They played 11 times on hard and 14 on clay. It's not a huge difference. If the H2H was 21-19, you could attribute that difference to the surfaces. But it's not the case.
In slams Nadal leads OUTSIDE clay 3-2. Leaving outside his best surface, he still leads the H2H.
On Fed's best surface and Nadal worse, Fed barely leads 6-5. On Nadal's best and Fed's worse, Nadal complete distroys him (12-2). On grass Fed leads 2-1. Yes, Fed leads on two surfaces and Nadal only one, but the difference is huge.
If you do the math, you can clearly see that if they had played the same amount of times in each surface, Nadal would still lead the H2H.
Didn't I just admit that?
Baby Nadal who was a dog on grass at that point even pushed prime Federer at Wimbledon in 2006. The only time Federer beat something approaching prime Nadal in a slam was Wimbledon 2007 (and this of course was prime Federer) and even in that match he lost something like 80% of the baseline rallies, had to have his best serving performance ever, and had to save mountains of break points to eke out a 5 set win. I dont think for one moment Nadal would have been scared to play Federer on grass anytime the last 5 years, let alone anytime in the future. In fact at Wimbledon 2010 and 2011 he would have rather played Federer than some of the people he did play, especialy Djokovic in 2011.
1. How did Nadal "push" Federer in 2006? he got bageled in the first set. Sure, he took a set in a tie break, but that doesn't mean much: if a player serves well or the other one returns poorly, the inferior player still can win a set, like Soderling did against Federer in USO 2009 QF. Did Soderling "push" Federer there? Most would tell you that Federer handled him something fierce.
Considering how effective Nadal's lefty serve is on grass and how poorly Federer usually returns it, it's not a suprise to me that Nadal managed to steal a set. He still was by FAR second best.
2. While Federer was not past his prime yet in 2007, he was clearly not peaking either. Do the names Volandri and Canas ring a bell?
I would also like to see where Nadal was shown to win 80% of the rallies. One more thing you ignore is the fact that Nadal was also serving well.
Let me offer you a counter-example: in the final of 2008, didn't Nadal at the peak of his powers need a 5 set thriller to beat a Federer who was clearly not himself that year? Federer lost to people he typically never loses to (Roddick, Fish) and truly declined this time. (even more so than 2007) The fact that he managed to push Nadal (this time the term is actually appropriate) at his absolute best proves that a Federer at the peak of his powers would be a favourite over him on Wimby, even more so than Djokovic 2011, who was taking advantage of his mental grip on Nadal in that final more than anything.
Last but not least, I doubt that Nadal would be crushed by most top 15 people indoors. Remember he beat a Murray that was on fire in London, he isn't weak against everybody.
Indoor is not a surface. Indoor wins are included in hard. If you consider indoor apart, then Nadal leads in Hard. If not you can say, Nadal leads on clay and outdoors.
Yes you can...
Federer leads on grass, hardcourt and indoors. Nadal leads on clay and outdoors.
