I just said that is a logical possibility. I think it is a moderate field, stronger than what Federer faced when he got 5 years in a row as No. 1. My argument is that you just have to look at the objective measures such as slam numbers, Masters, YE championships, OG, win rate against top 10, h2h against other top players, years at No. 1, and so on.
This whole argument you and I are having and others on the GOAT debate can only look at those things rather than what is usually said which is opinion. Opinion can be right or wrong, but it is still opinion. After the 2020 FO all we heard is 20>17, no OG, etc. and now the arguments have focused down to mostly weak era. Even if that is true and I do agree it is weaker than say 2015, then it does not matter. The player can only win against who he plays. Federer won his first 10 slams against weak opponents. Nadal wins mostly on clay against a group that is much better on hardcourt. You can also say that Federer and Djokovic win Wimbledon against players who are not very good on grass. You can support that by their wins on grass v other surfaces (Medvedev, for example).
In any case, the only real evidence as oppose to opinion is actual results. Yes, players can be lucky in a draw or because a strong player is injured, but these things tend to even out in time.
