Nadal, like Borg, runs everything down, has incredible concentration and is just very hard to beat. But his knees are a worry and he might not have all that many years in him. I believe he gets more than double the topspin on his groundstrokes compared to any other player.

I would say that Nadal is showing how a more competitive era might have looked. I think Agassi for instance was a better ground stroke player than Federer, not as good at moving but I can see him beating Federer at the US and Aussie Opens in the mid 90s.

Federer is the more complete player than Sampras but in my view the Sampras serve is still the greatest shot that Tennis has seen, closely followed by the McEnroe drop volley, Edberg back hand volley, Federer running forehand and Agassi return.

I really like watching Nadal but I think it is his total game that is impressive rather than any compartmentalised aspect.

One of the factors is how long they play on after falling away from their best. Wilander, who played on with limited success well into the 90s, is back at 72%. Hewitt is at 74.7%. Edberg and Becker are also mid-70s.

The Courier Mail had match stats of the fifth set of Federer vs Roddick. Federer won 87 points to Roddick’s 79. The aces were 22/8 and the winners 21/17. Unforced errors were 16/14. Federer won 90% of the time on his first serve and 59% on the second. Roddick’s serve results were 80% and 43% respectively.

So you’d have to say Federer was in the ascendancy in the fifth. The dominance of both on serve, however, was such that it could have gone on a lot longer.

Connors 74-76
Borg 76-81
McEnroe 81-84
Lendl 85-90 (except for Wilander’s stellar 88 year)
There was a period between 1990 and 1993 when various contenders were considered the best player. Edberg, Becker, and Courier being the main contenders.
Sampras 93-00 (with Agassi at times trumping him)
Again from 2000 til 2003 various players were contenders (including Hewitt, Safin, Agassi)
Then of course, Federer 2003 til now with Nadalbesting him in 2008 up til early this year.

He was won 7. He won the boy’s title in 1998.

What interested me about the list was that I wasn’t aware that Connors had regained the top ranking after Borg departed. I remember Connors saying that he would go to the ends of the earth to hunt Borg down but her never did. At Wimbledon in 1981 Connors lost to Borg in five in the semis and it was then McEnroe who beat Borg in four in the final. I remember Borg sinking to the turf with a haunted look. Even though he was only 25 he was finished.

I always thought the ascendancy then passed to McEnroe and then to Lendl, which is generally right apart from Connors popping up multiple times.

Fortunately, living in Europe, I got to see the whole thing during normal waking hours! It was a funny game. It is hard to see how Roddick could have played better, while Federer’s game (like it has been for over a year now) was a little eratic (sublime shots and awful frames in nearly equal measure). Federer’s fitness is incredble – even at the end he looked like he could have continued for hours longer, banging down 2 or 3 aces a game….

John Newcombe said that no-one who had ever lost that spot had ever regained it.

If Bewdy Newk said that he was drunk: The No.1 ranked players.

Maybe, being Newk, he said/meant the opposite: Virtually no one who has ever lost number one has not regained it.

Given Federer’s level of fitness and the way his body seems to be travelling I think another Wimbledon or two is possible. But you never know when his time is going to be over, which is why I stay up watching him while he’s playing.

This time I think the main thing that took the edge off his game was his mind. But he’s more relaxed than he’s ever been at Wimbledon. But it will be interesting to see how Nadal shapes up when/if fit again and whether Murray can advance from where he is.

Roddick shed a tear but was very gracious in defeat and the whole match had been played with exemplary sportsmanship. The whole sequence of what happened after the match was rather lovely with Federer also going out to show the trophy to those on the lawn outside.

Nick, I wasn’t confident that Newcombe was right, which was why I stated it that way.

Fine I tend to agree. I don’t know the full story on Borg, but I recall hearing that his life after tennis was troubled, money problems amongst other things. He even tried a come-back at one stage, but just wasn’t competitive with slower speed around the court and his old wooden racquet. Federer is 6′1″ about the same as Sampras and Borg. I was surprised how short Laver is by comparison.