How about Sweden, Australia, UK, Germany? And...come to think of it, nearly every country but Spain and Switzerland have been without a Grand Slam title for the last seven years.

So it is a little unfair, in my opinion, to point to any one country at this point, as to why there aren't legends from that country.

Does it, just maybe, have to do with the era we're in?

Federer and Nadal are far and away the two best players of this era, and possibly any era. Even with Djokovic winning the Australian Open this year—which certainly was attributed to his top-notch play—Federer and Nadal are still much more than head and shoulders above the rest of the field. They are incredibly special players.

First of all, to succeed meaningfully in pro tennis, it really has to be your life, perhaps more than other sports.

Also, the recent champions, along with the advances in technology, have set the standard of tennis to be brutally high.

And these days, players can produce far more power, from more positions on the court, than any time in past eras.

This makes the game a real equalizer; today's technology makes it significantly more possible for a much lower ranked player to bang the heck out of the ball and beat someone ranked much higher.

Therefore, it takes someone extremely special to break out of that pack, and stand out. It's difficult for anyone outside of the Top Three right now to do, and we'll see how No. 3 (Djokovic) does in the coming years.

Sure, a player may have a great fortnight in a Grand Slam or two, and even beat Federer and Nadal in a Master's Series event. But can they play like them day in and day out? Again the standards are incredibly high.

The issues mentioned above, in my opinion, override any other reason that any particular country is not succeeding in tennis and have to do with just about all countries outside of Spain and Switzerland. Not just the United States.

As mentioned, it takes a truly special shooting star to break out of this pack. There have never been, and maybe never will be a player who plays like Nadal or Federer.

Therefore, when their era is done, it's possible that we could have a major variety of Grand Slam winners from a variety of countries. We will see.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Well, Federer exited the tournament at an unusually early stage for him. He did mention at the press conference afterwards that he had some niggling injuries that didn't help his playing. But, congratulations to Berdych for playing a terrific match. He stood with Federer toe-to-toe, not letting Federer do much dictating at all. That is the type of player Federer will have the most trouble against: the player who can stay with him and take it to him, constantly.

Now that Roger is gone, we have the remaining heavy favorite to win the final: Rafael Nadal. His play has been improving with time this week. He wasn't going to beat Robin Sodering in straight sets—Soderling is too tough to take it lying down—and though he wilted in the end, he put in a strong showing in the first three sets of the match. It could have gone either way during the third set.

As it stands now, with the semifinal lineup, Nadal has at least six more majors than anyone in the draw (Novak Djokovic won the 2008 Australian Open). But what can't be measured quantitatively is his mental toughness. He is the toughest competitor in sport; nerves are very rarely the reason he ever loses a match. And he's up against three others, that, I hate to say it, are nowhere near him (or Federer) in this regard—especially in the later stages of a Slam event.

As a result, I would bet on Nadal winning the semis and the final. It's not that Andy Murray doesn't have a chance. He does. However I just doubt that mentally he has the goods to deliver on Friday, in the biggest occasions of the biggest tournaments, against the biggest players when they are healthy.

He may take a set. But I don't see him going further than that. Plus, the last two times he has beaten Nadal in a Grand Slam (this year's Australian Open and the 2008 U.S. Open), Nadal was either injured or had played, as he claims in 2008, too much tennis going into that U.S. Open final.

I don't see either case hampering Nadal on Friday.

Murray can win if he keeps his first serve percentage up and really takes it to Nadal with deep, hard groundstrokes, only sometimes mixing it up with his usual guile.

The only other way I see Murray winning is if Nadal's knee woes do flare up again. In that case, Murray is not a player one would ever want to face injured.

But beyond that, I am pleased that Nadal is back to Wimbledon after having to sit it out last year. He looks to be feeling fit and injury free and poised to win his second Wimbledon crown and eighth Grand Slam title.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Rafael Nadal is about phenomenal speed, strength, and the ability to hit with a combination of spin and power that few, if any, match. His mental toughness is considered by some to be not only among the greatest in tennis history, but in all of sports.

The rest of the top 10, in all honesty, are more alike than not. Not that none of them stand out: Juan Martin Del Potro's forehand is considered by some to be the hardest in the game. But still, they are basically hard-hitting baseliners with not the greatest variety, and with flat-to-medium spin.

This is where Andy Murray comes in. His game is based on an uncanny ability to change pace of shot, from aggressive to passive, and then aggressive again. He has an innate ability to really read his opponent's game and outstrategize him.

Andy gets constant criticism about needing to be more aggressive. I'm concerned about this. If he does, I feel that he is going to be "just another" top-ranked hard hitter. It's going to be even more of a grind to outslug and outhit the great power baseliners of the top 10, on a daily basis. Outside of Federer and Nadal, they all do pretty much only this to each other, and really do not stand out by a lot.

I think Andy needs to continue what he's doing, and improve on it against anyone—that is, except for Federer.

Pat Cash made a very observant comment after the Australian Open final: He stated that against Federer, you cannot counterpunch because he will knock you out in the very first blow.

Andy is doing great against all the opponents, but he will really need to amp his aggression against Federer, really taking it to him and taking the timing away from his great shotmaking. Andy will need to get outside of his comfort zone. There's really not an elaborate, detailed strategy here in my opinion. Not that he won't lose anyway against possibly the greatest tennis player in history, but by using this strategy, he has a greater chance of winning.

If Andy doesn't do this, we'll see him holding the runners-up trophy more often.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com