Rafael Nadal Suffers Stunning Upset Loss at Madrid

The unspeakable happened. Rafael Nadal lost on clay in the third round of the Madrid Open, stunned by countryman Fernando Verdasco 6-3, 3-6, 7-5. 

There are few things in tennis, indeed in sport, which can evoke such ineffable disbelief. The word "stun" often only exclaims very dimly the depths of such incredulity. This wasn't merely an epic loss to Djokovic at yet another clay-court final; that would have been dignified to some degree.

When the renowned king of the terre battue bombs out in three sets in a third-round match, against an opponent he was 13-0 against, losing a 5-2 third-set lead, questions must be asked. 

Nadal is that sort of tennis player who has not, in fact, suffered a defeat on clay to anyone other than Federer or Djokovic since 2009, to Soderling at the French. That was in a fourth-round encounter, and one would have to look to the year before, in 2008, when Nadal last lost this early in a clay-court tournament. It was the knees then, as the then-defending Rome champion was bounded out by Juan Carlos Ferrero. 

This time, there were excuses again. It's an odd fact of Nadal's temperament, despite the imperturbable humility he undoubtedly possesses and routinely reveals at press conferences, that he finds justifications— some read "cop-outs"—for his inexplicable losses. The big-time target, as it has been all week, was the blue clay, yet again. It was too slippery, he couldn't move well. Those who can't move well on a tennis court can't win, full stop. 

The skeptic is likely to say that well, yes, it probably was more slippery than a normal clay court, but he did still lose a tennis match, and it wasn't as if his conqueror Verdasco had it any easier. Nadal does come across as a sore loser in moments like this, when he should descend to complaining about the surface and movement problems.

He did have, he must have known deep in his mind at that point, a 5-2 double-break lead in the final set, and he blew it with a spate of very uncharacteristic errors. 

If the blue clay did anything to Nadal, it must have had something to do with his normally iron-clad nerves. They broke down dramatically, and it's curious to wonder how the blue clay got into it all.

It had played in his mind all week and probably had festered to the point that Nadal just lost all confidence in it being clay at all. In defining moments, he simply couldn't trust his feet on it. 

So alas, we have here the most glaring instance, unlikely as it has always seemed, of Nadal's mortality after all. It wasn't just the  loss on clay, it was his inability to situate himself appropriately on a surface that looked just looked different and played slightly differently.

The very best are often only that because of some perfectionist cast—slightly in this context is crucial, and in a sport of such fine margins definitive. 

While the blue is unjustified in being blue, Nadal isn't all wrong and just a sore loser. The slipperiness probably did accentuate the difficulties of high altitude and lost him footing when he had to retrieve balls going back behind him—a play Verdasco employed to victorious effect.

But this, after all, is the man who since 2005 has lost but seven matches on clay, and if anyone has the right to brag about imperfect clay, it would have to be him. 

Of course, this loss only has ramifications for his No. 2 ranking, which could now be threatened by Federer should he put up a deep run here or even win the title. A heavier load is now set on Nadal to perform at his optimum best at Rome.

One would think that there, on a kinder kind of clay, nothing short of a win would suffice—such are the pitfalls of greatness. Obviously, being demoted to No. 3 only really affects his draw chances at the French Open, as it might risk his being set against Djokovic before the final.

The direct imperative for Nadal would be a swift regrouping and view to the—redder—pastures in Rome and Paris, where on expects he will learn again to love clay. 

Nadal's real indomitability won't be tested until he actually faces Djokovic or Federer in the flesh; as always, it's simply matchups. Quite surprisingly, Verdasco proved it perfectly today that he always had the game to challenge the very best.

As to how this might affect his chances at Roland Garros in a few weeks, we ought only to be anxious at the real possibility that some rust has set in his competitive armour, polished and renewed as it has been annually for eight years.

The trend is Federer-like (does anyone else wonder at the similarity in both Roddick and Verdasco's victories over Federer and Nadal, each just weeks after the latter two had decisively beaten long-time rivals of their own?) and signifies merely the natural maturation of dominance into something resembling decline.

Barring Djokovic and maybe Federer, it's still safe to say that Nadal will get the better of any of the other 125 men at Roland Garros, any day, over five sets. 

It was in letting slip a huge double-break (that couldn't be emphasised enough) lead, in losing to a player he had never lost to, in being beaten on a surface he was virtually invincible on, in essentially failing to win a match it seemed heaven-ordained for him to win—in all that, would Nadal be concerned for the future.

A new week, new hopes and dreams, the ever-grounded Spaniard might say. But even the greatest heroes grow weary with time and everlasting glory.