Who's #1?

For the fifth time in his career, Rafael Nadal was able to win the French Open and get payback against Robin Soderling, who eliminated him from the 4th round last year. Nadal beat Soderling in straight sets this past Sunday giving him his 38th victory of the year. Nadal was also able to regain the world’s #1 ranking, which brings up my question: Is he better than Roger Federer?
Federer and Nadal have had some memorable tennis matches and whenever the two meet, it always has fans on the edge of their seats. Nadal leads their head-to-head series 14-7, but does this record give him enough credibility to be the best? Nadal, who is much younger than Federer, is also beating Roger in every finals category of their head-to-head match-ups except Masters Cup (0-2). As you can see the numbers definitely favor Nadal from top to bottom.
In Federer’s defense, Nadal is basically unbeatable on clay, which is where most of there match-ups have taken place (12). On grass courts, where Federer is best at, he holds the edge (2-1) and both individuals are tied on hard courts. Would Federer have the advantage and better record if those match-ups were played on grass? Maybe he would, but for now we can only go off facts.
The cliché “Men lie, women lie, numbers don’t”, isn’t true for everything. When you take a closer look at these two great tennis players, it isn’t that clear cut who the better individual is. Tennis analyst and even other great tennis players have stated Federer to be the greatest all time. But how could he be the greatest ever, if he may not even be the best in his era?