Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Laughable. So Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, and teenaged shitty player still on all but clay version of Nadal (the field Federer set all his record marks, had the vast majority of his #1 weeks against, and most of his slams against) is a tougher field than McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and Connors. TMF must be the only person on the planet, including the strongest of the *******s who believes Federer's era had the strongest competition ever.
While your point stands, you're definitely exaggerating. You conveniently leave off Agassi from Federer's list while including Connors for Lendl's. Agassi was 34 and 35 in 2004 and 2005, respectively, both years Federer dominated with Agassi consistently in the top ten. Connors, on the other hand, was 33, 34, and 35 in 1985, 1986, and 1987, respectively, all years that Lendl dominated with Connors consistently in the top ten. So they are very comparable when looking at Federer's and Lendl's respective peaks. You also leave off Safin, who was playing very well in 2004 and 2005 and who we all know was more talented than his two slams show. Another glaring omission is Djokovic, who established himself as a top player in 2007 while Federer was still in his streak of weeks at number one.
Even so, though, a field of McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and Connors consistently performing at a high level is stronger than one with Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin consistently performing at a high level. But throwing in Nalbandian and Ljubicic in there as if they were ever some of Federer's top competition is silly. It's like calling Lendl's era weak because Anders Jarryd and Kevin Curren were each in the top five for a while.