The Ageing Tennis Player

First topic message reminder :

I made some points concerning age breakdown across the years on another thread. Here they are on a separate thread. Might attract no attention, mig start some interesting comments but hey, dont say I dont contribute anything! Here goes...

25 years ago, the oldest man in the Australian Open draw was Johan Kriek, about two months short of his 31st birthday when the tournament began.  This year, 24 men in the main draw are older. A total of 34 men in the singles draw were over 30 years old. Tied with the all-time record, set in 2012. We have a record for average age in the men’s draw.  That figure this year is 27 years and 137 days, 91 days more than the previous record, set last year. The new record also marks the seventh consecutive year that the average age of the men’s singles draw has increased. The tour is aging, and quickly. Lets look further.

1984-2014 analysis

Players under 23 in top 100
2014: 5%
2004: 25%
1994: 22%
1984: 40%

Players under 21 in top 200
2014: 2%
2004: 11%
1994: 9%
1984: 17%

Players under 20 in top 200
2014: 1% (2 players)
2004: 6% (12 players)
1994: 3% (6 players)
1984: 9% (18 players)

Players over 30 in top 100
2014: 34%
2004: 15%
1994: 9%
1984: 15%

Players over 32 in top 100
2014: 16%
2004: 4%
1994: 3%
1984: 6%

Players over 30 in top 50
2014: 36%
2004: 5%
1994: 0%
1984: 18%

Players over 32 in top 50
2014: 16%
2004: 2%
1994: 0%
1984: 8%

Players over 28 in top 30
2014: 55%
2004: 23%
1994: 7%
1984: 23%

2014 analysis

Top 30
> 28: 56% (16 guys)
> 30: 30% (9 guys)
> 32: 13% (4 guys)

Top 50
> 28: 50%
> 30: 36%
> 32: 16%

Top 100
> 28: 50%
> 30: 31%
> 32: 15%

So, 15 players >32 in top 100
31 players >30 in top 100
50 players >28 in top 100
5 players <23 in top 100
1 players <21 in top 100
0 players <20 in top 100
....so, 44 players between 24-27 in top 100
....i.e. more players >28 than <28 in top 100 (56 vs 44%)

From juniors to <23 we 'gain' 5 players.
From >28 to 31 we 'lose' 35 players.

Seems we're not replacing the older guys anywhere quick enough...therefore, will the 24-30 window bunch even further? Then what will happen...is the number of >32s going to shoot up if no young blood is coming in, or will a load of players suddenly disappear and the gap gets filled by dross?


Bogbrush reply:

bogbrush wrote:I went for a lot of this Lydian but the continued failure of anyone to break through makes me suspect a deeper malaise.

The pattern of the past is young players come in and displace the older, often not because of age but because the game changes and the older guy has to change on the run while the younger guy enters on that basis. Federer has had to go through two great changes; growing up as a guy with serve volley in the fore (the famous win over Sampras looks from decades ago in style), through the baseline fast game, and into the slower conditions baseline game we have now.

The problem I see is that the game has stopped where it is, medical techniques (some borderline in my mind, but that's not illegal) extend playing careers and the result is no turnover. There's none, and it's not as if anyone under 24 is going to change that.

There's simply no change happening, no evolution.

Good comments BB, yes tennis seems to have stopped...borne out by the stats of only 5 players under 23 in top100. It's a huge concern for the future of tennis and I'm amazed the ATP haven't woken up yet...these over 28s won't be around forever. What's the solution...?

Summerblues reply:

summerblues wrote:Let me throw in an idea for a possible reason for aging - to see what others think:

How about increased money in the game?  Currently, #100 player probably makes good enough money to make it worth sticking around even if they are getting older and even if they know they will never really make it big.  Maybe in the past, the money was not there, so guys were more likely to bail out younger looking for other things to do with their lives?

I have not given this much thought myself, and I doubt it would explain all of the aging, but what do you think, could that also be a reason?

There is some truth there SB if you look at >30s in top 100 vs top 200. There are 31 over30s from 0-100, but only 17 from 101-200. Why? Probably because you don't make so much money from 101-200 rank so many bail out.

I'll add more stuff later too based on the >28 age group in top 30 having changed the most over the years. Any (reasonable) requests for data, let me know...!

socal1976 wrote:This is easily explainable actually.

Most things are easily explainable.  It is harder to explain correctly

socal1976 wrote:
1. Advancements in medicine
3. Improved fitness and cross training

I am extremely skeptical of these two reasons.  Over the years, I have seen many cases across many sports where average age either declined or increased.  It seems that whenever the average age goes down, the explanation becomes "the sport has become far more competitive and demanding, it is impossible to last as long as in the past" while when the age goes up, we hear something similar "the athletes are far more professional and training better, so they can last longer".  I very much have a feeling that these explanations are provided without good understanding of the true dynamics - they just sound vaguely plausible.

