Age-related discussion

[El Dude]

One of my favorite topics is the relationship of age and career performance, questions such as: What are the different phases of a career? When is the most common peak range? Are players peaking later now? Etc.

For the sake of context and perhaps a taxonomy that would be useful for discussion, as I've written quite a few times before, I've posited that the historical norm has four general phases:
Developmental Phase: Age 17-21. Player rises towards peak level.
Peak Phase: Age 22-26. Player maintains highest level of career.
Plateau Phase: Age 27-31. Player remains at a very high level, but slightly below peak, with gradual decline.
Decline Phase: Age 32+. Player declines rapidly and/or retires.

Again, these are the norms, or the averages if you will. Every player is different - but historically, those are the general ranges that most players fall into, or near to.

Now what is interesting in recently years is that quite a few players seem to be peaking later, more in what would normally be their plateau phase. David Ferrer is an example, with his best years being 2012-13 when he turned 30 and 31. Despite beating Andy Murray today, Ferrer has showed signs of slowing this year, so he may be entering his decline phase - or he could simply be dropping to a plateau.

And then we have the inspiration for this thread, Feliciano Lopez, who is 33 years old and possibly having the best year of his life. While his highest ranking was achieved a couple years ago in 2012 (#15), he's at #16 in the live rankings now and has a good chance of having his best year-end ranking (which is currently #20 in 2011).

And then of course there is Stan Wawrinka, who won his first Grand Slam at age 28 and is amidst his best year at age 28-29, and will probably finish the year ranked #4, better than last year's career best of #8.

Marin Cilic is still in what is normally the Peak Phase, but he won his first Slam just before turning age 26 - on the older side.

And then we have young players like Milos Raonic and Grigor Dimitrov. Grigor is 23 years old, having his best year, but there's also the sense from many that he's another year or so away from his peak. Milos is also 23, turning 24 in December, and may or may not be at his peak.

One thing that strikes me is that these outliers from the career norms are all non-elite players. Roger Federer's career follows the averages quite closely, as does Nadal's, Djokovic's, and Murray's - although it is still too soon to tell if and when they've entered their Plateau. Certainly it seems that Rafa and Andy have; Novak had his best year in 2011 at age 23-24, but I'd have a hard time saying that he's not still in his Peak phase (that is, best year shouldn't be equated with Peak phase; the best year usually comes within the peak).

Those are just some examples. A few questions to consider/discuss:

• Are players really peaking later?
• If so, why?
• Is there a historical precedent for players having their best years in their 30s (e.g. Ferrer and Lopez)?
• Is it only "second tier" talents that are peaking later? (As it certainly seems like we've seen the best of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray)

And so forth. Any thoughts?

 

[Federberg]

2 threads?

 

[Front242]

2 threads?

3 :snigger

 

[Federberg]

I'll use this as the official thread..

In my view technology and conditioning have changed things. As to the reasons why? It's hard to say. I'm not even sure tennis is the only sport where we're seeing this. For example soccer (my concession to our friends across the water) players are staying at peak performance well into their 30s. This supports the idea that it's to do with conditioning and diet. Consider that the attitudes of most pros in the 70s and 80s would be amateurish in this day and age, it's reasonable to assume that they were getting next to no benefit in those times from diet and intelligent fitness regimes, therefore the lifecycle of pros back in the day was what you would normally expect amongst the untrained human population. Now with modern advancements, peak performance is more in line with the peak years in male strength. Just my thoughts on the matter. Good thread by the way..

Anyway in summary.. I think your categorisations are probably out of date, and some sort of shift needs to occur to account for technological advancements. By the way.. I don't think it's just journeymen who are experiencing this upsurge. I think it's everyone. And we simply can't call a top 30 player a journeyman. To me.. journeyman is someone who only occasionally sneaks into the top 100. A top 30 guy is an elite player, he's just sadly not a top of the pyramid guy like the folks we all tend to focus on in this forum

 

[Federberg]

2 threads?

3 :snigger

Lol! Just noticed. El Dude, was tun? :laydownlaughing

 

[isabelle]

3 thread to say that Federer is old ??? We already know that...

