And Nadal wasn't around in 2005 and 2006? LOL. Agassi, another ATG, wasn't around in 2004-2005? LOL.
As for 2010, how many times did he actually play Djokovic and Federer that year? Exactly 4 times combined in the entire year. Federer played Nadal alone more times than that in 2006, but nobody takes that year seriously.
And as for the other years:
-in 2017 Nadal didn't have to overcome Federer to win any of his slams.
- In 2018, he only played Federer/Djokovic....twice, the entire year. No different to Fed in 2005.
- In 2019 he didn't really have to overcome Federer/Djokovic to win his slams. He really didn't have to overcome them at all. Yes, he defeated Federer at RG, but is a win over an ancient Federer in BO5 on clay really that impressive? And this was one of only 2 wins vs Fedovic this year. The other was against an exhausted Djokovic in Rome. He pretty much won the matches he was supposed to win.
Heck, if having an ancient Federer counts as incredible competition, then why are you even mentioning 2004, 2005 and 2006 for Federer when he had an old Agassi (who was still younger than 2017-2019 Federer) and a young Nadal (who was still better than every young player in the last 3 years)? Apparently, those were weak opponents, but a 36-38 year old Fed is top notch stuff.
Let's not be hypocrites now. Just accept that at the end of the day, things have evened out competition wise for both Fedal. Nadal has had the same amount of weaker seasons as Federer after all, which will have proven crucial in Nadal overtaking Federer.
So any talk about weak era for Federer is really hypocritical at this point, since it is thanks to these weaker seasons that Nadal will be able to overtake Fed.
Things are starting to even up in terms of 'softer' slam wins. I would however, quality-wise I would still put:
Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Roddick, Old Agassi, Baghdatis, Baby Nadal on grass, Roddick, Gonzalez, Baby Nadal on grass, Baby Djoker, Baby Murray, Soderling, Roddick, Murray, Murray, Nadal, Cilic, Cilic
behind
Puerta (Peak Fed in the semi), Federer, Federer, Federer, Federer on grass, Federer on hard, Soderling, Berdych, Djokovic on hard, Federer, Djokovic, Ferrer (Djokovic in the semi), Djokovic on hard, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Anderson, Thiem, Thiem (old Federer in the semi) and Medvedev
For Nadal that is:
10 slams beating either Djokovic or Federer for the title (only one against old Federer most were against prime Fed)
2 more slams beating non-slam winners but beating either Djokovic or Federer in the semi-final: Puerta, Ferrer
1 slam beating three-time slam winner Wawrinka for the title
6 slams beating non-slam winners Thiem, Anderson, Soderling, Berdych, Medvedev
For Fed that is:
4 slams beating either Nadal or Djokovic for the title (only 4 - this is one of the major problems for Fed in this argument, three of them were against baby Nadal and baby Djoker)
1 slam beating eight-time slam winner Agassi for the title (Agassi was past his best but certainly a worthy challenger)
3 slams beating three-time slam winner Murray for the title
2 slams beating two-time slam winners Safin and Hewitt for the title
6 slams beating one-time slam winners Roddick and Cilic for the title
4 slams beating non-slam winners Philippoussis, Baghdatis, Gonzalez and Soderling for the title
There is just way more strength and credibility in the level of player Nadal has beaten for his 19 slams than Federer has beaten for his 20. This is on the back of Rafa being able to beat Fed & Djokovic for more than 50% of his slams and Fed failing in any real way to beat Djoker or Rafa in slam finals consistently. It's not even close.