Phoenix, Claiming that Rosewall's failure at Wimbledon does not exclude him from the GOAT discussion is NOT a silly argument. There are several experts, including serious Carlo Colussi, who think like me. At this question I'm really not alone.
Your other points: Again NOT a single silly argument.
Do you believe I'm a liar (Collins' calling me)??? Thanks for your opinion about me.
It's common sense among the experts (I guess almost all of them) that Rosewall would have won at Wimbledon. It's not a bias my young friend...
That I'm an expert several posters have already perceived: krosero, pc1, urban, borg number one, kiki, Carlo Colussi, hoodjem, Mustard,treblings,timnz among others. It's your turn to join them...
yes, saying rosewall would've won wimbledon at his peak is not bias ....that's reasonable speculation ...
but saying federer's BH and volleying are weaknesses ( they are only relative weaknesses in reality ) , but rosewall's serve ( a true weakness ) and forehand ( a relative weakness ) aren't is bias
putting rosewall at the very top for peak play when his contemporaries laver, gonzales and hoad ( for shorter period of time ) were better in that aspect is also another example of bias
saying federer doesn't play touch shots is bias or being clueless ...you pick ....actually I'd strongly go with clueless on this one ....
saying federer isn't in the top 10 for peak play and putting the likes of newk/roche/becker etc above him is bias or being clueless ... you pick ...
majority of the "experts" agree with me .regarding federer's position in history .....including great players like laver, borg, rosewall, navratilova, connors, agassi, sampras, kramer etc ......
finally, I assure you, no one here seriously thinks you know much about modern tennis .......