At a level that no one else ever has? You have to be careful here though. You see...the equipment is deceptive. With only an incremental increase in the size of his stick...some 7 square inches it has made all of the difference. You cannot compare. We cannot compare from one era to another. I have spoken of culmination points in past posts and we are nearing the end of the Roger Federer Era of tennis where we will encounter another culmination point. These occurs approximately every 15 to 17 years.
I am old enough to remember the best I have seen, which is Laver, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi. I would put Roger, Nadal, and Djokovic with this group. I do not think there is any doubt that the 97 inch racquet has helped Roger. I think the 97-100 is the sweetspot for the most efficient racquet size. I think Agassi probably would have been just about the same with that size. I personally think the 108, the law of diminishing returns come in(a bit too unwieldy). No doubt in my mind Sampras would have benefited from going up to the 98-100, but I still doubt he would have won the French. Winning all 4 Majors is huge and so very difficult to do. Lendl was so close, all over winning Wimbledon but could not do it. I remember I was really pulling for him to get it. He worked so hard to try and win it, he went all in, the anti Kyrgios, Tomic, Fognini. To me, not to beat a dead horse, but Federer stands alone.
Comment