No. The competition is far greater now, even if it is top heavy. I like Andre personally, but Roger alone is better than Pete, and then you have the brick walls with Djoker and Nadal thrown in (either of whom would be a massive favorite over Andre).
The better question might be just how many more GS titles that any of the top three would have had they been born 15 years earlier. Have a feeling that the Albert Costa's and Thomas Johansson's of the tennis world might not have been so fortunate.
ROFL. Fed is older now.. I wouldn't say Andre has no chance vs. this Fed.. For god sakes. He took Fed to 5 sets in 2004, and played him big time tough in 2005 at the USO despite playing 3 straight 5 setters before the finals. What makes you think Andre couldn't beat this older Fed considered he was so competitve vs. a young 20s Fed when he was in his mid-late 30s with a bad back?
Andre wasn't a freak of nature but he didn't need to be. He was the purest ball striker perhaps ever and could dictate play from the baseline even if the opposition was more athletic then him. He was a smarter player then most. He ran you ragged because he could take the ball so early.
Andre would do just fine today IMO. He didn't need to be an athletic beast like a Monfils or someone to be successful.