Around three years ago I posted a chapter on this site called 'Mr Topspin', in reference to a Swedish Tennis Champion by the name of Kent Carlsson, former World number 6,( 1988 ).
Carlsson played with a style not unlike Rafa, plenty of loop from both sides and a big kicking serve.
The Swede owned the distinction of dropping possibly the least games ever recorded in a 'Grand Prix' tennis event, as it was known back then. The tournament I am referring to is the now defunct Bologna Outdoor Grand Prix held in Italy from 1985 to 1998.
One name stands out from the rest as far as past Champions of Bologna are concerned. It was in 1990 that a fellow by the name of Richard Fromberg from Australia won the event from Olympic Champion Marc Rosset of Switzerland, 7-6 in the third set.
The rest of the champions from the Bologna event were made up of Europeans which leads us to believe that 'Frommy' was a rather unique Aussie tennis pro who's game was modelled on Borg's, no doubt about it.
I saw Frommy play in Queensland and New South Wales in the 80's and he hit a two handed backhand like Borg complete with the one handed follow through, not many players could do that but the Tasmanian obviously modelled his game on the Swedish champion.
I vividly recall watching Richard when I was 12 years of age at a resort in Tasmania when I holidayed there with my Mum, Dad and sister.
While waiting for a hit on the resort court we watched in awe of the scruffy, skinny kid who hit the ball with a brilliance I had never seen before. I saw his profile in an Australian Tennis magazine perhaps a year or two later as he was ranked in the first handful of Aussie kids nationally for his age.
Frommy was a talent and I saw him play one particular tournament on clay in Sawtell, NSW, perhaps 1987 when he was a teenager, he was born to play on the dirt. He barely missed a ball.
Back to Bologna, Italy.
Kent Carlsson 'owned' that tournament in 1987 when he lost just ten games for the entire tournament and five of those were in his first match. The Swede's style was almost impossible to attack as the height of his shots were ridiculously uncomfortable.
If I were to rate clay court players of the last 30 years I would place Carlsson right up there because if he had stayed injury free he may have won a record amount of titles on that surface. As it stands he won nine clay court titles between 1985 and 1989.
Carlsson was only 22 when he retired due to a knee injury, a 'travesty of justice' in any mans language, a waste of a career that could have seen him talked about in the same breath as some of the all time greats of clay court tennis.
Anyone who knows the sport in detail no doubt would hold him in high esteem regardless of his short but brilliant career on the European dirt.
My heroes Borg and Wilander who I have written about in great detail on this site won nine French Open titles between them however there were a few smaller events that raised the eyebrows as far as their domination was concerned on a surface that tames the big servers yet looks after the rally ball exponents.
In 1977 Borg played Eddie Dibbs, former World number 5 and a man who won 22 singles titles between 1973 and 1982 in the Barcelona Grand Prix semi finals, the event that Rafa has won on ten occasions. In that particular event Borg won 6-0, 6-0, 6-2 against a man who won 14 clay court titles.
Does that defy logic ? Probably, though Rafa just won 6-2, 6-3, 6-1 against Stan in the 2017 French Open final and Stan owns a Paris title, work that discrepancy out.
In 1983, a year after Wilander won the French Open Mens Singles title as a 17 year old he beat Guillermo Vilas 6-0, 6-3, 6-1 in the final of Barcelona but what makes that result even more remarkable is the fact that Vilas, back in that era owned the record for the most consecutive clay court wins, 53.
( Rafa eclipsed that record with 81 consecutive wins on the dirt ).
How a teenager can beat a man of that knowledge on a surface that netted him that many consecutive wins is beyond belief. Wilander though was a Borg clone who played the same way and seemingly thought the same way and Vilas won just six matches in total against the two Swedes out of 30 matches played ( Borg 5-18, Wilander 1-6)
Perhaps Stan Wawrinka should not be so disappointed about his French Open loss to Rafa this year because history shows that the dirt can produce some amazingly one sided matches despite rankings, past titles and winning streaks.
