Originally Posted by NatF
How do you seperate playing level from peak play? Is playing level what you consider their consistant level to be?
Might as I suggest to someone who professes to be a historian, that you should watch more of the Federer matches mentioned in this thread. I would watch more Rosewall if there were videos.
Then how is it that you can so strongly claim that Federer is beneath Rosewall in terms of level of play? I'd venture that I've seen alot more of Federer than you've seen of Rosewall and perhaps Federer combined...
Being taller also helps with longer strides when running. If Federer grew up with wood raquets I think you'd be surprised. His speed and footwork are excellent which would help with his timing with the smaller raquets. He'd also excell in fast conditions...
No doubt, but if you didn't see it how much better is just an assumption.
NatF, Yes, I consider peak play as the best showing in one match or one year while (general) playing level means playing strength over a player's best years.
I could have seen more Federer matches but generally I was seldom thrilled by "modern" matches.
Six years after the peak means a significant decline for any player. Imagine a 34 years old Federer in comparison to a peak Federer...