The rather glaring point you seem to be missing is that Federer has also been winning slams after 2007, the "prime" years of Novak/Rafa/Murray (leaving aside the question of when Rafa's prime really began - there seems no obvious reason for dating it later than 2005, since he was higher ranked then than he is now). In fact, in that period he has won precisely the same number of slams as Djokovic, and rather more than Murray. Only Nadal is ahead. In winning those slams he has beaten Murray 3 times and Djokovic twice. He also beat Djokovic at the 2007 U.S. Open (Djoker ended the year at No. 3 & won the next slam) and Nadal at 2006 & 2007 Wimbledon (Nadal ended both years as No. 2, by some distance). And since 2008 he has been noticeably worse against the rest of the field outside the 3 you're obsessing about.
Fed stopped Nadal winning ONE slam in 2003-6. No evidence there Nadal would have been startlingly more successful than he already was. Besides Federer, "prime" Djoker has lost to Melzer, Kohlschreiber, Roddick, Tsonga, in slams, none of whom is noticeably better than the people Federer was beating in 2003-6 - a younger better Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Agassi, Davydenko, Gonzo, Hewitt, Nalbandian, et al. Murray has lost to Cilic, Wawrinka, old Roddick, & freaking Verdasco, for God's sake. Do you seriously believe Djoker or Muzz would have had the same success against the players Fed was beating as Federer did? Can't you see there is no evidence for that at all, or is this just a borderline deranged trolling operation?
The noticeable fact is that Federer didn't collect 10 slams as quickly as he did when facing his weak field of the past.
You have not said anything to support that the past mugs would fare any better in the slams against prime Novak/Nadal/Murray.
I also see the excuse of Federer declining as soon as he started losing more frequently in the slams still being used.
Looks like a bunch of deluded fans refusing to admit that the field finally got strong enough to prevent one man from winning so much compared to the usual mugs that provided little to no resistance.
Federer lost to Roddick and Haas this year. By your faulty logic, they are older and yet are managing to beat Federer now. Does that mean prime Roddick would have destroyed the current Federer in most of their matches? Of course not. Any mug can have his day.
The current field is stronger and that's a fact.
Long way to go is a stretch. Odds of Nadal retiring/dropping in the rankings before Federer is not high. Odds of Nole retiring/dropping in the rankings before Federer is higher, but not outlandish. But I agree the debate have to be taken eventually, not now. At the moment there is no debate. No further decline to speak of either, unless someone is prepared to admit this era is so weak that being a marginal #1 is unimpressive. And quite soon it need not be marginal anymore. Djokovic is defending 2600 points and Federer 900 until the end of USO. If Fed wins Cincy & USO he will be at least 3000 points ahead. At which point you would have to come up with a novel excuse.
Being number #1 by playing more 500 ATP or 250 is nothing impressive. Nadal could play more clay tournaments and have a much bigger tally of points to boost his rankings.
Nadull career PRIME is 21-25 years. Look at it logically
He entered his PRIME in 2007. . Previously he won I slam a year and a final in 05/08.
He entered his absolute Prime from 08-10 3 years of absolute Prime won multiple slams and on different surfaces.
Since then he has reverted back to winning 1 slam a year and the odd final off clay.
So his career is winding down .
He lost to mugs before and after , during his Prime 100 rosol.
Fed never lost a slam since 2003 to present out of the top 6/7 ranked player or former GS champion .
So nadull edge fed on grass in 2008 . Kudos to him.
So fed didn't best nadull at RG , true . However a member of his generation with the firepower to do so did it Soderling. To expose Nadulls weakness even on clay .
Novak nor a member of his current generation was able to that.
Just list the mugs for everyone to see who fed lost to in his Prime and I will do the same for nadull.
Looking at it logically, Nadal made 2 hardcourt slam finals last year and 2 masters finals on hardcourts. Meaning if not for Novak, Rafa would probably have 2 USO and 2 AO titles right now along with Miami/IW titles. You can't belittle the player that has owned Fed in slams for 5 years straight because it makes Fed look even more pathetic.