You make a case on the physicality of the Tennis based on two case, Gonzales and Rosewall, and you conveniently ignore the fact that the other top players of the early days of the open era like Laver, Roche, Newcombe, Smith, Ash, were irrelevant in the majors after their early 30's.
In recent times, Connors have been a factor in majors until 1991 when he was forty years old. Agassi until 2005 when he was 35 years old. Now, Haas who is too a 35 years old.
I believe, 1991 was not a lot less physical than 2002, the last year of Sampras careers. Nor was 2005 very different than today's game.
You used the exceptions of Gonzales and Rosewall to discard a whole era. Bobbyone use the exception of Agassi and Haas to discard the current era and especially Federer. It's exactly the same argument but used it opposite direction. It's an extremely weak and twisted argument. Rosewall, Gonzales, Connors, Agassi, Haas, they are all exceptions, the fact that they are exceptions tell us that tennis is difficult to play past 30 years old at a high level now and in the 60's or 70's.
The player who for some reasons can last longer, because their body is special, their style is forgiving, because they can maintain the will to work hard for longer than the other, these players deserve full credit.
