They would have had the upperhand in the early years, but when Federer hit his stride they wouldn't have it easy. Looking at Murray, Nadal and Djokovic now, they would certainly prefer to play 30+ Federer than 25 year old Federer.Sorry but that is simply not true. The first time Nadal beat Fed was in 2004 when Fed was as much in his peak as he could possibly be and Rafa was still very "green" (and on hard no less). Teenage Murray beat Fed for the first time in 2006, which is Fed's absolute peak year and that's also a year when Rafa beat Fed in 4 finals (including Dubai on hard...). Djoko beat Fed in Canada 2007 when Fed was not 26 yet. That is not old for a late bloomer like Fed and anyway 2007 (look at the stats) very much belongs to Fed's prime years. + Djoko and Nadal were rather precocious, so they would have made minced meat of Fed for years since Fed didn't really hit his stride until close to 22.
You must be able to see they all have a better time against 30 plus Federer than a prime Federer, it doesn't really matter if they beat him in those years, just like it doesn't matter if Federer stil beats the 3 of them in their best years when he is past prime. The point is Federer had an advantage early on, but now they have the advantage. Djokovic for instance has beaten Federer by the skin of his teeth in 2 us open's. Against a 25 year old Federer, I don't think he'd have much chance to win (2 points away from having a 0-5 record vs Fed at the US Open), so his only chance would be to have won before that which he might not have done.
You go on about Murray beating Federer in 2006 (when Federer had made every final so far that year so might have been a bit tired) but he lost the first 3 best of 5 matches to him. Nadal beat him on hard in 2006, but the previous year had lost the only best of 5 HC match they had played,and they would not play another one til 2009, Djokovic beat him narrowly 7-6 2-6 7-6 but lost the US Open final to him.
Put simply 25 year old Federer vs 25 year old Nadal, Djokovic and Murray would be much more competitive than 30 year old Federer is. He can beat them but he can't bring out his big match game consistantly. So although Federer had it easy to begin with, now he's tailing off they finally get the age gap benefit
Wait a minute, most of Murray's wins were post 2008 when Federer was having his first real slump. Funnily enough as Murray has improved in the last couple of years, Federer has won more of the matches. Saying Murray would dominate prime fed in best of 3 because he dominated post prime Fed in best of 3 for pretty much ONE year is far from sound reasoning. 9-5 out of slams includes olympics which is not best of 3. In best of 3 it's 8-5 to murray, since 2009 it's 4-4. Likewise Nadal's close wins over Federer in the AO final and Wimbledon came as Federer was slightly dipping. Prime for prime, there is nothing to say Nadal would dominate. Djokovic would probably beat Federer at the AO, but has severly struggled at the US Open.Yep but he is 9-5 vs Fed outside of slams, so Nadal would have dominated Fed in best of 5 and Murray in best of 3 + Djoko would have given problems to Fed as well especially on slower hard courts like AO and Miami and on clay. Fed is lucky to be older than these guys because his record would be considerably less flamboyant if those had been his main rivals from the get-go. Instead he got injured Hewitt, flash in the pan Safin, brave but limited Roddick, slam impotent Davydenko (quite the late bloomer as well) and erratic Nalbandian. Of course he cruised. With Nadal, Djoko and Murray as contemporaries, Fed would still have won masters and slams no doubt but nowhere as many. He would have had to share. Those guys are blatently more consistent and competent than the former batch and would have presented far more obstacles .