1) Removing Sampras’s Wimbledon crown

Come at the king, best not miss, as Pete Sampras was never heard saying to his many victims at Wimbledon. But he missed a trick by not saying it because it would have been an excellent and appropriate catchphrase.

For years, Sampras reigned supreme on Centre Court. It was his patch. There were challengers but, Richard Krajicek’s toppling of Sampras in their quarter-final in 1996 aside, they tended to walk on court more in trepidation than expectation. Other than that one blip, Sampras ruled SW19, lifting the men’s singles title there on seven occasions between 1993 and 2000.

Yet an ageing Sampras was slowing down at turn of the millennium, finally showing signs of vulnerability on the grass when he almost lost to the British wild card, Barry Cowan, in the second round in 2001. Sampras won in five sets and then breezed past Sargis Sargsian in straight sets in the third round, but this was new. The old champion was looking, well, old and Roger Federer was waiting for him in the fourth round.

Who? The 15th seed did not inspire dread in his opponents yet. It was only Federer’s third appearance at Wimbledon, he had made quiet exits in the first round in the previous two years and the tennis aficionados on Centre Court were not overly familiar with this pony-tailed pretender in front of them. But they soon would be.

People do not always appreciate genius when they first see it. We all know someone who has been badgered into watching The Wire, showing remarkable self-restraint not to snap at you for beaming expectantly at them the whole way through the first episode and then turned to you when it is over and asked what all the fuss was about. Boring. Too many characters, too many things going on, couldn’t understand the accents. Not watching that again. Thanks for wasting an hour of my life.

They soon understand the hype after watching a few more episodes. Then they’re hooked and spared from the ire of the writer of The Wire, David Simon, who has been less than complimentary about the casual viewer in the past. Yet it is curious that it can be such a challenge for people to embrace one of the finest television programmes ever. It is just that the genius was not immediately obvious or accessible.

Which brings us back to Federer, who in that sense is the anti-Wire. Not that he lacks intelligence or depth or mystery or layers or even contradictions to his character, rather that even someone with a passing interest in tennis only needs to watch Federer for a few minutes to realise that a genius is work. Even though he is no longer quite as special as he was at his peak, seeing him in the flesh at least once is on everyone’s tennis bucket list. Even if you don’t like tennis. A bit like visiting Buckingham Palace. You just want to say that you’ve been.

Yet he did not have that aura when he found himself on the opposite side of the net to Sampras. Federer was a relative nobody in 2001. No one knew who Mirka was. There were no RF caps. He wasn’t Roger Federer yet, he was just another player who was supposed to be put in his place by Sampras.

And then Federer started playing tennis and what a thrill it was. He won the first set on a tie-break, but Sampras, ever the great champion, fought back to take the second set 7-5. Back came Federer in the third: he won it 6-4. Back came Federer in the fourth: it went his way on a tie-break and they were into a fifth.

Neither man gave an inch, the level was absurdly high and then Federer held serve to lead 6-5, heaping the pressure on Sampras. Fifteen-all became 15-30 – and then Sampras netted a volley to hand Federer two match points. Federer only needed one. Sampras tries to serve and volley on a court that was no longer as conducive to that tactic any more – the old versus the new, tennis for the 20th century finding itself badly exposed against the man who would come to redefine the sport – and Federer instantly picked him off with a gorgeous forehand down the line. Federer came at the king. He did not miss, and then he lost to Tim Henman in the next round.

Of all the activities Federer enjoys most, tormenting Andy Roddick ranked high on his list of favourites. They met 24 times between 2001 and 2012 and while Roddick won three of their encounters, the majority of his matches against Federer were gut-wrenching experiences.

Roddick played seven finals against Federer and he lost seven finals to Federer, the most chastening of which was undoubtedly his five-set defeat in that Wimbledon epic in 2009, when he finally succumbed 16-14 in the final set. He led twice. In the second-set tie-break, he spurned four set points for a two-set lead and it would be understandable if those four little points flash through Roddick’s head every time he goes to sleep at night. He’s only human, after all. Still, at least he was there to witness history being made, while blinking through the tears; it was Federer’s sixth Wimbledon title.

