Still don't understand what do you mean by "being a better player"? Better in terms of ball striking or career-wise?
I always give an edge to a player who's won more important titles, even if he hasn't been as successful by winning tier-2 titles (by tier-1 titles I mean Majors, at least in this era).
In my opinion, Hewitt is a better player than Safin, simply because he has a better career. I would like to hear your arguments.
Safin's peak level play is just so far beyond Hewitt's (atleast that is the perception of most people, but I don't really disagree with it either), that is overcomes Hewitt's relatively minor edge in achievements. With both having 2 slams, both having been #1 (even if Hewitt a lot longer there), Hewitt with more titles, Safin many more Masters, Hewitt the two WTF titles, their careers while clearly favoring Hewitt are still close enough that Safin's sheer potential playing level puts him above to most people (and again I don't really disagree on it. Also put another way, Safin would probably have won the 2 slams he won in any era. He was unplayable at both events. Even peak Federer who was unbeatable off of clay couldn't stop him playing his best. There are many eras Hewitt would not have won a single major. There are also some he would have still won 2, or more maybe even 3 or 4 depending on the quality of the field, the playing conditions, and the matchups, the draws, and various elements of luck, time, place, and chance. However you couldn't guarantee him winning those slams. He isn't unplayable at his best the way Safin is, and still won only the same # of slams so is in the same ballpark in achievements.
By the way, you said that Rosewall is "far superior to Borg" on clay which confuses me. They both won 6 tier-1 titles on clay (if we count Rosewall's French Pro Majors), but the difference is that Rosewall won 5 of his titles against limited competition - first French Championships as an amateur (without playing professionals) and four of his French Pro Majors as professional (without playing amateurs), where Bog won all of his titles against best possible competition at the time.
It has been estimated by people who have done more extensive research than I would be willing to put in that Rosewall really would have won 9 or 10 French Opens had it been Open Tennis then. And that was the best clay courter in the world roughly 10 or 11 different years. That is atleast on par with Nadal, and far superior to Borg, achievements wise and career wise. Yet he is still rated far below Nadal, and to most even below Borg. So obviously assessments of ability override achievements sometimes.
In terms of overall careers you could even make a case Rosewall had the best career and is the strongest choice for GOAT. By those who have done estimates how many slams everyone would have won Rosewall usually comes out on top, even ahead of Gonzales, Tilden and Laver, and well ahead of Federer (who ends up behind all those, as are Nadal and Sampras too then obviously). You could make a case for Laver and Gonzales still having better careers as they were #1 a lot longer and more completely dominant than Rosewall even at his few years clearly on top. Either way in achievements only Rosewall would be a strong candidate for GOAT. Yet in reality he doesn't come close to most people, and is generally slated in about 8th place behind Laver, Gonzales, Federer, Nadal, and probably even Tilden, Sampras, and Borg. Some even have Budge, Vines, Connors, Lendl over him too. I even read a report where some were arguing Bobby Riggs wa a better player in his prime. Again assessments of his actual level of play are overriding his achievements to people it seems (which isn't necessarily wrong and is my whole point).
What makes you a better player? Talent?
