Nadal is better than Federer on the h2h aspect, I do not deny that fact. But, if you analyze it further, it is obvious that most of the matches won by Nadal have been on clay. You would have to be brain dead to ignore that fact. I personally think Nadal is the better slam match player in their match-up because he has the mental edge, I am the first one to admit that but it is also true that most of their slam meetings have come on clay, a surface that Nadal has dominated during his reign. He did not dominate two slam surfaces like Federer did during his reign. It is not total ownage on all surfaces, you can't call 3-2 slam h2h on other surfaces ownage, that is stupid. As to why Federer did not dominate on his best two surfaces at slams or overall the way Nadal did on clay, now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to look for excuses to make Nadal look better, come on! Also Nadal was a dirtballer at the beginning, that was all he knew and all he wanted to know. Obviously he was going to be more proficient on a clay surface. Federer to my knowledge did not grow up as a dirtballer the way Nadal did(even though Federer did grow up playing on clay courts.) You know that, stop it. One was a dirtballer who learned to play on other surfaces and one was more of a multi-surface expert quite early on. So Federer was not past his prime after 2008? Re Nadal not being in his prime in 2005-2007, we have been through this. How could baby Nadal beat Federer on HC as early as 2004 and win his first slam in 2005(even though it was on clay) yet not be in his prime? What a load of baloney. You can't have it both ways. Either Nadal was good enough to beat Federer on HC when he was a young teen or he was not.