There is no denying that Rafa's skills on clay far surpass those on any other surface. However, I feel that he gets labeled as a one surface wonder even when just what he's done outside of clay should put him in the top 20 all time! My theory is that part of the reason for this is because prior to Fedal (and except Borg), we had somewhat of a dichotomy in the tennis world - 1) Those who did well everywhere but clay 2) Those who did well ONLY on clay So clay was almost relegated to the status of this strange surface where 'relatively' unknown dirtballers from South America and Spain would slug it out while the top guns of each era (folks like Mcenroe, becker, edberg, sampras, Connors, Agassi etc) would battle it out else where. Perhaps the lack of big names battling it out on clay turned off tennis viewers a bit and subconsciously folks placed less importance to RG wins. I remember that as an Edberg fan and then later a Sampras fan, I pretty much paid very little attention to the FO (until Kuerten came along). So my theory is that if you flipped Nadal's resume to this 6 Wimby's 2 FO (+ 3 Finals) 1 AO 1 USO then people would give him more credit as an all-rounder just because to a lot of folks 6 Wimby's sounds better than 6 FO's. Even though that would be the exact same resume (balance wise).