if someone has to pull out after they have won a match the loser of this should replace them as none of them deserve to lose, surely there is justice in this world and the order of play can be changed to give the winner a rest

Don't worry, it will be. Even if they play just two games tomorrow, the winner will get the rest of the day off and go back on Friday most likely for the next round.

An incredible spectacle. I thought I was having my leg pulled when I was told the score. Day 3 tomorrow!

think they should have carried on until one of them dropped tonight...

Federer yes, because hes won the most number of Grand Slams. Not too sure I'd agree about Nadal, though. But he is an exciting player to watch IMO.

absolutely amazing. i hope it continues... They deserve the title. Forget Federer, Nadal, Murray etc. These demonstrate commitment and dedication.

They are no more committed than anyone else.....they are just evenly matched. Any other two players would be in the same situation.

Night vision goggles could be used so they don't have to stop...

Yes one thing about that era was there were a lot of good players who were evenly matched. Since then the numbers of really good players have dropped but at the same time we've had the three all time legends of the game (Sampras, Federer and Nadal) come through - possibly you could put Agassi in that category, maybe a bit below. I reckon any of Sampras, Federer or Nadal would have been the best player through the 1980s. Whilst the Grand Slams were shared out in that era, the world no.1 for most of it was Lendl who was an incredibly fit athlete but I don't think was good as those three.

However, when you look at the other players who have been just below Federer and Nadal in recent times, the likes of Roddick, Murray, Djokovic, they would have struggled to be top 10 players in the 1980s, I think they would have been below the pecking order of Edberg, Becker, Wilander and these guys.

Just choosing Federer as the example as he is the best, I reckon if he'd played in the 1980s he wouldn't have won nearly as many Grand Slams as he has done, although he would have been the best player in his era. There's been times when he's been below par and still sailed through because of the lack of any credible challenger to him but in that era he would have been punished in those days and lost in more QFs and SFs.

Reckon if I had to choose my all time top 10 ratings of players I've seen it would be
1 Federer
2 Sampras
3 Nadal
4 Agassi
5 Lendl
6 Edberg
7 Becker
8 McEnroe
9 Wilander
10 Muster

A top 10 without Borg?

come on tim

wimbledon? what score is it? who they playing ipswich?

They are third match on Court 18 today, after two Women's Singles. Could even make it to a fourth day at this rate!

they`d be goosed

I never actually saw Borg. My first Wimbledon was 1986, Becker beat Lendl in the final.

Who, the women in the singles?

66 all in the 5th now....

How long have they been going this afternoon??

almost an hour.

How many Aces? 112? At this late stage? Amazing! Isner falls behind and pulls a couple of aces out of the bag to hold serve.

Ooops - double post.

Match point!

over - 70-68 to Isner

finally the first break of serve in 138 games seals it

I feel so sorry for Mahut. What a game though.

Nice of them to get a presentation to mark the event, fantastic introduction from the Wimbledon chap - "to make the presentation we have former Wimbledon Champion, Anne Jones, and Tim Henman". The pregnant pause after announcing Henman's name while clearly struggling to avoid saying "who won bugger all" was a masterful piece of comic timing...