AGE BECOMES HIM: is tennis about physique or experience?

Roger Federer, Miami Open 2017

Upsetting public stereotypes and finally meeting his fans' long-craved expectations, Rodger Federer becomes a triumphant winner of Australian Open 2017 at the age of 35. He then carries on his triumphant pace well into the title at Indian Wells tournament and Miami Open competition, two Masters in a row. Tennis critics say there is no stopping him, others argue-it's his final outburst on the verge of retirement. Maestro Federer is displaying his usual tranquility and self-confidence saying he's got no retirement plans for the nearest future. Is it just Roger or age is not dictating its rules to athletes anymore? 

                                             Some arguments against age limit

• Serena Williams conqueres her 23d Grand Slam title at Australian Open 2017, at the same age of 35. 
• Serena Williams achieves her top ranking position for the seventh time on January 30, 2017, at the age of 35.
• Venus Williams, Serena's sister, returns to top ten in WTA rankings, and goes as far as quarterfinals at Miami Open 2017, becoming the oldest female tennis player to defeat world No. 1.
• Martina Hingis makes her return to doubles after the announced retirement and keeps winning Grand Slam titles in doubles at the age of 36.
• The latest WTA and ATP rankings show at least 8 female players over 30 years of age and 20(!) male players of at least 33 years of age or older in top 100.

                                                               What's the secret?

Serena Williams, Australian Open 2017

Opinions may differ, but the tendency of professional tennis getting more mature is obvious. Former players and coaches agree that 30 becomes the new 20 nowadays. More and more players are finding their best tennis later in their careers. In most cases this is not even due to any major changes like switching to another coach or moving countries. The most reasonable answer to this puzzling question seems to be quite trivial - tennis requires wisdom and nerve, you can't become GOAT at the age of 18. Another reason might be a purely economic one - tennis players are making more and more money, especially by advertising contracts, so they can afford a much better health care and psychologic support from professionals than ever before. The psychic component, often underestimated before, has been much studied and is now recognized as a decisive one. Achieving one or a couple of triumphant moments, getting noticed and spoken about - quite possible at 18 or even younger. Still, securing your place on the top for a number of consecutive years (Roger and Serena have been doing that for more than a decade by now!) in the atmosphere of permanent rivalry, cannot be explained by good physical condition or lucky chance only. Nick Kirgios, Alexander Zverev, Taylor Fritz, Borna Coric, Karen Khachanov and some others, all of them not older than 21, known as NextGen, are holding ranks in top 100, and making news in tennis. They are so popular that it even makes ATP tour launch a new tournament for players 21 and younger. Their time will come to substitute the famous Djokovic-Nadal-Marray-Federer cohort. Or, maybe, the NextGen will play alongside the mentioned tops for another decade? 

  

A FAIR PLAY: Should Serving a Drug Ban be Rewarded with Wildcards?

Within the last couple of months, from the moment tennis community learnt about Maria Sharapova's wild card acceptance to the tennis competition in Stuttgart, Germany and later on, to some other professional tennis events, there has been a heated discussion on the topic. The matter was further  on complicated by Maria's receiving other wild cards from different tournaments (Madrid and Rome for now). This caused some tennis players speak out their opinion which was mostly not approving. Andy Murray, Angelique Kerber, Alize Cornet, Caroline Wozniacki and some others voiced the ethical conflict which was obvious in the situation - a sportsman, accused of taking forbidden substances and banned from participating in all professional events, is awarded with wildcards when returning to action instead of working her way back up again. What makes the whole thing even more sensitive is the fact that the Stuttgart tournament starts while Sharapova's ban is still in effect. This is a serious ethical issue which shows the controversy in judgement that is affecting professional spot as long as there is big money or famous names involved. 

 Is professional sport a fair play nowadays? 

How does this wild card case show that it is not?   

Stuttgart was, probably, not a random choice of the return point for Sharapova, be it her team's or the tournament directors' choice. She is not only a holder of three tournament titles (and three Porsche cars respectively), but a former Porsche advertising figure. The suspicion is strong that by making her first appearance at the tournament, she will attract unprecedented attention to the event and the sponsors.

Seeing so much agitation on the topic and the audience's viral interest in connection with Sharapova's, to some extent, scandalous return, other tournament directors followed the "wildcard" trend. But not all of them.Why do French Open directors hesitate about giving Sharapova wildcard into Rolland Garros tournament? Do they consider it to be a disputable ethical issue, unlike some others? It is obvious that the bigger and more popular, sponsor-craved the tournament is, the more attention is paid to its reputation and public opinion. French open bosses can't ignore the ethical implication of their possible decision - they want to be convinced and entreated.  

      Is it sports ethics violation then?

The major problem about Sharapova's ban was initially the very situation of her doping tests showing positive for meldonium - a newly-forbidden substance at the time and her partial acceptance of the charges. A sign of prejudiced treatment manifested itself in the actual ban reduction from two years to 15 months for Maria, which made her indignant rather than grateful. She complained to her supporters that the International Tennis Federation insisted on making her serve four years instead of forgiving her altogether!  At the point, most sympathies remained with Sharapova, although most of her advertising contracts were suspended. Some time later, however, the news broke that there were other cases of meldonium usage by some sports champions from Russia, the same country Sharapova represents. Now, this already makes the matter not quite that innocent for Sharapova. You could account for this as a pure coincidence - you could, but would you? While there is no direct proved performance-enhancing powers shown by meldonium, taking it for ten years with no obvious medical reason does seem strange for a world-famous athlete who simply cannot afford being inattentive to what she's consuming on a regular basis. 
Unlike the sponsors and event managers, most players and tennis specialists are skeptical about the WTA's objectiveness and fairness with regards to this particular case. Should all athletes be aware of all the legal consequences of taking banned substances? Yes, they should. Should all athletes be punished fairly for testing positive to banned substance usage? Yes, they should. Should public opinion be disapproving or supportive of convicted athletes? Should some of them be stripped of all their titles and despised like Lance Armstrong and others rewarded and welcomed on their return from the ban? Or is every single case different and should be treated individually? Should all the players be playing one game by the same rules or should the rules  be devised individually in every single case? Shall we then have fair play or selective justice?