those stats don't mean anything.
Huge majority of those H2H's were played on clay(more than 50%). Considering Nadal is playing almost every tour on clay, those H2H's aren't surprising.
Would be more creditable, if Nadal plays more tours outside clay, and imagine if we had more grass tournaments. But ofc he'd skip those, the only reason he plays Queens, is because its the only pre-slam tournament on grass.
No doubt Nadal is much better than most of those top 10, but H2H's don't mean much considering the circumstances.
tennis is a sport played on all surfaces
Nadal has met them all on hard court as well as clay
he certainly wins most of the wins on clay but also has beaten them all on other surfaces as well
you can't pin point 'so and so doesn't deserve blank because of the surface' it's a dumb circular logic
the fact is he has beaten everyone in tennis more times than they have beaten him
H2Hs are very relevant and irrelevant of the surface- why do you think tennis analysts and commentators and players have been bringing H2H back into conversations over and over for decades?
there is no way to ignore that it has significance
even taking away clay, Nadal would be matched or beating the majority of his rivals in H2H, it just wouldn't be as disjointed