Is Nadal automatically better just because he's won Wimbledon one more time than Federer has won the French? Nadal is considered to be very good on grass, Federer just considered to be "good" on clay. I think we can all agree the 2008 Wimbledon was a VERY close match.. pretty much a coinflip... If Federer had been the one to gut it out that day instead of Nadal, would Nadal just be considered "good" on grass rather than very good? Federer has won 80% of his matches at RG, Nadal has won 85% of his matches at Wimbledon. who's been better off their most dominant surface?