Sorry, but I'm sick of hearing about God Fed!!! This year's Wimbledon was totally unfair to the lower half of the draw. Federer had the easiest ride of all and Nadal the hardest. Players in the lower half of the draw had to play each day and poor old Rafa had to struggle for days against the elements (rain) in the Soderling match whilst God Fed rested up! Several of the players were so exhausted because of the schedule they couldn't compete to their maximum because they incurred injuries from over-scheduling and God Fed capitalised from this. The real winner was Rafa for his pure resolve and resourcefulness to overcome all the odds to even be fit enough to play in the final after all he went through. If only his leg had held up he would have beaten God Fed and I really wish he had, he deserved to win. God Fed showed his tetchy side too - God forbid - his halo has tipped sideways!!!!

Susanne James, Devon, United Kingdom

Lovely stuff Simon. Some people have compared this titanic battle to Borg v McEnroe but I think there's a big difference. Borg knew that McEnroe was a better player on grass, in the sense that he had more shots, softer hands, a trickier serve, so he knew he was lucky to win that first final and it was only a matter of time before he was usurped. (Ironically, Borg actually played better the following year and lost). Bjorn retired because he knew McEnroe was too good and getting better. Why suffer the indignity of coming second? McEnroe went on to play tennis at a new level, especially on grass. Nobody has ever played better tennis than McEnroe in 1984.
Federer was magnanimous to Nadal because he knows he's better and will always be better. Nobody can touch him at his best, not even Nadal. So he will be back with his stiletto to finish his man off next year, I guarantee it. And I think Nadal's face at the end said it all: This was my big chance, what more can I do?

Ashley, london,

Neil, pluperfect means more than perfect, ( or actually plus-perfect to borrow your term) at least according to the dictionary I referenced.

Terry, Manila, Phillippines

Mangled meaning or not, a quite excellent article for its observation. Si-borg is the journalistic Marlon Brando!! Federer looked down and out at the start of the fifth. For me, he was going to lose. That simple. Hardly any break points against Nadal, under pressure on his serve. Extraordinary how he turned it around.But maybe Ruth/Hereford's remark about Nadal's dodgy knee helps explain.

Peter Koeb, Geneva, Switzerland

I think Nadal is overated by just two Wimbledon finals.Where was he in the US and Australian opens 04/05/06 and 07? Being beaten left right and centre by many of his peers.
He should cut out his gamesmanship and prove to sceptics like me that he can take on his peers in the other Slams besides the French.This year he was saved by the weather as otherwise Soderling would have beaten him.So would Yoursny and Djokovic if they were not injured.
I enjoyed the article.But lets not get carried away by just two losing finals and superiority on clay by Nadal

Bobby L Y Kok, Sydney, Australia

Excellent article!

I don't think Nadal's knee had anything to do with the way the match went.

Champions dig down deep and find their way to win even though it looks as if they might be defeated.

Federer is a solid gold champion~~and so beautiful to watch!!

luna, Memphis, USA

Great piece, I don't think there are enough superlatives in any language to describe the majesty of Federer. He has everything and something else, an almost divine abiltiy for the sublime, what other way is there to explain his supernatural gifts? He is, without doubt, the most perfect tennis player there has ever been and this is what makes watching him a kind of poignant experince, he is so beautiful, so perfect that it actually makes you feel a little sad, if only everything in life was as free from cynicism, as beautiful and as pure.

ken, dublin, ireland

Thanks Simon,for a piece that truly does the match and the players justice.I think D'Artagnen would be my pick of your metaphors for Roger.As D'Artagnen was a man portrayed as not being quite as big and beefy as his opponents but having the passion,the steel and the smarts to figure out a way to win
.I found the 5th set blindingly brilliant.I was actually observing myself watching;going, oh my god ,did he actually just play that shot and recover from nowhere! It began to have the sense of watching a movie,it was so unreal,so sudden.The most amazing few minutes from tennis I've ever seen, given the importance of the moment.

F.Ross, Vancouver,

What a perfect description of an amazing afternoon. A really outstanding summing up of Federer's achievement, and giving a new insight and understanding into a great match.

Keep up the excellent standard of journalism!

Mark Tingley, London, UK

excellent comment* As a Swiss I can say: what a pity that the Swiss are not inspired by the greatness of Roger. But thanks god there are inspired journalist like you Simon. Thank you!

Stefan, Berne,

Always nice to read these excellent articles on Times-on line about my fellow countryman - thank you!

Arnold Huber, Einsiedeln, Switzerland

I think Rafa lost a tiny but vital bit of intensity after the knee injury, yes. The comparisons with Borg and McEnroe in 1980 are, I guess - McEnroe had played a gruelling doubles match alongside Peter Fleming the day before that great final, which may have proved decisive when it came to the final set against Borg . At the risk of going into amateur psychology, the match point which Nadal goofed against Soederling in the third round when he was two sets up may have made the iota of a difference to the eventual outcome of the tournament. Tournaments are decided by those split seconds...

Aidan, London, UK

What a stunning piece of writing to compliment a stunning tennis match. It made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Brilliant work Simon.

