Too bad his slams aren't worth half of Edberg's and Becker's.
this. and that's some bullshit in the interview about the game being tougher and players training so much harder to face, harder to win tournaments now than before. it's way easier.
for fun since Hipolymer has decided to bring up the era debate, let's make an interesting note. HOW MANY dangerous players do you seem in draws these days? I'll give you an answer. hardly any! no confidence, no big hitting etc.
it's not that there weren't great players for Fed Ex to face in the mid 2000s, it's that he was just THAT good. I mean think about it! just off the top of my head, players who had brilliant form and were threats on/off a the time, Hewitt, Blake, Gonzales, Davydenko, Soderling, Nalbandian, Roddick etc. they were QUITE good enough to beat Federer, but they were all considered threats, people you watched in the draw.
today all there are players like Tsonga and Berdych who are expected to choke everything away. the reality is the tour is weaker than even during Federer's prime, the top 4 are great players but no better than say other top 4's in the 80s and 90s. they just have lucked out because of the lack of depth and confidence and threats throughout the top 100.
just as an example, Djokovic has matched Becker's slam count and likely will exceed it, but does anyone REALLY think that Novak is a better play than Boris was?
certainly the adjusting of surfaces and weak tour has helped make the top 4 guys look better than they would be if playing in a stronger era. I say this even about Nadal. Federer is the exception, and for the sake of argument I will once again emphasize the fact that he was SO good in his prime and dominated so much that it made the tour appear weaker than it was. the reality is in 2005/6/7 there were a lot more threats around than there are now. less because of how great the top guys are as much as how bad the field is.