I find it funny when people try to paint certain players as "babies" or too young for the match to count in the head-to-head (usually when it's against Federer). Nadal was 20 and was the long-established number two player in the world at that point. Sure, he didn't have that much experience on grass, but he had zero experience at Roland Garros when he first won it. He's precocious, and a quick learner. That's what Nadal does. Federer played very well in his victory over Nadal in the 2006 final - he had to because Nadal is a great player, even in his first Wimbledon final.