So your only stance is that Fed started losing only when he declined, which is typical fanboy banter to hide the fact that he was outplayed due to a stronger field.
Also, those mugs you speak of have beaten Federer even though they're older now. Once again, does that mean at their best they're better than the current Federer? If you can admit that prime Roddick/Bag/Gonzo would destroy the current Federer then you would have some semblance of a point, otherwise, dancing on pointless indications that current top players lose to mugs isn't making a case for you at all. All the past greats lost to mugs, that's a fact.
Now GTFO and dwell on your limited perspective.
You are belittling him by saying "conditions that favor him". Grass doesn't favor Federer? Fed has 7 Wimbledons and 5 AO and you want to ignore that and pretend that conditions only favored Rafa on those surfaces? Nonsense.
Careers evolve and change. 18 year old Rafa beat prime Federer at Miami 2004 and 20 year old Rafa beat him in Dubai 2006 when he was still a mug on hardcourts. Prime Fed lost twice to a clay courter on hardcourts. Let me guess, the conditions didn't favor Federer back then too? GTFO.
I am just stating facts . Nadull predominantly wins when conditions favor him . Clay and slow bouncing HC. Is that to say . He can't beat fed on a favorable surface NO of course not. He could beat fed anywhere any time but generally does it on conditions that aid his retrieving and top spin .
Yes fed has won 4 AO . But they changed the surface from rebound ace before 2009. When fed had won 3/4 at the AO. The current surface is slower and higher bouncing favoring nadull and grinders. There is a reason grinders do good at the AO as well it HOT. So something skill takes a back seat to raw physicality.
So teenage nadull beat Prime fed so what? Old fed beat Prime nadull at IW on Nadulls best HC masters. Fed also beat nadull on clay in BO3. Fed also had match points against nadull at Rome in a best of 5 on clay before he choked the match away.
All time greats can compete against the best and win and vice versa. Fed is still 2-1 against nadull on Grass.
My point still stand nadull is a No-show on Feds "tour" conditions favor him.
From 2005- till present post RG they is like 6/7 compulsory tourneys.
Nadull was a GS champion in 2005 there have been like 50 + tournies played from 2005-2012.
Of that nadull has made a finals appearance and waited on fed who didn't show like 6/7 in like 8 years.
Notable Wimby 10/11 USO 10/11.
Madrid 05. Paris 07. Rogers cup 08. OG 08.
However while fed didn't play all these finals to wait for nadull he was at the business end of most with nadull not showing.
Of the 16 slams in that Period nadull was at 4 without fed.
It's a few give and take get the picture.
Now compare that to the first 2 slams of the year fed only missed RG 10 n 12. U see the disparity.
So even when fed is not at 100% he competes the same cant be said about nadull. When not at 100% he withdraws or loses early.
Nadull still is in decline whatever u say with 2 years with no title off clay u can dodge facts all you want, it remains the same.