RE: “You can’t repeat the past†– but you can come very close to it
johnsteinbeck said:
cali, two little issues i got with your argumentation here (can't believe i'm doing this):
1) you mention the constant beating of knees, hips and joints (and i would assume that you don't decline that the same goes for areas like the back), but recognize possible limitations only when they amount to "injury" (whatever the definition of that may be). do you deny that the constant wear and tear can, even when it does not acutely reach a point where the player has to stop playing altogether, limit an aging player's abilities, and that this gets more likely over the years?
My point strictly has to do with physical potential, i.e. what one is capable of based on the realities of the human body.
johnsteinbeck said:
2) it's interesting that you point to the peak at somewhere between 25 and 28, but then assume a perfect plateau until 32, which can only drop off "once you hit 33". aside from the fact that you can't determine a complex biological mechanery in such narrow manners - if a player can have his peak as early as 25 (three years before others in your example), how would you rule out that his decline begins earlier than your fabled 33?
The physical prime is the RANGE of 25 to 28, and a plateau occurs from 29 to 32.
As for your other question, it is all a matter of physical potential. Whether an individual tennis player falls off rankings-wise at age 29 or 31 is irrelevant. The question here is simply a matter of what one is physically capable of.
Roger Federer did not win 90 matches in 2011 like he did in 2006. But he was still capable of playing in 2011 the way he did in 2006. He was able to be as quick and as physically effective. That is why he beat Djokovic in the French Open semis in that classic match and had two match points against him in the US Open semis. That is also why Federer played his best match ever against Nadal at the French Open at age 29.
johnsteinbeck said:
of course, you talk abuot general athletic development (pointing to your personal research and a non-named expert rather than facts that the rest of us could check)
No, I could certainly give you plenty of information and studies that you could check for yourself, if you're interested in something that detailed. This isn't one or two people's opinions. LOL. I assure you of that.
johnsteinbeck said:
but not tennis-specific numbers. what's true for javeling or marathoners must not automatically be true for gymnasts or downhill skiers, right? each sport (and to a degree, each player) has specific conditions, requirements, stresses and strains.
Sure, but the human body is the human body. What it's capable of doesn't change based on the sport being played.
Basketball is a very demanding sport on the knees and joints. Michael Jordan won 6 NBA championships, and his first title didn't come until he was 28. It's funny how people talk about LeBron James being in his prime right now, at age 28, but when Federer was 28, people had been talking about him being old for three years already.
I remember John McEnroe's hilariously stupid remark in 2008 at Roland Garros that "this was Federer's last realistic chance to win the French". Yeah, sure John. That's why he played his best match against Nadal at the French three years after that.
johnsteinbeck said:
now, we've seen tons and tons of numbers, as well as visual evidence, that in modern tennis, top athletes have their greatest success before the age of thirty.
El Dude's numbers are simply statistical documentation of what has happened, most of the time. They have no bearing on what is physically or scientifically possible. From his numbers, you would get the impression (I'm not saying that he said this) that Federer winning 10 titles in 9 months at age 30 would be impossible, or that Federer playing his best match ever at Roland Garros could come at age 29.
That is not scientifically accurate.
johnsteinbeck said:
you want to put all of this down to just motivation or injury - but wouldn't you think that at least a handful of players would've stayed sufficiently motivated to shift the picture?
Ever heard of Roger Federer, David Ferrer, or Tommy Haas?
johnsteinbeck said:
and if it's mostly - why would you assume that what showed in all the other greats (the increasing amount of wear and tear) can't possibly have made its way into Fed's game over the past couple of years?
At age 30, Federer does this:
- Wins Basel
- Wins Paris Masters
- Wins World Tour Finals
- Semis of Australia
- Wins Rotterdam
- Wins Dubai
- Wins Indian Wells
- Wins Madrid Masters
- Gets to Rome semis
- Gets to Roland Garros semis
- Gets to Halle final
- Wins Wimbledon
- Silver Medal at the Olympics (his best result yet)
- Wins Cincinnati
If that doesn't address concerns about recovery time or physical POTENTIAL for a 30-year-old, I don't think that even Ferrer's results in 2012 and 2013 could.