Isn't it annoying, and somewhat sad, when clichés turn out to be our guiding principles?

We've heard these before - the third time is the charm; appreciate what you have now; live for today. And it turns out that, at least for tennis fans. these sentiments are unfortunately accurate. I mean, just as things were really starting to crystallize and form into something unimaginably brilliant, it falls apart. Seasoned gamblers know not to press their luck. Those in love often fail this lesson though.

And let's face it - true, passionate sports fans are more like lovers than gamblers. Which is why it's so hard to come to terms with the fact that indeed, the third time was the charm for Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer at Wimbledon last year.

After their staggeringly epic final at the 2008 edition of the Big W (one of the rare cases in sport where the use of superlatives cannot be criticized) we all knew that it would be nearly impossible to replicate that match. We also figured both actors in this drama would be here for a return engagement this year to at least see if, indeed, lighting couldn't strike twice. But the tired, achy knees of the honorable Nadal arrested that notion with a thud, and now we're left to hope that an understudy finally has the talent - and more importantly, desire - to step in and become a star.

But before looking at the small, very small in fact, handful of players that may have a shot at defeating an obviously happy and confident Roger Federer and by so doing, making sure a certain Californian tennis God - Pete Sampras - is secure in his knowledge that he is still tied for the lead with most Grand Slam titles won at 14, let's briefly reflect on how lucky we've been.

Until Federer and Nadal's extraordinary five year run of meeting in major championships (starting with the 2005 French Open semis, followed by the three consecutive finals in Paris and London, and then finally the Australian Open final, in February) the players who assumed the "best rivalry" status were Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. Borg and McEnroe were always referenced as exemplifying the peak of the 1970's and early 80's tennis boom. And until last year's Wimbledon final, this duo's 1980 championship match at the All England Club was universally considered the greatest match of all time (and some still think that).

But so many forget that their rivalry, at its peak, when the tandem was meeting in the finals of Grand Slams, was only two years. Two years - that's only half the portion of what we've been feasting on with Nadal and Federer. To be clear, we have been extremely lucky. And for those of us who were somewhat knowledgeable of Open Era tennis, and have tried to live for the small pleasures of today and not fret about the impending crises in the near or long-term future, we were thrilled to be so entertained for so long, for tennis years are similar to dog years.

When, and if, Nadal returns to peak form, it will most likely be next year. So who will finally show the mettle and become the first man sans the surname of Nadal to conquer The Roger in the finals of a Grand Slam event? The early candidates are Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic. OK, I'll admit it, they're not the first candidates - they're the only ones.

I'd consider Juan Martin Del Potro, the man who has slid into Nadal's spot on the draw, but he still hasn't shown he can beat Federer. He did have Roger on the ropes in Paris when he had a two set lead, but that was the only time he's been able to manage a set in six meetings.

The same cannot be said of Murray and Djokovic. Federer has lost his last two matches against Djokovic, and the somewhat underachieving Serb will be ready to prove that his 2008 Australian title was no fluke. Federer and Djokovic are slated to meet in the semifinals, and a perusal of the draw shows no giant hurdles for either of them.

An even more disturbing sight for Federer would be that of Andy Murray in the finals. It's been a nightmarish match-up of late for Roger. Murray has been the victor in their last four contests and leads their rivalry overall, six matches to two. The most difficult barrier for Federer when facing the young Scot is Murray's return of serve.

The main obstacle for Murray will be emotions. He has the weight of the British Empire on his shoulders and there's no telling how he'll be able to handle the pressure if he reaches the final. Federer did beat Murray in the championship match of the US Open last September, when Murray was obviously a bit tight. But having that Grand Slam final experience will most likely energize and focus the talented Scot, who is imbued with quick hands and a varied game that adapts well to grass.

If Federer does have to play these two contenders, then he will not be hoisting the trophy for the sixth time. In Paris, Federer was the beneficiary of only having to play one top-ten player, Del Potro. To have to defeat two players, both of who seem to have his number as of late, will be very difficult for Roger, even if he is playing with supreme confidence.

73 years is a long time to endure. And that is how long Britain has been waiting for one of their own to be crowned Wimbledon champion (Fred Perry was the last to do so, in 1936). But they'll finally have their glory when Andy Murray realizes his long, predicated potential, and triumphs in London.