 

[El Dude]

When I posted it, it said "Internal Server Error," so I tried again. Evidently it worked. Mods, please delete other threads!

 

[Riotbeard]

Ok, I got rid of the other two. Have at it. Old people stink, that's what I say.

 

[El Dude]

I'll use this as the official thread..

In my view technology and conditioning have changed things. As to the reasons why? It's hard to say. I'm not even sure tennis is the only sport where we're seeing this. For example soccer (my concession to our friends across the water) players are staying at peak performance well into their 30s. This supports the idea that it's to do with conditioning and diet. Consider that the attitudes of most pros in the 70s and 80s would be amateurish in this day and age, it's reasonable to assume that they were getting next to no benefit in those times from diet and intelligent fitness regimes, therefore the lifecycle of pros back in the day was what you would normally expect amongst the untrained human population. Now with modern advancements, peak performance is more in line with the peak years in male strength. Just my thoughts on the matter. Good thread by the way..

Anyway in summary.. I think your categorisations are probably out of date, and some sort of shift needs to occur to account for technological advancements. By the way.. I don't think it's just journeymen who are experiencing this upsurge. I think it's everyone. And we simply can't call a top 30 player a journeyman. To me.. journeyman is someone who only occasionally sneaks into the top 100. A top 30 guy is an elite player, he's just sadly not a top of the pyramid guy like the folks we all tend to focus on in this forum

First a bit on terminology. When I wrote "elite" I was referring to those players who have a legit shot at a Grand Slam title - so this wouldn't include most of the top 30. But there really are a few somewhat distinct tiers, the first being the "true elite"--those players who are contenders at most Slams, which is basically Rafa, Novak, Roger, and maybe Andy--and then there are the second tier players, those who could win a Slam but are dark horses--Stan, now Marin, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, possibly Grigor and Milos, maybe Kei--and then there are the third tier, perhaps we could call them the "near elite," those players who really don't have a shot at a Slam. Its the difference between a Nadal (first tier), Berdych (second tier), and Simon (third tier). In the grand scheme of things all could be considered "elite," but they are still quite different in terms of ability and chance of winning a Slam.

Now I'm not sure that it isn't only non-first tier players that are peaking later. Roger clearly peaked from around 22-26 and is in "late plateau" phase. Rafa is still great, but is he as good as he was four years ago? He might be able to reach similar heights, but not as consistently - and part of this has to do with health, which has a bearing on the phases. And Novak? He had his best year in 2011 and has played at a very high level since. I think he's still in what I'm calling his peak, but we don't know how long he will maintain it; it may be that he's in a very high plateau already. As for Andy, who knows if he'll recapture his 2012-13 level.

Anyhow, the point is that with the four multi-Slam winners we've already seen their best. Some of them could equal their best again, but probably not consistently - and I highly doubt that we'll see greater heights from any of them.

But with some of the players I mentioned in the first post, we're seeing a new level in their late 20s or early 30s. That's a bit different than plateau. In other words, I'm not sure that this phenomena isn't only confined to non-first tier talents.

One thing that came to mind as I was reading your response is that we saw a similar trend in baseball during the 90s and early 00s, and recently this has been linked to steroid use. Offense was at a historically high level from around 1993 to 2009, peaking around 1998-2000. Players, particularly hitters, were remaining at a high level deep into their 30s (baseball players usually peak in the 25-32 range, with 33 being the most common age of significant decline). The infamous Barry Bonds went on a Ruthian tear from the age of 36 to 39; in a later book, it was posited that he started steroid use after 1998, the year he turned 34.

Now with baseball players I've heard that steroids both help build muscle mass, but also of key importance they reduce recovery time from an injury (so no worry, Rafa fans! ;-)). Interestingly enough, supposedly Bonds was jealously inspired to use steroids by Mark McGwire's historic steroid-fueled home run record season in 1998. This could give us a clue as to why non-first tier talents might use steroids: because they desperately want any edge they can get.

I am not suggesting that any of the names mentioned are using steroids, but I think it must be considered as a possibility. In a way you could say that steroids are just part of the larger picture of "improved" fitness regimes and technology use.

