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

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

Apparently it proves "the game has changed" and you're now better off being over 30 than under 30. Seriously, people have attempted to argue this.

 

[JackNah_8]

Apparently it proves "the game has changed" and you're now better off being over 30 than under 30. Seriously, people have attempted to argue this.

lol more like the game style, development and training has changed

 

[Sweet Jesus]

lol more like the game style, development and training has changed

And yet Djokovic, Murray and Nadal have all had massive issues in their 30s, so maybe it doesn't actually get easier to win big tournaments at that age.

Not sure how "the game has changed" lemmings account for that.

 

[JackNah_8]

And yet Djokovic, Murray and Nadal have all had massive issues in their 30s, so maybe it doesn't actually get easier to win big tournaments at that age.

Not sure how "the game has changed" lemmings account for that.

Novak, Murray and Nadal are all injured, what else can they do? Stan is probably done.

I don't know what's happened to Next Generation. Let's forget about them lol

Though I was surprised with Coric's performance this week, he should have a good clay court season this year.

 

[JackNah_8]

Let's focus on the women's young players

Daria's coach telling her "you are 20, she's 37 make her work"

After the first set, her coach, Philippe Dehaes, came on court to remind her that she is 20 and Williams is 37, implying that she could have superior staying power in a third set.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/sports/tennis/daria-kasatkina-naomi-osaka-indian-wells.html

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Novak, Murray and Nadal are all injured, what else can they do? Stan is probably done.

It suggests it doesn't actually get easier after 30, contradicting the absurd claims made by others in this thread.

 

[JackNah_8]

It suggests it doesn't actually get easier after 30, contradicting the absurd claims made by others in this thread.

Agree.

 

[Alesana]

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?

"It has everything to do with how older tennis pros are approaching the game"
"better knowledge of fitness and nutrition"
http://www.realclearlife.com/sports/older-players-taken-ranks-pro-tennis/

"You can always play more if you want to,"
http://www.straitstimes.com/sport/t...help-older-players-improve-says-roger-federer

“A lot of guys were retiring between 29 and 32, so now it feels like most guys, you are going to retire probably between 31 and 35, it seems like."
“Prize money is only going up, so maybe that's another incentive to also keep playing. Players also staying healthy, healthier in the process, because we invest probably more into traveling with massage therapists and physios, do more rehabs. The tour provides us with better services, at the tournaments. Traveling is easier today than maybe it was still 30 years ago. We can fly more direct today.

"And all these things make it that we can play longer. And then if the best players in the world can lead the way, like Rafa, myself have, and [Andre] Agassi and others, I think that inspires the next generation to maybe try to do the same, at least.”
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...easier-players-have-longer-careers-now/69963/

"10 years ago... there were the same amount of 30-year-old players in that week’s top 50 as there are in this week’s top five."
https://www.foxsports.com/tennis/st...vak-djokovic-rafael-nadal-30-years-old-052317

Tell me again how the game hasn't changed. While you're at it, tell Roger, I mean you'd be the better judge right?

 

[The Speaker]

better health services? hohohohohohoho

 

[JackNah_8]

Health services??

 

[Bulldog Joe]

While the better use of health and nutrition might be adding to longevity, it does not explain why nobody born after 1990 has yet made a real impact.

Physical prime is generally 24 to 28 and the players in that age bracket have access to everything that is available to those that are older.

Despite the improved conditions, the over 28 player is more subject to injury caused by wear and tear. Although they may be able to manage that, this is no excuse for the lack of success for post 1990 birth players.

 

[Flameboy]

"It has everything to do with how older tennis pros are approaching the game"
"better knowledge of fitness and nutrition"
http://www.realclearlife.com/sports/older-players-taken-ranks-pro-tennis/

"You can always play more if you want to,"
http://www.straitstimes.com/sport/t...help-older-players-improve-says-roger-federer

“A lot of guys were retiring between 29 and 32, so now it feels like most guys, you are going to retire probably between 31 and 35, it seems like."
“Prize money is only going up, so maybe that's another incentive to also keep playing. Players also staying healthy, healthier in the process, because we invest probably more into traveling with massage therapists and physios, do more rehabs. The tour provides us with better services, at the tournaments. Traveling is easier today than maybe it was still 30 years ago. We can fly more direct today.

"And all these things make it that we can play longer. And then if the best players in the world can lead the way, like Rafa, myself have, and [Andre] Agassi and others, I think that inspires the next generation to maybe try to do the same, at least.”
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...easier-players-have-longer-careers-now/69963/

"10 years ago... there were the same amount of 30-year-old players in that week’s top 50 as there are in this week’s top five."
https://www.foxsports.com/tennis/st...vak-djokovic-rafael-nadal-30-years-old-052317

Tell me again how the game hasn't changed. While you're at it, tell Roger, I mean you'd be the better judge right?

