5E: Fighter Design Goals

I just read Mike Mearls Fighter Design Goals for D&D Next in his Legends and Lore column.  I got uber excited when I read the following:

...  the fighter should be the best character in a fight. Other classes might have nifty tricks, powerful spells, and other abilities, but when it’s time to put down a monster without dying in the process, the fighter should be our best class. A magic sword might make you better in a fight, but a fighter of the same level is still strictly better.
[...]
A wizard might annihilate a small army of orcs with a volley of fireballs and cones of cold. The fighter does the same sword blow by sword blow, taking down waves of orcs each round.

Man, did that make my imagination go crazy! I could see my 5E fighter dual-wielding bastard swords... cleaving with each one in the same round...  mowing down orcs the way a fireball would, a dual fireball of steel wielded by my 5E fighter!  Or maybe my fighter is an ace with the sabre, killing four guys before the first one hits the floor...  like Iñigo Montoya when he was accosted by the six-fingered man and his guards!  Then a few things dawned on me that made me stop and think somewhat deeply - at least as deeply as a few Sapporo too many would allow me - about what the quoted statement meant as to the rest of the classes...

Is D&D Next getting rid of the defender/striker/leader/controller roles?  If a fighter is "the best character in a fight", why would I want to play anything other than a fighter?  Ok, a rogue can stealth around, pick pockets, hide in shadows...  and then sit down and watch the fighter take on the kobolds by himself?

Then again, maybe "fighter" is now an all-encompassing nomenclature that includes rogues, rangers, etc.  That would make the rogue "the best character in a fight" from flanking or backstabbing positions; the ranger "the best character in a fight" from ranged distances; the paladin "the best character in a fight" at melee range that can also cast holy spells; the swordmage "the best character in a fight" at melee range using Vancian magic to supplement his melee attacks; so on and so forth...  I guess this would allow you to be "the best character in a fight" using mechanics different than just swinging a battle axe.  This would certainly add to the enjoyment, as everyone contributes equally in a fight although through different fight mechanics. 

Hmm...  but if this is what WotC has planned, why don't they just eliminate the fighter as a class?  In my example above, the term 'fighter' is now so generic that it is really defined more by its subclass (rogue, barbarian, ranger) than by the term itself.

Maybe I just shouldn't drink while reading the Legends and Lore column, and just wait for the beta test to come out and see exaclty what this all means...