It seems that there are a handful of clay court champions that owned a thought process and game to match that put them so far ahead of their opposition that they were quite literally lonely.
Carlsson, Wilander and Borg quite possibly gave Rafa a view on how to play on European clay as their records were quite brilliant considering Carlsson retired at age 22 and Borg at 26. Put another five years onto their relatively short careers and could you imagine just what they may have achieved on their surface of preference ?
The dirt is a tennis surface for the thinker. Why it is not trained on in every Country in the World and not just Europe is one of the Tennis World's great mysteries that may never be solved.......
Tuesday, 13 June 2017
Monday, 12 June 2017
'MANY SIMILARITIES'
There was something that caught my attention while watching the highlights of the French Open Mens Singles final more so than any shot that was struck by either player and it reminded me so much of the great man from Sweden, Bjorn Borg.
Forget the brilliant hitting of Rafa, that was always going to happen but if you haven't already seen the highlights do yourself a favour and take a look at where Rafa stands to receive serve. It's a throw back to the 70's and early 80's where Borg used to give himself so much time to receive serve that it was almost like receiving an underarm serve each time as he would wait for the serve to drop.
I have often wondered why more players do not employ this tactic or is it an egotistical type of thing to receive a serve at the baseline as Agassi did so well in the 90's ?
But not every player owns Agassi's returning qualities.
The Las Vegas showman definitely started a trend with his ability to meet the serve early though it takes a remarkable eye to be able to meet a 200km per hour delivery from either on or inside the baseline.
Borg and Agassi were Worlds apart with their tactics on the return of serve yet both owned a Rock Star type of appeal as far as their looks and flair were concerned. It is no surprise that at certain stages of their careers I found them to be both larger than life type of figures and it had everything to do with the way they played as well as the way they looked.
Any sportsman who shows up with long flowing locks is asking for trouble from the Media in particular though that is easy to put to rest if you win regularly as Borg did from the outset, not so with Andre Agassi.
To openly take part in a television commercial and say 'Image is everything' and then not win regularly is more or less taking the piss......
It's sort of like Anna Kournikova making millions as an 'image' but not as a tennis player as she didn't really win much despite a couple of Grand Slam Doubles events, not bad all the same but she couldn't win in singles, that's a fact.
Sorry I do get side tracked when I start talking tennis, back to Rafa at this year's French Open.
Why does a receiver stand so close in ?
This is word for word from Bjorn Borg.....
" Why do receivers stand so close in ? Mostly because it's macho to face a cannonball next to the barrel. Sort of like the gladiators in the olden days chasing each other with axes or swords at close range.
Me ? I want my macho moment in the winners circle rather than for a few isolated points during the match".
Bjorn Borg.
If a server slides a ball wide every single time particularly from a lefty serve then yes it requires a stance closer to the baseline to counter act the angle. If not, why stand close ? If someone kicks a serve as high as Safin used to wouldn't it be a smarter option for the ball to take its kick and then return it ?
Surely Rafa's tactic at this years French Open as well as his previous 9 titles in Paris needs to be studied by many coaches and players looking at just why the Spaniard is so effective in Paris on the dirt. It's because he has worked it out, time, tennis is all about time. You can't play 'ping pong' on a tennis court and expect to win consistently.
Rafa has a forehand that gives him so much time when he requires it due to the height and the bounce that he can vary at will yet if you watch the modern day 'clone' most clear the net by a 'bees dick', no time to think.
Rafa has it all over 'em no doubt about it when it comes to technique, tactics and time on the clay.
Cilic won just seven games against Stan in the Quarters yet Marin only lost around 30 games in four straight sets wins in his march to the quarters. So how did Stan beat Marin so easily ? Variety. Stan has won the French Open, he knows what is required on the clay as he can hit big, slice, loop and drive but Cilic, well he just drives it. That style will never win on the dirt consistently.
That fact goes back to the 70's, at least. ( I am only 48 )
So what happens when a man of Stan's ability comes up against a man of Rafa's ability ? Well according to my prediction it was going to go 4 sets. Yeah right, in every tennis expert's tipping book, the 'safe' tip. So did we miss something in the lead up ?
Possibly.
Stan beat Novak a few years back in Paris which was rather surprising given Novak's record on clay which isn't bad when you take it into account that he has made it to the semis on 4 occasions, the quarters on two occasions and the final on 4 occasions, winning once. I believe that nerves beat Novak that day. He only required the French title to complete his resume.
Rafa lost the final of the Australian Open this year to Roger in 5 though Rafa can't stand as far back on hard court as he can on clay, Roger worked that out. Rafa won three events in the lead up to Paris this year but could you really pick the score line in the final this year in Paris ?
That's outrageous.
It seems that Rafa is at age 31 by far the greatest exponent of clay court tennis that the sport has ever seen though Borg is a close second and the Swede did not play one year due to politics so perhaps a seventh was a definite possibility though he did not play in 1977.
Vilas won the year Borg did not play, the next year Borg beat Vilas 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 in the final so you tell me whether Borg should have seven French Open titles or not ??
There are many similarities with Borg and Rafa, particularly where they stood to receive serve and particularly with the way they hit the ball, with a high uncomfortable loop that pinned their opponents way back beyond the baseline.
Not too many players have ever lost on the dirt with those type of tactics.
Is the modern game too flat ?
Borg and Rafa will tell you just that........
Forget the brilliant hitting of Rafa, that was always going to happen but if you haven't already seen the highlights do yourself a favour and take a look at where Rafa stands to receive serve. It's a throw back to the 70's and early 80's where Borg used to give himself so much time to receive serve that it was almost like receiving an underarm serve each time as he would wait for the serve to drop.
I have often wondered why more players do not employ this tactic or is it an egotistical type of thing to receive a serve at the baseline as Agassi did so well in the 90's ?
But not every player owns Agassi's returning qualities.
The Las Vegas showman definitely started a trend with his ability to meet the serve early though it takes a remarkable eye to be able to meet a 200km per hour delivery from either on or inside the baseline.
Borg and Agassi were Worlds apart with their tactics on the return of serve yet both owned a Rock Star type of appeal as far as their looks and flair were concerned. It is no surprise that at certain stages of their careers I found them to be both larger than life type of figures and it had everything to do with the way they played as well as the way they looked.
Any sportsman who shows up with long flowing locks is asking for trouble from the Media in particular though that is easy to put to rest if you win regularly as Borg did from the outset, not so with Andre Agassi.
To openly take part in a television commercial and say 'Image is everything' and then not win regularly is more or less taking the piss......
It's sort of like Anna Kournikova making millions as an 'image' but not as a tennis player as she didn't really win much despite a couple of Grand Slam Doubles events, not bad all the same but she couldn't win in singles, that's a fact.
Sorry I do get side tracked when I start talking tennis, back to Rafa at this year's French Open.
Why does a receiver stand so close in ?
This is word for word from Bjorn Borg.....
" Why do receivers stand so close in ? Mostly because it's macho to face a cannonball next to the barrel. Sort of like the gladiators in the olden days chasing each other with axes or swords at close range.
Me ? I want my macho moment in the winners circle rather than for a few isolated points during the match".
Bjorn Borg.
If a server slides a ball wide every single time particularly from a lefty serve then yes it requires a stance closer to the baseline to counter act the angle. If not, why stand close ? If someone kicks a serve as high as Safin used to wouldn't it be a smarter option for the ball to take its kick and then return it ?
Surely Rafa's tactic at this years French Open as well as his previous 9 titles in Paris needs to be studied by many coaches and players looking at just why the Spaniard is so effective in Paris on the dirt. It's because he has worked it out, time, tennis is all about time. You can't play 'ping pong' on a tennis court and expect to win consistently.
