He started his career as a skinny kid from Spain who wore really long shorts, had vastly disproportionate biceps, and could only play on clay. While it's still his best surface and always will be, he has continued to adapt his game for the other courts. His serve, sub-par at best before, has become formidable.
He beats you not by superb placement like Federer, not by powerful returns like Djokovic, but by his superior athleticism and never-give-up attitude. Being left-handed has of course helped him, like it helps people in many sports. But it's his will, his drive, his passion that makes him so great.
To each his own, and I can respect the "Federer is the greatest" argument. It makes more sense to an outside than my argument. But like I said, Nadal on his best day beats anyone on their best day, on any surface.
You confuse being competitive with being an asshole. These 2 things are not the same but can often be misconstrued as being the same.
How many losing interviews has Federer given over the years, an awful lot. You pick out one quote in his non native tongue from a speech without context. I get your point but one sentence from a multitude of fantastically praising and humble speeches does not make a man. There are few that can be interviewed that many times and EVERYONE in the tennis world (press this is) still adore him, if you are occasionally an asshole... people find out eventually.
The wife thing with Kyrigios is a fair point, however once again one action through one match against a known wild card isnt enough of an evidence. She has stood by him with respectful but volatile support for years without an incident as such ever being news worthy. I cannot accept a whistle in a tennis audience of thousands for one serve of one match to be enough to tar her and him with a brush. Maybe I am wrong but I dont.
You paint Nadal like this kid who had nothing (he definitely comes from a rich family, as most top tennis pro's do).... he might have been skinny, but so was Andy Murray. Much skinnier. Being skinny and then getting muscular is simply not enough of an argument to put him above Federer. Federer definitely doesnt have the pure visceral physicality of Nadal, no question, but his more smooth style has allowed him to play at the very top level longer than most, and certainly longer than Nadal has (in terms of total time played). Whilst this isnt an argument in favour of either, you cannot use one guy getting faster and stronger as an argument against the other already well balanced guy not changing, he simply had himself in physical shape to not need to change....
Nadal's game has no doubt improved, and dramatically, his serve is a fantastic example. However his movement patterns, his overtly physical approach to the sport as he has grown older has cost him dearly. It is only in his recent few tournaments have we seen a clear change in his approach to try and preserve his body. His inability to change his very harsh style, in my opinion, is purely down to his coaching team. He has stuck with the same coaching team through thick and thin. Nothing to be ashamed of, but he stuck with the same people even though he was getting injured every other tournament, getting knocked out by world 112 in the 1st round. I understand family and loyalty, but sometimes things need to change. Andy Murray achieved a dream in winning wimbledon after a radical change in coaching to Ivan Lendel, he then changed to Maresmo in a slightly odd move, he tried it and whilst he had success he decided to change again and went on to achieve more grand slams and world number one status. I am not trying to say Andy Murray is/has/will achieve the heady heights of Nadal or indeed Federer but it is an example of a man who recognises that to make a change you have to, make changes.... Nadal has in the past been loyal to a fault and we have missed out seeing him play as a result.
I look at it this way, who would you rather your son/daughter use as a role model? From a playing style point of view, surely it has to be Federer, his silky smooth style gives him longevity and diversity of shots (one handed backhands are relatively rare.... especially with his looping style). From a physicality point of view I would choose Djokovic, his body mass to muscle ratio is almost made for Tennis alone, plus his style of movement whilst very aggressive it much more controlled than the sometimes overly shock intensive Nadal. In terms of approach to the evolving game around them I would use Andy Murray as an example of how to move through a career, he has been continuously improving and this is due to his willingness to admit that some coaching hasnt worked, or perhaps he needs to change. If Murray hadnt been willing to make these changes I believe he wouldnt have made it top 5 in the world, he simply didnt have enough tools and lacked the insane natural talent of Federer and Nadal.
Unfortuantely I cannot pick Nadal as a role model for any of the above...