I agree with you and I like tha fact that you're a die hard Federer fan who isn't just bent on insulting and discrediting Nadal.
However, do you ever get the feeling that when we're discussing Federer or Djokovic there are all these subcategories. Pre peak, post peak, match-ups, Nole 2.0, decline, clay, outside of clay and so forth.
When it comes to Nadal, all of a sudden none of it matters anymore - except to point out that clay is somehow an inferior surface where GOAT candidates don't need to prove themselves (e.g. Sampras). According to the haters Nadal peaked in 2011, was lucky in 2010, won AO beacuse Federer choked, won US Open because Djokovic choked, won Clay slam in '10 because there was no competition and so on and so on. If one puts all of these arguments together, I don't think one even believes himself. His wins against Federer are due to match up problem. His wins against Djokovic are due to clay and that Djokovic didn't peak until 2011. I'll try the same approach.
ATTENTION: INTENTIONAL TROLLING
Djokovic is supposedly superior hard court player to Nadal but up until 2011 their H2H on hard was 7:5 for Nole with Nadal winning US Open final and Olympic SF. The reason Djokovic won four more matches is because Nadal was past his peak. Simple as that. Problem solved. Nadal on hard was on par with Nole until his peak ended and was also superior on other surfaces.
ATTENTION: INTENTIONAL TROLLING
All of this with a preconceived notion that Nadal has been in his peak since 2005. Nadal apparently isn't bothered by matchups, at least I don't see anyone aknowleding that (Nikolay Davydenko, for example). No! According to people on this forum every weakness Nadal has is a sign he is overrated and he fluked half of his tournaments. How could that be?
Everything other players do to Nadal is credited to their skills, everything Nadal does to them is credited to peak, postpeak, field, fluke, choke and one handed backhand.
When Djokovic beats Nadal it's because he's better. When Nadal beats Nole it's because Nole choked. When Nadal takes Nole to five sets in Australia Djokovic is credited for super human effort in order to win. When Djokovic takes Nadal to five sets in Roland Garros he is getting closer, Nadal hardly avoided embarrassment on his turf and was ''lucky'' to win. It baffles me.
I'm one who doesn't buy the "pre-peak Nole before 2011." He's been a top player since spring 2007 and he was better in 2007 and 2008 than he was in 2009 and 2010. As for Nadal, he certainly was better in 2008-11 than 2005-2007, but I see many people, even fans, calling the 05-07 version "baby Nadal" and I find that funny, since he was an elite player already and would have been the #1 player in the world in another time (if Federer wasn't so dominant).
I think the age difference between Roger and Rafa means little because even if they were the same age Rafa would always give him trouble. I do think the age difference between Roger and Djokovic/Murray has benefited them quite a bit though, as both have struggled against him when RF is on.
And there is also this idea that Rafa always owned Federer, when he only started distancing the H2H in 2008 when it was 4-0 (the only year Roger did not have a win over him). It was a very even match-up before 08, and even in 09 they both got a win on the others favourite surface.