Originally Posted by tudwell
Come on, no one has ever seriously suggested that Roddick and Hewitt are better than Nadal or Djokovic.
I also don't know why people parade Nadal and Djokovic around as evidence that Federer had a weak field. He's won thirteen slams since Nadal first became a slam champion (more than Nadal has won in that same period) and five since Djokovic became a slam champion (the same number as Djokovic has won in that period).
Nadal was a mug on clay until mid 2007 at the earliest and that is the same point Djokovic emerged as a top player for the first time, still only 20 himself. Yeah Federer has been successful since they emerged, but he hasnt been nearly as dominant (of course the ****s conveniently put that down to being way past his prime and a rickety old man starting at 26, the moment he began losing any non clay slams). The same way Sampras was the best in the World for 6 years, but not as dominant relative to Federer, but part of that is he was facing Becker, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, as opposed to Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, and Ljubicic. Nadal and Djokovic provide Federer with just a glimpse of the type of competition Sampras had, and how much harder it is be as dominant with actual fellow greats as competition, rather than just a few very good but not great players.
As for nobody arguing Hewitt and Roddick are better than Djokovic atleast, just take a look at the Hewitt vs Djokovic thread and you will see that is not the case.