Skip to main content

The Peak Age for Top Male Pros

I was surfing over at tennis-warehouse forums and got into a conversation about the peak age for male pros.  I poked around my spreadsheets and voila, came up with a few graphs.

The first is based on computer rankings in the open era. The data set is all men who won a slam and were born in 1950 or later (so that most of their careers are captured in the rankings). What the graph shows is the average computer ranking of all men in the data set. The peak in this graph is around 23 to 25. The attack is quite sharp to age 20, but the taper to age 31 or so is fairly gradual. It certainly illustrates that prime age is from 20 to 29-30. (Incidentally, the small hiccup at age 24 is almost totally due to Pat Cash, and the one at 27 to Del Potro.)





The second graph shows just the end of year rankings for the most recent 6 top men who were multi-year #1's, and had reasonably long careers (note that Sampras has the shortest career of this group). For Laver and Rosewall, rankings before 1973 are subjective, but use my majority opinion approach. All rankings after 1973 are computer rankings (so Connors, rightly or wrongly gets #1 for 1974-78).

In this graph the peak is at 26 or 27 when no one is ranked below #2.






The next graph is the number of majors won at each age by top major winners throughout tennis history. It includes all who won 4 majors or more, plus Murray and Wawrinka. 'Majors' include all Wim and USC/O, AO, RG since 1925, ITF majors (1912-24), and pro-majors (Wem, FrPro, USPro for the years universally recognized). Specifically, this includes: Renshaw, Sears, RDoherty, Larned, Wrenn, HDoherty, Wilding, Tilden, Johnston, Kozeluh, Borotra, Cochet, Richards, LaCoste, Crawford, Perry, Nusslein, Vines, Budge, Parker, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzales, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Emerson, Santana, Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka. 


The red line represents the total number of major titles won by this group at each age. The blue line is the two-year average for each age. This blue line tends to smooth out the line a bit to make the trend more visible. It seems that the longterm average peak major-winning age has been 24.










To see if there was a difference with modern times, I looked at just those who had won 6 or more slams in the open era (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic). It looks like the peak is still about age 24.






Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

French Open Preview 2017 - Men

French Open Preview 2017 – Men Rafa is back! He is the clear and dominant favourite for the next slam title at Roland Garros.  Can anyone stop him? Immediately after his Aus Open final appearance I began wondering aloud if Rafael Nadal would be ranked #1 by year’s end.  It appears that eventuality could happen as early as July, but it will depend on what Andy Murray does.  Murray has had a reasonably dreadful year – especially for a #1.  He’s won only about 2.3 matches for every 1 he’s lost – which is respectable – just not for a #1.  Meanwhile Rafa just came off a 17 match win streak – all on clay – and has won three of the four big run-up tournaments to the French – Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Madrid, but fell in the Rome quarters to Thiem.  Rafa has won 3 of these tournaments and RG in the same year seven times in his career.  Will this be the eighth?  The most serious challenger to Nadal might be 23 year-old Dominic Thiem....
4 comments
Read more

Victory Points - Djokovic vs Connors, Lendl vs Sampras

Novak Djokovic has just won his 63 rd main tour title with his victory in Miami last week.  It seems like a lot of tournaments and is almost as many as Nadal has won with 67... or Sampras with 64.  But it’s still a lot less than Jimmy Connors’ open era record of 109 titles.  Here’s the title list for the top 20 of the Open Era (since 1968 when professionals were allowed to play with amateurs). 109 Connors 94 Lendl 88 Federer 77 McEnroe 67 Nadal 64 Sampras 64 Borg 63 Djokovic 62 Vilas 60 Agassi 58 Nastase 49 Becker 46 Laver 44 Muster 41 Edberg 37 Smith 35 Murray 34 Chang 33 Ashe 33 Wilander That list may or may not agree with various lists published on the ATP website or Wikipedia, and that’s because there was a fair bit of confusion in the early days of the open era (1968-1973) about what tournaments counted and which were exhibitions.  Some supposed ‘tournaments’ had draws of only four players or were ‘invitational’.  But after ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Case for Rod Laver as GOAT - 25 Dec 2010

The Case for Rod Laver Two grand slams.   When one considers the near impossibility of winning a calendar year grand slam in this day and age, the thought of one player winning two boggles the mind.   It’s difficult enough to win the career slam – only 7 men have ever done it and only 4 in the Open era.   Winning a non-calendar slam is even more difficult and many great players have won three in a row and fallen just short:   like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Pete Sampras. So Rod Laver should be an open and shut case for the greatest of all time.   But it’s not that simple.   His first grand slam is really negligible and doesn’t count.   It was an amateur slam won in an era when the best players were professionals.   Especially in the 1960’s the pros were gaining more and more credibility.   The sheer number of pros was increasing as more and more tournaments began to be established for pro players.   Laver was by no means considered...
3 comments
Read more