El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,110
- Reactions
- 7,184
- Points
- 113
Not only is the age difference very minor, you could argue it is even narrower than the 1 year, 9 months because Alcaraz was an early bloomer and got more ATP matches early on than Sinner. Meaning, I don't see them on a different timeline, as far as aging is concerned - except in terms of how their different bodies and styles might age. In other words, one of them might start slowing down earlier than the other, but it won't likely be on account of chronological age. Their peaks and primes will be very close, similarly to Rafa/Novak/Andy.
I don't think age difference plays much of a factor until we get to at least 3+ years difference. That's a large enough gap that you can start seeing not only differences in what stage of their career they're in (development, peak, plateau, decline, etc), but also generational stuff. I mean, compare Roddick and Rafa - they're 3 years and 10 months apart, but seem like they're from different generations even though Rafa broke in early and their primes overlapped by a few years. Andy was still very much a "Sampras acolyte," and really most of Roger's generation was part of the older paradigm of 90s+ tennis. In other words, Roddick would look less out of place in the 90s than in the late 2010s.
I don't think age difference plays much of a factor until we get to at least 3+ years difference. That's a large enough gap that you can start seeing not only differences in what stage of their career they're in (development, peak, plateau, decline, etc), but also generational stuff. I mean, compare Roddick and Rafa - they're 3 years and 10 months apart, but seem like they're from different generations even though Rafa broke in early and their primes overlapped by a few years. Andy was still very much a "Sampras acolyte," and really most of Roger's generation was part of the older paradigm of 90s+ tennis. In other words, Roddick would look less out of place in the 90s than in the late 2010s.
