Originally Posted by Feather
I think almost posters, especially if they claim to have seen Tennis from 60s would understand that H2H is surface dependent. Roger played 14 matches against Nadal on clay and lost two. He leads two surfaces, hard courts (6-5) and grass(2-1). Unfortunatley Rafa didn't go deep when Roger was in prime. Most of the people know that but they pretend that it's irrelevant.
Of course you're right. I do think Nadal is stronger now (assuming health is good) on grass and hard court than he was when he was younger.
But I've thought that several times. Is it Federer's fault Nadal lost early in a tournament? Of course not. One of Federer's great strengths is that he almost never loses to a player he should beat. He is better in that respect imo than Nadal over the years.