How long do sensations need to win a second Slam?

	It's been three years since Andy Roddick won his one and only major. Is he due soon? Chuck Solomon/SI
	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:

Jagshemash!

For a variety of reasons not worth chronicling, we've been inundated with a lot of tennis swag lately. If your question was answered in this week's Mailbag, send me an e-mail with your address. T-shirts, wristbands or other tennis ephemera are yours. And if you have an theme idea for a racket giveaway contest, I'm all ears....

I have a theorem we can use the next time a high-potential star wins a Grand Slam "too early" (Serena Williams, Pete Sampras, Maria Sharapova). They're going to need another couple of years to grow into their games and get over the pressure. Start predicting their next Grand Slam win about 10 tourneys later.
-- Paul Treacy, Washington, D.C.

Interesting observation. It's true that we often see players have a smashing tournament (add Marat Safin at the 2000 U.S. Open and Gustavo Kuerten at the 1997 French to your list, by the way) and then retreating for a few years. They don't usually go into free fall, but it takes them a few years to bag their second major.

At some level this is logical: Players break through and then -- saddled with additional pressure and demands, beset by a few nagging injuries, and with games that are no longer unknown commodities -- endure a sophomore slump. But maybe this "trend" is really just a function of math and probability. There can only be four Slam winners per year. It only stands to reason that sometimes it'll require a few years to get back on the board.

You could just as easily point to Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Venus Williams or Justine Henin-Hardenne and reach a much different conclusion about the rhythms of a champion's career. Sometimes -- and this holds in all sports, not just tennis -- I think we're too quick to pinpoint trends and booms and explanations. Anyway, if we accept your theory, who is due for a big win? Svetlana Kuznetsova? Gaston Gaudio? Dare we say ... Andy Roddick?

I sort of know the answer to this, but would like to hear your interpretation anyway. A few years ago, when Venus and Serena played each other in the finals of four consecutive Grand Slams, people wrote about how boring and predictable it all was, even though they played some good matches. Then, when Henin-Hardenne and Kim Clijsters played in the finals of three consecutive Slams, even with their contrasts in styles, people said it was still a boring and predictable situation. So why is it, then, that many of these same people were hoping for Nadal-Federer 3 at the U.S. Open? Why is it OK for these two to do it time and again, whereas it wasn't with Venus-Serena and Justine-Kim?
-- Jackson Mayhew, Seattle

First, I think there's a lot of revisionist history about Venus and Serena. Yes, a pocket of fans expressed displeasure when, as a matter of ritual, they met in the final. But this was a distinct minority. For the most part, their matches were celebrated. Everything from the spike in television ratings to the upbeat coverage (I remember that "The Two and Only" was the headline of one gushing piece I wrote for Sports Illustrated after the '02 French Open) supports this.

That said, when Venus and Serena played, their matches -- quite understandably; jeez, they used to share a bunk bed! -- lacked most of the earmarks of a real rivalry. The tennis was often unsightly, the passion was conspicuously absent and, most important, one player did all the winning. Likewise, the "Belgian Civil Wars" were all won by one player, who seemed to relish the fight while the other retreated. In the case of Federer-Nadal, you have all the makings of a real rivalry: No. 1 versus No. 2, a contrast in styles, a contrast in temperaments, a contrast in appearances. And though Nadal has a commanding head-to-head lead, Federer won the last time they played.

Is it time to take inventory of the U.S. Davis Cup results? I'm thinking it's time to consider a change in leadership. Patrick McEnroe has been given sufficient time to develop a winning squad. Just seems like it's time to find someone else to help inspire, influence and lead our Davis Cup team. Your thoughts?
-- Jay Rhodes Hurst, Texas

The problem for the U.S. isn't leadership. It's the inability of the team to win an away tie against a top country. More to the point, it's the inability of the U.S. to beat a quality opponent on clay.