You never know what would happen if some people were removed from history, the draws would be different, and blah blah blah. But given Roddick’s results over the years I think it’s reasonable to say that if Federer hadn’t come along, he definitely could have won three or four Wimbledons and maybe another U.S. Open or two. Federer beat Roddick in the Wimbledon final three times, the U.S. Open final once, and in three other major semifinals (two Australian Opens, one Wimbledon).
In other words, Roddick has reached five slam finals in his career. He won one and lost to Federer the other four times. He’s lost in the semifinals five other times, and three of them were against Federer. The others were against Schuttler in the 2003 Australian Open - that was the match after Roddick beat El Aynaoui in one of the longest matches ever, 21-19 in the fifth - and against Hewitt in the '05 Australian Open. In a world without Federer, Roddick’s career totals are about one step below Andre Agassi’s, although if you ask me who is better, it’s Agassi by a longshot.
Malone and Barkley are all-time greats who don’t need a defense. Their stature in basketball also exceeds Roddick’s in tennis, if you ask me.
This sentence would be far more accurate if your replaced “much more skilled players” with “Federer.”