You think I'm illogical? The hardcourt h2h is 4-5, period. You can micro analyze it all you want, but if they met on hard courts more, statistics say Nadal would win his share of those too. Ergo, them meeting more on hc's is not a lock for Fed as many try to suggest. I could see if their h2h was Fed 8-1 and you saying Fed would dominate the h2h, but Fed barely has an edge in their nine meetings as it is, and if they meet again and Nadal wins, the h2h is even on hc's and on grass. So your logic fails on all counts.
In addition, if they met in Fed's "prime", 23-24 you are also suggesting that Nadal should not be in his own prime but should be 19 to 20 years old in order for Fed to gain an advantage. Since they're not in the same age group their primes will never meet.
Basically, these are straw arguments. These two will never be in their "primes" at the same time. Fed was lucky to be in his prime over a young, green, finding his game Nadal. The fact that the h2h is what it is, is due to Nadal's achievements.
Now, don't get it twisted and think I'm saying Nadal is better than Fed. I'm simply saying the h2h is way more valid than others want to believe for the reasons listed. Personally, I don't believe in comparisons until their careers are over, but I do enjoy reading illogical statements and pointing out the errors in faulty logic.
Conclusion?