Originally Posted by mandy01
Plexicushion came in 2008. Since then Roger has made 2 AO finals and 3 RG finals. Not much of a difference. I don't see where this "Nadal was a teen" argument comes from either. Nadal won a total of 11 tournaments that year, second only to Roger's total. Teen or not, by every standard, that certainly does not make you a newbie or get you brownie points. There are players who've done better in their teens than Nadal has in terms of major victories. That shows Nadal's performance back then wasn't some sort of a miraculous anomaly. Quit the idiotic glorification. He'd already established himself as a force to be reckoned with, particularly on clay.
It's the double edged sword....a young Nadal 2005(who won the most titles in his career) beat Federer, it count. when federer beat him, then it doesn't count because he's too young. Even Nole doesn't get the full credit for beating Nadal in 2011, so don't expect some Rafa lovers are going to give Roger credit.