Are Federer and Djokovic better on clay than Nadal is on hard?

First topic message reminder :

it is something that has intrigued me for a while, Nadal has 2 US Open plus 1 AO which is 3 hard court slams, which is more slams than Federer and Djokovic have on clay combined. Nadal impressively broke out of the mould of a clay courter to become a multiple slam winner on all surfaces, however despite this are Novak and Roger more consistently better on clay than Rafa is on hard?

Rafa grew up on clay, however playing most of the tour on hard was eventually going to make him better and better on the surface along with being a phenomenal player. That being said, is Novak and Rogers consistency over the years on clay more impressive considering they play less time on a surface that comes less naturally to them? If not for Rafa would there overall balance across all surfaces be more balanced?

Nadal has conquered both Roger and Novak on their best surfaces in slams, Novak and Roger cannot return the favour by beating Rafa at the French.

This suggest that Rafa is better on clay than Novak is on hard and Roger is on grass, but are Novak and Roger better on clay than Rafa is on hard?

its not outrageous to suggest Federer is in terms of level of play, is an all time great clay courter. Novak too is on his way of he keeps going at this level. Federer didn't lose a single match against Moya, Ferrero or Gaudio on clay but at the end of the day they all have the same amount of French Open titles. He also never lost to Coria who IMO was better than the other 3 on clay.

Nadal is something else though, that forehand is a large reason for it. It could be the best shot ever and I think another reason he is so good on clay is he is able to run around more backhands which he can't on faster surfaces.

Personally I suspect peak Ferrero would have been very tough for Fed. He was never the same after his problems in 2004 and I don't think Fed played him on clay until much later. Had Ferrero maintained his 01-03 level I think he could certainly have challenged the 05-06 version of Nadal who was not quite the same level as later in his career.

Gaudio is a level below the others.

federer 2006-2009 was only behind nadal on clay. no other player could harm him (but for occasional mistakes) but prior to that and after that, he has not been the top contender in the surface

djokovic is second only to nadal on clay since 2011, but prior to 2011 was not even top 3 on the surface

these describes a very specific time of no more than 3-4 years, in which federer o djokovic have been really good on clay and still couldnt stop nadal. in the same way we can find a period of 3 years in which nadal was almost unstopable on hardcourts, but still lost to federer or djokovic in certain occasions (2009 untill injury, 2010, 2013)

its true that in the second half of 2009 it seemed anyone could harm nadal on hardcourts though.

Whenever Nadal loses a match on clay the whole sporting world stops and asks, what was wrong with him?

You don't get this reaction when Federer or Djokovic lose on hard courts.

I think the best answer was Nadals highest level on hard courts is higher than Roger and Novaks on clay but Nadal is more vulnerable on hard courts to lower ranked players than Roger and Novak are on clay.