Nadal is a better clay court player, take clay out of the equation and it is far more evenly balanced.
Also you cannot say which two players are better on their head to head record but how they perform against the rest of the tour as some players create more problems for a player due to their specific style of play.
When he's fit I think it's fair to say that Nadal creates problems for all the other players on tour and not just Federer!
However, in a sense I think you're illustrating why this "greatest of all time" thing is a load of nonsense. Initially it's based on a simple count-up of Grand Slams which is clearly flawed; then people start wanting to take a particular surface out of the equation because it doesn't fit their argument and so it goes on.
Perhaps an obvious question to ask is if Federer is really head and shoulders above anyone else that's ever played the game how come he's spent a significant proportion of the last four years not ranked at number one? In terms of fitness he should have been at his peak and he hasn't had any injuries to speak of; however, despite that he's been ranked below Nadal and Djokovic for much of that time. That suggests he hasn't even dominated his own era and that being the case the notion he's way better than anyone who's ever played the game doesn't really stack-up. He's without doubt a great player and a great ambassador and if I could choose to be able to play like anyone it would be him; however, talk of being the greatest of all time just opens a can of worms IMHO!
I told you he would win another!!!! Oh ye of little faith
yes I agree the GOAT question is a bit silly as you cannot cross era's but for me it is not just the titles and the GSs or the weeks at no.1 that make him the best player to have graced a court, although these all make the question very relevant, it is the way he plays; the efortlessness, the almost infinite variety and touch, the astonishing forehand the great to look at but slightly flawed backhand. He combines the old school touch (Laver, Tilden) with the power game of today like noone else, he is a crossover.
Whilst I like and respect the games of Nadal and Djoker I find their matches a tad dull in comparision with watching the meastro
Nadal and Djokovic are not his era, his era was before them, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick etc, he is 6/7 years older than these guys, the very fact he is competing with them is impressive. And in his era yes he was pretty much head and shoulders above everyone else, for 2/3 years he was almost unbeatable and if Nadal had not come along and had the perfect game to stop Fed he would be on about 20+ GSs and that is what makes sport great, I am glad Nadal came along it was great for the sport, he is yin to Feds yang
as for the last few years you can see he took his eye off ball (sorry) at about the same time his wife got pregnant and they had children, almost the same amount of time that he has not won a GS, cannot remember the exact quote but in his post Wimby match interview he said words to the effect of 'now that the kids are a bit older I have been practising and training a bit more' ominous for opponents, will it tranlsate into more GS wins who knows but judging by his form since the US I would not bet against it
so yes i do think he is the best player to have ever held a racket!!