Answering to both you and
@DarthFed.
First,about 06.... I guess you guys are underestimating how one match, one set, and sometimes one point can affect the way you play in the next matches, sets and points. I will never say that surely the H2H would be turned upside down -- we know there are technical reasons playing here, but could it have influenced the outcome of a few other tight matches? Surely it
could. Just like that drop shot to go up a double break in the first set of the 2011 RG final (out by half an inch). Can you imagine the giant wave of confidence a guy would be riding after beating Djokovic in the semi and beating Nadal 6x2 in the first set of the final? Again, Nadal does not gives matches away, but everyone who ever picked a racket knows that one point sometimes change completely the way you play for the next hour. So, back to 06, maybe that win would have prevented the change in approach in 2008... he could even have not made the final, or just not get routed that way. It all would impact in the W final. Anyway, Federer was clearly bellow his level from previous years in 2008.
@El Dude has shown his stats against the field a thousand times. This does means he was a completely sucker (he was #2 in the world by year end), but he was a tad bellow his peak, Nadal was a tad above his previous years. Those little differences have a huge effect on tennis.
And I maintain the fact that the Nadal losses made Federer a better player (even if in a specific sense). Yes, the "process" going on led to the 2008/2009 bad losses against Nadal. But this is not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that I am sure it helped him to go through all the mediocre years from 2009 on (by his standards, even if with some occasional peaks) and just not retire. When he got to that phase in his career where great champions start to lose (and most cannot handle it), he already knew the feeling, he already knew how to look for answers. From a stubborn player who played without a coach and always tried to beat his adversaries playing their strengths rather than their weaknesses, from the tactically obedient guy we have from 2012/2013 on, the change is enormous. This change is not debatable. The cause of it, ok, is debatable, and my take is that great part of it is named Nadal.
No, I got that. I just probably did not express my self decently. My point that all those numbers I cited where symptoms that the T2T would be in favor of Federer. And, yes, I agree that the T2T is more "complete" than the H2H.
@Moxie, maybe the (obvious) fact that the guy who compiled the stats is a Federer fan made the basic finding look more biased than it actually is. Imagine if (and this is a "neutral" what if) the guy just cut the crap and decided to post only the basic finding. Both entered X tournaments together, Federer won Y%, Nadal Z%, Y>Z. That's it, that's the simplicity that GSM is trying to make reference to.
The problem is not the stat, it is the conclusion you take out of it. Y>Z is clear, but John > Jake is a whole other story. Tennis players are not numbers. The first conclusion I take with some confidence is that Federer is a more complete player than Nadal -- because all those tournaments where played in different surfaces, against different players across different generations. Of course we can argue if conditions were different, the numbers would be different. If tennis were only played on clay (or grass) there would be no discussion whatsoever.
:cuckoo: 
