Serena Williams got back in the winner's circle after more than a year of going Slamless. AP

SI.com spoke with Sports Illustrated senior tennis writer Jon Wertheim at the Australian Open.

SI.com: Seemed like a strange women's final. What did you make of it?
Wertheim: The final had a lot of potential -- two compelling storylines, two heavy hitters with fairly textured histories. But it was an awkward, hollow, and weird match. Lindsay Davenport had played a lot of tennis here -- 12 matches in 12 days, including the doubles final Friday -- and I think she just ran of gas. She sprinted to a 4-0 lead, won the first set and then won just three more games and missed all sorts of balls that she would usually convert in her sleep. At the same time, you have to give credit to Serena Williams for getting back in the winner's circle after more than a year of going Slamless. She didn't play outstanding tennis, but she didn't need to.

SI.com: So is Serena back?
Wertheim: I don't know if she ever really went away. Let's review the last 18 months or so. She suffered a string of injuries, a horrible family tragedy, a bum call at the U.S. Open -- and still finished the year at No. 7, winning Key Biscayne, reaching the Wimbledon final, and coming within a few balls of winning the WTA Championships along the way. She comes here and never really plays her best but still walks away with the trophy. I think a lot of people sort of roll their eyes when she says things like "If I'm at my best, no one can beat me." But, boy, it's hard to take much issue with that.

SI.com: What about Davenport? Think we're reaching the end of the line?
Wertheim: I think it's a matter of how she chooses to frame this tournament. She came so close to retiring after last season and her ability to compete for Slams was what kept her going. Then she comes here and never really plays her best and still reaches the final. Does she say: Enough is enough; I gave it my best but this is not to be and I'm sick of the travel, the training, the therapy, etc? Or does she say: I never really got in a grove and still came within three games of winning a Major? I think everyone hopes the latter.

SI.com: Are people still buzzing about Friday's semifinal and Lleyton Hewitt reaching the final?
Wertheim: It's interesting. Hewitt is a big story here, but it's not as though he has hijacked the event, the way, say Jimmy Connors did at the 1991 U.S. Open or Tim Henman does at Wimbledon or even the way Mary Pierce did at the 2000 French. Hewitt is Australian and he fights like hell; but he is such a polarizing figure that you got the feeling the crowd was about 25 percent for Andy Roddick, not 1 percent as it would have been if Pat Rafter -- or even the delightful Alicia Molik -- had been playing. I think most people expected Hewitt to win against Roddick. Roddick's game matches up poorly with a defensive hustler who isn't going to miss and isn't going to back down on big points. I suspect this place will go nuts, though, if Hewitt wins Sunday.

SI.com: Any pick for the men's final?
Wertheim: In a vacuum you would say Marat Safin. He just played a sensational match to beat the king, Roger Federer. He has an extra day of rest. He has a power game that can overwhelm Hewitt. But you just get the feeling, destiny is going to kick in and an Australian will win this tournament on the 100th anniversary. Hewitt in four.