How is it possibly shameful for a player to only start losing Grand Slam matches off-clay to Nadal (who is indisputably one of the 5 greatest players of all time and the Clay-God) when he was past-his-prime and Nadal entered his, even if he's the GOAT? Especially considering how well Nadal matches up against him? Even then, Federer has bageled Nadal across all surfaces (including clay). That's insanely impressive. And let's not forget, 5 of Federer's 8 Grand Slam losses were on Clay, where Nadal is the God-Of-All-Time. Put things in perspective. All things considered, Federer's record is pretty good against Nadal. Especially because it's 4-0 in Federer's favor on Federer's best surface (indoor hard, which also happens to be Nadal's worst) while it's 12-2 in Nadal's favor on Nadal's best surface (Clay, which also happens to be Federer's worst). Federer, atleast so far, is the guy with the unbeaten record on their respective best surfaces. How would the head-to-head look if 14 matches were played on Indoor Hard and just 4 on Clay? 13-1 and 4-0, maybe? So when you combine the two, it goes from 12-6 in Nadal's favor to 13-5 in Federer's favor. That should show you how skewed the head-to-head is. Just because pre-prime-Nadal wasn't good enough to make it to the later rounds off-clay in Federer's prime while past-prime-Federer is good enough to make it to the later rounds in Nadal's prime.