I always find discussion about Rosewall interesting, for a variety of reasons. In particular the dismissing of his achievements as proof that the era he achieved them in was obviously weak
because of his achievements (and his size).
And yet statistically, there
must be a distribution of sizes of great players, and a distribution of longevity achievements.
Someone must be a small great player, and
someone must be a long-lived, great player.
It so happens that Rosewall
is that small player, and one of a group of longevity achievers (and the greatest for 50 years).
If you dismiss the era because of his achievements, then in a sense you are saying you do not believe there can be a distribution in tennis, unlike in every other aspect of life.
I'm not sure that stacks up as any sort of rational argument. And it raises the question, if not Rosewall, who is the great short player (and if the answer is Laver, then since Rosewall and Laver overlapped so much, it raises the question what happened in the four years between the two to allow Laver to be a considered a valid short great, and Rosewall not
)