Your points 1 and 2 are expected due to the less polarized conditions now which make it easier for the best player to be more dominant and the modern equipment/strings which makes it easier to be consistent.The best player under these conditions today SHOULD be more successful and dominant than the Best player under Sampras' playing conditions, but a better record today than players from past eras who played under different conditions doesn't prove anyone is better.Fed can only be compared to his own competition. In fact Fed was fairly average when he played under Sampras' playing conditions in his early years and Sampras even beat him after being retired for 5 years so forget comparing him to Sampras or people from other eras.
As for your point 3, a 2-5 slam final deficit v Nadal looks Bad, Fed needs to start winning slam finals v Nadal.
1. Modern equipment/strings makes it easier to be consistent??? That's just embarassingly ridiculous and lacks any logic. Federer is more consistent relative to the players he is playing against ALL OF WHOM ALSO HAVE MODERN EQUIPMENT/STRINGS. Modern stuff allows EVERYONE (not just Federer) to be more consistent in their play, which therefore does NOT make it easier for any one person to be consistently successful because no single person is getting an advantage over their peers.
2. And you talk of less polarized conditions. Again; that is clearly ridiculous when you actually think about it. Yes, surface conditions are less polarized. But what has changed? Grass has gotten slower. That's really it. Has that helped Federer? Not likely. Federer does better the faster the surface is. It is likely that he would have actually done better, and certainly would not have lost to Nadal at Wimbledon, if the grass hadn't been slowed down. And that's the only change. Clay hasn't been made faster; so that cannot explain Federer's success there.
3. Federer was fairly average earlier on in his career not because of the conditions he was playing under, but because he was still a fairly average player who had yet to even approach his prime. Only a fool would think that his lack of success was due to playing conditions.
4. Are you even serious about Sampras beating Federer while in retirement? That was an exhibition. Players do not play anywhere near their hardest in exhibitions. What's more, the players involved in a match like that, PURPOSELY keep the match as close as possible for entertainment value. To even mention those exhibition matches as a legitimate argument as to why Sampras is better than Federer shows a complete lack of understanding of what those matches were.
5. The head to head against Nadal is fine. Read my last point in the original post for an explanation as to why it is not a big deal.