Federer mostly met and beat Roddick in big matches. The Wimbledon finals in 2004 and 2005. A US Open final in 2006. Australian Open semi-finals in 2007 (6-4, 6-0, 6-2) and 2009. Finals in Toronto, Bangkok and Cincinnati.

Forget the finals, though. Federer’s finest moment against Roddick came in a quarter-final in Basel in 2002. Before he was great. After all, 2002 was largely a forgettable year for Federer. He lost to Tommy Haas in the fourth round of the Australian Open; Hicham Arazi in the first round of the French Open; Mario Ancic (remember him?) in the first round at Wimbledon and Max Mirnyi in the fourth round of the US Open. Greatness remained tantalisingly out of reach.

Yet it was impossible to keep a lid on that brilliance for ever. It was bubbling away, little drops seeping out here and there and giving us a taste of tennis that would leave crowds cooing and gasping and utterly, hopelessly, breathlessly awestruck. Federer crowds don’t cheer, they make the kind of sound a Crane brother would make upon tasting a particularly fine wine, the kind of sound that should not really be heard until well after the watershed.

Can you blame them? Watching Federer should come with a health warning that you might need someone to winch your jaw off the floor or to pop your eyes back in their sockets when the match is over. It is rumoured that people are so wide-eyed when they watch Federer at his best that they forget how to blink.

Imagine being the poor sod on the other side of the net. Roddick was serving at 1-3 in the second set in Basel. He serve-volleyed on the first point and the way he played it would have been enough to overcome most opponents. Two firm volleys forced Federer into a defensive lob on the backhand side and the ball sat up invitingly for Roddick to put away a smash.

He hammered it into the ground and back up again, high towards the right corner – and then Federer set off in pursuit of the ball. Almost running backwards, he was a few yards behind the baseline when he reached the ball and then, with a slight leap, he strained every sinew in his body and spun an outrageous smash from an impossible angle past a bewildered Roddick and down the line for an astonishing winner.

It had to be inch-perfect. Roddick was waiting at the net as Federer jabbed his racquet sharply at the ball, as though he was throwing a fishing line into the water, and then the American was looking as annoyed as Stifler after being told that the cops were on their way to cancel his party. Roddick’s mock annoyance as he threw his racquet at Federer said it all. If there is one consolation for Roddick, it is that he won their last meeting before he retired, beating Federer 7-6, 1-6, 6-4 in Miami in 2012. You take what you can get.

3) The tweener

Type “great players” into YouTube’s search bar and the first suggestion is “great players humiliate each other on the pitch”. Ronaldinho nutmegging Steven Gerrard, Cristiano Ronaldo scooping the ball past Lionel Messi, the entire Brazil team taking it in turns to be embarrassed by Zinedine Zidane at the 2006 World Cup.

Yet you will not find many clips of tennis’s big four producing trick shots against each other, which partly explains why Federer’s tweener against Novak Djokovic in their US Open semi-final in 2009 was greeted with such amazement. It made sense when he did it against Marinko Matosevic at the US Open last year and against Brian Dabul in 2010, but against Djokovic? And at such a crucial point in the match? Djokovic trailed by two sets and was serving at 0-30 at 5-5 in the third set when Federer sent the ball fizzing past him to set up a decisive break. Even Federer, usually so unflappable during matches, allowed himself a smile and pumped his fist.

4) Victory at last at Roland Garros

It was a teary start to 2009 for Federer. He reached the final of the Australian Open, but his nemesis was lying in wait. Rafael Nadal had removed his Wimbledon crowd six months earlier and now he was after his first title in Melbourne. Four hours and 23 minutes later, Nadal had won 7–5, 3–6, 7–6, 3–6, 6–2 and Federer’s eyes were starting to well up.

Nadal was in his head and not only had he conquered him on concrete and grass, his unrivalled dominance on clay was also stopping Federer from completing his career grand slam. Federer faced Nadal in the French Open semi-finals in 2005 and the final in 2006 and 2007 and he lost each time.

