There's no doubt it could have gone either way at the end but for the first half of the match, the winner was clear.

Why was it so clear? Fed had like 10-15 break points in the first two sets, and was actually 4-1 up in the second! I agree Nadal was the better player in those two sets - he did win them after all. But I wouldn't say it was so 'clear'. Like i've said before, from after the break in the first until 4-1 in the second, Fed was the better player. We're dealing here with such high class tennis that the minutest differences are what matter. No clear and decisive difference. But don't get me wrong, I do agree that Nadal was just better over the first two sets.
Another point i've seen mentioned a lot here, in the media, and on other forums, is how much the rain helped Fed. I just don't understand why people say that. Fed was serving very well in the third even before the rain, and was actually leading 5-4, I think, by the break. It was always looking like ending in a tie-breaker, and so it did. If anyone lost by the rain, it was Fed by the second rain break where up till then in that set, his serving was exemplary, but after the rain, his serving was terrible - almost every game on his serve ended in him having to save break points or at least going to deuce!

Yes, but if i'm not mistaken all of fed's were in the first two sets, while nadal only had like 4 or 5 then. Most of nadal's came in the fifth.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but i'm pretty sure fed outnumbered Nadal's break points in the first two sets by close to 3 to 1. Like i say, break points are nothing if you don't convert them (see French Open final last year!), and also its possible Nadal would have had far more if he wouldn't have broken using his first break point in each instance in the first two sets if i'm not mistaken. However, my point still stands that Fed was on top for major periods even in the first two sets, and it wasn't as one sided as Mark seems to be saying.

I'd say it's unlikely he'll be top 5 "soon", as Nadal suggested.

Yes we discussed this earlier in this thread and if he did really have that then he's an idiot for putting his reputation on the line by entering the tournaments. He would have known the horrible press he would have got if he were to have early exits and therefore would have surely just not played until he had recovered.

Sounds like a lame excuse for his bad form.

We can only wish that one day Murray gets as good as Federer's bad form