What do you think? while most would agree that he is not quite in his prime anymore he is still pretty darn good. he still consistently reaches semi finals of GS tournaments and challenges nadal and novak hard and occasionally beats them (at least always wins sets) like in the WTF last yeat or in roland garros.
was there ever a 30yo player that was consistently as good as federer at this age?
Federer's status as a 30 year old year player can be measured by the accomplishments of other players (i.e. winning majors) when reaching that age--or older:
The list of men in the Open Era to win majors at or past the age 30 is made up of just seven men...
Rod Laver won his 2nd Grand Slam in 1969 at the age of 30(Federer failed to do that in his prime).
Ken Rosewall won the '72 Australian Open at the age of
37 (highly unlikely Federer will be playing at that age).
Gimeno won the '72 French Open at the age of
34 (unlikely Federer will be playing at that age).
Connors won the '83 U.S. Open at the age of
31.
Gomez won the '90 French Open at the age of
30.
Sampras won the '02 U.S. Open at the age of
31.
Agassi won the '03 Australian Open at the age of
32.
Not a mountain of support for the various victories to be repeated again and again by a player apparently on the downslide, being so rare in over 4 decades of Open tennis.
Since it is beyond question Federer will not continue playing to reach Rosewall's 37yrs, win the Grand Slam at 30 like Laver (AO 2012 just snuffed that out), or win a FO at age 34 like Gimeno, three of the seven can be eliminated, reducing the list to four men.
So, when you say
"consistently as good as Federer," what is the criteria for the statement when he's yet to win a major at the age in question, and certainly has no prayer of winning the Grand Slam like Laver at that age?