Philip Wimpenny, Leicester,

Aptly describing Nadal as the stalker which so accurately describes the current situation where he constantly denies Federer major records...
But for Nadal, Federer would have a Grand slam, two Federer Slams, possibly 3 French Opens, and a total of 14 majors by now.
For three years Federer crushed opponents on Clay only to be denied the French. In any other era Federer would have one 203 French Opens.
Despite all the majors and a huge point total Federer is always in danger of loosing #1 with Nadal at close #2 to him for over two years.
Sampras didn't have a stalker - no one was breathing down his neck so hard as he piled on 14 majors mostly with his serve (and a lot of luck with barely scraping out of close matches)
I am not sure how Sampras 14 majors somehow give him the greatest title when Roy Emerson wasnt' even mentioned among the all time greats with his 12 majors
It should be the all round performance in all majors, on all surfaces over a period of time that

Tennis Masta, naperville, USA

Another masterpiece from the Federer of sports journalism.

Martin, Glasgow, Scotland

Amazing game. The moment either player let their standards slip they got jumped on. I read though that the wimbledon grass has slowed down over the years (a comment made by McEnroe), which would seem to help Nadal's game.

In any case, it felt like any one elsewould have been blown off the court, so brutal and exquisite was the standard of play from both players.

Sonny, Singapore,

Wow, the hyperbole does grate a bit, but I think that Simon is really missing the point. Roger didn't win the game by sitting back on his laurells and waiting for the right time to pounce. Roger had to fight all the way and Rafa pushed, nay, shoved him to the excellent tennis he played from the third game of the last set onwards.
They really do bring the best tennis out of each other. It was brilliant to see Roger forced to play a fifth set and when Rafa dropped his game for a moment, Roger took the opportunity to up his.
To say that the game was won all due to Roger's championship timing, yes, timing, and not his skill belittles the awesome final that these two great players worked for.
A well deserved congratulations to Roger and congratulations to Rafa for giving the no 1 a serious run for his money.

Lisa, Hereford, UK,

Nadal tired. It wasnt just a matter of Federer raising his game. Nadal, weary from playing every day for almost a week, 'hit the wall'. A far far more rested Federer capitalised. Are we so bereft of the capacity of memory in our sycophantic idolatry of 'greatness' that we are incapable of remembering even the happenings of a few days past. Isnt that that the preserve of today's journalism? I feel a little sorry for Nadal. If only he had played that Sunday, and if only 'Wimbledon' got of their high horse about 'tradition'. Traditions can be detrimental and oppressive - eg. paying women less.

Raj, Wellington, New Zealand

A great champion, I agree, BUT NOT YET THE GREATEST... He may have equalled Borg's 5 consecutive Wimbledons, but he still has to win the French, and win it back to back with Wimbledon, which Borg did THREE TIMES IN THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS...

Until such time, he remains a great champion with all the other great champions, but he is not yet THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME...

Tony, Manila,

Brilliant piece, Simon! Federer and Nadal bring out the best in each other, and they're astounding to watch when they play like yesterday.

Federer clearly felt history weighing down at him, whereas Nadal did all he could to deny him that pleasure, like a young McEnroe once did to Borg. Truly mesmerizing.

There can be no doubt that Federer is one of the greatest players of all time, and should he continue at his present pace, Nadal will surely muscle his way onto that list as well!

Magnus, Bergen, Norway

"Roger Federer waited ... before raising his game to the dizziest heights that even he is capable of reaching."

???

So this is what earns one multiple awards, ey? But don't take it personal, even Federer the "shape-shifter" looked human at times yesterday.

And, amid all the pathos-turned-pathetos, how about mentioning a little bit of ... luck?

Nadal could so easily have won it .

(and this comment comes from someone who wanted to see Fed win).

Melio, Tokyo, Japan

"absolute pluperfect time"? What does that mean? Pluperfect refers to a grammatical tense, it doesn't mean "plus-perfect" or whatever mangled meaning it was trying to be given here!

Neil, Cambridge,

No

Cormac, Dublin,

Excellent. Thanks to the Tennis Gods for providing us w/the post-colonial British Press to cover the game, for the American Press, as its Empire bleeds into history, is not up to the demands that Roger Federer places upon them.

Just one small correction, if I may. If one wants to use the telling metaphor of performance It wasn't Fred Astaire v. Rambo, it was Marlon Brando v. Rambo.

J. Johnson, San Francisco,

Crikey Simon, steady on.
Ulysses, Einstein, Genghis Khan?
Crumbs.
Where did all that come from? Purple prose in all its gaudy heady technicolor. It's up there with the New York Times article: "Roger Federer as Religious Experience". (I kid you not.)
So tell us Simon, does Jesus know that it is in fact Roger who is the Saviour of the World?
(And I say this as a first class Federer-Obsesserer.)

Bravo Roger - sublime tennis.
Bravo Rafa - for pushing him all the way.

Will, Toulouse,

And the way he took the two tiebreaks too.

Clare, Dallas,

It was a very close match. Both players were fabulous. I actually thought Nadal had it in the bag... Do you think the turn around had anything to do with Nadal's knee injury perhaps?

Ruth, Hereford, UK