Also, one does not necessarily see the same thing happening in other sports where training and fitness also improved dramatically.  I was just reading that Seahawks are the second youngest team in the Super Bowl history.

The following link claims that the average age of NBA players barely changed since 1951 - it went from 26.2 to 26.6 in over 60 years.  It has been fluctuating somewhat randomly, but - if anything - it has been dropping the last 20 years or so:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

This second link claims that the average age of baseball players in MLB has also dropped over the last 20 years, with a hump where it reached a max about 10 years ago and been dropping quite steadily since then:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/1/25/3896270/why-is-the-mlb-getting-younger

Intriguingly, the article suggests as a reason for the drop a crackdown on steroid use, suggesting that maybe doping was behind increased age durability in the past.

lydian wrote:Sorry Silver I typed a fair lengthy response but then the website domain had expired....pi55ed me right off!

Yeah, that was weird, never seen that happen before.

Is that last sentence why you thought of a higher doping prevalence in the sport SB?

LuvSports! wrote:Is that last sentence why you thought of a higher doping prevalence in the sport SB?

You mean why did I guesstimate 50%+?  No, I had not seen that MLB article until after I gave my guesstimate - I just found it now by accident while trying to google some data on how average age has changed in sports over time.  I guess I am just generally more cynical/skeptical than most - about sports, as well as human nature in general perhaps.

In fairness, that MLB article is also just making a bold guess - it does not claim to know for sure there is a link between age and doping in MLB.

As a poster on OTF of course I am cynical/skeptical as well as an angry, fanatical, nadal hatah

LuvSports! wrote:As a poster on OTF of course I am cynical/skeptical as well as an angry, fanatical, nadal hatah

I am sure you are () but perhaps let's not get into personal poster-vs-poster innuendo.

Nore Staat wrote:It seems to me that tennis is under-represented in certain parts of the globe.  For example why is there hardly any Asian men in the top 100 (are there any apart from Japan?).  They seem to be over-represented in other racquet sports (badminton, squash).

IMO, one factor is available playing area/space. Squash and Badminton require less playing space than Tennis. Badminton is relatively cheaper than Tennis.

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:This is easily explainable actually.

Most things are easily explainable.  It is harder to explain correctly

socal1976 wrote:
1. Advancements in medicine
3. Improved fitness and cross training

I am extremely skeptical of these two reasons.  Over the years, I have seen many cases across many sports where average age either declined or increased.  It seems that whenever the average age goes down, the explanation becomes "the sport has become far more competitive and demanding, it is impossible to last as long as in the past" while when the age goes up, we hear something similar "the athletes are far more professional and training better, so they can last longer".  I very much have a feeling that these explanations are provided without good understanding of the true dynamics - they just sound vaguely plausible.

Also, one does not necessarily see the same thing happening in other sports where training and fitness also improved dramatically.  I was just reading that Seahawks are the second youngest team in the Super Bowl history.

The following link claims that the average age of NBA players barely changed since 1951 - it went from 26.2 to 26.6 in over 60 years.  It has been fluctuating somewhat randomly, but - if anything - it has been dropping the last 20 years or so:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

This second link claims that the average age of baseball players in MLB has also dropped over the last 20 years, with a hump where it reached a max about 10 years ago and been dropping quite steadily since then:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/1/25/3896270/why-is-the-mlb-getting-younger

Intriguingly, the article suggests as a reason for the drop a crackdown on steroid use, suggesting that maybe doping was behind increased age durability in the past.

There is a difference NFL football is a vicious contact sport and probably the dirtiest sport when it comes to doping, cycling included in all the world. Romanowski is a guy who blew the lid after he was caught. Basketball is a power sport in that it favors the quickest and those that still have the hops, tennis is more of technical sport like a physical version of golf. In tennis I think we are seeing trends that are in part as a result of the changing nature of the game, technology, money, and better preventive techniques. I could be wrong it could be because there is no young talent out there and we are due for a lengthy transitional era like the early to mid 2000s. It remains to be seen.

For me it is a physical thing.

Tennis and court conditions have changed over the last ten years. Courts have slowed and with the likes of Nadal and Djokovic and latterly Murray stretching the physical boundaries a new type of physical specimen is needed to compete in tennis.

