Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Link Back -> Andrew Murray message board -> General tennis discussion -> Is the jump from boys to mens bigger than the jump from girls to womens?
Post Info TOPIC: Is the jump from boys to mens bigger than the jump from girls to womens?
Coup Droit


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 52546
Date:
Is the jump from boys to mens bigger than the jump from girls to womens?
Permalink  

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.

The correlation is very high:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1749/5899/files/Screen_Shot_2018-05-26_at_11.55.49_large.png?v=1527332177


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

__________________
christ


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1696
Date:
Permalink  

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.

__________________
Coup Droit


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 52546
Date:
Permalink  

I agree that stats and charts can be misleading.

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.



__________________
indiana


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39512
Date:
Permalink  

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 ?   



__________________
christ


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1696
Date:
Permalink  

indiana wrote:

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

__________________
christ


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1696
Date:
Permalink  

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)

__________________
Coup Droit


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 52546
Date:
Permalink  

'Even if true' ... you make me smile smilesmilesmile



__________________
AliBlahBlah


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5568
Date:
Permalink  

christ wrote:

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.

Qy28STl.png

Data for the grey shaded region (pre 1984) is patchy and possibly inconsistent. The remainder is 100% complete.

Data kindly provided by Jeff Sackmann of TennisAbstract (http://www.tennisabstract.com)



__________________
Coup Droit


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 52546
Date:
Permalink  

Yes, I've just been looking for chris too and found something a little similar.

pbs.twimg.com/media/CKDgtL-WUAEJWMm.jpg

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.

But interesting....



__________________
christ


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1696
Date:
Permalink  

AliBlahBlah wrote:
christ wrote:

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.

Qy28STl.png

Data for the grey shaded region (pre 1984) is patchy and possibly inconsistent. The remainder is 100% complete.

Data kindly provided by Jeff Sackmann of TennisAbstract (http://www.tennisabstract.com)

 Thanks for this. Looks to me like the average age of the ATP top 100 is going up.

... and it is indubitable that the prize money is going up too. But I can't see that this means that there is a causative link either way.



__________________
Strongbow


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6360
Date:
Permalink  

Brilliant chart biggrin



__________________
«First  <  1 2 | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Link Back -> Andrew Murray message board -> General tennis discussion -> Is the jump from boys to mens bigger than the jump from girls to womens?
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard