Piece I wrote for Yahoo Sports UK on the golden oldies

Give it a whirl
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/generation-game-golden-oldie-era-djokovic-roger-rafa-tennis-rulebook-ripped-105812950.html

Decent piece, but feels like the end is a bit truncated - editors decision or a word limit?

The problems with the hypothesis that players are peaking at 29-31 are 2 fold:
1 - Federer is 36 and has consistently beaten the 30-31 ear old Nadal in the last 18 months, something he couldn't do at 30...
2 - The big 4 have been at the top of the game for over a decade, so were the 19-22 year olds who burst through.

I think the keys to their success are that they are something of a golden generation, and have been followed by 10 years where no great players have emerged (Del Potro might hav0e been at least Murray's level, but even he's only a year or so younger than Murray and Djoko). I also think that the following generation has struggled with confidence BECAUSE of their lack of success against the big 4.


I think there is no doubt that the top players now get support far beyond players of the 1990s, and that this has allowed greater longevity, at least for the likes of Federer who can avoid serious injuries. I don't though think it is the be all and end all of explaining the current situation.

Stan Wawrinka was the interesting one.  He reached a grand slam final for the first time two months shy of his 29th birthday & won it.  He was 29 when he won his first (and so far only) Master's title.  For the next three years he was competitive and at his best he was able to beat the top four, but he lacked the consistency of the others.  For three years he was up there with the "top four" (apart from year round consistency) before his knee injury in 2017. Clearly something must have happened when he was 28 to make that transition.

I think the present and recent history is telling us the enormous gulf between the top four and all the rest.  Clearly in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic we have what we can call "all-time greats".  Murray was a step below them, but without them, he could have won another ten grand slam titles.