Obviously, talent is still important but now physicality is an increased necessity. To reach a physical peak it takes a few years of hard graft to reach a level necessary to compete at the top in tennis. In the current climate I do not think it is possible to have a teenage slam sensation unless they have been building physically from an improbable and probably impossible age such as 13 or 14. I suggest that to reach a decent physical level able to be fairly consistent at getting results to earn enough ranking points to break into the top 100 that is now not coming until a later age - say early 20's. The higher they climb will also depend on natural talent coupled with a very good physicality level.

If court conditions speed up then I feel the physicality becomes less important and so the average age will drop once more.

Just my thoughts on it.

Top analysis lydian.

Just highlights the global trend in the lack of top young talent in the game and has been endemic for years.

I just hope someone is able to come along and shake the foundations of the game to get me interested again

Cheers LK, good to see you posting as always.

Cheers lydian. Tennis has been a bit meh for me hence my lack of activity on here.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Obviously, talent is still important but now physicality is an increased necessity. To reach a physical peak it takes a few years of hard graft to reach a level necessary to compete at the top in tennis. In the current climate I do not think it is possible to have a teenage slam sensation unless they have been building physically from an improbable and probably impossible age such as 13 or 14. I suggest that to reach a decent physical level able to be fairly consistent at getting results to earn enough ranking points to break into the top 100 that is now not coming until a later age - say early 20's. The higher they climb will also depend on natural talent coupled with a very good physicality level.

Are you saying Chang, Nadal, Becker, McEnroe, et al., had the benefit of not needing the levels of physicality that are currently needed? If so, it lends even more credence that the ingredients of Tennis success now have more physicality mixed in, then in the past. Is "talent" being diluted then?

Laver has noted many a time about the current game being much more physical compared to his time, as has Lacoste.

Great article Lydian

The reason could be quite simple. The players that grew up (as youngsters) on the quicker surfaces benefited greatly and hence the game is relatively 'easy' for them to have sustained careers

But in order to do this, they had to have very good games to adapt, i.e. most of the Top 10

A new player is at a disadvantage, because there is no 'shock and awe' they can bring that hasn't been seen before. Even if the courts were speeded up - all the instinctive players would adapt accordingly. So they now have to work harder than ever before to get into the Top 50

It's no bad thing and not certain why people despair

lydian wrote:Sorry Silver I typed a fair lengthy response but then the website domain had expired....pi55ed me right off!

Harsh! Always infuriating when that sort of thing happens.

In the meantime, I'm going to assume that you're Roger Draper (though that does you a huge disservice, so perhaps not...)

laverfan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Obviously, talent is still important but now physicality is an increased necessity. To reach a physical peak it takes a few years of hard graft to reach a level necessary to compete at the top in tennis. In the current climate I do not think it is possible to have a teenage slam sensation unless they have been building physically from an improbable and probably impossible age such as 13 or 14. I suggest that to reach a decent physical level able to be fairly consistent at getting results to earn enough ranking points to break into the top 100 that is now not coming until a later age - say early 20's. The higher they climb will also depend on natural talent coupled with a very good physicality level.

Are you saying Chang, Nadal, Becker, McEnroe, et al., had the benefit of not needing the levels of physicality that are currently needed? If so, it lends even more credence that the ingredients of Tennis success now have more physicality mixed in, then in the past. Is "talent" being diluted then?

Laver has noted many a time about the current game being much more physical compared to his time, as has Lacoste.

Well it is clear I would say. The court conditions are so slow that rallies are elongated so obviously more stamina is needed to stay competitive in rallies and more muscle and strength needed to hit the balls with more power to try to force winners off of slow surfaces. Of course those at the top of the sport still need great talent as has always been the case but physically the game has changed immeasurably (in my opinion) in the last ten years.

Oh sorry Silver, I didn't retype did I....haha Roger Draper...lol. Nooooo....

I go around a lot of the UK performance centres, speak with loads of performance centre Head coaches, national level players, parents, S&C coaches, fitness specialists, Regional talent ID coordinators and tournament organisers. I'm down at the nearest performance centre around 4 days a week. My son competes around the country so we come into contact with loads of people too. No-one I ever speak to feels PEDs are an issue in UK sport...or even where you could get them but then I'm more at the junior level. Still, I don't know how drug taking could be systematic. If it happens it must be at pro level...and done in secret. There isn't enough testing done, nor by an independent body, but I don't actually believe drug taking is a huge problem. Tennis as you know is primarily an athletic pursuit, like gymnastics, you can't make someone quicker, have better hand-eye coordination or hit nearer the lines. What separates Nadal and Djokovic from the guys around 100-150 ranking isn't fitness. It's raw ability.

