Phil,
Like all things, the Hawkeye may not be perfect. What it does, however, is that it allows for controversy to be settled - the best way it could be under then circumstances!
Note that all we want to know is whether the ball touched the line or not...if there is a controversy, it means that the ball is close enough to have actually made contact. And the Hawkeye shows whether it did, or not.
Now, if it is a "shadow" as you put it, then all the players at the tournament will benefit in the end! Because over a tournament, a player will (both get burned, and benefit) from the technology, and it evens out!

Bode Oguntuyi, Lagos, Nigeria

Federer for me should've attacked the net more on his first serve. Considering it's accuracy and penetration he really could've ended points on his serve very quickly. When you consider his ability at the net it's criminal. Maybe he does need a coach just to advise, not on technique but on the best course of action. No disrespect to Rafa but I feel Federer played right into his hands. Federer needs to mix it up more.

Chidi Madu, London,

It takes so long as its not just a "plastic roof"... they have worked with scientists, experts etc to ensure the whole thing is perfect and that with it being grass, they have to ensure that the grass does not become damp when the roof is on.... just because it is plastic, it doesn't mean they're just gonna throw some sheeting over the top...

Phil - no idea how hawkeye works, but the shot when Fed got upset was clearly out, regardless of what hawk eye said...

Paul, Switzerland,

Federer, once again played a beautiful game of tennis, showing huge variation in his ground strokes, serve and net play. However, make no mistake, Nadal showed huge improvement in this years final and at only 21 he is set to be the next artist of the game. Many regard his sheer strength on the ball as his main advantage. However, yesterday he showed he can play a varied complete game as good as Federer. The young Spaniard can only go from strength to strength in this respect. We will see........................

Andres Dhir, Bashot, Surrey

Ref Hawkeye - it appears to have marginally expanded the court since balls that would have been called out in years gone by are now in since it seems the tiniest fraction of the ball needs to touch the line. But why do we need the circus of the "challenges" and all that nonsense? It seems to lead to gamesmanship as Federer obviously thought on the court yesterday - and at times appeared set to ruin the match. Why not simply do away with the line judges and have hawkeye give a beep (or if traditionalists prefer they can sample some voices of people shouting "out" and play those instead) when the all-knowing computer decides the ball is out of play. That way at least the players know where they stand. There was more than enough theatre out there yesterday to need some fancy computer graphics tracking the ball in and ... ohh wait for it...... ooh yes the ball is ...IN/OUT.

Tim, Chester, UK

What a welcome change from the aggresive, arrogant ingnorance of football.

Tony Jones, Grantham, Lincs

Federer, once again played a beautiful game of tennis, showing huge variation in his ground strokes, serve and net play. However, make no mistake, Nadal showed huge improvement in this years final and at only 21 he is set to be the next artist of the game. Many regard his sheer strength on the ball as his main advantage. However, yesterday he showed he can play a varied complete game as good as Federer. The young Spaniard can only go from strength to strength in this respect. We will see........................

Andres Dhir, Bashot, Surrey

I take it that if there is no grass visible between the edge of the ball circumference projected vertically down and the extreme edge of the white line in question then the ball is deemed to be " touching " the line and therefore is in, as per the " Hawkeye" result which Federer queried as being dubious in spite of the clarity of the photo. Naughty Roger--if you accept the ones in favour of you then you should deal with the ones against without a fuss.

Brian Ingram, Dudley, England

"Federer is the most gracious of sportsmen and always magnanimous in victory. Nadal has immense talent but needs to work on his behaviour and image"

There was only one player swearing and throwing a strop on Sunday.

C, E, Scotland

What a gripping match. Both players were on top form. Federer has proved himself to be one of the great Champions around. No doubt though Nadal will one day come to win Wimbledon as he throughly deserves it.

Catherine Rowlands, Anglesey, Wales

Although Federer is the "King of Grass", he had difficulty in defeating Rafa Nadal in the final. I am sure Roger would have defeated Nadal in three sets if he had not been so nervous. But, it is very difficult to remain calm when you are playing the final and you are the holder of the trophy.
Anyway, Federer equalled Borg's record and I'm afraid he is the best player in tennis history.

