Are you able to fathom the fact that Federer and Nadal dominating does not necessarily mean the other top players are worse than the top players of the past? Logic should tell us that even Sampras, Becker, Wilander, Connors, and Edberg wouldn't be taking most of the slams from them. Therefore, the logical extension of that fact is that it is possible players like Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, etc etc are as good as those top players of the past who won more.
Let me give you a hypothetical example that proves my point. Let's say there was a 100% perfect tennis player. That player is playing in an era with ALL the greats in the history of tennis (Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Rosewall, Wilander, Edberg, Becker etc etc). Since that player is 100% perfect, he would still dominate and win virtually every slam even against that competition. Your logic would say that all of those all time greats aren't any good. But of course, we know that not to be true. This example shows clearly that the level of dominance of a player does not inherently indicate a weakness of his rivals.
