Yeah, saying that if Djokovic manages to get a few more GS than he can be considered the GOAT even if he has less GS than Federer, because he had the highest peak in the history of the game is absolutely criticizing him.
Nadal's achievement outside of French Open aren't GOAT-worthy. Take Federer's 8 Wimbledon GS and he is still in discussion for GOAT. Take Nadal's 11 FO, and he is lower than Agassi for example. How you can be the GOAT in the sport, if you're really one of the greatest in only 1 out of 4 Grand Slams. Yes, he was very good in the others too, but not Federer-good and not Djokovic-good (in that hypothetical scenario when Djoker wins another few).
As it stands, I have Federer as clear No. 1, Nadal as 2, and Djoker above Sampras as 3 (despite having one less slam). What I said is that Nadal with less GS than Federer shouldn't be considered as GOAT cause a) he has less GS, b) their peaks were similar, c) his distribution of slams is terrible, 2/3 of them come from the same GS, d) significantly less GS finals. His only argument on being greater than Federer is that he has a positive head-to-head with Federer.
At the same time, I acknowledge that had Djoker had 17, then he might have been considered greater than Federer because a) he had a higher peak, b) like Federer he has a good distribution of GS. He also has a positive (though marginal) head to head vs both Nadal and Federer.
If this is hate, then I am a Nadal hater. A really big hater. As a big hater as I said that Nadal on French Open is better than any other player in any Grand Slam.
