It's such a garbage argument. Tennis aficionados may sit on the internet fawning over Federer because of how he plays, but the majority of people couldn't care less about that. His universal, unwavering popularity didn't kick in till the 2010's when he had long ceased playing his finest tennis. They were cheering every bit as much for Roddick and Del Potro in 2009, they were cheering for Djokovic in 2010, Jo Willy in 2011. The French have admittedly always been his minions, but it didn't kick in for everyone else till long after he stopped dominating.
To answer your question, the further we get away from him the less and less the chances of seeing that sort of thing are likely to be. He was that perfect age coming out of one age going into another, and he managed to cross over. Plenty of his peers play/played pretty tennis (Stepanek, Feliciano, Haas, Llodra, Mahut, etc.) but they were all far less successful combining it with the fundamental stuff he does so well that made him the best of both worlds. That's the problem with all the ones they've tried comparing to him - Gasquet, Dimitrov, Tsitsipas - pretty strokes without anywhere near enough of the brainpower to put everything else together around it.