That's crazy logic saying he was a better player in '04-'05 than when he was #1 in the world. That just doesn't make sense. He wasn't even #2 then. He wasn't even winning Slams. The point was comparing Sampras to Federer. A slumping sampras late in his career and a rising Hewitt in '01-'03 is a tougher comparison than a slumping Hewitt to a dominant Federer.
Hewitt wasnt winning any majors in 2004-2005 because of Federer, that is the only reason he wasnt. As I said he lost to the eventual champion of grand slams all 7 he played those 2 years, guess what, 5 of those were to Federer. So that says it all. In 2001-2002 he had nobody nearly as good as Federer in his prime, a past his prime Sampras as you say, a bit of an older Agassi, a clay courter like Kuerten. Even without any big obstacle he won only 2 slams. In 2004-2005 he might have won 3-5 slams but for Federer. As for his ranking he dominated World #2 Roddick head to head in 2004 and just missed out on the official #2 ranking by a few points, he started that year with a lower ranking because of his bad year in 2003 and had to play Federer earlier in events then Roddick, Hewitt had to play Federer in the 4th round of the 2005 Australian Open, and quarters of 2005 Wimbledon, Roddick was always the #2 seed because of his great 2003 year and always was on the other side of the draw. That is the only reason Roddick ended the year ranked over him, Hewitt was the second best player that year after Federer.
In 2005 he was the second best player after Federer in non-clay events, he again had the advantage over Roddick in head to head, his results were much more consistent in non-clay events then Nadal, when he was in the same part of the draw as Roddick or Nadal in a non clay event, he got further or out of that part of the draw over both of them, his ranking was affected by missing some parts of the year by injury but when you look at the results of the 3 slams he did play-Australian Open(lost to Safin in final, beat Roddick in semis), Wimbledon(lost to Federer in the semis), U.S Open(lost to Federer in semis)he was again the worlds second best players this year. You look at his results in 2004-2005 he was much more consistent in going to the very end of slams then he was in 2001-2002, and it was somebody playing outstandingly, usually Federer beating him.
Hewitt being a better player in 2004-2005 then 2001-2002 is not stupid logic when Hewitt himself says he was, Courier and both McEnroes commentating said he is and how consistently he was beating everybody not named Federer those 2 years, compared to 2001-2002 when there was nobody of Federer's level, speaks to that as well. You are on your own on this one I am afraid.
If I post his grand slam results in 2001 and 2002 and who he lost to in 2001 and 2002, and the only people he lost to in 2004 and 2005 it would make it clear Hewitt was a better player in 2004-2005 but Federer in his prime was now there unlike the "transition" period of 2001-2002 when the great players of the past were fading, and the great ones of the future like Federer were not matured yet.
Again, Safin was brilliant at the turn of the century. I think he had more upside in '00-'02 than he does in the last few years. He beat Sampras, but again, that's when Pete was slumping. He beat Federer in the Aussie in '05, and that's when Fed was dominant. So I think the comparison is still stronger for Pete.
Funny how you pick out only the matches that suit your argument. Yeah Federer beat a prime Federer in 5 sets in the 2005 Australian Open after saving a match point, he also lost to a prime Federer in straight sets in the 2004 Australian, straight sets at the 2004 year-end Championships and many other occasions. Federer was not even in his own prime yet in 2001-2002, where you say Safin was so great, and while Federer didnt win any big titles those years, he had a winning head to head with Safin even then, including a couple of serious beatdowns on Safin.
Pat Rafter was an excellent, top-tier player. He had a brilliant all-court, all around game. That's the type of game that can give Federer fits. But it's hard to prove that b/c no one today has a briliant all-court game. Bunch of bashers out there now. Andy Roddick? 1 US Open. Rafter: 2. Safin: 2 titles, Rafter 2. Even.
Rafter only made it past the 4th round of a grand slam 6 times his whole career, that is not a top tier player. That alone makes it clear he is not as good as Roddick, Safin, or Hewitt who much more frequently made good results-quarters or better, at grand slams. Your only basis for him being better is because he was a "different" player, he was an excellent volleyer as opposed to an excellent baseliner like almost all the top players today. Different isnt always better though.
I watched all of Pete's career, and so far have watched all of Roger's career. Which means I've also watched a lot of matches OTHER than those two, and there's no way anyone will convince me that the matches today are a higher level than they were when Pete was in his prime. Pete said himself during this AO that he was licking his chops watching Nadal, which I suppose would be Federer's biggest rival. The diversity of the game was much greater when Pete played, today Federer has about 50 robots to play against... Pete had real players.
The real players you refer to are either players Federer also plays(Hewitt and Safin)who Pete only played for a few years and Federer will play for many more years, players that were just as past their primes during most of Pete's time on top as you say Safin and Hewitt are now(Courier), players that arent any better and maybe worse then todays top players(Rafter and Kafelnikov),
or players that were wildy erratic during Pete's prime and only showed up for a few of those years(Agassi).
