When you read the whole post, the part that you put in bold is only the logical conclusion. The subject of the topic was, how would Federer do in the 90's.
I doubt if you're aware of it, but the 90's were very much an era of specialists. You had guys that were amazing on clay but couldn't do anything on grass, like Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten. It all had to with the variety in court surfaces that nowadays is just not here.
Then you had the fastcourt specialists who got the major part of their wins at (fast) hardcourt and grass, like Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Becker, Krajicek, Stich, Ivanisevic.
Some of those guys could also make a decent run on clay, but none of them ever actually won RG.
Then you had players who were at their best at medium paced surfaces: Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikoff. They were not clay court specialists, but had the ability to do very well there. The 3 guys I mentioned won all won RG.
Agassi made 2 other RG finals to boot. It is an exceptional achievement that he managed the career slam in the 90's, way more than in the last decade. Courier pretty much dominated the early 90’s, he was the nr.1 before Sampras hit his stride. He made one Wimby final. Soon after he couldn’t keep his level up and faded away. Kafelnikoff didn’t do much on grass but was also nr.1 for a while.
Federer woulds struggle to win a Wimbledon, just because there were too many specialists out there who had a game tailor made for this surface. Fed is still more a baseliner than an all courter. Only Agassi managed to win on grass as a baseliner in the 90's, due to his incredible return game from both sides. Federer is a more than decent returner, but just doesn’t have the ability that Agassi had to be that aggressive en and accurate at the same time. The best serve & volleys guys wouldn’t let him get away with his ‘just keep the ball in play’ style of returning. Fed’s net game also isn’t quite on their level.
At RG he could have taken advantage in a year that the great clay courters somehow didn’t show up, at least didn’t deliver. Like Kafelnikoff did one time.
Then it leaves the hardcourts for Fed to win a few more slams. On the fast ones he would only have Sampras and Agassi ahead of him from the mid nineties on, when Becker and Edberg were over the hill or already retired. Agassi and Sampras also had one or two years where they (or their best games) didn’t show up. I guess he could have taken one USO from Rafter.
Om the slow ones, he could have fared pretty well also in the early nineties. I could see him take 2 or 3 AO’s.
So Federer maxing out, I’d say he could have gotten five majors. Indeed, about in the same range as Courier and Kafelnikoff.. maybe they would have won one or two less.
For someone like you that ’s probably like sacrilege. But still, all those lol’s and !!’s, and all your attempts to ‘correct’ other posters are just there to cover up your anger and insecurity. It only shows you’ve still got a long way to go.
To NatF: Rosewall isn't on my list cause I've never seen him play, other than in some old footage. Same goes for Laver, Newcombe and other greats from the 60's and 70's.
Basically you claim that the clay field and the grass field of the 90s were stronger than now. It's an interesting argument which is plausible, but it is plausible as well that, due to the surface specialization, the surfaces field (the clay field more so than the grass field, I will develop later) were in fact weaker.
We can safely assume that tennis players become better when they are challenged by great other players. You don't progress by beating again and again inferior players, we all know that in our own practice.
Most of the best players and most talented players of the 80's and 90's were aggressive players, who were more suited for fast surfaces. The large difference between these fast surfaces and clay prevented them to be a consistent threat on clay, either because their games were too ill suited, or because they choose to focus on faster surfaces (or both, more likely). As a result, the top clay courters were not necessarily the more talented players of the moment: they were the best of the rest. They had to prove themselves either against third or second tier players, or against top players who, despite the maladjustment of their games, were still able to reach QF or SF due to their sheer talent.
This theory is backed up by looking at all the players who were either not suited of clay, or total journeymen who were still able to go far in Roland Garros: Gomez, Svensson, Stich, Becker, Krajicek, Berasatagui, Larsson, Sampras, Rosset, Dewulf, Rafter, Mantilla, Pioline, Hrbaty, Meligeri, Norman, Squillari. Most of these players listed had very limited success at Roland Garros or at the clay Masters 1000, except for one SF run in their career.
RG was very open in the 90's, because none of the players who were talented enough to really dominate were good on clay. It allowed second tier players to take the empty place. I can imagine that players of the caliber of Almagro, or Monaco could have had a lot more success on clay in the 90's. These clay specialist have been hurter a lot by being in competition not only with the other good clay courters, like it was the case in the 90's, but also by the other good tennis players in general, which are in fact more talented and have more potentials.
This reasoning doesn't apply in the same extend to grass because and faster surfaces, probably due to tradition, the best players' games were very well suited for these surfaces. In the absence of Bruguera, Muster, the top players still had to rise their level to win against Edberg, Becker, Stich, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rafter, Martin, etc.
My conclusion is that the clay field may have been a lot more weaker because of the absence of the top players of the 90's. The absence of specialist today doesn't mean that the clay field is weak. It means that it is not different enough from the other surfaces to "penalize" the best overall players to meet success on it.
Side note regarding Fed's success at Wimbeldon:
You noted that Agassi was the only base liner to met success at Wimbledon. You claimed that Fed don't have his or Connor's return. He don't have their serve either. Federer would be great at holding serve, the balance between his baseline skills and net skills would probably good enough. Beside, you forgot how good Federer is at giving himself chances. He always comes with a level good enough to have a shot at the titles. He doesn't beat himself like one notable grass courter used to do.