Federer has reached the point where he can no longer beat Nadal

Rafael Nadal (left) has finally turned the tables on rival Roger Federer. David Callow /SI

I know how Roger Federer feels. For years, I could not beat Priest Holmes in chess. You might remember Holmes, the star running back for the Kansas City Chiefs, the guy who led the NFL in rushing in 2001, the guy who seemed to score three or four touchdowns every week when you were playing against him in fantasy football. We had a weekly chess match for a while.

And I could not beat him.

This was hard to take because, for the most part, our chess talents appeared to be pretty evenly matched. We both knew the basic moves. We both had fairly simple strategies. Plus, I come from a chess family -- my father won something called the Cleveland Chess Open one year. I am sort of the Pete Rose Jr. of chess.

But I could not beat him. And when he was asked about his chess dominance at a public function, Priest smiled and said: "Well, we're about the same. Except he chokes."

Truth hurts. I did choke. I would have him beat, and then I would make some sort of major mistake. I would build a huge advantage and he would wiggle out of it and pull off some sneaky and decisive move*. It was horrifying. I could not beat the man.

*Usually with his bishop. Priest loves the bishop.

So, yes, I think a lot about Federer these days. Imagine what it must be like: Federer is generally acknowledged to be the greatest tennis player who ever lived. He has won 13 grand slam titles, one shy of Pete Sampras' record. And he has won them all in just six years. He has reached the final in 12 of the last 13 grand slam events (he lost in the semifinal of the 2008 Australian Open). He is brilliant on grass, dominant on hard courts, and the second-best player in the world on clay. No one has ever been so versatile. He is a combination of many of the tennis greats. He has the touch of John McEnroe, the equilibrium of Bjorn Borg, the presence of Sampras, the creativity of Rod Laver.

Late last week, Federer obliterated Andy Roddick in the Australian Open semifinal. Federer won in straight sets, but what made this particularly overwhelming is that Roddick really played quite well, pretty close to as well as he can play. He was simply not in Federer's league. Federer moved around Roddick, like he was a piece on a chess board, and he pounded forehands, sliced backhands, put away volleys, crushed passing shots, and he even served more aces than Roddick, who hits the hardest serves in the world. He was the best at his best. Nobody ever could beat that Federer.

And then, in the very next match, Nadal ripped out Federer's heart. Again.

Imagine what it must be like, to be the very best ... and there's one guy you just cannot beat. Federer has lost five grand slam finals since 2006 -- all five have been to Rafael Nadal.

For a while there, Nadal could only beat Federer on clay. In those early days, Nadal seemed like one of those exotic clay court Spaniards* who show up on the sports scene once a year, hit a million topspin forehands on the red clay in Paris, wear out everyone else with their unshakeable will, then disappear until the French Open comes around again.

*Spain's Sergi Brugera won two French Opens, and never made it past the fourth round of either the U.S. Open or Wimbledon. Spain's Carlos Moya showed up in 1998 and beat another Spanish clay court specialist Alex Corretja in the French final. Albert Costa and Juan Carlos Ferrero both won French Opens, Alberto Berasategui was runner-up one year. They must teach toddlers how to walk on red clay in Spain.

But Nadal had bigger dreams. He wanted to be the best in the world, any surface, any time. While Federer's game was art -- angles and anticipation and touch -- Nadal was sheer force and will. He even wore his sleeves rolled up to show off his arms. Nadal hit every ball hard, he ran down every shot, he was never out of a point.*

*It's always fun when a rivalry has an artist on one side and a force of nature on the other side -- it's the Apollo Creed-Rocky Balboa formula. And this makes for a great rivalry: If Federer is Ali, Nadal is Frazier. If Federer is Sugar Ray Leonard, Nadal is Roberto Duran. If Federer is Nicklaus, Nadal is Palmer or Watson. This probably helps explain why Tiger Woods has never had a rival -- because he is BOTH sides of the rivalry, he is a virtuoso and the toughest guy in the room, Ali and Frazier combined.

Early on, it looked like Federer would get the best of things when the two were not playing on the grueling red clay. Federer beat Nadal in the 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon finals. The matches were not easy -- that Nadal had a lot of heart -- but Federer seemed too good to lose on grass. And Nadal looked entirely out of place on the hard courts of New York and Australia. Nadal never even made it deep enough in those tournaments to play Federer.

Then, in 2008, it all changed. Nadal beat Federer at the French Open, just like always, only this time the match was not even close -- Federer managed to win only four games in three devastating sets. It was a destruction. One month later, Nadal and Federer played one of the greatest matches ever at Wimbledon. And Nadal won.

And then last week, Nadal beat Federer on the hard courts of Australia. And there is no sanctuary left, no place for Federer to go. He seemed to understand this in the fifth set of the match in Australia. Nadal just pummeled him. Federer seemed too weak to go on. When the match ended, Federer broke down.

"God," he said into the microphone, "it's killing me."

That was a hard thing to watch. For years, Federer has dominated men's tennis like nobody since his hero Laver. Nothing seemed right about watching him reduced to tears and frustration. But this is reality: He cannot beat Nadal. Maybe Nadal's style is just perfectly suited to beat him. Maybe Nadal intimidates him in a strange way. Maybe Nadal -- who is about five years younger -- is peaking right now while Federer's game begins to fade. Maybe Nadal is simply better.*

*More and more we have to consider that maybe it's Rafael Nadal, not Roger Federer, who will go down in history as the greatest tennis player ever. It's too early to say that for sure, but the evidence is mounting. Nadal has never lost a match at the French Open. He has six Grand Slam titles, on all three surfaces, and he's only 22. McEnroe won just seven grand slams in his career. Jimmy Connors and Andre Agassi won eight. Nadal is already in Hall of Fame company, and he figures to be in his peak for another four or five years at least.

Whatever the reason, it has to be hard for Federer to deal with, hard to know that there's only one man alive -- maybe one man in history -- who can beat you. But that man can beat you pretty much every time. Nadal has now won five straight matches against Federer, and he has won those five on grass, clay and hard courts. Federer is one grand slam title away from the all-time record, but he knows -- he has to know -- that Nadal is out there. Always.

*****

In the end, I did finally beat Holmes in chess. I went down to see him in his hometown of San Antonio, and he wanted to play, and for reasons that are still baffling to me he insisted on playing at a Hooter's restaurant. Maybe he just wanted the wings. Anyway, I beat him there. Beat him soundly. It was liberating. I suspect they won't play Wimbledon in a Hooter's this year. But Federer could certainly ask.

Joe Posnanski is a columnist for the Kansas City Star and the author of joeposnanski.com.