LOL. 3 hour battle. They played a whole THREE sets! You know what women play all the time. Yeah god forbid someone has to play 3 hours, makes it impossible no? Well only if it's the super fit Nadal.Strange how he's the biggest fighter, the most superfit, but he can't be expected to win matches after having a match that wasn't a walk in the park. Strange because I remember Federer playing 2 matches back to back before the Rome final in 2006, both over 2 and a half hours and Nadal strolled by in about an hour 10 minutes. Federer loses the final in 5. Obviously the ONLY reason he lost was because he played so much longer. Funny also how Federer got the harder draw at the WTF, made shorter work of it, but Nadal is unlucky that he was not good enough on the day to beat Murray in easier fashion. Also regarding an earlier post, it's usually Federer who plays average (as in plays good but then bad at key points) against a superhuman Nadal, and almost wins before cracking (example - Wimbledon 2008, AO 2009) It's only really on clay he has to play his total best (example first set of RG 2006) and keep Nadal not playing well for him to win. Grass and hardcourt favour him, it's just his inability to play his best under pressure that results in Nadal winning.