Rafa has a forehand that gives him so much time when he requires it due to the height and the bounce that he can vary at will yet if you watch the modern day 'clone' most clear the net by a 'bees dick', no time to think.
Rafa has it all over 'em no doubt about it when it comes to technique, tactics and time on the clay.
Cilic won just seven games against Stan in the Quarters yet Marin only lost around 30 games in four straight sets wins in his march to the quarters. So how did Stan beat Marin so easily ? Variety. Stan has won the French Open, he knows what is required on the clay as he can hit big, slice, loop and drive but Cilic, well he just drives it. That style will never win on the dirt consistently.
That fact goes back to the 70's, at least. ( I am only 48 )
So what happens when a man of Stan's ability comes up against a man of Rafa's ability ? Well according to my prediction it was going to go 4 sets. Yeah right, in every tennis expert's tipping book, the 'safe' tip. So did we miss something in the lead up ?
Possibly.
Stan beat Novak a few years back in Paris which was rather surprising given Novak's record on clay which isn't bad when you take it into account that he has made it to the semis on 4 occasions, the quarters on two occasions and the final on 4 occasions, winning once. I believe that nerves beat Novak that day. He only required the French title to complete his resume.
Rafa lost the final of the Australian Open this year to Roger in 5 though Rafa can't stand as far back on hard court as he can on clay, Roger worked that out. Rafa won three events in the lead up to Paris this year but could you really pick the score line in the final this year in Paris ?
That's outrageous.
It seems that Rafa is at age 31 by far the greatest exponent of clay court tennis that the sport has ever seen though Borg is a close second and the Swede did not play one year due to politics so perhaps a seventh was a definite possibility though he did not play in 1977.
Vilas won the year Borg did not play, the next year Borg beat Vilas 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 in the final so you tell me whether Borg should have seven French Open titles or not ??
There are many similarities with Borg and Rafa, particularly where they stood to receive serve and particularly with the way they hit the ball, with a high uncomfortable loop that pinned their opponents way back beyond the baseline.
Not too many players have ever lost on the dirt with those type of tactics.
Is the modern game too flat ?
Borg and Rafa will tell you just that........
Thursday, 8 June 2017
USTA BUSINESS CASE TO HELP USTA - LONG VERSION
I was going to write about my thoughts on the shortened version of this subject until I just listened to the long version and I think that honestly it is one of the most remarkable things I have ever heard in relation to the way tennis is run.
The USTA is no better than Tennis Australia as we all search for the 'needle in the haystack', the champion tennis player that is as rare as rocking horse sh..
Javier Palenque is quite frankly a genius and if you have any time spare I would strongly recommend listening to his views on the sport in the US which mirrors that of the sport here in Australia where we 'threw' $4000,000,000 apparently at Bernard Tomic.
How many players missed out who could have benefited from a share of that type of funding ???
It's all about supporting the 'elite' or that 'needle in a haystack' yet the future of the game does not get a dime because the module is broken beyond repair. The money is not evenly divided, just as it isn't at the Pro level either as say the Big 4 have put away anything up to a Billion dollars in both prize money and more so endorsements over their time at the top of the game.
Is that fair ? It is reality.
Anyone outside of the top 100 won't make a living yet the top 10 are looked after like royalty because apparently they 'need' up to $4000,000,000 ( Bernie's funding figure ) for a Slam win. In all seriousness how many players in their career will win a Slam ?
Tennis in all aspects looks after the top players yet does not look after the potential future of the game just as my post titled 'Tennis, A Rich Persons Sport' documents in detail. It's all about making the rich richer, it's not about anything else and it's why tennis has exclusiveness written all over it and it starts with coaching.
Why does it cost up to $100 per hour to 'learn' a sport that has a success rate of nil as far as making money out of it is concerned ?
If tennis lessons were half that cost or even lower then surely the sport would attract the 'everyday' parent and not just the ones who go to Madrid for their annual holidays.
Would a tennis coach still make money do you think ? They would make more, they would have people knocking the door down to learn the game instead of, 'Hey Jonny, tennis is a bit too expensive for Mum and Dad to pay for, how about we look at a team sport' ?