Yes CC, conditions are slower...it takes longer for guys to build the strength needed to compete on tour...years of conditioning that can't be shortcut!

lydian wrote:

Yes CC, conditions are slower...it takes longer for guys to build the strength needed to compete on tour...years of conditioning that can't be shortcut!

Exactly my point. Now unless you earmark a talent as an impossible age ie 13 or 14 then immediately get him to start working on a massive fitness programme to build stamina, muscles and strength straight away so that age of 17 he is toned and ready I cannot see another 17-year-old winner of a slam (a la Becker) until court conditions change.

Even then it takes years CC.

My son who is younger than 13/14 does around 2-3hrs a week on S&C work (strength and conditioning) in addition to his 6-8 hrs tennis training. The problem is that young bodies are still growing and don't build muscle like adults. You need to mature first before muscle can be seriously developed...usually after 18yo. To get a strong young lad is rare....e.g. Becker, Agassi, Hewitt, Nadal...all stocky builds with natural high muscle density.
Also, national tennis programmes are discouraging too much exercise and S&C too early...even stopping young juniors from competing too much to prevent burn out because so many kids walk away from tennis between 11-14 yo as the demands start to get silly. I think this current trend will also mean more players become promising juniors at 17-18 but are even further away than yesteryear players at being anywhere near pro tour strength and fitness....but their careers will last much longer as much fewer miles on the clock when starting their pro career.

Players who grew up on fast courts, still managed to play decently on slow courts in the 1960-80s window. Borg, Lendl pushed the physical aspects, which the next generation had to follow to be able to compete.

Laver, Pancho, Rosewall all the way to Connors had fewer injuries, and longer careers, compared to what some of the current athletes can dream of.

There are many studies like the following...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111966837
http://blog.smu.edu/research/2013/10/14/kera-nova-smu-researcher-peter-weyand-discusses-the-upper-limits-of-human-speed/

The speed of explosive movement was much less back then LF...that's what really ages the body. They played 4-5hr matches but they just weren't the same as a modern 4-5hr match...each shot used less rpm (energy) and stroke speed for a start.

Thanks for typing all that up again, lydian. Have to say that I agree with you regarding the top players; the absolute cream are freakish in many ways. Interesting comments on the state of PEDs in UK sport, reflects much of what I've heard locally but you do worry at the pro level.

I didn't realise you'd travelled so much...I don't suppose you've ever been to Gosling Park, in Welwyn Garden City? Or Hills Road PC in Cambridge?

Gosling! I was going to do a coaching course there and we went to there for games at school.

Good stats, article and discussion. I think it's part coincidental lack of young talent, part physical game making it harder for youngsters to break through. Risk of weak era on the horizon.

Right about no-one pushing on. In February 2011, I did an article called "Generations" stating "The 2001 Wimbledon signalled the end of one generation and the beginning of a newer one, did we see something similar at the Australian Open?". I added "The Australian Open was clearly notable for some good results from younger players. Dolgopolov reached the quarter final after beating Tsonga and Soderling. Raonic reached R4 with an impressive R3 win against Youzhny. Tomic had impressive straight sets wins against Chardy and Lopez before coming up against Nadal in R3. Berankis and Haase also reached R3."

I added the tentative comment "other young players may be stepping forward" a comment no less prophetic than my brilliant, more recent article on the inevitability of Nadal's win over Warwinka and how many records it would lead him to. Since then - nothing from this new generation and seems too late for most of them in terms of slam winning and top 5 potential. At the moment, you can see Djokovic, Nadal and Murray being in the top 5-10 at the age of 33-34 IF they stay fit and want it enough. I can only assume that players to knock them off are not in the top 100 yet. Perhaps we will end up with some 18 year old vs 32 year old slam finals in a few years, such is the lack of great players currently in the 20-25 year old range.

I would add that, while the 27 year old Djokovic/Murray/Nadal did improve slightly vs their 22 year old versions, said 22 year old versions were far superior to current best 22 year olds.

Yes Silver was @ Hills Rd a few months back for a tournie, they hold a lot of Grade 2s there. Nice place & great artificial clay courts. Some younger guy running the event. Think I spoke with an older lady from there when she was up at Bolton HPC for County Cup with U16/18 girls one time ...errr...Su Rich? Not been to Welwyn Garden C.

LS: Small world, I did the same when I was at school have been a fair few times since for coaching-related activity, would recommend it!

lydian: Quite likely I was at the tourney at some stage, I do most of my coaching at Hills Rd. Yeah that's Sue, she ran national coaching for East Anglia for a few years. Great setup they have there, glad it made a good impression on you. Time to stop derailing the thread, anyway - apologies

You never know, we may have even met, lol. Bizarre world hey.
Might be down again before years over again. I'll let you know if I am

lydian wrote:You never know, we may have even met, lol. Bizarre world hey.
Might be down again before years over again. I'll let you know if I am

Strange to see real and internet worlds so far apart, yet so close. PM email addresses and perhaps LTA can be improved.

