Originally Posted by timnz
Sorry there, I just don't think that correlates with the record. His wins on faster surfaces seem to come much easier to him. Look at his WTF record for example. He enjoys a more attaching game that Roland Garros and the Australian Open just don't suit - being the two slow Grand Slams. He IS strong on clay - but that is just because his game is so solid overall. But I don't think any commentator would say it is his best surface. His best surface I think is fast hard court (so US Open).
Federer's losses at Roland Garros exactly parallel Nadal's losses at the WTF. Nadal can do well - eg make the finals in his peak fast court year (2010) but it isn't enough really to put him over the top on his worst surface (indoor). The French Open is more well known and has a higher profile that the WTF hence the Federer losses are talked about more than the Nadal losses at the WTF.
I don't think so. Nadal has only made one final there, whereas federer has made the finals of every clay court tournament he entered during his peak but was beaten by Nadal. Take Nadal out of the equation and we would saying federer is right up there with Borg. Without Nadal, he was untouchable on clay during his peak years. The WTF in last couple of years has been slow. Nadal is pretty much always washed up at the end of season, that for me is the major factor why he never could never make an impression there. He will never win it I think. Nadal can play on fast courts, he proved this by winning Madrid indoors as early as 2005 and by reaching the Paris indoors as well. Nadal always plays his best in the first half of the season and because the big indoor tournaments are played in latter half when he is already drained, he cannot make an impact.