Rafael Nadal's 5 Set Win over John Isner: What Does It Mean for His Title Hopes?

Such a moment as that which announced the news that Rafael Nadal had just played five sets in the first round of Roland Garros should be be the subject of critical crisis-response study, for good reason.

Forget the fact that he won at all, that he is safely through to the second round. No sort of wording quite ameliorates the shock of Rafael Nadal having been at the brink of defeat here at Roland Garros.

All credit to John Isner, though—he played the part of Nadal's Big Fright (the tall, ominous server with a big game) awfully well, and indeed exploited enough doubts in his mind to get himself into a fairly rare, once a decade sort of moment—a two sets to one lead.

Of course, the last time his happened, the Spaniard went on to lose the match and that in a most, most, celebrated upset to another tall, and for that win, celebrated player.

But what does Nadal's 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-2, 6-4 victory actually mean for his prospects for the title at Paris this year?

It is a fork in the road, as usual. There are two possible takes on this—one good, one bad.

The good news for Nadal, at least, is that he is into the second round and he has had to face a fright to get there—that always gets the blood flowing, and the mind ever more focussed on the final prize.

The novelty of playing a fifth set here at Roland Garros would have opened Nadal’s mind into the unknown, the awesome mystique of the debut to which he is so accustomed—it was his first venture to Paris that he won the title, after all.

Nadal, one would think, would probably be getting over this all too quickly, what with his live-in-the-moment tennis carpe diem ATP tour survival strategy that has borne forth so much fruit over the years.

He’s too smart to let this get to his head.

On the other hand, one might look at this victory as the symptom or awful purulence of something more sinister; is it, possibly, that stigma of....decline?

Certainly, a fifth set here, having not lot a set all last year, and indeed overall only a handful of sets, wouldn’t look all too good for someone trying to carve the most perfect record ever achieved here.

But that, after all, is the lofty height of perfection and insane excellence to which Nadal is entitled to dream, but which reality, and the mundanities of tennis will probably preclude him from ever doing.

The fact is, this sort of match was in the coming. Borg was a six time champion, but faced a five set match on numerous occasions (being down two sets to love in his first final, too). We are too often wont to judge Nadal by the standards he has set the game on clay, and that, of course, is blatantly unfair.

Speaking of an objective perspective, there is no doubt that Nadal certainly didn’t look like the Nadal of old. Did the defeats to Djokovic affect him? One would bet they would have. But so had close victories over big servers and Isner was fortuitous enough to be able to exploit both, methinks.

There were the short backhands, the less than sharp groundstrokes, and the subpar passing—at least for the first three sets.

It was a rather timid, and uncertain performance from Nadal – his shots coming just as they would, shot by shot, and unguided, as they so often have been in his loftiest mood, by that deeper and majestic purpose which in the past so often shaped his rallies for that final, killing stroke.

Instead, he peppered the Isner backhand almost as a matter of mere habit, and kept depth only as a matter of precaution.

Too often, when the big guy came in to net, Nadal found himself in a position of considerable discomfort—he knew too well that such approaches would have typically been on his premeditated terms. A shocking game ensued at three all in the first set, with Isner saving a 0-40 hole (a moment in years past which would have been one of certain reckoning for the opposition), and nearly holding serve.

Nadal won that game, but only just did so—it was all too often a case of just having done enough, without having done what he could have, to get the win.

Of course, he did do what he could, and all he could, to win the last two sets rather dominantly, which heralded real return of the 2010 champion. Nadal has been stooping to the reserves all too often in the last two years, as an official All-Time Great, in these earlier rounds; quite unlike the demonstrations unadulterated energy and concentration he used to play with almost all his matches before he assumed the top ranking in 2008.

What Isner would suggest, than, is that Nadal cannot play anymore with the same precaution and false assurance of a breezy victory; however, much of his play might have been conditioned by nerves—he surely expected a reasonable routine victory, whatever Isner might have posed him.

Indeed, Nadal’s match offers insights into possible parallels in the Spaniard’s career to that of Roger Federer.

This tough first round tussle was not unlike Federer’s own first round scare last year at Wimbledon, although in general the feel of the match was not unlike those in late 2007, when the glorious reign of Federer was approaching a majestic autumn—crowned by a US Open, but already with intimations of vulnerability.

For Nadal, Djokovic has provided some of these intimations, and Nadal, certainly has been playing long enough for us to start searching for the beginning of some autumn, as long and enjoyable as this summer has been. All things do, after all, have to come to an end one day.

Certainly, if Nadal is to reverse the ugly trends of history, he would well heed Isner’s warning and in this historic fortnight, as he seeks a sixth title, renew the youthful and awesome passion of his most famous role of debutant.