You know the match really reminded me of Borg/McEnroe 1980 Wimbledon final...5 sets of quality tennis with Borg just clinching it...1981 saw McEnroe beat Borg in 3 sets...Borg then retired aged 26 (I don't think Federer would ever retire until he wins the French) but there are quite a few parallels...an ice cool artist versus a real human fighter as such...it's God given grace and talent versus someone able to play above their aggregate ability by shear force of will (not to say Nadal ain't talented, he obviously is).
Next person I hear that says Nadal is only a one surface player I may slap though, because it is crap.
It is great for the men's game that we have this type of rivalry, they bring out each others best games.
Question now is, who is closer to beating who? Is Federer closer to beating Nadal at the French or is Nadal closer to beating Roger at Wimbledon? Personally I think Nadal has closed the gap the more...even though Roger had a good few break points at the French against Nadal he never really capitalised and he never really looked in it. Where as Nadal does seem to be greatly improving on grass and really taking the game to Roger.