Bruno, Oporto, Portugal

Hawkeye: the rule is ball touching the line, however fractional.

Federer is Mr Nice guy when he's winning, but he reveals a little more of his true nature when things aren't going so well (like yesterday's final). Kudoes for his will to win in the end. Let it be said though - some of the things he's said of Nadal in the past have been downright demeaning. Federer's a great player, but sometimes is very much 'into Rog' and doesn't see the bigger picture or appreciative of other players - he was a bit more humble in yesterday's interviews!

To say Nadal is not graceful is naive. His movement and shotmaking are graceful and dynamic as any.

Paul-Davide, Walsall, UK

By his usual standards Federer, as I'm sure he would be
the first to admit, played lousy tennis, allowing Nadal to
knock him all over the Court . He only showed anywhere
near his usual form in the 5th set and even then it was
only his serve that got him through. It was Nadal's after-
noon and should have been his Championship.

John Vestey, Porto Ercole, Italy

Hawkeye: it would be really interesting to know how this is set up. It looks as if Hawkeye is interpreting the relation between ball and line in the spirit of the Laws of Soccer, where if any part of the ball is above the line, the ball is still in play. Whereas the Laws of (Lawn) Tennis state that the ball is regarded as "touching the court bounded by a line" if it touches a line. In the controversial "appeal" by Nadal, which upset Federer, the ball appeared to touch the court outside the line, but (conceivably) to do so in a way that part of the ball was above the line. That is what the Hawkeye diagram appeared to confirm. If Hawkeye says that any part of the ball touched the line, it was clearly wrong. And if the rules are being interpreted soccer fashion, that is wrong too. Good thing the result was not affected.

Jeremy Stone, London, UK

Federer is the most gracious of sportsmen and always magnanimous in victory. Nadal has immense talent but needs to work on his behaviour and image, the gamesmanship is very tiresome and it is not necessary to look like a bikie.
As for the roof the very old structure cannot take the weight so there is much more work involved than a "plastic" roof.

mike sanders, hong kong, china

Very much touch and go for Federer. The pressure was obvious and Nadal brilliant. Federer deserves it for the usual grace and beauty of his play. I hope he can relax having equalled the record. Nadal will surely win one year soon.

As for Hawkeye - does it assume the full ball touches the ground, allocating the full width of the ball to the imposed TV outline circle on or near the line - or does it recognise that only a fraction (one quarter?) of the ball actually touches the ground (varying with speed/angle)? If the former it is inaccurate since the 'shadow' of the ball may overlap the line without any part of the ball itself having touched it!!!!

Please tell me the answer!

Phil, Hong Kong,

I have always liked Federer, because he plays beautiful tennis and he always behaves well on the court. He plays very much the same game as Pete Sampras did (who has always been my favourite player) who also always behaved well on the court. I very much dislike the bad behaviour of some of the other players, both past and present. Nadal is a very gifted player, particularly on clay, but he is not a graceful player, nor is Andy Roddick and I always appreciated the gracefulness of Sampras' and Federer's game.

Peggy Podmore, Haliburton, Ontario, Canada

Once again we watched the two best athletes in tennis today. Both hit and play with brutality. This is the style of the modern game, with little change of patterns of play. The fans of tennis may miss the subtle change of pace, and slice with volleys that were part of the ‘old game’ on centre court finals day. We saw Federer and Nadal rely on pure power, swinging hard at nearly ball that came within their hitting area. How much longer both players can continue to play this way is open to debate. Their bodies will tell them when the time is right. A champion is a champion in any era and the media should not try and compare who is the greatest. I watched these players giving it all they could but as Fred Perry said champions are like a London bus, you only have to wait a minute and another one will turn up. Then the media will start talking about ‘is this the greatest player yet we have seen.’ One thing is certain comparables will always be made with past and present champions.

Arthur Brocklebank, Liverpool, England

another great man has born!!!

KVZ, shanghai, china

This is Britain dear boy. Things take a little time.

Ubi, Edinburgh, uk

how come it takes 2 years to build a plastic roof at wimbledon?

peter henley, washington, dc usa