Well I don't think Federer is the most accomplished even in that sense. In some ways he isn't the most accomplished in tennis..
If he is not, who is? Laver is the only player who could be credibly argued as being more accomplished than Federer and even that requires omitting many salient details. Sampras certainly is not, nor Lendl, Borg, Nadal, Agassi etc.
Who if not Federer?
Old timers have done careful research and found that Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, Tilden would all have more slams than Federer had tennis had the same format as today.
Are you for real? Put Federer in the mid-90s and he's got multiple calendar slams. The point: picking and choosing only the titbits that suit what you're trying to argue is spurious at best.
Offering people who didn't achieve something kudos as if they had because some esoteric era-based factor prevented them having achieved it is the same folly that sees muppets arguing that Nadal only lost a major because he was injured, or that a Murray's Olympic gold isn't legit because Nadal didn't play. It's is a never-ending spiral of idiocy to go down that path and use it only when it suits your line of argument.
Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, Sampras were all number 1 more years. Guys like Lendl, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, have won many more tournaments. Never won the Grand Slam. Never won 8 times at a major like Nadal.....
Steve0904 called it right. You miss his overall point.
Notwithstanding your summation of where Federer is lacking is sorely lacking in itself. For example you omit to mention the type and quality of tournaments does matter, as does their historic significance. I.e. while Lendl may have won more tournaments, Federer has won
FAR more important ones and consistently on the main tour whereas Lendl won tons where there was barely anyone close to him playing. Similarly, Federer may not have 8 majors, but 7 Wimbledon titles is a greater achievement by perceptual standards in terms of importance than 10, let alone 8 French Opens. They are not equal in any aspect other than for ranking points purposes. It's why one-time Wimbledon winners are far, far more revered than one-time French Open winners.
Take Phelps' gold medal total and divide it by 8 to give a more realistic idea of his actual level of achievement. Swimming hands out medals like Tic Tacs. People can compete in more events in one day than how many Olympic meets a Decathlete can hope to compete in in his whole career.
Gifted driver no doubt... but also gifted almost everything on a plate courtesy of the nature of the sport where the guy with the fastest car wins practically every time barring the odd anomaly. Google Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve for a perfect example of what happened in the years when Schumacher didn't have the best car.
...Federer in achievements in a relative sense is not in the league of these...
That depends on perception and an understanding of what dominance entails within each sport, and the nature of the sport itself. In basketball for example every winning team loses stacks of time per season right? But they're the best overall at the end of the season.
View tennis in a similar manner you come up with no-one greater than Federer in terms of the overall balance of achievements. Does it means he's definitely greater than Jordan or Woods or Schumacher? Not at all. But he certainly has a stronger case than most sportspeople touted by the mostly American media as being all-time greats.
By far in most cases. His all-round body of accomplishments is amongst the greatest ever across all sports without doubt - and in one of the sports requiring the most diverse skillsets, with amongst the highest level of professional competition and the lowest level of non-human factors contributing to results.
) and I am the lone Djokovic warrior.
