I would think after Fed's loss to Anderson at Wimbledon, not quite yet 37, that Rosewall should be given a bit more credit for getting so far at Wimbledon and then the USO in 74, when he was nearly 40. Also, the "vitamins" weren't as good back then, and we should look more at the ages of everyone else competing in that era. Rosewall's two losses to Connors were in Connors' three slam year, a year in which he did not even play RG. I've always thought Roswall's age should be considered more. We should think about how hard it is to win majors after age 35, even when other top players are injured.