Don't bother. You'd have better luck getting blood out of a stone. He's more intent on finding spelling errors than he is on actually having a proper discussion.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

"It has everything to do with how older tennis pros are approaching the game"
"better knowledge of fitness and nutrition"
http://www.realclearlife.com/sports/older-players-taken-ranks-pro-tennis/

"You can always play more if you want to,"
http://www.straitstimes.com/sport/t...help-older-players-improve-says-roger-federer

“A lot of guys were retiring between 29 and 32, so now it feels like most guys, you are going to retire probably between 31 and 35, it seems like."
“Prize money is only going up, so maybe that's another incentive to also keep playing. Players also staying healthy, healthier in the process, because we invest probably more into traveling with massage therapists and physios, do more rehabs. The tour provides us with better services, at the tournaments. Traveling is easier today than maybe it was still 30 years ago. We can fly more direct today.

"And all these things make it that we can play longer. And then if the best players in the world can lead the way, like Rafa, myself have, and [Andre] Agassi and others, I think that inspires the next generation to maybe try to do the same, at least.”
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...easier-players-have-longer-careers-now/69963/

"10 years ago... there were the same amount of 30-year-old players in that week’s top 50 as there are in this week’s top five."
https://www.foxsports.com/tennis/st...vak-djokovic-rafael-nadal-30-years-old-052317

Tell me again how the game hasn't changed. While you're at it, tell Roger, I mean you'd be the better judge right?

You think this proves something? You are merely doubling down on the same irrelevant point you made earlier.

Yes, guys are playing longer. But how does that prevent younger guys winning majors? You've currently got Dimitrov and Zverev (granted both won big titles last year) in the top five, Thiem not far behind. Goffin and Pouille are also in the top 10, with Sock just outside. Raonic got up to #3 and looked cherry ripe but then fell away. These guys should theoretically be contending, based on their rankings. So how does the continued presence of older players prevent them from winning majors? It doesn't – beyond the fact that Federer and Nadal are champions and even on the wrong side of 30 have the game and the temperament to see off the next generation.

The reality is that these young guys simply haven't been good at the big moments. Pointing out that the average age of the top 100 is higher is neither here nor there. There are younger guys in the top 10 and the top 15 – they should be contending but they haven't taken that step.

You need only look at the struggles of Murray, Djokovic and Nadal to see that it doesn't necessarily get easier after 30, yet you seem convinced that these guys have some inherent advantage as they get older. It's nonsense.

As for quoting Federer, as though this is some big smoking gun, he's obviously not going to say "the younger guys simply aren't very good and that's why I'm #1 again at 36". Surely that goes without saying.

Don't bother. You'd have better luck getting blood out of a stone. He's more intent on finding spelling errors than he is on actually having a proper discussion.

Still upset about having your terrible argument dismissed?

 

[BobbyMorri]

certainly not an issue in the women's game. They have all the same factors such as increased health science. The major difference is there have been loads of young players stepping up. Yes, the men's game has the added factors of Bo5 and not giving birth. And both Grigor, Sascha and Sock have won big tournaments(but I don't think Socks really counts) but nothing compared to what is happening in the WTA. Compare Sascha to Ostapenko, Osaka and the numerous other young players chomping at the bit to beat the older gen and it is a non-contest in mentality.

If Sascha had played Venus Williams(or the ATP version, lets say Murray), at IW in the semi, exactly the same as Dasha K had to, he would have lost.

 

[Alesana]

You think this proves something? You are merely doubling down on the same irrelevant point you made earlier.

It's very relevant, as explained earlier. For some reason you cannot comprehend this, that's on you.

Yes, guys are playing longer. But how does that prevent younger guys winning majors? You've currently got Dimitrov and Zverev (granted both won big titles last year) in the top five, Thiem not far behind. Goffin and Pouille are also in the top 10, with Sock just outside. Raonic got up to #3 and looked cherry ripe but then fell away. These guys should theoretically be contending, based on their rankings. So how does the continued presence of older players prevent them from winning majors? It doesn't – beyond the fact that Federer and Nadal are champions and even on the wrong side of 30 have the game and the temperament to see off the next generation.

Again, how you cannot comprehend that the top players playing for longer makes it harder for everyone else to win, I don't know how else to explain.

The reality is that these young guys simply haven't been good at the big moments. Pointing out that the average age of the top 100 is higher is neither here nor there. There are younger guys in the top 10 and the top 15 – they should be contending but they haven't taken that step.

Dimitrov, Thiem, Carreno-Busta, Chung, Raonic, Nishikori have all made SF/Finals of Grand Slams, that's not contending??

You need only look at the struggles of K̶o̶k̶k̶i̶n̶a̶k̶i̶s̶ Murray, N̶i̶s̶h̶i̶k̶o̶r̶i̶ Djokovic, and D̶e̶l̶ ̶P̶o̶t̶r̶o̶ Nadal to see that it doesn't necessarily get easier b̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ after 30, yet you seem convinced that these guys have some inherent advantage as they get older. It's nonsense.

