I disagree that Sampras grass competition was deeper. Different style of playing doesn't equate to deeper. But Federer was able to win Wimbledon playing two styles(aggressive net-rusher and stayed back baseliner), adapting to fast and slow grass means more praise for his versatility.
You disagree that a field that had Sampras, Kraijeck, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Stich, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Henman and others wasn't deeper? LOL
What was deeper, Hewitt and Roddick and Nadal?
Everyone knows Federer feasted in a period where the grass court depth had gone south. That doesn't mean Federer isn't a great grass player, but he played against signficiantly weaker competition.
The holy trinity{Borg, Sampras, Federer} dominate the grass plain during their peak/prime years. Djokovic only had 4 titles prior turning 32. Old, past prime Djokovic had better Wimbledon results is a testament of a lack of talent, tactical skills and mental fortitude from the 90s born players.
The holy trinity according to you that is. Lets make it clear, the reason why you don't want to say a 7 time Wimbledon champion who now has the record most wins in Wimbledon history at 106 wins, more than Federer, isn't top three, is purely because of your agenda, One of the things you used to claim Federer is GOAT is that he he is top 3 on multiple surfaces, of course someone like you, who ignored CIE and kept showing us the list all the way until the end of 2018, and now contradicting everything you said for year will never want to give that accolade to Djokovic.
When the reality is this, 7 Wimbledon titles, 10 Wimbledon finals, a record breaking 106 match win, Djokovic has become top 3 not just in the open era but of all time.
I like how you use the age 32 so you can put in Federer's 7 Wimbledon titles to equal him to Sampras. Newsflash, Sampras won 7 in his 20s and his prime, 31 is not prime, so Federer's prime was NOT as good as Sampras, so Sampras ahead of Federer if we use your way.