Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious
Well, let's look at things under a different perspective.
Federer was believed to be destined to become the GOAT with or without Nadal's interference. If he had won 26 slams without Nadal, he wouldn't have been any better than he is now, he would simply not have had the opposition. On the other hand, Nadal was always the underdog, but strangely enough, when everything was said and done, the balance of the rivalry favors Nadal immensely. Leaving clay aside, Nadal has defeated "the GOAT" in slam finals in grass and hardcourt. Federer has defeated Nadal only on grass. He should have defeated him on hard if the H2H were more ample in the big stages, but that is not the point. Nadal is untouchable on clay, and able to inflict damage to Federer elsewhere. Federer can't say the same.
And I'm not saying Nadal is a better player overall than Federer.
Federer did beat Nadal in Miami on a HC in 5 sets and has beaten him 4 times at the WTF. Maybe if they had met more times at HC slams when Fed was in his prime he would have won a few. The fact that these two are 5 years apart in age has to be taken into account but I know the Fed haters won't ever do that. Five years in tennis is a lifetime.