I hear what you are saying and I can certainly agree about Nadal's clay resume, there is nothing to admit, it is what it is 64% of slams on clay and 72% of M1000 titles on clay - we have no disagreement there.
What I am going to say though is what I have pointed out before - Djoker has 66% of his slams on hard and 75% of his M1000 on hard - that is actually worse. Yes, there are two hard court slams but imagine Rafa's tally if there were two clay slams. Laver won the grand slam when three of the four slams were played on grass and no one bats an eyelid or mentions distribution. Also, yes, hard courts are all different but they are still hard courts. Madrid doesn't play like Roland Garros and Wimbledon at the start of Fed's career played differently to what it does now. My point is we are making way too much out of the clay thing without realising that Djoker isn't that much different. It is irrelevant though because a title is a title.
Are Laver and Djokovic's achievements lopsided? If we are going to be consistent, yes.
I agree with most of what you say here and I am not looking to diminish Fed & Djoker at all, they are two of the best three ever. What I am pointing out though is this:
Rafa wins two grass slams and four hard slams in the time of the grass and a pair of hard court goats. Djoker & Fed combine for two titles and one win on clay over the clay GOAT. It is not as simple as adding titles and saying Rafa didn't win enough at Wimby, AO or USO. He broke through against two of the three best ever on their turf and the favour wasn't returned... and that isn't even close.
Re: the WTF, yes, Rafa has failed there but it is one tournament. He has 6 additional M1000 than Fed for example, there has to be a tipping point where that gets offset.
The thing that most probably sets Djoker away from Nadal is that 50% of the slams are on HC & 66% of the Masters + the YEC .
So HC comprises of the majority of the tour .
Plus the fact that most of the top player's favorite surface on tour would be HC.
So more tournaments & more depth on HC .
I suppose we can safely say that Fed is the most well rounded with his 8 Wimbledons + 11 HC slams .
& Yes , Rafa has run into the two HC g.o.a.ts + Grass g.o.a.t on his more weaker surfaces vs not really having the same calibre of opponent on his most dominant surface.
Which can almost explain the huge skew in clay dominance vs the rest in of itself come to think of it.
I think a second French open for Djoker would really put him in the conversation vs Fed in terms of slam distribution . 4 Wimblys is already overkill for Djoker is say , but he may need another 1 more USO.
I know that it's been said , but another French Open really won't do all that much for Nadal in my opinion. Can we really relate to the difference between an 11/12/13+ RG champ? It's already a record that won't ever be broken & will immortalize Nadal as the clay god.
Even Fed @ Wimbly is 'only' 1 ahead of Pete . & Djoker @ AO is 'only' 1 more than Fed .
Nadal has almost boxed himself into a corner for being that good @ RG.
The thing that hurts Nadal so much as far as the YEC is concerned is that Fedovic have a combined 11 YECs , alongside this Djoker has the 7-1 lead @ AO & Fed has the 6-1 lead there along with 8-2 @ Wimbly. Which again shows that Djoker & Fed have Nadal really beat from various top end tournaments . AO/Wimbly/YEC vs RG only.
If Djoker wins another Wimbly this year , he'll tie Borg & most likely be an all-time top 4/5 player @ Wimbly also.
I really do wonder as to how many Nadal fans could honestly say that they'd take another RG over any other slam @ this point?
