BobbyOne, here's something I don't understand. You consider the years of Laver/Rosewall/Gonzalez/Hoad as greater than ANY era in history. Fine -- I don't argue with that; I think there are excellent arguments in favor of that claim. But if that time was so clearly better than any other, why should there be any need to weaken Federer's era in your descriptions? After all, for you, Federer's era is just one of many that is inferior to the former time. So why not just describe the Federer era as it was, accurately? Why have you, once again, dropped Nadal's name from the Federer years? What harm would it do to the greatest generation of all time (Rod, Ken, Panch, Lew) simply to include Nadal's name when you talk about the Federer years? To make this as clear as possible: if the former generation really was as great as your argue, then it would appear as the strongest era EVEN IF you included all of the greatest names from Federer's time. Why, then, is Nadal's name getting dropped? I remember we talked about this in some other thread. You conceded that Nadal was Federer's greatest rival in 2004-07. But now you've dropped his name. Why? Do you think the greatest rival to Federer in 2004-07 was really Roddick? Do you know that in 2004-07, Federer faced Roddick and Nadal each in 5 Grand Slam matches; and he faced each of those men twice at the year-end Masters? The one difference is that Federer faced Nadal 14 times in matches of all kinds, while he faced Roddick only 10 times. If anything, as I said before, Nadal has to be picked over Roddick as Federer's greatest challenger in 2004-07. And yet I see you, and other posters, continue to drop his name. What exactly is the reason for that? And why would you include Baghdatis and not Nadal? Is that because you think Baghdatis was a greater champion in 2004-07 than Nadal was? Well obviously you can't. So then the only reason Baghdatis seems to be in there, in your list, is because he was one of the lesser champions of Federer's peak years. And if that's the case then you are clearly wrong: you've included the strongest names of the older generation (Pancho, Ken, Rod, Lew), without including any lesser name; but then for Federer's generation you've dropped the strongest name (Nadal) while including lesser names (Baghdatis). You concede only that today there are 4 great names, which is really perplexing. You think that Federer today, clearly in decline and a winner of merely two tournaments in the past twelve months, can be included as a great name that makes this era worthy, but Nadal who won dozens of titles and multiple Grand Slams in 2004-07 was just too young to be included as a great name of those years? Even Andy Murray in 2007 has more claim to being mentioned than Federer does now. Murray won 2 titles in '07 and had already beaten peak Federer on Roger's best surface (hard). He'd beaten Roddick a few times on hard (also Roddick's best surface). The same is even more true for Djokovic, who won 5 titles in 2007 and had already beaten Federer and Roddick (and Nadal) on hard court. Anyway before I get too sidetracked, let me repeat my central question: when you talk about 2004-07, why do you ignore/eliminate the second-greatest champion of those years?