Ferrer is playing well, but let's not exaggerate. Laver at the same age won 4 majors in 1969. Connors at the same age won two majors in 1982 and was the top player that year. Lendl at the same age was still ranked number 1.
Ferrrer, Laver, Connors, Lendl. which name doesn't belong? in tennis(all sports really) all time greats often have greater longevity than the rest of the field.
Ferrer first cracked the top 10 at the age of 25(which is on the older side for first time top tenners) he then dropped out of the top 10 for a few years & then returned at age 28. that is very unusual statistically(unless you're an alltime great), perhaps even unprecedented.
But I believe the average age of the top 50 is the oldest its been in 30 years(maybe longer actually) so maybe its not that unusual in that context.
due to the rather astonishing lack of promising younger players, we'll probably have even more veterans peaking at 27-29 in the next few years(& that's the main reason I think its a mistake to write off Fed or Nadal from winning more majors, the field isn't exactly deep, they basically only have to worry about one guy - someone who's not that young & isn't looking all that good physically right now)
Its really weird to see one 19 year old in the top 100(Tomic)
There were years in the 80s/90s with 10-20 teenagers in the top 100(some who became all time greats)
At this point I wonder if we'll ever see a young player do what Andre Medvedev did, let alone what the famous phenoms like Borg, Becker, Wilander, & Nadal did.