[b]The fallacy here is in assuming how great you are determines your susceptibility to ageing. Greatness in respects A, B, C, & D does NOT entail greatness in respect Z. To put it starkly, I think we can probably agree Shakespeare was a greater dramatist than George Bernard Shaw. Yet at age 60, Bernard Shaw was still writing plays, while Shakespeare - was dead.
I'm talking about aging in the context of "DECLINING"....aka: The great and almighty Roger Federer is more susceptible to [a decline because of his] age than an inferior David Ferrer?
Age in relation to QUALITY....not the literal process of "getting older"
Ferrer peaked at an older age than Federer did. Simple as that.
That's my point. AGE does not preclude someone from playing as well or even better than they had in years prior. And such is seen in Ferrer. Blaming all of Federer's losses solely on his age is bogus.
Everybody should just put MIMIC on ignore.
Then do it. Jesus. No need to make an announcement.