They were seeded to meet in the final in 2009, but Nadal’s knees had other ideas and so did Robin Soderling, the Swede winning their fourth-round match 6-2, 6-7, 6-4, 7-6 and leaving the path clear for Federer.

Yet there was no guarantee that Federer would capitalise on Nadal’s exit, not least when he trailed Juan Martín del Potro after three sets of their semi-final. Surely the chance was not going to pass Federer by. Of course not. On a grey, rainy Paris afternoon, Federer steeled himself and won the fourth set 6-1, before edging a deciding set in which this spectacular squash shot was the highlight. His opponent in the final was Soderling. Federer’s gratitude only went so far, winning 6-1, 7-6, 6-4 to claim his one and only French Open title.

5) Ending Djokovic’s unbeaten run

Those who say that Nadal is a superior player to Federer justifiably point to his 23-10 winning record. Yet theirs is a strange rivalry, one that only truly hit the heights during that period when they faced each other in seven grand slam finals between 2006 and 2009, gradually becoming more sedate as time moved on.

The Wimbledon final in 2008, arguably the best match of all time, was the 18th meeting between Federer and Nadal. Yet since then they have only played each other 15 times and Nadal has won 11 times. When they met in the semi-finals of the Australian Open last year, Nadal winning comfortably in three forgettable sets, it was their first encounter at a grand slam since the Australian Open in 2012 (Nadal won that match in four sets).

Does the reality match the hype? Is it not the case that Federer’s rivalry with Djokovic is more interesting? It is much closer and they have played each other more often. Federer leads their head-to-head record 19-17 and their 37th match was set to be in the final of the ATP World Tour Finals in November, until Federer pulled out with a late injury.

It was never a problem for Nadal to beat Federer, even when he was a teenager, and he won six of their first seven matches. Djokovic needed longer to work Federer out, losing five of their first six meetings before his coming-of-age victory in their Australian Open semi-final in 2008.

The balance of power has swung back and forth since then. The Federer tweener in 2009 and his surprise win under the Wimbledon roof in 2012 stand out, as do that Djokovic forehand when he was facing match point in the US Open semi-final in 2011 and his win in last year’s Wimbledon final.

Their French Open semi-final in 2011 was another memorable occasion. Djokovic was fresh from crushing Andy Murray in the Australian Open final and he was unbeaten in 43 matches, yet Federer was inspired, winning 7-6, 6-3, 3-6, 7-6.

The construction of the point was beautiful. Having survived a strong, focused assault from Andy Murray in the Wimbledon final in 2012, Roger Federer had steaded himself in the second set and, leading 6-5 and 30-40 on the Scot’s serve, he was a point away from levelling the match. He had been 30-0 down and, in the words of the BBC commentator, he had conjured up the set point out of nothing.

The tension inside Centre Court was unbearable as Murray prepared to serve and what followed was magnificent from both men. Yet Federer was too good. The rally lasted 27 seconds. Murray delivered a hard first serve down the middle and Federer responded with an instinctive forehand to Murray’s backhand. Murray produced a defensive slice and Federer targeted his backhand again with an inside-out forehand. Murray’s backhand was almost strong enough to knock Federer off-balance but he adjusted in time to knock a forehand back and now it seemed that Murray was in control as he tore into a couple of forehands.

Federer steadied himself, however, brought the rally back to neutral and then went on the attack with a rasping forehand to Murray’s right, followed by that one-handed backhand into the opposite corner. Murray was on the ropes and yet the quality of his defensive slice might have saved him against someone else.

The ball landed near Federer’s feet, so he moved his racquet downwards and cushioned a delightful drop-volley over the net, putting just enough on it to give Murray hope of reaching it until that one last crucial bit of spin revealed itself. One second Murray had it, the next everyone was reacting like they had seen a ninja disappear in a ball of smoke. Where did it go? How did he do that? Was that Roger Federer being Roger Federer? It was. The match was level and Federer’s seventh Wimbledon title was on the way.