Three days into Queen’s — now officially the Aegon Championships — and the talk is still of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Neither is playing here — they are not playing anywhere this week, in fact — but they dominate the tennis landscape to such an extent that no one can stop talking or writing about them.

Federer, of course, transcended a mere winning of a Grand Slam title in Paris. By drawing level with Pete Sampras at 14 Slams and adding the missing link of a clay court triumph at Roland Garros, Federer put more smiles on more people’s faces than anyone I can remember since Gustavo Kuerten had everyone doing the samba after winning his first French Open in 1997.

Federer’s decision to pull out of the German grass court event in Halle was only to be expected if one realizes just how much physical and, particularly emotional, toll his performances in Paris had taken out of him. He will be refreshed by Wimbledon and it will be fascinating to see how he plays now that he feels he has nothing left to prove. 

Nadal, suddenly, is the one harboring doubts and problems. The tension in the press room at Queen’s was palpable as we waited for the announcement from Barcelona. Would he play at Wimbledon or not? There was great relief when the news came through as affirmative because it would have been a tremendous shame if the World No. 1 and defending champion had not been able to take his place in the field. Hopefully his knees will be up to the task.

The great thing about men’s tennis at the moment is that, while Nadal and Federer dominate, that domination is being more seriously challenged than ever before by the likes of Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Juan Martin del Potro and, on grass certainly, by Andy Roddick. One has to include Robin Soderling in that company now, too, because the Swede, despite his inability to make any impression on Federer in the final, proved that his startling victory over Nadal at Roland Garros was no simple flash of Nordic light.

But it is Federer and Nadal that fascinate — and not just for their on court prowess. In the London Times today, Matthew Syed, a former world class table tennis player and now one of the paper’s columnists, devoted his column to praising Federer and Nadal as men as well as players. He pointed out that everyone who knows them well view the pair as decent, courteous, honest and sensitive human beings and added, “to put it another way, two of the greatest players in history also happen to be men with values, perspective and morality.”

Syed went on to make some interesting points, namely that when he started competing at the top level in the mid eighties, there seemed to be a code out there beyond the confines of sport that, to succeed, you had to step on people’s toes or even their necks. It was called “necessary selfishness.” But Syed adds, “You want to know a funny thing? It never had a scrap of justification, not even as a description of top sportsmen, far less as a justification for dodgy behavior. I have found, swanning around the world of sport, that there is no correlation whatsoever between selfishness and success. No connection between nastiness and accomplishment. Sure, sport is about winning but many of the greatest sportsmen and women I have met never lost sight of the context. It is no good winning if that means forfeiting one’s soul. Winning is not merely about claiming the final point but about expressing a wider philosophy of sport and life. Nadal and Federer demonstrate a deep and implicit understanding of this truth in almost everything they do.”

I find those words uplifting, not merely because I believe them to be true but because Nadal and Federer present the game of professional tennis in the best possible light and the article pays tribute to the two men who are enhancing its popularity and setting the best possible examples for the generations to come. Champions have considerable influence in the locker rooms of their sports. If they are intelligent, all the young players coming onto the tour now will take a look at Rafa and Roger and think, “so that’s how it should be done.”  

As a tournament, the Queen’s Club has always presented itself as a model on how to run a highly successful second tier event. Its position on the calendar ensures that it always gets its fair share of top players seeking much needed grass court match play before Wimbledon but the marketing skills of Frank Lowe and Ian Wight also inserted it firmly into the sporting calendar of the English summer — part of a social scene that encompasses Henley for rowing, Ascot for horse racing, the Lords Test Match for cricket, the British Open golf and, of course, Wimbledon. More so than those to be found at the All England Club, the crowd at Queens has always been heavily tilted towards the well-heeled residents of neighboring boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea even though, this year, there might be just a little less Pimms being sipped on the clubhouse terrace by young men in old school ties.

Having taken over from Wight a couple of years ago, Chris Kermode has succeeded in turning the place blue, the favored color of Aegon, from the trademark red of Stella Artois, the departing sponsor, while retaining the overall feel of a traditional Queen’s Club tournament — a tradition that dates back to the club’s founding in 1886. It’s been raining, too, so everyone feels right at home. 

And the Andys, so far, are doing just fine. Roddick admitted to be overjoyed at being back on grass and played like it as he defeated Belgium’s Kristof Vliegen 6-1, 6-4 while Murray was no less impressive against Italy’s Andreas Seppi, winning by an identical score. James Blake is also through to the third round, having disposed of Ivan Ljubicic in a tougher battle, 6-2, 7-6(4) thus ensuring an American quarterfinalist as he plays Sam Querrey tomorrow. In a battle of giants, Querrey beat South Africa’s Kevin Anderson 7-5, 6-3 yesterday.