If you weren't aware Edberg was actually ill with the flu or some other respiratory malady for the US Open in '92 and still beat Lendl and a less experienced Sampras. It was obvious, it was commented on both during and after that Open.
Again the only years Edberg reached #1 at all were '90, '91 and '92.
You're obviously motivated on this point but IMO you're wrong based on his play, his results and his ranking.
5
I might be wrong on his ranking and his results, but I am not wrong about his play. See, so far, Federer had better results in 2009 than he did in 2005, but that does not necessarily mean his play was better. Edberg's peak was in 1991, as evidenced by his results and his play:
1991 AO - SF (5 set loss to Lendl that he should've won)
1991 FO - QF (lost to Courier in QF)
1991 Wim - SF (lost to Stich without being broken once)
1991 USO - W
1992 AO - F (loss to Courier)
1992 FO - ??
1992 Wim - QF loss to Ivanisevic
1992 USO - W
Clearly, he was better in 1991.
Further, there was NO match in 1992 that he played at the level he displayed in 1991. All I am saying is that it is not far fetched to think that, given the trouble that Edberg gave to Sampras as late as in 1993, Edberg from 1990 and 1991 would've given Sampras all sorts of trouble.
My point is that if people say Fed was lucky not to have Agassi, Sampras during his reign, one could also say that Sampras was lucky not to have Edberg, Becker, Lendl etc. at their peaks during his reign.
At the end of the day, this is all speculative and doesn't mean anything.
What really means anything is the trophies they won. Those are real.
And Fed leads that race as of today.