This observation has no grounds in reality. They had to overcome the player who many consider was playing the highest level of tennis ever seen on a consistent basis to win a Slam, how exactly did they have it easier?
You're not talking about the Sampras of 2000 and on, are you?
As for the question, in his prime Hewitt had a better FH
There's no way that's true, especially now. Murray's forehand is much more of a weapon and is equally effective when counter-punching.
[quote]he was better at redirecting his opponent's pace and using it against him, he was mentally tougher and he played the %s probably better than any player in history. He routinely took down players with far more weapons/firepower on fast courts due to this ability of always selecting the right shot to play in every situation. Oh he had better passing shots too, but I guess that's not overly important considering players charge the net less and less these days. They are imo very comparable players qualitatively.
Every other point you have made is debatable, besides mental strength.
Safin - better FH, better BH, more power off both wings, better serve, better net play... pretty much in a whole different galaxy when at his best although Murray is way more consistent.
Sorry, but that is delusional. I refer you to my response above.