You can't fluke 3 slams and 5 masters beating the top 3 players consistently. Especially since Novak defended the Australian Open and 2 of his masters this year still beating the top players to do that.
A fluke is Rosol beating Nadal at Wimbledon and losing in the next round.
There is more than one way to play the game and it will keep changing with time. Winning from the baseline is harder and more taxing physically, but that's the way a lot of players are playing today. Against Nadal, serve and volley is suicide because of his passing shots. Also, players hit with more pace which makes it tough to redirect shots at the net.
What many variables? Far more skilled players of today would destroy the weaker field Federer faced. You don't need a million variables to realize that Bagdhatis/Roddick/Gonzalez/etc at their best are nowhere near as good as Novak/Rafa/Murray. There are three players competing for slams with a legitimate chance of winning multiple ones each year. Who apart from Federer was making slam semis/finals consistently from 2003-2006 and how good were they? The answer is clear, and your logic is stupid because you keep thinking an old player can't win against a younger player otherwise it proves that he younger player isn't good.
Rafter beat Federer on grass/clay/hardcourt. However, that was 29 year old Rafter vs 20 year old Federer, who was still a baby finding his game. The past greats beating the younger players isn't a shocker. Federer beating Novak/Rafa/Murray doesn't prove they wouldn't dominate he field he faced because even the current Federer is a lot better than most of the players from 2003-2006.
It's a simple concept that you have been dodging all along with nonsense about hypotheticals/variables. Some things are obvious, you can either choose to accept it or delude yourself into thinking prime Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt etc are better than prime Nadal/Novak/Murray.
Glutinous Novak still straight-setted Federer at AO 2008. Gluten free Novak is 6-2 against Federer starting from AO 2011.
As expected . U fail to see that nadull is part of Feds generation . And federer played him in 05/06. He won on all surface. Nadull entered his Prime in 2007.
So u cannot put nadull in a SEPERATE group because he is Feds main rival. U can't see that then what is the point discussing with u. AGAIN Nadull played in Feds era. Gosh. His simplistic game is more applicable when he is young.
Nadull is an early bloomer. Just like Borg won a slam 18 multiple champion n finalist by 21 . Do u hear anyone young Borg. Becker/ wilander/ Chang/ Hewitt all won slams some multiple before 21 years old they are not young.
That's the concept to cannot grasp. So he is Feds rival during his dominant period.
So if u split nadull in 2 . U are saying old / injury prone nadull greater than young nadull.
Bring up rafter. Is irrelevant as fed has a different game to nadull, rafter played fed in his first ever match. Should I bring up how nadull lost to Blake/ Roddick etc no its irrelevant.
So everyone knows nadull is greater than Gonzalez etc. so what he is Feds rival. Feds career encompassed his entire career most likely.
Murray u say is better that Roddick/ ferrero/ Agassi/Safin/ hewitt. All of them has slams Murray does not.
Is Murray greater than Gonzalez /baghdatis etc. in terms of results so what. Fed beat him and nadull won against Soderling/ Berdych. Similiar in career to Baghdatis and Gonzalez as I already pointed out. So he is better than Feds second tier competition.
Novak . Feds rivals Safin/ Hewitt/ 2003 Agassi than glutinous Novak.
Gluten free Novak has accomplished more. However old fed could still take him down.unsure if he would have discovered his *allergy* winke winke back in those days. Against a faster courts and servers and flat hitters.
That take time "away" to make his FH susceptible .
Roddick has a superior h2h in his old age. PRIME Roddick on faster court I would give the edge.