Sadly for excited England, a day to eat, drink and beat Murray

This fortnight began with predictions Nadal, the clay-court genius, had improved enough on grass to keep Federer from a record-tying sixth consecutive Wimbledon title. Nothing Murray said opposed that idea.

"He's improved his game a lot the last couple of years," Murray said of Nadal. "He's the second-best grass court player next to Federer. Better than last year."

Poor Britain. Well, maybe not that poor. At least it had someone among the final eight men. Americans -- Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi -- have won Wimbledon as recently as 2000. As the well-told tale reminds, no Brit has done it since Fred Perry in 1936.

So, every possibility is milked, every candidate is squeezed. Tim Henman reached the semis four times, but it wasn't enough. First he was embraced, then, like the Buffalo Bills in losing Super Bowls, he was demeaned. Andy is getting attention now, and it will be interesting to see how he reacts.

Murray is a fine player. The way Novak Djokovic and Andy Roddick are fine players. But they exist in the wrong era. With Federer and Nadal, there's no room at the top, or even next to the top.

The way Rafa played Murray, there was no room anywhere, particularly at the edges of the court.

"The second half of the first set and the second set, especially, was probably the best match here," said Nadal.

Asked what part of his game pleased him the most, Rafa responded, "Everything." And why not?

He didn't show a scintilla of weakness. It is hard to imagine him losing in the semis to the winner of the unfinished match between Arnaud Clement and Rainer Schuettler, who are both unseeded.

"I was playing very well before the match," said Nadal, "and I arrive at the match playing with good confidence and tactic. I played very aggressive all the time, no? ... Well, is one of my best days here, no?"

Yes. And, in the great scheme of a once-great sporting land, another depressing one.