All the Fedtards that were defending him when I and others claimed that Djokovic was clearly the better player during the fall of 2012. But no, 'Rankings don't lie'
Even your last statement is questionable. The Nadal case is a bit tricky to use, since he well, hardly played at all. But what if Player A has 3 slams and Player B has 1 or zero, but better results in other tournaments and thus more points. I wouldn't call that Player B has performed better in the past 52 weeks.
Rankings reward slams with more points, but this is still nowhere representative to importance for my liking. No way do 2 masters equal 1 slam.
That has to do with the weight given to each tournament and each round in each tournament. Slams are important but are not everything. You still have the WTF and 9 masters 1000 tournaments. The weights are what they are.
If you don't like it take it up with the ATP.
I revise my "questionable statement": "Rankings tell you how a player has done in terms of results in the past 52 weeks, according to the way points are distributed which may be a subjective topic.
Right now nadal has had better results in tournaments in the past 52 weeks. After the AO Ferrer will have better results in tournaments in the past 52 weeks. Seems pretty accurate to me."
Also, about player A being better than player B, usually
(barring injury lay offs) when a player has amassed more points in tournaments in the past 52 weeks than player B then player A is the best player when looking at the past 52 weeks
In Roger's case last year he took advantage of having won 3 tournaments in the end of 2011 (3000 points) and build up his ranking from that. You could say that those results meant little when talking about the best player in a certain point in time in 2012 when those results are still counting. Maybe yes maybe not but we have to have a time frame and right now is 1 year for the rankings.