I love it when people use the career of Agassi as if it was either typical or generalizable.
His career was a non-stop yo-yo: from early bloomer to choker to success to inconsistency to resilience to floundering to rededication to finally realized potential to injuries.
Many argued at the time that his late success was, in part, the product of having quite a bit left in the tank following years of underachievement. There's a lot of truth to that, I think.
But if you're going to make that argument, you might as well also claim that the successful runs Connors had in the late 80s meant that the Becker-Edberg generation were "weak". And what does it say about the Sampras-Agassi generation if AA was still lording over his generational peers well into his 30s? It says that their generation was also weak.
Agassi is an all-time great. Federer too. Both recognized that in each other, even back in '04 and '05.
And if Federer's generation was "weak" -- a hilarious position asserted only by his haters and made entirely
in hindsight -- then this current generation, clay included, is also weak. And every generation since 1950 is weak as well.