Lol...if only that could be the case, the LTAs cogs turn far and wide.
We should probably organise a 606 meet up some point down the years...how weird would that be!

Stan at 28 has to be one of the oldest players to win his first slam that supports what we are seeing of players in this era playing some of their best tennis in their late 20s. Late 20s was over the hill up until the last 8 or 10 years.

Interesting stuff

My opinion is that there are elements of truth in most of the bits of reasoning put forward (I'm not convinced PEDs play a big part in the success of most of the top players, although would not be entirely surprised to learn of exceptions to this). I think in order of importance, it's:

1 - Playing conditions have moved towards emphasis on endurance and technical solidity rather than explosiveness and reflex play. Tends to favour older players, but then Rafa was already competetive on clay at 17, so that doesn't account for everything.

2 - Something of a 'golden generation' born in 85-87. Have won every slam since Roger's Wimbledon 2012, and only one younger player (Del Potro) has won a slam - not many MS1000 titles won by anyone younger either... Currently 7 of the top 10 and 11 of the top 20 are in this age range. The top 10 has 2 players older and only one younger than this. Given that the normal age spread of the top 100 is about 12 to 15 years (late teens to early 30s), this is a remarkable cluster.

3 - There being something of a dearth of really good players coming through. If there was a 20 year old with the ability of even Andy Murray at the same age, he'd be in or around the top 10 by now, even allowing for playing conditions.

4 - Probably quite minor, but the ability to rebuild players after injury has probably extended the careers of a handful of guys in the top 100 - Tommy Haas would be one example of that. Don't think it's a huge effect, but it adds to everything else.

lydian wrote:We should probably organise a 606 meet up some point down the years...how weird would that be!

Some 606ers in my minds eye:

Lydian


BB


kingraf


JHM


Socal

 

OOO please do a thread on this for each of us!

Problem is, LS, I know what you actually look like! I've read your blog.

If you had not added that last bit I probably would have been quite nervous!

Ok well ignore that and do what ya did for them for my pic

I don't think it's just a tennis thing.  We analyse sporting success and the reasons for it in far more detail than we used to in recent living memory and I think that this is because true professionalism in all sport has only been around since (give or take) the 1960's.  Since then there have been huge advances in every sort of sports science driven by the fact that the wealth of the Western world meant that there was a whole lot more leisure time for following sport coupled with the ever increasing impact of televising sport - in particular the ability to bring sport and its sponsors straight into huge numbers of peoples' homes.  This gives rise to a number of effects and I'd highlight two of them: (a) the very specific matter of particular pioneers whose methods are seen as successful and adopted widely because they are widely disseminated in an information age - Lendl is the obvious one in men's tennis but not the only one; (b) the more general matter of when there is more money being invested in any endeavour people leave far less to chance.  Those that can get a foot on the ladder have a much greater focus on the reasons for their success and how that can be built upon, and are doing more than ever to ensure that they create and preserve the conditions under which they succeed.  Mere effort alone does not cut it (nobody thinks it's clever to run until you puke wearing Dunlop Green Flash any more), focus on doing the right thing is just as important.
 
It stands to reason that if you are aged 30 or over and have been operating in this mindset for the last 6-10 years you have reduced the disadvantages of age but gained a lot of advantages over someone who is young and inexperienced and only just gaining the physical and mental maturity and focus (as well as resources) to take proper advantage of this sort of thinking.
 
I'd be very interested to see what the comparable statistics are for footballers, it may be just because they are big names, but I have a perception that many more players well into their 30's are commanding high salaries, and that high transfer fees are being paid more and more for players in their late 20's than used to be the case.
 
I don't think it's a crisis for tennis more than it's a crisis for any sport.  I think it's a product of professionalism and market forces and they'll take us in whichever direction they go.   One major big development which may occur for sport in general is cynicism resulting in less income from advertising and TV rights - this may come from a serious drugs expose, or perhaps general unhappiness at how increasingly cumbersome and ridiculously expensive to stage large sporting events such as the Olympics and the World Cup have become, and how powerful, corrupt, and apparently untouchable the bodies that run them are.

Good post barry I too would like to know if footballers are playing longer, it certainly seems that way. And I don't believe that there is a crisis in tennis I think we may just be seeing the prime shift backwards a couple of years that would hardly be a disaster. I think the combination of market forces and increased professionalism plays a big role.