Tennis Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Art & Futures
Joined
·
25,348 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Inspired by @Lugaid Ó Cearbhaill 's thread on birth year generations and slams, I decide to quickly come up with the # of slams by birth year and see what it looks like.

(i did this by manually and quickly so feel free to let me know if there's errors)


Font Parallel Number Screenshot Pattern

Font Rectangle Pattern Parallel Number


Font Material property Parallel Number Pattern




What I find most interesting is that since 1968, the # of people with at least one slam is somewhat fairly distributed, with only two years having 3 players and four years with 0, the rest have 1-2 players each birth year with at least one slam. However, before 1968, you have huge gaps where no one was born who was winning.

What is also interesting is that slam counts seem to peak around certain periods. This supports the cohort argument that you often see in many other areas/fields of performance (e.g. art, sport, business, etc.), where greatness begets greatness.... that is, the more two or more "great" people interact, it only fuels them to pursue greatness even more, and you get these peak periods of a culture where great people are supporting each other, whether it be through cooperation or competitiveness.... eg. around 1979-1983 you have a ton of great players born Williams/Hingis/Henin/Clijsters era, 1968-1973 Seles/Graf era, 1954-1957 Evert/Navratilova era, 1942-1945 King/Court era. there may be other epic eras more recently, but still a little early to tell.


The following is a chart to help, not sure if it's useful
Rectangle Slope Font Line Plot



What do ya'll think? Why are there big gaps between years where no one was winning slams but not so much anymore? Do you believe in the cohort argument? Discuss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,860 Posts
As I said in the other thread, the generation between Navratilova and Graf was the lost generation of tennis. So many injuries and teen prodigies finished by the time they were 20, even Mandlikova failed to win a slam beyond the age of 24 and she was the only one who managed to compete with Navratilova and Evert between 1982 and 1987.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
769 Posts
What I can roughly assume from those stats, someone born between 1992-1998 will rake around 10 slams, when all is said and done. And possibly 20+ slams combined from players born in that same one birth year or two.

Could be Barty, Osaka or someone else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Thanks for collating this.

What I can roughly assume from those stats, someone born between 1992-1998 will rake around 10 slams, when all is said and done. And possibly 20+ slams combined from players born in that same one birth year or two.

Could be Barty, Osaka or someone else.
Perhaps, but i don't think Barty and Osaka will have long careers. Next gen talent pool is growing fast by numbers, with racquet/ball tech favoring powerful baseliners ( several vying to uphold the manly tennis Serena brought to the table, proving to be more taxing stamina wise thus leading to more younger/thinner tenniswomen sustaining repeated injuries unfortunately. Barring that, it's difficult to compare eras.

Still, generational gap between 'same age dynasties' are: 1942-44 to 1954-56: 12 years; 1956 to 1969: 13 years; 1969 to 1980-82: 13 years; 1982 to 1996-97: 15 years( if Barty/Osaka reach 20+). The last semi-dynasty for quite a while imo.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top