Andy Roddick defeated Irakli Labadze in straight sets in the Aussie first round. Ryan Pierse/Getty Images

A few questions before we board the big bird for the long flight to Australia ...

Men's tennis is boring as evidenced by the fact the media always seems to cut away from the featured match. I can't think of any other sport where this happens. I wish the brass would stop defending the current state of affairs and fix the problem. The easiest solution would be to eliminate the best-of-five format. Fans want suspense. In two out of three, the last set means something. In three out of five, the result is usually foreordained. At 9 p.m. in Australia on Day One, I checked the results. The men had completed 28 matches, and in every match the player who won the first two sets won the match. Something needs to be corrected.
  -- Jerry White, Mineral, Va. 

In many circles, Jerry's suggestion passes for blasphemy. But I'm squarely with him. The best-of-five format needs to be euthanized. At a time when networks want scheduling certainty, the b-o-f spawns matches anywhere from 90 minutes to four hours long. At a time when the sport has never been more physical and players are getting injured at a scary rate, b-o-f protracts matches by as much as 150 percent. At a time when the attention span of sports fans has never been lower, the b-o-f does the equivalent of taking a compact and intense Sopranos episode and transforming it into Dances with Wolves.

And for what? So we get an extra set (or two or three) of Andy Roddick-Irakli Labadze? After two sets of Andre Agassi-Rainer Schuettler, the fans were clamoring for a third? Roger Federer and Takao Suzuki couldn't have played two sets and walked off the court?

The objection seems to be three-fold. 1) "You're messing with tradition" to which we say, "So what?" We can lament the fact our collective attention spans our diminishing. But it's a fact, and tennis would do well to adjust, not resist this. 2) "You're eliminating the possibility of Roddick-Younes El Aynaoui or Nicolas Massu-Sargis Sargsian classics." Small price to pay, we say. First there can be classic best-of-three matches (play out the third set, if you must). Second, few recall that Roddick was so beat after that match two years ago he could barely mount a challenge in his subsequent match. 3) "The best-of-five format separates the Slams from the other events." Here, we would throw the purists a bone and play a three-of-five set final.

There are a lot factors stifling tennis that are beyond the sport's control. This is not one of them.

	MAILBAG Jon Wertheim will answer questions from SI.com users in his mailbag every Wednesday. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

A hypothetical question: Does Federer make the Hall of Fame if last year was some sort of cosmic fluke, and he never wins another Grand Slam? Or, what if he suffers a career-ending injury?
  -- David Marchese, Toronto

Federer could quit tennis tomorrow to join a touring glockenspiel band and get unanimously elected on the first ballot. It never ceases to amaze us how many of you have such strong opinions about the Hall of Fame. To wit:

The latest selections for the International Tennis Hall of Fame seem a bit generous. Yannick Noah won one Major (plus one in doubles) and was never ranked higher than No. 3. ... How is that a Hall of Fame career? I assume Jana Novotna gets in because of her doubles prowess, because the one singles Grand Slam win and a career-high ranking of No. 2 isn't that impressive. Jim Courier is at least respectable with a couple of Major victories, a couple of Davis Cups and some time at No. 1 in an era when he was competing against the likes of Pete Sampras and Agassi. Why doesn't the sport require inductees to perform as dominant players for a number of years?
  -- Matt Marchione, Raleigh, N.C.

You mean like Don Sutton? Lynn Swann? Here's a link to the NBA's Hall of Fame inductees.

To pick a name at random, do Gail Goodrich's contributions to basketball really exceed Noah's to tennis?

Sure, some tennis candidates are more deserving than others. And yes, Courier is clearly the cream of this year's crop. But is the prestige of the place really ruined by admitting Novotna, who won 100 friggin' titles over the course of her career? Obviously, there's a slippery slope argument here -- if Novotna, why not Gabriela Sabatini? If Noah, why not Michael Chang? But I have no problem with this year's honorees. Maybe we just need to change the criteria and consider factors -- sportsmanship, character, flair, post-career contributions -- that go beyond the empirical.

Call me crazy, but I actually like Serena Williams' court attire. I even liked the "cat suit" she wore to the U.S. Open a couple of years back. It's a nice change to the uniformity of tennis clothes. In my opinion, Mr. Blackwell's ranking of her in the top-10 worst dressed is misplaced. I understand reasonable minds may differ on style, and everyone is entitled to an opinion ... but I felt the need to sound off with mine. I'd invite you to do the same.
  -- Gabriel Caswell, San Francisco

I wouldn't dare call you crazy, especially when you garnish your letter with a delightfully civil line like: "I understand reasonable minds may differ on style, and everyone is entitled to an opinion." Like you, I have no beef with Serena's attire. Would I choose to wear canary yellow boots with a skirt -- at least on a day other than Oct. 31? Probably not. But good for her for being so daring; good for her for feeling so comfortable in her own skin; good for her for giving the benighted masses who don't follow our sport closely a reason to talk about tennis in January. And at least she designed it herself and isn't simply a well-paid mannequin. On the other hand, check out this sartorial screed ...

Rafael Nadal's clothing choice leaves at least one tennis fan miffed. Clive Brunskill/Getty Images

Nothing Serena has ever worn has moved me to write, but those pajamas Rafael Nadal is playing in at the Australian Open are an abomination. On the Paris runways, designers can run wild with fashion for reasons unrelated to actual clothing, but these Mortimer Snerd pantaloons are a mistake. Whatever Nike is paying him, it couldn't possibly be enough. What's next for the men -- Jerry Seinfeld's puffy shirt? Why not eye patches and tricorner hats? How about jockstraps and aprons? Flip-flops and boxers? Kilts and stovepipe hats? The athletic manufacturers tried to put tennis players in pointed running shoes a year or two ago. Now they're trying to put them in baseball pants! How on earth does a major corporation reach a decision to sell stuff like that? It makes me want to strike a match to every article of clothing I have with a swoosh on it. How high do you have to be in the draw before they let you wear big boy pants?
  -- Martin Burkey, Huntsville, Ala.

Maybe I'm inferring too much, but I'm getting the feeling Martin wasn't fond of Nadal's attire. My issue is the function, not the form: Wouldn't your legs get hot as Hades in those things?