Instead we are faced with the dilemma that is currently in place, a sport that Javier Palenque seems to know a whole lot better than most as he dissects the issues in detail and with the precision of a Doctor using a scalpel.
I do hope that the USTA listens to Javier Palenque because it may just pave the way for tennis in Australia to also follow the same lead though I doubt it very much as we are too obsessed with looking after the 'already rich' and not the players who could potentially be the future of the sport.
Tennis, all about self importance and self indulgence, just as long as the bank account of those 'important' ones keeps growing.
Glad my kids play team sports.......
Wednesday, 7 June 2017
USTA BUSINESS CASE SHORT VERSION
This is fascinating. Take a read if you have a spare 7.5 minutes. I will elaborate on it later tonight but I believe this hits the nail on the head and outlines some of the issues surrounding the sport of tennis.
Tuesday, 6 June 2017
'THANKS MARTY'
To my fellow tennis 'addict' in the US, Marty, thanks for taking the time to read my posts buddy, it means a lot to me and thank you for your views also.
A sport that now has 35 year olds winning Slams as to my heroes of the past Borg and Wilander winning Roland Garros at age 18 and 17 respectively is indeed a sport that is changing.
I think it's fair to say that we may never see those ages win again on the big stage due to the physical demands of the sport plus the mental toughness required. It seems that a guy like Verdasco was not prepared to be pushed aside by the new breed ( Zverev ) just yet.
Whether it's a pride thing, experience or simply talent it makes for some entertaining tennis to say the least though in the end the youth will win through, it's just a case of how long it will take until the 'Dinosaurs' become extinct........
A sport that now has 35 year olds winning Slams as to my heroes of the past Borg and Wilander winning Roland Garros at age 18 and 17 respectively is indeed a sport that is changing.
I think it's fair to say that we may never see those ages win again on the big stage due to the physical demands of the sport plus the mental toughness required. It seems that a guy like Verdasco was not prepared to be pushed aside by the new breed ( Zverev ) just yet.
Whether it's a pride thing, experience or simply talent it makes for some entertaining tennis to say the least though in the end the youth will win through, it's just a case of how long it will take until the 'Dinosaurs' become extinct........
Monday, 5 June 2017
'IS IT NOT COOL TO PLAY TENNIS' ?
As the tennis off season is now in full swing it is that time of year to do other things in life but as usual we reflect on the past season, the what if's, the missed opportunities, the glory ( if there was any ) and the improvement or inability to deliver. Tennis is like that, we always analyse, if we didn't we may be called a 'robot'.
My biggest question to the sport in my home town here in 'sleepy hollow' is this, 'Is it not cool to play tennis anymore' ?
The following examples are what makes me think just that......
I played a Doubles event in March and this is who we played.
Round 1- A combined age of approximately 60
Round 2- A combined age of perhaps 65
Round 3 - A combined age of 50 ( getting better )
Round 4- A combined age of 90 ( yes that is correct )
Round 5 - A combined age of 90 ( no that isn't a misprint )
Final Round - A combined age of around 80.
As far as our team was concerned, I am 48, my doubles partner Matt is 24, there's a few more years of tennis playing experience as well as old age all rolled into one. So let's break all of that down into simple terms.
There was around 500 years of combined age playing that event and quite possibly 350 years of tennis playing experience if each player picked up a racket at around ten years of age. That's an awful lot of experience in one tennis tournament but what is most ridiculous is the amount of guys who are actually 'allowed' to still be competitive at their current age.
I believe that there was in fact one teenager playing Mens A Grade, ONE, so why is this ?
I have often thought that tennis is a rather expensive sport to play due to equipment, coaching and travel, just to name a few issues that surround the sport yet is there more to it ?
Team sports seem to own the lions share of the numbers when it comes to popularity as far as the youth of today is concerned and tennis is nowhere near as popular as Soccer, AFL, Hockey, Basketball or even Cricket so if a kid decides to play tennis seriously is it not considered 'cool' by his or her mates ?
