LOL, you left out some crucial details.
Young Safin, Hewitt, Roddick and Federer beat Sampras when he was 29/30 years old. Federer's high level competition is the norm across all era(except the CIE) because they kept the previous era at bay and force them to retire early. The best players were all in their 20s when they are at their best/prime years. Since Federer won his first Wimbledon, no player in his 30s has ever won a slam nor reaches #1 in the world.
Unlike the CIE, the 90s born players are in their 20s and are at their peak/prime condition can't hold a candle to the the big 3 who are in their 30s. Djokovic has inflated 12 slams in the CIE when he's well past his prime. Only this weakest era in history for this unusual event to ever occurred
Sampras was 29-30 and in that era 30 was like 35, so Sampras already was very old by that era standards.
Secondly, Sampras had Thalassemia Minor which made him vulnerable even more so against people 10 years younger to him
Sampras's style of play was also outdated as the baseline era with powerful racquets was beginning
Who says 90s born players cannot hold a candle ? Medvedev, Zverev have produced high level of play, Thiem too has produced, they are just not of the level enough to remove Djokovic because Djokvoic is still damn good
Novak can still play 1 hour 44 minutes long second set and come out winner out of it, this is something old Federer would not have won. Sampras would also not have won in old age. So Djokovic is better than your man from switzerland
@TMF Deal with it.