 

[Federberg]

I'll concede your distinction re: different tiers of elite. That works for me

I think we get too caught up on "peak" in the sense of Novak's 2011 being his peak level. I think it was his peak success, but he has it within him at the moment to be at that level. He hasn't achieved it because we live in a dynamic world and he's not the only cat in town. What I'm trying to say is.. please don't mix peak success with peak level, there's a subtle difference.

While I don't believe Roger is in his peak period anymore ( I don't believe he is capable of achieving what he did in his peak success year, even if he faced the same players he did then.. that time is over for him) he is still operating on a plateau that's somewhere between peak and flat out decline. Imagine him clinging on some ledge someway below the mountain top.. in my mind that's where he is. You might say he's raging against the dying of the light is part of what makes the RF story so compelling.

I would caution you to not to spend too much time on the steroid issue, otherwise this thread will be hijacked.. it might be too late already. I do share some of your suspicions though! But I think technology/ diet has a lot to do with it as well.

Going back to the main points. Identifying peak periods will always have an element of subjectivity to it, but the question to ask is.. does the player still have the game to reach those levels.. his mind might not be right.. but does he still have the physical goods? I think that now we're seeing the ageing of the lifecycle profile because technology/diet makes it possible for more players to achieve their optimal physical conditioning to play at their peak. It makes it much tougher for mere talent to help the young ones to achieve success

 

[brokenshoelace]

Best year/tournament/match/level and just plain "peak" are different. Novak generally moves, serves, returns, or hits ground strokes no worse than he did in 2011 if we were to simplify it to the basics. However, in 2011, something was "clicking" and it was all coming together longer, more consistently, and when it matters most, coupled with confidence and a "can't lose" attitude (seriously, he almost literally couldn't), which in turn, resulted in some insane season changing moments (the return against Federer at the US Open or the Rome final with Nadal despite having played an epic with Murray the previous day and everyone expecting him to be out of it physically, etc...)

If we were to limit players' peaks to their best year (which in the grand scheme of things, is a very narrow time-frame), then they really spend very little time at their respective peaks.

EDIT: I would say however that physically, he hasn't seemed to be able to re-find his 2011 shape since. It's not that he's back to his pre-gluten free days, but he's no longer the terminator either. This has nothing to do with age, and more to do with 2011 just being a year where everything worked.

 

[El Dude]

I completely agree re: Novak. In baseball they talk about "career years," and 2011 was clearly that for him. He wasn't necessarily an inferior player in 2012-14, but everything just came together for him in 2011. Like Roger's 2006 or Rafa's 2010.

Your description of Roger is exactly what I mean by "plateau" - it is no longer peak, not yet flat out decline. We could even say that the plateau has early and late sub-phases, or "high" and "low" plateau. Roger is in the late/low plateau, while someone like Rafa is in the early/high.

Now what I question about the technology/diet argument, and why I brought in the "s-word," is that it doesn't explain what seems to be a different in the true elites and the rest of the field. Again, even if Rafa, Novak and Andy can maintain a high level of play into their 30s, chances are they won't peak then, that they've already peaked (or are peaking). In other words, all of the players who find their highest form in their late 20s to early 30s seem to be lesser talents than the very best in the game.

A player that I will be watching closer to perhaps buck the trend is Grigor Dimitrov. Of all the players in their early 20s, he seems to have the most overall talent and the best chance at multiple Slams. He might be a good test case to see if even elite players truly are peaking later now.

 

[Federberg]

The true elites are always going to start outperforming earlier I suppose. But as a rule, we should expect the lesser players to enter their peak years in the 25 - 29 age range now

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

the non elite players are seemingly peaking late quite often..

ferrer............best days age 28-32yrs.

lopez............best days about now age 32/33yrs.

benneteau......best days over 31years.

rosol.............best days age 28/29yrs.

stanislas w.....best days 28/29yrs.

and what of skeletor burdych if he gets lendl as coach to sort his mental headedness his glory days might be next season onwards age 29yrs-30yrs+

 

[isabelle]

What about daddy Simon ? Almost 30 and still there...

