The Nadal vs Djokovic debate on surface versatility:

Grand slam distribution by surface:

Nadal: 13, 5, 2 on clay, HC, grass respectively.
Djokovic: 12, 5, 1 on HC, grass, clay respectively.

-So who's better here?
-"but there are 2 slams on HCs and only one on clay...

... So Nadal has more opportunities on HCs"
-hmm? but Nadal also created an advantage out of 1 slam on clay?
-"Noo he's too good on clay that's not fair"
-Ok fine let us just average on HC tournament on HC for maximum fairness:

Nadal: 13+2+2.5= 17.5 slams
Djoko: 6+5+1= 12 slams

-So Djoko wouldn't even be in this debate if things were "fair" and there was equal slam opportunities on each surface.

-"Noo how is averaging HC slams fair when Djoko has 9 AO"

-Ok fine, lets take the HC slam with the best result for both:

Nadal: 13+4+2=19
Djoko: 9+5+1=15

-So Nadal actually has better slam distribution and more slams in each of the actually "fair" scenarios, but him creating an incredible 13 slam advantage from 1 slam is not fair?

-Djokovic fan: "Yeah? Well clay is not tennis, serve doesn't work bla bla bla..."

End of the convo.