Maybe the field looked deep during the Sampras era because he wasn't as dominant a player as Federer. If Federer wasn't playing tennis, the slams would have been distributed between Hewitt, Safin, Nadal, Roddick, Djokovic etc....and everyone would be saying how deep the field is, how much variety there is to everyones game etc. etc...
McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg= all past their prime/near retirement when Sampras started to dominate in 1993
Wilander by his own admission was mentally burned out by '88
Courier would be burned out by 1994
Sampras- 0 for 2 agaisnt Edberg in slams.
Weak era only works if you agree that Agassi, Courier, Chang, Pioline, Rios, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek, Stich, Phillipousis, Goran, Moya, Rafter, Norman, Kafelnikov, Muster, Guga, Ferrero, Brugerra, Martin, Henman are demonstrably better than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal, Murray, Delpo, Cilic, Agassi, Nalbandian, Djoker, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Blake, Ferrer, Ljubicic, Haas, Berdych, Wawrinka
I dont think you can honestly say one group "blows" another group out of the water.
Hewitt in his prime would be a successful player in 90s. He loves play S & V.
How many over 5 hour matches you see in 90s era? The baseline game nowaday is the most gruelling in history of tennis, however Sampras's era was the best mixed of playing style