No relatively objective fan would call Federer's H2H against Nadal embarrassing considering the context behind those matches, where some of Federer's losses were incredibly competitive matches and in many wins Roger showed stellar tennis. Straight up ridiculous to call 22 vs 25 against Djokovic embarrassing with how the rivalry unfolded - Djokovic getting the edge by playing against more vulnerable to poor form/messing up Roger, let's call it that, for about 3 seasons, then missing out on some prime Federer action.
And the argument about a player's main competition not being good meaning he wasn't as good as he appeared can be applied to any great player. ATGs win and lose against various levels of play from the opposition, and no "era" has only consistently weak or strong opposition. You call out names as if they can demonstrate how good players were in any particular match but when you look at reality it becomes obvious the assumption is wrong. For a stark example, does anyone for a second think that playing ATG Nadal in the final of AO19 was a bigger challenge than playing "not looking good" Safin at AO 2005? I hope not. Overall there are so many examples, a lot of which were discussed on these forums before and will probably be discussed again.
At the end of the day, Federer has achieved more than any other male tennis player in history, and he did so with the competition spanning 3 generations of players. Sometimes they played well, sometimes average, and sometimes poorly - just like all players Nadal, Djokovic, and other greats faced in their careers. Analyzing whose opposition played better on average would be too difficult for anyone because unlike some tend to think it is a more complex task than calculating the average ranking or just listing names.