Full blown Fedfan TM vocabulary now.
Alright.
1) You changed your position as evidenced by what I quoted. You chose to address the less obvious problem with your last several posts, because, well, at least there you can argue
2) Even if we accept that such an argument has been made by the vast majority of the fans, the idea that Federer has to back up argument made many years ago when he he was somewhat in position to prove such an argument, is deliberately ignoring the obvious. You boast about taking well accepted (supposedly) views, but abandon reasonable approach immediately at such opportunities as this one. Why would you do that? Isn't a well accepted view that Federer is very far from his best years too? Why would you ignore that well accepted argument and go for a full blown 90s clay statements (except, he made them two and a half years ago. Try to wrap your head around that: you are making a worse point than 90s clay)?
3) the argument about "an even H2H on grass not looking good". Why wouldn't an even H2H on grass look good? What would that prove? That Nadal is equal to Federer on grass?
4) the fixation on the H2H: the favourite of the V amos Brigade schtick. The importance of the H2H has been discussed many times. I haven't seen a single knowledgeable person putting huge premium on the H2H compared to other metrics. Again, your purported support of reasonable views goes out of the window the moment there is an opening to stir the pot. Why would a non-subject be brought to the fore, if you too know what is the weight of such a factor in the grand scheme of things. Instead, you chose to focus on it. Ah, reasons!
In short: you like to pretend to be a beacon of reasonable opinions, yet in one post you:
1) ignored the reasonable view that Federer is well past it, for the result to have any meaningful impact or any meaningful conclusion to be derived from it
2) ignored the reasonable view that a single match won't skew the perception about what is what on the surface
3) ignored the reasonable view that H2H is insignificant in the grand scheme of things
4) ignored the reasonable view that one shouldn't be using the vocabulary used by some of the worst trolls on this site, and with the same context and lines of reasoning, down to discussing the opponent's opinions as "defensive playbook". From only your three posts I can make a pretty concise list of words used specifically by such in exactly the same context
For all these positions there is a pretty strong perception that they are true amongst the people that argue from somewhat neutral and reasonable position, so when you ask "which part I misrepresent with "we"" the answer is, you misrepresented the opinion on these matters of those people.
Of course, you also ignored the reasonable view that you are not speaking on behalf of the Federer fans, as I already told you probably ten times already. Even in that post here you continue to use "we" as though you are some sort of Vox populi?
The biggest giveaway of what you are doing is that you always choose to address the most stupid arguments and then go on to assign it to the Federer fans as a group. Anyone with half a brain would understand that there will always be stupid opinions in any group, but to assign those to most/entire group, is, to put it mildly, trying to aggravate the people by forcing on them opinions that they haven't won't and wouldn't like to share. The H2H plague has been around for at least a decade, so don't tell me that you don't know the nuances associated with every straw man thrown in.