Originally Posted by smoledman
We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?
Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles
But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.
4 > 1.
As is the case with almost all of these types of threads, your reasonings are quite misleading.
Calling clay Fed's "weakest" surface might technically be accurate, but he's been known for many years to be probably the best clay court player NOT named Nadal. If there was no Nadal, Federer would have won many many more clay titles. Being second to the best ever does not equal "weak." You might more accurately describe clay as Roger's "least totally awesome" surface.
Fed is one of the best ever on all three surfaces. Nadal is one of the best ever on one.