All your points on federer are true. But it must also be stated, that he is 5 years his elder and during federer's PRIME run Tennis was probably the weakest its been in 30 years. Sampras always had top competition. He had lendl, becker, edberg when he came up. Aggassi, chang, ivanisevic, rafter later and he was still more or less dominant.
Who has federer had? Nadal is now 23 and starting to come into his own. But leyton hewitt? Roddick? I mean these r pretty mediocre competition.
Also just because someone beats a guy a lot, doesn't mean he's better. His style could simply match up well against another guy. You have to look at the overall sucess, not the individual matches.
thats crock. You make it sound like nadal loses all the time then beats federer. Nadal IMO is a prodigy, he is only teen to reach #2 in the world. He won the most tournaments as a teenager (16) and his game keeps evolving. He was a below par hard court player, now he's won australian and looks like he can win the US open (tournament least suited for his supposed strengthS).
Sampras by his 23rd bday won 5 majors, Nadal has 6. I just happen to see the drive in Nadal, that makes me think short of blowing out his knee, he will go down as greater than federer.
Edit: I guess my overall point is yes federer is a great player, but i don't think he's anywhere near the 'greatest' of all time. Which he seems to think he is.