Originally Posted by *Sparkle*
Going by that logic, he doesn't need any more slam titles, because he's already highly decorated in that respect. He's right up at the top when it comes to slam winners.
Olympic doubles is even more of a poor cousin to the singles title than the equivalent in slams. A silver medal is lauded more than a runners-up plate, but it's still second place and Roger wanted gold.
Slams are impressive, but they are not immune from the law of diminishing returns. Achieving the career grand slam is always going to be more impressive than winning 3 x AO and 2 x US Open. Both are great, but there is extra special about winning each trophy at least once.
A car is "better" than a bike, but if a man already has 10 cars, he doesn't much need an 11th. On the other hand, he might find a bike handy.
OG cannot hold a candle against a Major. The very idea of choosing it is beyond doubt, one of the things, that only absolutists can hold in higher esteem.
What remains is the H2H with Nadal. I will not repeat my previous post.
Some people forget, that H2Hs a by-product.
Oh, and, by the way, the H2H is already factored in the equation. No amount of wins over Nadal will give Federer the Major titles, that he could have won without the spaniard.
Your example: Exactly, a bike is a bike. It is nothing like a car. If one values a car more than a bike, no bike will make him feel different about cars.