So everybody says Roger should have won 20 slams or be the GOAT. After the past couple of years, I think there is a good chance Roger overachieved. Not because his level of play. That's great. But because he is inconsistent enough to win Grand Slams as many as he did.
Do you think the pre-Nadal era is the main reason he has 16 slams? In other words, would he have 16 slams if Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all played in his era?
peak federer hasn`t any problem to defeat murray or nole, if he can own this two with 30 years old , in his prime destroy them, don`t exist very difference between safin/hewitt to murray/nole.
with nadal in his peak form in hc and grass, roger shuold be won very more matches