I missed some of the shenanigans several pages back and from a couple weeks ago, but wanted to add some thoughts to the mix. If you look at Slam final wins, Novak and Rafa definitely have beaten better opponents than Roger. There's no way around that. Novak has beaten either Rafa or Roger six times, Rafa has beaten either Roger or Novak ten times, and Roger has beaten the other two just three times; if we throw in his win over Agassi, then Roger has four Slam titles against all-time greats - far less than Novak or Rafa.
Roger did beat some weak players. His Slamless headcount is four: Mark Philippousis, Marcos Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzalez, and Robin Soderling. Rafa's is also four: Mariano Puerta, Robin Soderling, Tomas Berdych, and David Ferrer. Actually, Rafa has a higher percentage of his Slam wins over Slamless opponents (29%) than Roger (24%).
One thing in support of Roger is that part of the reason he defeated so many players with 0-2 Slams is that, well, he kept their Slam totals low by defeating them! Two players in particular come to mind: Murray, who he defeated three times (and has also lost to Novak three times), and Andy Roddick, who he defeated in a Slam final four times. Roger's dominance of his own generation was truly unlike any other, at least going back to maybe Bjorn Borg (I'm considering McEnroe as being in the generation after Borg).
Another thing to consider is that while Roger has only 4 titles against greats, he's played 13 Slam finals against greats - not far behind Rafa's 15, and still ahead of Novak's 11. Yes, he is 4-9 in Slam finals against 6+ Slam winners, but that's mainly because his main rivals were players 5-6 years younger than him.
In the end, it is really hard to compare the three, or at least hard to compare Roger with Novak and Rafa, easier to compare Novak and Rafa to each other as they are only a year apart. We can't know what Roger's record would look like if one of his peers was closer to him in ability. What if Marat Safin had been more consistent and dedicated? What if David Nalbandian had a head to match his talent? Fun to think about, but in the end what happened is what happened. Roger utterly dominated his generation, winning 11 of 16 Slams from 2004-07 and 15 of 28 from 2003-09. Those can't be taken away from him, no matter how we try to diminish his record.
But I think we can also say that he's been surpassed by Nadal and Djokovic, in a similar way that Borg surpassed Connors and McEnroe surpassed Borg, and Lendl surpassed McEnroe. The baton gets passed, and the game evolves. We can't know what a 2006 Federer would look like against a 2015 Djokovic, but we can honor them both for their greatness.
As an aside, the all-time great who has the softest Slam trophies is not Roger Federer, but Andre Agassi (actually, Roger and Pete have pretty similar match-ups). Consider that of Andre's eight titles, only one is against an all-time great - Sampras. He beat Kafelnikov (2 Slams), Stich and Ivanisevic (1 Slam each), and four players who never won a Slam. That's fully half of his Slam wins against Slamless players, compared to just 10% for Novak, 29% for Rafa, and 24% for Roger.
As another aside, the only 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era to not have at least one trophy at the expense of a Slamless player is Stefan Edberg. Everyone else beat at least one Slamless player.
One more. While Rafa played a large percentage (71, to be exact) of his Slam wins against all-time greats (which I'm defining as players with 6+ Slam titles), he is tied with McEnroe for second. Who is first? Jimmy Connors, whose is at a whopping 88% - or 7 of 8 Slam titles. He defeated Ken Rosewall, Borg, and Lendl twice each and McEnroe once. His lone Slamless victim was Phil Dent.
Actually, there is some correlation between the careers of Jimmy Connors and Roger Federer. Both came into their primes with no clear elite player. When Jimmy stormed onto the scene in the early 70s, the last generation of greats--namely, Rosewall and Laver--were aging, the best prime players being John Newcombe, Arthur Ashe, Ilie Nastase, Stan Smith, and Jan Kodes. Jimmy's best peer was Guillermo Vilas, followed by players like Miguel Orantes, Adrian Panatta, Roscoe Tanner, Brian Gottfried, Harold Solomon, Raul Ramirez, etc. Jim was the year-end #1 from 1974-78, although 1977 probably belongs to Vilas and 1978 to Borg, who was the better player by then.
Jimmy had to face a rising tide of great young players in Borg, then McEnroe, then Lendl, Wilander, and eventually Edberg and Becker. Yet he still managed to hang in there, even winning a few Slams in 1982-83 during McEnroe's reign.
Now compare this to Roger Federer. Fed's generation took center stage starting in 2001 when Lleyton Hewitt was the year-end #1 and Juan Carlos Ferrero and Marat Safin were blossoming. Roger was a bit behind those guys, entering the mix more fully a year or two later. When Roger took the crown in 2004, #2-4 behind him were the other three best of his generation: Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin, with Nalbandian, Guillermo Coria, and Nikolay Davydenko not far behind.
Roger's reign was a bit more dominant than Connors, especially from 2004-07. But like Connors, he faced a wave of great young players in Nadal, then Djokovic and Murray, and also like Connors he was able to remain relevant deep into his 30s.
In a way you could say:
Connors : Borg : McEnroe :: Federer : Nadal : Djokovic
It isn't exact, but there are similarities. The question is, who will be the Lendl-Wilander-Becker-Edberg group that erodes McEnroe's reign?
But I ramble....
