Hewitt led the H2H vs. Fed 7-2 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 16-2 in his favor.
Nalbandian led the H2H vs. Fed 5-1 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 10-3 in his favor.
Henman led the H2H vs. Fed 5-1 until 2003. After 2003 Fed made it 6-1 in his favor.
Seeing the pattern here? Should be clear to everyone that 2001-2003 Fed shouldn't even be put in the same sentence as 2004-beyond Fed. It was at the Masters Cup in 2003 that Fed actually started to turn the tables on the rest of the field. Hamburg 2002 and Wimby 2003 were nice, but then he'd immediately drop his level in the following events. His consistency wasn't there till 2004. Doesn't matter if they were S/V specialists or not.
As for the courts slowing down bit... I can't see why the "eye test" gets picked on as much as it does. Sure, it's biased, but it's much more conducive to good discussion and analysis than cherrypicked stats that don't have context with them. Waspsting match analyses are "eye tests". Should we write them off as the ramblings of a madman? No. We try to see where he's coming from by providing our own eye tests. Rather than immediately dismiss what someone says they saw, why don't you take a moment or two and view the matches on your own, see if you can tell why people write such opinions on them.
Same deal with the courts. I'm sure some will disagree, but the 2001-2004 courts looked to me like they were making the ball bounce a bit lower than the very-high-bouncing Wimby grass starting from around 2005 and 2006 (and those were two of Fed's best Wimbledon wins so there wouldn't be many such external factors shaping my opinion here). Check out parts of a few matches starting with
This one and compare them with some of your own favorite Wimbledon matches from the 2010s.
I probably expect too much from some troll clearly arguing in bad faith but I have a lot of time on hand anyway.