Uh huh

As for quoting Federer, as though this is some big smoking gun, he's obviously not going to say "the younger guys simply aren't very good and that's why I'm #1 again at 36". Surely that goes without saying.

No, it doesn't 'go without saying' just because you can't prove your point. You can go by what has been said however which is that "There's more professional tennis players than ever. The depth is greater."
Federer: It's harder than ever for young players to reach the top, win Slams
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016...ever-young-players-reach-top-win-slams/57343/

Again if that doesn't answer your question then you have no hope.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's very relevant, as explained earlier. For some reason you cannot comprehend this, that's on you.

It's not relevant. You just cling to it because it's your only argument, even though it's erroneous.

The average age of the top 100 has no impact whatsoever on younger players in the top 10 or top 15 being able to win majors.

Again, how you cannot comprehend that the top players playing for longer makes it harder for everyone else to win, I don't know how else to explain.

You need to actually connect the dots instead of simply asserting a connection that doesn't exist.

You can point to the longevity of Federer, but the reality is he didn't win a major for four-and-a-half years. The other top guys - Murray, Nadal and Djokovic - have all had massive issues after turning 30. So how does this make it harder for Raonic or Zverev or whoever to win a major?

They simply haven't been good enough. There's no grand over-arching theory beyond that.

This argument that it's some kind of closed shop is nonsense. There was ample opportunity for Wawrinka to break through and win three majors. He is by no means a superstar. But he got his shit together and played well when it mattered, something these younger players haven't managed.

Dimitrov, Thiem, Carreno-Busta, Chung, Raonic, Nishikori have all made SF/Finals of Grand Slams, that's not contending??

Uh huh

No, not really. They haven't done it consistently and they haven't taken the next step.

If you're hanging your hat on the odd SF appearance here and there, that underlines my point more than yours.

No, it doesn't 'go without saying' just because you can't prove your point. You can go by what has been said however which is that "There's more professional tennis players than ever. The depth is greater."
Federer: It's harder than ever for young players to reach the top, win Slams
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016...ever-young-players-reach-top-win-slams/57343/

Again if that doesn't answer your question then you have no hope.

You haven't made any reasonable case at all. Stop pretending you have. And simply linking to more articles from two years ago doesn't do it.

Again, Federer is unlikely to say publicly that all the players under 28 simply haven't been good enough. Of course he's going to be diplomatic.

 

[Flameboy]

You think this proves something? You are merely doubling down on the same irrelevant point you made earlier.

Yes, guys are playing longer. But how does that prevent younger guys winning majors? You've currently got Dimitrov and Zverev (granted both won big titles last year) in the top five, Thiem not far behind. Goffin and Pouille are also in the top 10, with Sock just outside. Raonic got up to #3 and looked cherry ripe but then fell away. These guys should theoretically be contending, based on their rankings. So how does the continued presence of older players prevent them from winning majors? It doesn't – beyond the fact that Federer and Nadal are champions and even on the wrong side of 30 have the game and the temperament to see off the next generation.

The reality is that these young guys simply haven't been good at the big moments. Pointing out that the average age of the top 100 is higher is neither here nor there. There are younger guys in the top 10 and the top 15 – they should be contending but they haven't taken that step.

You need only look at the struggles of Murray, Djokovic and Nadal to see that it doesn't necessarily get easier after 30, yet you seem convinced that these guys have some inherent advantage as they get older. It's nonsense.

As for quoting Federer, as though this is some big smoking gun, he's obviously not going to say "the younger guys simply aren't very good and that's why I'm #1 again at 36". Surely that goes without saying.

Still upset about having your terrible argument dismissed?

Why did you edit your post 16 minutes later?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Why did you edit your post 16 minutes later?

To reorder some of the phrases.

Is that a problem?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So surely someone is going to break through in Miami.

Federer lost already. No Nadal, no Djokovic, no Murray.

This is a golden opportunity.

 

[JackNah_8]

So surely someone is going to break through in Miami.

Federer lost already. No Nadal, no Djokovic, no Murray.

This is a golden opportunity.

Perfect opportunity. Are the younger ones slowly going to take over now?

Someone new will win Miami. Or, maybe it will be del Potro again.

 

[Flameboy]

To reorder some of the phrases.

Is that a problem?

16 minutes later? Someone's obsessed.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

16 minutes later? Someone's obsessed.

Obsessed with what? Clarity of expression? Sure. If you like.

Is this seriously the best you can do? Questioning why I'd edit a post?

That's pretty weak sauce.

 

[Flameboy]

Obsessed with what? Clarity of expression? Sure. If you like.

Is this seriously the best you can do? Questioning why I'd edit a post?

That's pretty weak sauce.

Best I can do with what? I was asking you a question? Why are you returning my question with a question?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Best I can do with what? I was asking you a question? Why are you returning my question with a question?

And I've answered your question, while also pointing out it's a bizarre tangent that suggests you've run out of valid points to make.

Try again.

 

[JackNah_8]

John Isner our new champion!