I'm not necessarily a partisan of separating surfaces for judging overall achievements but in the case of Fedal, I feel that one just has to if they're trying to be honest. I mean Fed has 9 slam titles, 6 WTF titles and 17 master titles on hard. How is Nadal's record even comparable to that? It is not. Nadal has 9 slam titles and 19 master titles on clay. How is Fed even competing with that? He is not. I feel like when you're fighting about overall records, you're missing the most important point which is that both guys are heavyweight juggernauts who just squished the competition to a pulp on their respective best surface in a way that hadn't been witnessed before. Yes, Fed is not doing it anymore but he is in his 30s. And yes, Nadal has had good success against Fed on hard in his career but that hasn't helped him getting close to Fed's records on hard overall. So I would refer to their rivalry as a "trompe l'oeil" one because when you look closely at their respective records, they are not really rivaling each other on either clay or hard. They've just had 2 of the most crushing dominations of the field on their respective best surface. They've been "side by side" more than "toe to toe".