Again, two golds is something, it is not even one gold (Stan won once in doubles with Roger). And that Tour Finals is still a thing. And yes, he has been #1 for quite a bitaaliyahman wrote:
I mean look at Stan, he's on par with Murray pretty much yet gets none of the celebration. Which is why Murray is over rated completely.
And yes, Wimbledon is bigger than any other GS, so winning it twice is alone better than Stan's set of GS victories. To an extent, you can't be really considered a great player until you win Wimbledon.
Andy has three opponents bigger than Sampras in a way. It's like if Agassi had Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras and Connors all in the same era.
Your points are all fair though and I can to a certain extent agree with them, but Andy still has some achievements no other male tennis player has.
And none of your big three has an OBE, so