When I read people debating Nadal on clay, I see people talking about different things. As each one sees what one wants, the conversation gets nowhere...
First, tennis oscillates, changes, is dynamic to the core. It is actually simply a false truth that players have one given, fixed way of playing. And this is not about level of play or confidence -- which is already a lot. Players adapt their styles to the opponent, to the surface, to the conditions. It varies in time. To give a recent example, the Federer who struggled in IW and Miami and the one who won AO are exactly the same players? Isn't it a bit boring to watch one and fantastic to watch the other? This is the same guy across two months...
And when you talk about Nadal, given how smart he is on court, how tactically disciplined he is, and how crazily bad he wants to win, it is obvious that you see very different versions of him on court. Sometimes, yes, he reverts to full defensive mode and basically wears down the opponent. Does he do it all the time? Of course not.
In general Federer fans (and I am one) don't like to admit that the fact that the surface is slower obviously asks skill for one to finish points. Every recreational player who has power on his shot already heard someone telling him "it is not just about power". You have loads of good clay court players which are all about skill -- a guy like Cuevas can put the ball where he wants. He has no power, no speed, no stamina. And he is a very good clay courter, just out of skill and talent.
Of course that the slower surface gives the faster guy some edge -- specially if he is prepared to run for hours. But it still takes skill to defend properly.
When Nadal is not just chasing the other guy attempted winners -- and, most of the time, he is not doing it -- he is playing bloody good tennis. To talk about just the obvious:
1) He explores the angles better than just about everyone;
2) He is able to deal with low balls better than most, if not everyone;
3) His passing shots -- specially on the run -- are better than from everyone else;
4) His side spin is better than everyone else's.
Points 1 and 2 are direct consequences of his absurd spin rate (but a guy like Sock has the same spin rate and is not able to come even close). Point 4 helps on point 3, but those are still different things. On clay, he couples all this with the depth and spin of his shots to construct his points masterfully. It takes a monster performance from his (fully aggressive) opponent to beat him or make it even competitive. Only Soderling and Federer where able to -- using an offensive strategy -- occasionaly beat and/or make it competitive for a full match on clay (I leave Djokovic out of the equation -- who, when on full form, is another monster on clay -- but who also masterfully mixes defense and offense).
As in most things in life, selective memory defines your opinion. People in general only remember what they want, or what suits better their way to look at things. So it is easy just to remember the moments where Nadal turns into a wall and put everything back into play, or, on the other hand, just remember his deadly winners. The real Nadal is a smart mix of both versions (with all the shades of gray in between), blended with always a match win as the objective.
As I write, Dimitrov is making a valiant challenge. VERY good tennis (if you are not too worried about the winner).