Are kids being pressured into playing team sports due to the nature of the mentality of youth and the desire to feel part of a team as opposed to the feeling of isolation of playing individual sport ? The numbers tell the story.
In the final event of the year locally here in 'sleepy hollow' it wasn't a whole lot better as far as ages were concerned though there was perhaps two or three more teenagers involved but the 'Dinosaurs' still made up the numbers.
In my event I actually only had to play three matches due to one team not fielding a singles player, I find that disheartening. I played two teenagers plus another 'Dinosaur' who told me that their club did not own any youth either. At 48 and 47 we were both the 'youngest' players available to play singles for our club.
So is it just here in my home town that struggles to find kids to play the sport of tennis ?
I believe that tennis is now an 'older' persons sport and it seems that there are some facts to back this statement up but it still does not help the sport to grow, no matter where you live or what standard you play.
If you are looking at heading to your local tennis club for the first time upon your retirement and put your experience into good use against the youth of the game, well you may be a little disappointed.
Here is an article that backs up the claim that tennis may in fact be a sport for the 'Dinosaurs'........
My biggest question to the sport in my home town here in 'sleepy hollow' is this, 'Is it not cool to play tennis anymore' ?
The following examples are what makes me think just that......
I played a Doubles event in March and this is who we played.
Round 1- A combined age of approximately 60
Round 2- A combined age of perhaps 65
Round 3 - A combined age of 50 ( getting better )
Round 4- A combined age of 90 ( yes that is correct )
Round 5 - A combined age of 90 ( no that isn't a misprint )
Final Round - A combined age of around 80.
As far as our team was concerned, I am 48, my doubles partner Matt is 24, there's a few more years of tennis playing experience as well as old age all rolled into one. So let's break all of that down into simple terms.
There was around 500 years of combined age playing that event and quite possibly 350 years of tennis playing experience if each player picked up a racket at around ten years of age. That's an awful lot of experience in one tennis tournament but what is most ridiculous is the amount of guys who are actually 'allowed' to still be competitive at their current age.
I believe that there was in fact one teenager playing Mens A Grade, ONE, so why is this ?
I have often thought that tennis is a rather expensive sport to play due to equipment, coaching and travel, just to name a few issues that surround the sport yet is there more to it ?
Team sports seem to own the lions share of the numbers when it comes to popularity as far as the youth of today is concerned and tennis is nowhere near as popular as Soccer, AFL, Hockey, Basketball or even Cricket so if a kid decides to play tennis seriously is it not considered 'cool' by his or her mates ?
Are kids being pressured into playing team sports due to the nature of the mentality of youth and the desire to feel part of a team as opposed to the feeling of isolation of playing individual sport ? The numbers tell the story.
In the final event of the year locally here in 'sleepy hollow' it wasn't a whole lot better as far as ages were concerned though there was perhaps two or three more teenagers involved but the 'Dinosaurs' still made up the numbers.
In my event I actually only had to play three matches due to one team not fielding a singles player, I find that disheartening. I played two teenagers plus another 'Dinosaur' who told me that their club did not own any youth either. At 48 and 47 we were both the 'youngest' players available to play singles for our club.
So is it just here in my home town that struggles to find kids to play the sport of tennis ?
I believe that tennis is now an 'older' persons sport and it seems that there are some facts to back this statement up but it still does not help the sport to grow, no matter where you live or what standard you play.
If you are looking at heading to your local tennis club for the first time upon your retirement and put your experience into good use against the youth of the game, well you may be a little disappointed.
Here is an article that backs up the claim that tennis may in fact be a sport for the 'Dinosaurs'........
'GREAT ARTICLE BY CHRIS CHASE'
By: Chris Chase | August 20, 2015 1:15 pm
The what I love about these tennis players, man, I get older and … so do they.
