Originally Posted by hoodjem
Lendl is easily top-10 on clay. Fed is second-10. It is not close.
I agree and yet completely irrelevant to my point as well. Borg only played a far from prime Lendl once at the French (and barely won, taking 5 sets), then retired, this was his only brush with Lendl as opposition there. Nadal played a prime Federer atleast 3 times, and a slam winning caliber Federer on 5 occasions at the French. The latter is much more opposition to face than the former, and their respective overall clay careers and places in history on the surface are irrelevant to that. Even for a rare individual who thinks 1981 version of Lendl 3 years away from winning a slam is already better than Federer on clay, it still wouldnt matter, facing 5 times is worth more than facing only 1 time.
Also for what it is worth I would be surprised if abmk concurs with you Federer is only in the second 10 in history on clay.