What the loss of a set means - 4/16/2011

Date: 4/16/2011
Result: Monte-Carlo SF, Rafael Nadal def. Andy Murray, 6-4 2-6 6-1
Why it matters:
- Rafael Nadal lost a set at the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters.  The first time since the 2009 final against Djokovic.  These matches were EXTREMELY similar.  Nadal lost the plot for parts of the first and the second set.  Murray played well, clearly, but Rafa let him.  Nadal's shots landed short, didn't penetrate, didn't create the angles they needed to, so Murray stepped up and closed out the points.  This certainly means something for Nadal.  The last thing he wants to do is be exposed against an opponent with control of the outcome not in his hands.  But the minute he started that third set with a clean slate, he picked up the play, went back to his vintage style, and won the match comfortably.  I think the moral of the story is Nadal can't win every tournament on clay every year without dropping a set.  He lost sets to Almagro and Gulbis last year en route to titles in Madrid and Rome, respectively.  He can lose a set, especially against a talented player like Murray, and still be the dominant clay court player we've seen for years.  He just can't make a habit of it.
- Murray had the week he really needed to have this week.  I said he needed a big run on clay, and he's already put one together.  But for the confidence to stick, he needs two things: (1) to make another solid run where his seeding holds up - essentially to the semis (or finals of Barcelona) - to cement things and (2) his elbow needs to hold up. Murray has consistently had injury issues that seem to stunt his good momentum.  Especially on clay, where the grind can take its biggest toll.  Murray is in a catch-22 situation.  He needs to play and win to get the confidence back, but he really needs to be healthy for Wimbledon, where he actually has a chance to win deep in the tournament if he has confidence.  If I were Andy, I would take a lot out of the results this week and rest up.  And I mean really rest up - maybe even skip Madrid or Rome, depending.  His focus has to be Wimbledon, and he needs to do everything necessary to give himself a real shot to win there.

Honorable Mention:
Fed Cup World Group I Playoffs, Dominika Cibulkova def. Bojana Jovanovski - 46 63 61 - I think this scoreline was expected.  Jovanovski is a good up-and-coming player who is constantly improving, and Cibulkova is having a really solid season, already having beaten Zvonareva and Wozniacki.  Cibulkova is a great fighter, a solid clay-courter, and an all-around better player at this point. So a 3-set win, comfortable in the end, was fairly predictable. So why did Jovanovski play rather than Jankovic, fresh off a good week in Charleston, on arguably her best surface, and who is just an all-around better player at this point that Cibulkova?  Maybe the Serbian captain has some sort of master strategy here, but I don't quite understand it. It seems obvious that picking your best players would be the smart thing to do, especially when your better player has never lost a set to the possible opposition on clay.  Serbia still finished the day 1-1, but with Jankovic they would've had a better chance to be 2-0.