Why Rafael Nadal lost so early at Wimbledon

Rafael Nadal was eliminated in the second round of Wimbledon. It's the first time since 2005 that Rafael Nadal has left a major tournament in the second round. What happened? 

|
(AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)
Lukas Rosol of the Czech Republic reacts after defeating Rafael Nadal of Spain during a second round men's singles match at the All England Lawn Tennis Championships at Wimbledon, England, Thursday, June 28, 2012.

 Rafael Nadal bumped into his unknown and unheralded opponent as they headed to a break between games. Perhaps it was incidental contact.

At the previous changeover, Nadal stood and barked at the chair umpire, complaining about being distracted by 100th-ranked Lukas Rosol while serving. Later, Nadal shook his head and frowned when a Wimbledon official explained that, with light fading and the second-round match heading to a fifth set, they'd need a 45-minute break to close the retractable roof and turn on the lights at Centre Court.

Of all the things that rattled Nadal on Thursday evening, the most significant was Rosol's gutsy game — his 22 aces, violent groundstrokes and shot-punctuating staredowns. Put it together and Rosol, making his debut at the All England Club, overpowered 11-time Grand Slam champion Nadal 6-7 (9), 6-4, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4, one of the most astonishing results in tennis history.

RECOMMENDED: Wimbledon 101: What you need to know

"That's (what) happens when you play against a player who is able to hit the ball very hard, hit the ball without thinking and feeling the pressure," the second-seeded Nadal said. "At the end, when the opponent wants to play like he wanted to play in the fifth (set), you are in his hands, no? Everything was going right for him."

It's the first time since 2005 that Nadal lost in the second round at any major tournament. It also ends two streaks for the Spaniard: He reached the final at the previous five Grand Slams, and also reached the final the last five times he entered Wimbledon, winning the grass-court tournament in 2008 and 2010.

"He played a good match," Rosol said, "but I think I was better today."

Absolutely true.

Actually, seven-time French Open champion Nadal came oh-so-close to a straight-set exit. He barely avoided losing the opener, forced to erase three set points before taking it in the tiebreaker when Rosol plopped a gimme forehand into the net.

Rosol took the next two sets, pounding serves, returning well and swinging away from the baseline. It was an aggressive approach, as though Rosol wanted to out-muscle the ultimate on-court bully, right down to imitating the way Nadal sprints back to the baseline after changeovers.

Even Rosol considered it stunning he was able to stay close, much less win.

Asked afterward what his expectations had been, Rosol replied: "Just to play three good sets, you know. Just don't lose 6-0, 6-1, 6-1."

They're both 26 years old, yet Nadal entered the day with 583 career match wins, and Rosol 19. Nadal owns 50 titles, Rosol zero. In 178 prior Grand Slam matches, Nadal never had lost to a foe ranked 70th or worse. In five previous visits to Wimbledon, Rosol lost every time in the first round of qualifying — not even the main event. Qualifying. This is only the Czech player's second career tour-level event on grass; the first was two weeks ago.

He thought Nadal was trying to throw him off in the third set with a bit of gamesmanship. First, after Rosol broke to go ahead 2-1, Nadal complained to the chair umpire about something his foe was doing to bother him. "So do you think that's fair?" Nadal asked. "Let me know."

At the following changeover, they crossed paths on the way to their seats, and Nadal offered a body-check.

"He wanted to take my concentration. ... I knew that he will try something," said Rosol, who has a tribal tattoo covering his entire left calf, and wore green laces on one shoe, white laces on the other. "I was surprised that he can do it on the Centre Court, Wimbledon, you know. It's, like, something wrong."

Nothing fazed Rosol, especially down the stretch. Never showing a hint of nerves or inexperience, he was the one who seized control from the get-go when they resumed play after a taking a break while the roof was shifted into place.

Nadal didn't like the long delay one bit.

"Completely new stadium, with new roof, so the normal thing is cover the roof in 5-10 minutes," Nadal said.

When they came back out, Rosol immediately broke for a 1-0 lead, swatting a forehand passing shot that Nadal volleyed into the net. And then he held for 2-0, thanks to a trio of groundstroke winners and a service winner.

As it turned out, that was that.

Rosol still needed to keep holding serve, of course, which is easier said than done against Nadal, one of the top returners in the game. But Rosol did not fold. If anything, he got better. From 2-1, 40-30, Rosol won the last 13 points he served, seven with aces.

He kept coming up with huge, flat shots, hit hard as can be, aimed at the white chalk lines — and catching them. When Rosol smacked a forehand winner to hold at love for a 5-3 lead, moving within one game of by far the biggest victory of his career, he took an extra ball out of his pocket and slammed it to the ground.

Then, at 5-4, Rosol served it out this way: ace, forehand winner, ace, ace. He dropped to his knees — a pose generally reserved for winning a final, not a second-round match — and fell forward, staying face-down on the grass for a few seconds. When Rosol rose, he tossed his racket at the net; it rolled over the tape and onto Nadal's side. After a brief, awkward handshake, Nadal shuffled over and picked up the racket, handing it to Rosol.

The victor then basked in his standing ovation, placing a hand over his stomach while bowing to the four sides of the arena.

"He played more than unbelievable," Nadal said.

"You play against an inspired opponent and I am out. That's all. Is not a tragedy. Is only a tennis match," he added. "At the end, that's life. There is much more important things. Sure, I wanted to win, but I lost."

That one result rendered all of the others on Day 4 of Wimbledon relatively meaningless. For the record: Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams reached the third round, as did Andy Roddick and Mardy Fish, who needed five sets and more than four hours to get past 173rd-ranked British wild card James Ward.

And there were a couple of other upsets, such as Xavier Malisse eliminating 13th-seeded Gilles Simon — he of the pot-stirring comments about men deserving more prize money than women at Grand Slam tournaments — and Benoit Paire beating No. 22 Alexandr Dolgopolov. Also: Mirjana Lucic defeated 2007 Wimbledon runner-up Marion Bartoli, and unseeded American Varvara Lepchenko got past No. 31 Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova.

But this day will always belong to Lukas Rosol.

"Maybe it's once in life you can play like this against Rafael Nadal on Centre Court and you can win against him," Rosol said. "You know, it's not easy."

RECOMMENDED: Wimbledon 101: What you need to know___

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why Rafael Nadal lost so early at Wimbledon
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0629/Why-Rafael-Nadal-lost-so-early-at-Wimbledon
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe