I understand what you are saying, but you are holding too much onto words, and not a true meaning, hence you search for a different title and not "best ever", but "one of all time greatest".
All I'm saying here is that when you talk about all time best, you are looking a whole career, and when I look at the present, I'm not including the past, and that's why he's not best at the moment, which is true, no matter how you wanna twist the words. The level of play is what I look now, and he's trophies that are giving him the best ever title are from days gone.
Anyway, let's look it like this...can you say that Federer is now better than Djokovic and Nadal? Anyone with sane mind will tell you that he is not. But they will still consider him if not the best ever, than one of the greatest...because of the past. Best ever, because of time, doesn't necessarily have to include players' whole career. You don't have to be the best throughout your whole life to be called "best ever". It's that part when you're on your top, and when you achieve the most that counts.
I don't see what I'm actually arguing about here, but the title...cause you just wanna change it to "one of the greatest". I don't care about the words, I think my point is pretty clear.
I'll just try to put it like this, one more time. Best ever indeed means that he is best ever...but best ever doesn't tell you details about his form and progress. being worse now, than he was 4 years ago, doesn't take away his "best ever" title, just show that he's not invulnerable. If someone is better than him at one point, doesn't prove that they are better than him overall, and there's no need to remove his "best ever" title. Djokovic and Nadal have years and years to go to challenge him for that, but now, they are playing better than him. I don't know what you want me to say. That because he is the best ever, there can't be anyone who's better than him now? Or you simply want me to take back the words about calling him the best?
I think that was clear...the difference is in time, because you need consistency throughout the years to be the best ever, and not just few good years. Federer did that, these still haven't, and they can't be thrown into that mix to challenge Roger for that. But, you can argue that Sampras was better, someone will say that he was.
And if we continue, we will both lose our nerves, so we better stop.
