Roger Federer is not the best Tennisplayer ever.

Yes. He has been the most successful player in the history. But is he the best? IMO there is a difference between the term "Greatest of all time" and "best ever". While the title "Greatest of all time" is all about achievements and the player's impact on the sport, the title "best ever" is only about the actual performance on court and statistics. Roger Federer to me is the GOAT(Greatest of all time)(eventhough John McEnroe thinks Rafael Nadal is the greatest), but he is not the best. Rafael Nadal has been more successful than Roger Federer at the age of 27 and he leads in statistics.(winning percentages and H2H) At the age of 27: Roger vs Rafa: Slams: 12(5Wimby, 4USO, 3AO, 0FO) vs 12(2Wimby, 1USO, 1AO, 8FO) Masters 1000: 14 vs 24 (!) WTF: 4 vs 0 (worst surface possible for Rafa) Olympics: no medal vs gold medal(on hard courts) Davis Cup: 0 vs 4 Weeks at No.1: 237 vs 102 Despite HUGE disadvantages Rafael Nadal has managed to be more successful than Roger Federer at his current age.(27)(as of July 2013)I base that statement mostly on the fact that he has the career grand slam while having won the same ammount of slams. This means that Rafael Nadal has managed to beat the best on every surface.(in fact he is the only man in history to win a slam on every surface at least twice)(and the only man in history to win a slam on every surface in one caleder year(2010))(and the only man in history to hold slams on every surface twice in his career(2008, 2010)) As for the huge disadvantages: 1. Injuries Nadal had to skip 3 Grand Slams while being in his prime.(he would have been a, if not THE, favorite for each slam.(Wimby 2009, USO 2012, AO 2013) Nadal most definitely lost in Grand Slams because of injury in his prime 5 times.(Again he would have been a, if not THE, favorite for the title in each slam)(FO 2009, AO 2010, AO 2011, Wimby 2012, Wimby 2013)(I did not include the USO 2009 because Del Potro won the title so he might have beaten even a fit/healthy Nadal) I leave the time,which he spend recovering his game after injuries, out. 2.Importance of surfaces Rafael Nadal is in his comfort zone only on clay.(about 30 percent of the ATP's points and tournaments per year) Roger Federer's comfort zone is on hard courts and grass courts.(together they take up about 70 percent of the ATP tour's points and tournaments per year) This unimportance of clay results in an incredible disadvantage compared to Federer: Slams: 1 vs 3 Masters 1000: 3 vs 6 WTF: 0 vs 1 Points: 9250 vs 26000 Tournaments: 18 vs 58 Also Nadal's worst surface(hardcourts) is the most important surface on the ATP tour.(60 percent) 3.Tougher competition The players aroung Nadal's age(+-2years)(Djokovic, Murray, Soderling, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, ..) are playing more consistent and better than the players from Federer's time(Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, ...) Especially Djokovic and now Murray are better than anyone from Federer's generation.(aside from Federer himself of course) There is no doubt that Federer's rivals back then were great players but they were not as consistent and they weren't a threat to Federer like today's players. In his best year(2006) Federer lost only 5 matches but all his losses came from players around Rafa's age. Players that were far from their prime. Also more than half of Federer's losses in his very prime(04-07) came against player's from "Rafa's generation" while they weren't even in their prime.(12 of 23) Statistics: Rafael Nadal has the best win/loss percentage hin the history of the sport at 83,4%. (Federer: 81,4% now; 81,5% before 2013) Nadal also has the best win/loss percentage outdoors, in grand slams, in 1000 Masters and against the top 10. (only borg is better in grand slams and against the top 10 but he has to be excluded because played the Australian open only once) Also Nadal is the best in H2H statistics against the best. (20:10 vs Federer, 20:15 vs Djokovic, 13:5 vs Murray, ...) There are only 2 players who have a winning record over Nadal after playing him at least 3 times(Davydenko 6:5(Nadal had to retire because of injury once), Hrbaty(3:1)) It is because of these reasons I think that Roger Federer cannot be called the best Tennisplayer ever.(Remember this debate isn't about if Nadal is the best but if Roger is the best) Happy about every vote and counter argument. Just keep in mind that I am not new to the issue and a simple 17 vs 12 or 302 vs 102 isn't going to be enough.