 

[El Dude]

Simon doesn't seem to have a clear peak. His best ranked year was 2008, but aside from injury in 2010 he's been pretty consistent since. But I wouldn't call 2014 any greater than any other year, unless of course he wins the Shanghai final.

 

[Kieran]

Federer and Nadal are more typical of players from previous eras, in that they both broke through at a young age. Federer won his first major aged 21, and then rolled through the next few seasons like it was the 1990's, but what's exceptional about him is his stamina and durability: players usually suffer extreme burn out and fade a lot earlier. Pete was showing dramatic mental and physical fatigue aged 27 - and Pete wasn't a factor on clay. Roger is a full-season guy and hasn't shown anything like Sampras stamina issues - and he's 33.

So Roger is an exception to the age old "old age" problem. He peaked young, and he's still a factor.

I think it's definitely the case that players are peaking later - El Dude's generous collection of stats prove this - but what's striking is that it's not only physical development which seems slow, but also mental. Grigor is still like a kid - and he's aged 23. Kyrgios had a breakthrough of sorts aged 19 - but now he's lying on the beach due to a dose of the tremors...

 

[El Dude]

The true elites are always going to start outperforming earlier I suppose. But as a rule, we should expect the lesser players to enter their peak years in the 25 - 29 age range now

This seems to be the case. But this leads to the question, what is different about the developmental curve of the "lesser players" from the true elites? If they are different, why?

Roger seems to be somewhat bucking the normal trend by staying at a very high level deeper into his 30s. Could he be setting a new bar that Novak, Rafa, and Andy could follow, or is he simply exceptional in this way?

Furthermore, while the lesser players seem to be peaking later, we don't know yet if they'll plateau longer. Haas did, but he has an unusual career. Ferrer seems to be slipping, although maybe he'll right the ship for another couple years. We can look at Ferrer, Robredo, Karlovic, Haas, etc, and see players in their 30s who are as good now as they were five years ago. But we can then look at Hewitt, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Roddick, etc, who have either declined and/or retired.

 

[Federberg]

I suspect Roger is a bit of a freak. I remember as far back as 2007, having a chat with Pat Cash (no name dropping, for some reason I've met him 3 or 4 times, at Wimbledon, Queens and even at Twickenham at a rugby match) and he expressed his scepticism even then that Federer would be able to live with the young guns when they came into their own. He felt Roger had had it a bit easy in his early peak years. Well we can say categorically that he was wrong! I don't think it's going to be as easy for Rafa or Novak to handle the young turks when they're in their full pomp, but that's just my opinion.

I like to think of Haas as a less talented, less successful version of Agassi in terms of his achievements in his later years, it would have been something to see if his career hadn't been derailed by injuries. I see the similarity in that he has had much fewer tennis years than his age would suggest, hence he's been able to benefit.

As I've said before I think we have to be nuanced in terms of what we call peak. I think that Ferrer is still very much in his peak years. He may not have had a great year by his standards, but his abilities don't seem diminished. You only need to watch what he did to Murray. Hewitt is a victim of power baseline tennis. Where tennis has gone to has just passed him by. It's that simple. I question Nalbandian's commitment through out his career. I think he underachieved. Roddick entered his peak years very early, and psychologically was unable to cope with the some of the new young guys, but yes he ended his career relatively early. I think that the likes of Karlovic, Robredo and Ferrer are great examples of how pros are peaking later. For most we can't assess peaks simply based on results because, after all, there's someone they're facing on the other side of the net. They may be playing as well, but not getting the same results. It's easier to judge Federer's performance and say, he may not be as quick as he used to be, but he can still cut it, but I find it harder to pay close enough attention to someone like Davydenko and make that statement.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that in all likelihood the developmental curve is probably different for "lesser players" simply because you don't get the wins that give you the confidence to reach for your peak years as easily. That's what makes them.. lesser.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

no set of stats are perfect when looking at individual players..

on another point though..I think of the so called big 4 only djokovic is at/near his prime, murray has motivation/goal oriented problems and maybe too heavy/muscular, Federer is clearly non peak but still capable of awesome tennis, rafa is post prime as well but needs to get past all his ailments before we know really where he is. (can he win big again).