I don't think there's any argument, really, that tennis is getting older.
A couple of years ago, ESPN Sports wrote:
"The average age of the current top 10 in men's tennis is 27.0. A decade ago, it was 24.6; 20 years ago it was 23.2."
Last year, The New York Times wrote:
"The average age of an ATP mens tour champion in 2016 was almost 29. Fourteen were 30 or older. A decade earlier, there were none that old. While that speaks to the lasting dominance of the mens big four Federer, Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Murray it also provides a clear blueprint for the longer career path."
And I wasn't saying that the big players were in it for the money.
But that the money has made it possible to do things that have prolonged the playing age.
For instance, in the same NY Times article, they point out that in the 90s, no one (practically) travelled with a coach. No one had nutritionists. Or phyios. etc. etc. etc
Because there wasn't the money to pay for them.
Now there is the money there. So people do. And so levels of proper training and fitness and rehab and all that, have gone through the roof, and allowed players to play for a lot longer.
The money is also a goal in itself for some (various ex-players have mentioned it, I've got it in files somewhere). And why not? As said, it's not a criticism.
-- Edited by Coup Droit on Tuesday 17th of July 2018 01:10:32 PM
It's obviously not worth arguing about, but it does seem that you can do pretty much anything with statistics.
That chart, for example, shows that there is almost no correlation between the two until 2010, and then both factors rise. You could just as easily have plotted Federer's age against Wimbledon prize money, and conclude that Federer is getting older because the prize money is going up. It may be worth noting that the winner of the French Open has got a year older every year since 2005, on average, which correlates very well with the prize money rise over the same period.
Using the average age of the top ten is quite risky, too, as the big four have been the big four for a decade (in various permutations), and they are getting older, so they are dragging the average age up. Similarly ATP winners - the ATP 1000 have essentially only been won by the big four for as long as anyone can remember, so as the big four age then the average age of a winner is going up.
None of that really tells us much about the average age of tennis players (beyond highlighting the dominance of some players that are getting older). That is not to say that there may be statistics that do support the thesis; just that these aren't those. I think that it is indisputable that the big four are getting older, and it may well be that those four have been supported by the money in the game, but that doesn't explain the likes of Navratilova and Laver, Evert and Connors, John Newcombe and Billie Jean King and numerous other olden-days tennis players that went on - at the top - for decades.
I think, like everything else, that average age goes in cycles - there were old folk winning in the olden days, then young folk won for a while, now those young 'uns are ageing - soon it will be some more young ones.
-- and none of this has anything to do with whether the jump to the senior ranks is harder for boys than for girls.
But if you dismiss all, that's like saying I refuse to look at numbers and gut instinct has to win,
Because it's not just the top 10.
The Economist (not a shabby publication) printed in Jan. 2017 that:
"In 1990 the average age of the men ranked in the top 100 by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) was 24.6. The average age of the women ranked in the top 100 by the Womens Tennis Association (WTA) was 22.8. Today the equivalent ages are 28.6 for men and 25.9 for women."
That takes all the top 100, not just the top 10.
And covers 27 years.
Going from 24.6 to 28.6 is a major shift. As is 22.8 to 25.9.
And the difference in average age for the men and women goes a long way to helping explain why the jump is less significant for women than for men.
Indeed, it is VERY clear that for whatever combination of reasons average age has been getting significantly older for both sexes. The stats for the top 100 show this.
Indeed, it is VERY clear that for whatever combination of reasons average age has been getting significantly older for both sexes. The stats for the top 100 show this.
Do you work for the LTA, Chris ?
Wash your mouth out, sir!
Coup Droit wrote:
... if you dismiss all, that's like saying I refuse to look at numbers and gut instinct has to win,
...
The Economist (not a shabby publication) printed in Jan. 2017 that:
"In 1990 the average age of the men ranked in the top 100 by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) was 24.6. The average age of the women ranked in the top 100 by the Womens Tennis Association (WTA) was 22.8. Today the equivalent ages are 28.6 for men and 25.9 for women."
That takes all the top 100, not just the top 10.
And covers 27 years.
Going from 24.6 to 28.6 is a major shift. As is 22.8 to 25.9.
And the difference in average age for the men and women goes a long way to helping explain why the jump is less significant for women than for men.
I get that. That's why I said:
christ wrote:
... there may be statistics that do support the thesis; just that these aren't those. ...
Coup Droit wrote:
... the difference in average age for the men and women goes a long way to helping explain why the jump is less significant for women than for men.
Yes.
This remains true whatever age the whole cohort is on average, so all that stuff about whether the average age is higher or not is irrelevant (even if true), as the reason for the relative significance of the jump is to do with the relative ages/ maturity of the male and female groups.
-- Edited by christ on Tuesday 17th of July 2018 03:41:46 PM
PS: I wonder what the average age of the men ranked in the top 100 by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) was in 1980, 1970, 1960 etc. (and/ or women ranked
by the WTA)
PS: I wonder what the average age of the men ranked in the top 100 by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) was in 1980, 1970, 1960 etc. (and/ or women ranked by the WTA)
It's a bit back-of-an-envelope, but I think the numbers are right.
Data for the grey shaded region (pre 1984) is patchy and possibly inconsistent. The remainder is 100% complete.
Which indeed shows that, as chris said, it was a lot higher in the 70s and then plummeted and has since been climbing back steadily over the past 30 years.
Supposedly (no idea, it's just what I'm reading) the crash was due to introduction of graphite rackets and a whole new group of kids used to playing with those rackets. Maybe?
But the numbers were also a lot smaller, little money up for grabs.
PS: I wonder what the average age of the men ranked in the top 100 by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) was in 1980, 1970, 1960 etc. (and/ or women ranked by the WTA)
It's a bit back-of-an-envelope, but I think the numbers are right.
Data for the grey shaded region (pre 1984) is patchy and possibly inconsistent. The remainder is 100% complete.