Nadal spent many years without making it deep at the USO or AO, and still his consistency in those slams leaves much to be desired. Knowing what we know now about the match-up and the results that can be expected from it, and some other data (for example, Federer only winning Wimbledon after 2007 when Rafa is not in the final), can we make the case that Nadal's failures (relatively speaking with respect to his supremacy in Roland Garros) have actually cemented Fed's success? On the other hand, how can you make the same case for Nadal against other player? Nadal's success doesn't depend on any other player's failure to meet him at Finals, in my opinion. And 2011 is a clear example of this fact, where Nadal took a big hit from potential additional success due to a very consistent, very powerful adversary which didn't fail to meet him in all but 1 slam final.