing God doesn't exist?

This is totally incoherent. Try again.

The average age is used as measuring stick to determine the likelihood of success - i.e it is rarer to see a player at the bottom end of the age bracket have success than someone at the older end due to the lack of experience and seasoning. It is a fact, that it is taking longer to reach the top 100 and that players in the top 100 are playing for longer than they used to. This is a fact, how you still don't see how that makes it harder for a younger player to have success absolutely bemuses me. Had all previous grand slam champions played for a few more seasons you probably would've seen the same thing happen back then with the younger players at the time. You say Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka can barely get on the court because they're 30+, well why isn't Federer injured then? He's even older so he should be injured too right, that's your argument - and it's ****ing stupid. Are you going to tell me AFL hasn't changed in the last 20 years too?

 

[The Speaker]

it is quite amusing to see people from opposite sides of an argument passive aggressively argue their point while trying to avoid discussing the actual topic they're getting at

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What the **** are you on about?
Wawrinka is about to turn 33.

Of course there have been opportunities but they have been few and far between. You know that. Everyone knows that.

Wawrinka managing to win 3 slams is a brilliant effort in this era, but he’s not young. He doesn’t undermine anything.

Can you string a coherent sentence together?

Wawrinka won three majors. He's no superstar. His example demonstrates that there were majors there to be won.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

it is quite amusing to see people from opposite sides of an argument passive aggressively argue their point while trying to avoid discussing the actual topic they're getting at

I get my kicks out of people who can't use proper syntax.

I'd also question your use of the phrase "passive aggressively". There's nothing "passive aggressive" about my position.

 

[The Speaker]

I get my kicks out of people who can't use punctuation.

i pretty clearly used an apostrophe correctly

 

[Sweet Jesus]

i pretty clearly used an apostrophe correctly

Did I hit a nerve?

 

[The Speaker]

Did I hit a nerve?

not even remotely

did i?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The average age is used as measuring stick to determine the likelihood of success - i.e it is rarer to see a player at the bottom end of the age bracket have success than someone at the older end due to the lack of experience and seasoning.

And it's complete bullshit.

The average age of the top 100 has nothing to do with whether a 26-year-old at the top end wins the Australian Open.

This is a fact, how you still don't see how that makes it harder for a younger player to have success absolutely bemuses me.

See above.

You present a statistical data point. But it's irrelevant.

The average age of the top 100 has no effect whatsoever on the prospects of a younger player at a grand slam.

If the guys ranked 80-100 were all 20 years old, thereby lowering the average age, would that make it easier for Dimitrov to beat Federer? How?

Had all previous grand slam champions played for a few more seasons you probably would've seen the same thing happen back then with the younger players at the time. You say Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka can barely get on the court because they're 30+, well why isn't Federer injured then? He's even older so he should be injured too right, that's your argument - and it's ******* stupid. Are you going to tell me AFL hasn't changed in the last 20 years too?

This isn't coherent.

Honestly, read it again. You can't connect the dots.

My argument is that it's not inherently easier to win tournaments at 30+. That's a bullshit line trotted out by the likes of you to explain the lack of achievement by younger players.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

not even remotely

did i?

Not in my wheelhouse.

 

[The Speaker]

Not in my wheelhouse.

ok

 

[Flameboy]

I get my kicks out of people who can't use proper syntax.

This sums it up. Sits at home laughing at grammar errors and what not... mustn't have much going on in your life to be doing that.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This sums it up. Sits at home laughing at grammar errors and what not... mustn't have much going on in your life to be doing that.

As opposed to sitting somewhere else?

You made a shitty argument. Suck it up.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The next generation again reminding everyone of their promise at Indian Wells. Federer (36) v Del Potro (29) in the final.

Hats off to the youngster Del Potro for making it this far. The benefits of being 30+ haven't even kicked in yet. Right, Alesana?

 

[JackNah_8]

Coric came so close, he had a couple of opportunities in the second and third set.

Also, well done to Daria K and Osaka for making the IW finals! WTA tour is more interesting, at the moment.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Clearly there is a failure by the younger players to step up and push the older players aside in the rankings.

The fact that the average age of the top 100 is increasing is in itself a statement on the lack of achievement of the younger players.