It’s no secret that the game of professional tennis has skewed older in recent years, with Roger Federer and Serena Williams staying at the top of their games into their mid-30s, teenagers hardly making a dent on the ATP and women frequently breaking into the WTA’s top 10 around age 28, almost double the age when such breakouts used to happen.
In the days of Chrissie Evert, Tracy Austin, Steffi Graf and Monica Seles, it was routine for girls who didn’t have their driver’s license to occupy spots in the top 10. Men always tended to skew older, but still had young stars, such as Boris Becker winning Wimbledon at 17 and, somewhat recently, Rafael Nadal winning the French Open at age 19.
In 2002 it was 24.5 years.
In 2015 it’s 28.6 years.
2. In the latest rankings, only one player (24-year-old Milos Raonic) is younger than the average age from just 13 years ago.
3. On the men’s side, there have been 10 teenage Grand Slam winners (including multiple winners such as Boris Becker and Mats Wilander). Right now there are just four teenagers in the top 100 and the furthest any of them has gotten in a Grand Slam is to the third round. Half of those players either have zero or one wins in a major.
4. There is one teenager currently in the top 75. There were six players ranked that high 30 years ago, including two in the top 10.
5. On the flip side, there were three players over the age of 28 in the top 40 back in 1985. This year, 18 of the top 25 are that old and 24 of the top 40 are over 28.
6. In 1995, the highest ranked 32-year-old man was No. 124 in the world and only eight men of that age were ranked in the top 500. Right now, 18 players that old are ranked higher than No. 124, including five in the top 25 (and the world No. 3, Federer)
7. As recently as a decade ago, there were seven players aged 32 or above in the top 100. The 20th ranked player who was 32+ was ranked No. 676. Today, there are 12 players in the top 100 and the 20th ranked player that old is No. 192.
8. Of the 20 youngest Grand Slam winners, only five have won that major since 2005. The last teenager to win one was Rafael Nadal, who turned 19 while winning the 2005 French Open.
9. In 1992 the average age of the women’s top 10 was 21.7 years.
In 2002 it was 22.0 years.
In 2014 it’s 25.9 years.
10. In the latest rankings, only one player (21-year-old Garbine Muguruza) is younger than the average age of top 10ers from 2002.
11. Serena Williams became the oldest woman to ever win a Grand Slam when she took the title at Wimbledon and of course, she shows precisely zero signs of slowing down.
12. In 1990, half the women in the year-end top 10 were teenagers during that season. Currently, there are only three teenagers in the top 100.
13. Also in 1990, 20 women in the top 30 were under 23 years old. Currently, there are six players in the top 30 who are younger than 23.
14. Eight women have won Grand Slams before turning 19. This year, there is only one such teenager ranked in the entire top 150 (Ana Konjuh at No. 81).
15. This year, there are 15 women over 30 in the top 100. In 2000, there were two such women.
16. This one’s insane: In 2012 — just three years ago — there were three women over 32 in the top 100. This year there are eight.
17. Five of the seven oldest women to win their first Grand Slam have won it in the past decade. Of the 19 youngest women to win their first Slam, only one (Ana Ivanovic at age 20) has done that in the past 10 years.
Okay, so now that we’ve established the old is the new young, what is it? What’s making tennis players get better later and stay better when players from a decade ago were already retired?
It’s a question with a number of answers, all that probably contribute in one way or another. Could it be the combination of added power in the sport (the serve-and-volley is mostly dead), aided by racquet and string technology? Do training methods and diet help keep the top players healthier and in better shape? Has recovery — a key component when trying to win a match a day or seven matches in two weeks — become more of a science and something taken more seriously by players?
Whatever it is, the sport has never been older. Next month, Serena Williams will attempt to both tie Steffi Graf’s record of 22 Grand Slams while becoming the first player since Graf to win the calendar Slam. She’ll be doing that all at age 33.
By the time she was 33, Graf, who twice played Serena, had already been retired for three years.
