With yesterday loss, now Fed has a better percentage of Slam finals won than Nadal.
Well said, but kind of irrelevant. I am an "elderly" guy who's been watching (and playing) tennis for quite a while. I don't play any more but I tend to see things and rivalries in a different light. To put all this is simpler terms: Roger Federer is mistakenly taken to be the greatest of all time due to reasons that are obvious --- he exploited the time when Agassi and Sampras were leaving the big scene and when there were only the fledgling teenager Rafael Nadal and the yet-to-come teenager Novak Djokovic just around the corner. During that time, roughly between 2006-2010, just before Nadal started his reign, Federer garnered most, almost all, of his slams. Nadal took over at that time winning his slams with Federer, still a brilliant player who was not yet on the wane, and the slowly emerging Djokovic, plus the one-timer, Del Potro. Now it's Djokovic taking slams, with Nadal peaking in strength and tennis maturity, and the great Stottish tactician, Andy Murray, and the great French athlete, Tsonga, and a handful of other very strong players. In my eyes it is obvious that the bulk of Federer's slams was earned on account of rather weak opposition. Please prove me wrong. I do not for a moment deny Federer's brilliancy as a player, what I question is the CONTEXT in which players earn their majors.
For all this said above, I think that Nadal is a stronger player than Federer, and that Djokovic might prove to be even stronger. I may be wrong but I would like some sort of explication, not only mindless name-calling. And, no, I do not like Djokovic all that much (as a player he's not on par with, say, Nalbandian or even Davydenko, but he is a much stronger character and a greater "warrior" who's even out-classed Rafael Nadal in that department).