Take it easy lol.
I agreed with a lot of what metsman said, that 2009 Fed should be on the list somewhere and that the first 3-4 on the USO list could be some of Federer's (though I think 2010 Nadal might be up there as well. I also agree with the last part (and that part was mainly why I liked the post), that no one has really played historically great since Djokovic's slump in 2016, save for Nadal in RG 2017 and possibly Djokovic in AO 2019 (last two rounds were up there with his best, but a lot shakier in the early rounds -- not unlike AO 2016, in fact).
I have quibbles, such as all five of Fed's USO titles being greater than any of Djokovic's own (I know 2007 wasn't spectacularly impressive and there is an argument to be made for 2008 as well) and that 2017 RG shouldn't be on the list, which I completely disagree with.
I think you'll notice that I'm very liberal with the like button, so I sometimes like posts that I don't completely agree with on all respects but the main point is strong enough. I even like the posts of people I argue with if they have really good things to say and are respectful overall.
As for the bolded, it's really not "exactly the same thing". DjokoGOAT's list is incredibly biased, even more so than OP's, and I don't even need to list the reasons why. For OP, I can get why he would say some of these things (e.g. AO 2005 Fed being high because his form was overall very solid throughout the tournament; the Safin match was not a bad loss at all, speaking in terms of form), but for that poster, there isn't really a logical reason aside from "Djokovic must be the best, but the tournaments where Fed lost to him also need to be his best". It's like he didn't even watch the matches and is just going off of results and quotes taken out of context (such as the infamous "Fed was peak in 2015" PR talk). Having seen the matches, I can see where OP is coming from, but I'd have to completely detach myself from the tennis court to understand DjokoGOAT's list.
You seem to be a bit aggressive here. This list is purely opinion-based. There are no real stats to back up pure level of play; you can cite stats such as the strength of the field, but the actual form of a player can't be easily derived from those.
