This is what I've been trying to convey.
What part of this is so hard to understand for some Fedtards? (Or Roddicktards) for that matter...
People here pretend as if Roddick has quality comparable to Sampras, Agassi, and McEnroe (maybe to defend their argument that Fed had "tough" competition). Unfortunately, Roddick is one of the most one dimensional players, even during his prime, unfortunately not a good all around player. Tipsarevic has a good all around game, just a mentally weak and inconsistent player.
Even if that's true (which is debatable) - being "weak and inconsistent" is part of what makes Tipsarevic not a great player. So ergo, even if he has the weapons you speak of, he has not been able to consolidate and therefore only has 2 titles to his name and is therefore a lesser player than Roddick.
There are a lot of players more talented than Djokovic and Nadal but because Djokovic and Nadal are more mentally strong, they have been able to make more of their careers - and who's to say these guys do not deserve respect for that? One can say that Nalbandian has better talent than Nadal but who's the bigger threat? It's always going to be Nadal because he is more mentally strong and consistent.
Actually you guys want to keep on demeaning Roddick to stress that Federer had a weak competition but if Roddick is such a slouch, he wouldn't have made it to 4 other grandslam finals aside from the one he won. You can fluke your way to one slam win but reaching 5 GS finals is no small feat and requires a tough player. Roddick has been able to do way more than Tipsarevic will probably be able to do in his entire career.
You can speak of so called weapons and talents if you want, but if Tipsarevic does not know how to use this supposedly great weapons he has - he is a weak player and Roddick's achievements will prove that he is better.