Originally Posted by Time Violation
So it's just a prediction
Why don't you stop treating it like it's a cold-hard fact then.
Anyone who knows anything about tennis, and has been watching longer than the last decade, can see its true. Djokovic, Nadal, Federer - their dominant periods have all resulted in more big trophies than any other period in history. Why? Because surfaces, balls, etc. ensure that the best player at any particular time will win 90% of the trophies on offer.
In previous eras you would only be a contender on a limited number of surfaces, and upsets were far more likely. Therefore you would have to be a top player for longer in order to accumulate large numbers of Slams.
Because of the stranglehold that top players have, winning a single slam is now tougher than it has ever been. But winning a whole stack of slams is a whole lot easier.
Therefore slam counts have been, and will continue to be, degraded as a way to be able to compare players across generations. The longer this goes on (and the more apparent it becomes) the more people will realise.