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.
So you're admitting Fed is better on clay than plexicushion since 3 > 2.
And Nadal didn't have 11 titles when he faced Fed at RG in 05. Those other past players with very good achievements in their teens didn't have to beat Federer in a major.
And please highlight the players that have done better than Nadal in their teens in terms of major victories.