Five in a row against Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Djokovic, and Murray. Not a difficult question.
We put that into perspective its not that great.
Hewitt- Big win no question for Fed. Fed dominated here and Hewitt was a very good player at the USO. But post 05 or so, Hewitt was alredy a shell of his former self
Agassi- Federer's wins broken down older Andre whos best days had passed. Well in 04, 34 year old Andre took Fed to 5 sets. Andre younger and towards his prime or in his prime out of 4 matches against Pete at the USO, could only manage to take 1 set off of Sampras. Andre came close at 34 to take out Federer. In 05, Andre finished playing 3 straight 5 setters and was giving Fed some trouble there for a while until Andre began feeling his age and already hindered with a bad back made a good match out of it. Agassi took more sets over Roger at 34 and 35 years of age respectively than he ever has against Pete even in his prime.
Roddick- LOL!!! Please.. Sampras at 31 years old whiped Roddick off the court at the USO. I assume Connors would too. Roddick couldnt even handle an Agassi in his mid 30s. Fed has dominated Roddick but I see no reason why greats like Agassi (he already has) Sampras in his prime and Connors would dominate Roddick too. Sampras did at 31 in his final year. Hes a good player but with many holes in his game to be exploited. So in this perspective, Roddick is nothing special. Never has been.
Djoker and Murray- Murray's first slam final and had already finished player Nadal two days in a row prior due to the rain delays while Fed had two days off to prepare and Murray got screwed by scheduling. Djoker has not solidified himself as any type of slam winner yet. Hes still very much unproven. Murray as well to be honest. Neither have reached that level of legitimacy when it comes to slams and both had a crumby 2009 season as far as slams are concerned. That may develop but at this point in time.. Both are slam handicapped