Has there been a better match that THAT one at Wimbledon?

When all the adrenaline has died down, Rafael Nadal’s 4 hour 48 minute 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 9-7 victory over five-times champion Roger Federer may not, on reflection, rank as the best tennis match of all time. But it does mark the transition of Rafael Nadal from tennis great to tennis god.

Nobody doubts that deposed Wimbledon champion Federer ranks as one of the best – if not THEbest – tennis players of all time. He may yet beat tennis legend Pete Sampras’s record of Grand Slam victories and he may yet one day capture that elusive French Open title to complete a Career Slam.

But there is something about that boy Nadal that grips the imagination and makes the people want him to win.

When Nadal made his debut, I admit to not liking the look of him. My early impression of the Spaniard was that of a pretentious boy with the rock ‘n roll image trying to be punkish with his long hair and sleeveless top. He looked for all the world like a showman who, along with Gustavo Kuerten, was coveting the glamorous spotlight being vacated by the soon-retiring Andre Agassi. I much preferred the substance of David Nalbandian or Guillermo Coria.

Then this boy started his ascent to greatness. In Miami in 2005, he took Federer to five sets where he eventually lost. A young boy taking the tennis god to five sets? Unheard of! But as if that wasn’t enough, Nadal had the gall to beat him in the semi-finals at Roland Garros. I was shocked. This upstart was disturbing the tennis equilibrium.

Nonetheless, quick losses at Wimbledon and the US Open that year confirmed my early impression of the pretence that was Nadal. How wrong I was. Fast-forward to 2007 and several victories on several surfaces other than clay later, here was the Spaniard facing the tennis god in the Wimbledon final. Nadal wasn’t supposed to be good on grass. Spaniards in general weren't supposed to be good on grass.

How could this be possible? Nadal in the finals of a grass-court tournament? And the match itself in 2007 where he lost in five sets, to me, was the best match I had ever seen. There were two reasons for that: the first was the absolute determination by both men to win that game made for a great spectacle.

Federer was behind and 15-40 on his serve in the final and deciding set. The sheer tenacity and grit he showed to win that day was awe-inspiring. But it wasn’t nearly as awe-inspiring as the way Nadal forced the Swiss master to grind out his absolute best to subdue this upstart.

It was a match of epic proportions bringing out the passion and desires of both men. The quality of tennis skill on display left me breathlessly anticipating the next year and Round 2 of this epic adventure. Not since Muhammad Ali/Joe Frazier have I looked forward more to a re-match.

Which brings me to the second reason the 2007 Wimbledon final to me was the best match I have ever seen: it changed my opinion of Nadal. This young man was no upstart. He could simply cruise in his dominance of the clay court like so many of his compatriots did and be happy, not needing to conquer the world outside Europe.

But he didn’t do that. Instead he embarked on a single-minded venture to improve his game and to attain that which was not within his reach. His sheer determination to conquer that which is not his natural ability and control his game transcended the description of him as simply being awe-inspiring.

He took control of his fear for grass and the notion that Federer could not be defeated on his own Mount Olympus and confronted it. He dared the tennis god to face him and beat him.

Such audacious arrogance! Such wonderful determination. Such sensational tenacity. All this was exhibited before he finally dethroned Federer at Wimbledon. And the manner in which he did it was uncompromising at best.

Having breezed the first two sets, he was unfazed that his opponent was resurrecting himself from the dead. He was unfazed that Federer’s aura of invincibility was slowly but surely radiating an intimidating glow. He was unfazed that the match was turning against him.

No. Rafael Nadal’s ascent would not be halted. Like the ex-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher before him, Nadal was starring down his detractors seeming saying, "You turn if you want to. I am NOT for turning!"

Federer has left the grand stage. There is no doubt he will be back someday. Maybe even like his idol Pete Sampras, who surprisingly lost to Richard Krajicek in 1996 but came back to win four consecutive Wimbledons thereafter, this loss will only spur Federer to greater effort.

But for now, let him bask in the radiance of Rafael Nadal. Federer was – correct that – IS a genius of the game. He is a machine that purrs perfection when he is on song. Like Bjorn Borg or Ivan Lendl before him, or like masters of other sports, F1’s Michael Schumacher, these men were machines, displaying their skills as if manufactured by the gods.

But in 4 hour 48 minutes on Sunday, July 6, 2008, Nadal proved what every one of us knows to be true but is too painfully slow to react to – that, when confronted with something better, there is nothing to fear. To every man not blessed with perfection, if we are prepared to work hard and maintain that will, that desire to win, we will find great reward.

The king is dead. Long live the king!