It’s no secret that the game of professional tennis has skewed older in recent years, with Roger Federer and Serena Williams staying at the top of their games into their mid-30s, teenagers hardly making a dent on the ATP and women frequently breaking into the WTA’s top 10 around age 28, almost double the age when such breakouts used to happen.
In the days of Chrissie Evert, Tracy Austin, Steffi Graf and Monica Seles, it was routine for girls who didn’t have their driver’s license to occupy spots in the top 10. Men always tended to skew older, but still had young stars, such as Boris Becker winning Wimbledon at 17 and, somewhat recently, Rafael Nadal winning the French Open at age 19.
Men’s Facts
1. In 1992 the average age of the men’s top 10 was 23.2 years.In 2002 it was 24.5 years.
In 2015 it’s 28.6 years.
2. In the latest rankings, only one player (24-year-old Milos Raonic) is younger than the average age from just 13 years ago.
3. On the men’s side, there have been 10 teenage Grand Slam winners (including multiple winners such as Boris Becker and Mats Wilander). Right now there are just four teenagers in the top 100 and the furthest any of them has gotten in a Grand Slam is to the third round. Half of those players either have zero or one wins in a major.
4. There is one teenager currently in the top 75. There were six players ranked that high 30 years ago, including two in the top 10.
5. On the flip side, there were three players over the age of 28 in the top 40 back in 1985. This year, 18 of the top 25 are that old and 24 of the top 40 are over 28.
6. In 1995, the highest ranked 32-year-old man was No. 124 in the world and only eight men of that age were ranked in the top 500. Right now, 18 players that old are ranked higher than No. 124, including five in the top 25 (and the world No. 3, Federer)
7. As recently as a decade ago, there were seven players aged 32 or above in the top 100. The 20th ranked player who was 32+ was ranked No. 676. Today, there are 12 players in the top 100 and the 20th ranked player that old is No. 192.
8. Of the 20 youngest Grand Slam winners, only five have won that major since 2005. The last teenager to win one was Rafael Nadal, who turned 19 while winning the 2005 French Open.
9. In 1992 the average age of the women’s top 10 was 21.7 years.
In 2002 it was 22.0 years.
In 2014 it’s 25.9 years.
10. In the latest rankings, only one player (21-year-old Garbine Muguruza) is younger than the average age of top 10ers from 2002.
11. Serena Williams became the oldest woman to ever win a Grand Slam when she took the title at Wimbledon and of course, she shows precisely zero signs of slowing down.
12. In 1990, half the women in the year-end top 10 were teenagers during that season. Currently, there are only three teenagers in the top 100.
13. Also in 1990, 20 women in the top 30 were under 23 years old. Currently, there are six players in the top 30 who are younger than 23.
14. Eight women have won Grand Slams before turning 19. This year, there is only one such teenager ranked in the entire top 150 (Ana Konjuh at No. 81).
15. This year, there are 15 women over 30 in the top 100. In 2000, there were two such women.
16. This one’s insane: In 2012 — just three years ago — there were three women over 32 in the top 100. This year there are eight.
17. Five of the seven oldest women to win their first Grand Slam have won it in the past decade. Of the 19 youngest women to win their first Slam, only one (Ana Ivanovic at age 20) has done that in the past 10 years.
Okay, so now that we’ve established the old is the new young, what is it? What’s making tennis players get better later and stay better when players from a decade ago were already retired?
It’s a question with a number of answers, all that probably contribute in one way or another. Could it be the combination of added power in the sport (the serve-and-volley is mostly dead), aided by racquet and string technology? Do training methods and diet help keep the top players healthier and in better shape? Has recovery — a key component when trying to win a match a day or seven matches in two weeks — become more of a science and something taken more seriously by players?
Whatever it is, the sport has never been older. Next month, Serena Williams will attempt to both tie Steffi Graf’s record of 22 Grand Slams while becoming the first player since Graf to win the calendar Slam. She’ll be doing that all at age 33.
By the time she was 33, Graf, who twice played Serena, had already been retired for three years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)