What are we to make of the biggest Sportsman snub?

	SI's decision to bypass Roger Federer as '06 Sportsman of the Year sparked an outcry, even from non-tennis fans. Manny Millan/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:

A baguette (and we'll do another next week) to sustain ourselves through the offseason. ...

I have been reading the reactions to Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year.It is amazing how many people are outraged that Roger Federer (or Tiger Woods) didn't win. Do you think at least SI might have gotten the message? (Or did some tennis nut spend all his waking hours typing in the different, funny, messages?)
-- Everett, Paris

I can't recall a topic triggering more passion than SI's decision to by-pass Federer for Sportsman of the Year. The torrent of email -- and in some cases voicemails; a little creepy, but I had to applaud your resourcefulness -- amounted to preaching to the choir. I hope you guys can appreciate the tight spot I'm in, but if you read this, you know where I stand.

If there's a silver lining, it's the response that Everett alludes to. It was predictable that Tennis Nation would be full of outrage. But what was really heartening (and telling) were the notes that said things to the effect of: "I'm a huge Albert Pujols fan and I don't really follow tennis but even I knew that Federer was the runaway choice." Clearly the world is getting hip to this guy's gifts. And, in a perverse way, maybe the sympathy he's earned from the snub will help him in the long run.

I think Federer has been disinclined to trash-talk or use other "intimidating" techniques on his opponents simply because he just doesn't need to. It's like Garry Kasparov having to intimidate Kevin Federline before a big chess match (OK, that's a stretch). I just think, besides his own natural temperament, Federer is so much better than his opponents right now that all that stuff that is useful in emotional team sports like football and basketball is wasted energy for him. Maybe I'm being too psychoanalytical. Thoughts?
-- Neil Grammer, Toronto

You probably are being too psychoanalytical. But I had to reprint your question if only so others could join me in enjoying the image of Kasparov playing K-Fed in chess.

Why do Americans especially tend to play so badly against Federer?
-- Austin Poyar, Chardon, Ohio

Because they are -- what's the word? Oh, right. They're homo sapiens.

Jon, what's your take on the coaching the WTA is implementing next season?
-- Art, Melbourne, Australia

I'm surprised at how little this "innovation" seems to resonate with you guys, which is probably saying something in itself. My take: Much as tennis ought to embrace a change-is-good philosophy -- hey, look at the success of Hawk-eye -- on-court coaching belongs in the same category as New Coke, the glowing puck during hockey broadcasts, the new NBA ball and getting wasted with Borat in a camper. Bad idea.

The players don't particularly seem to like it. The fans are, at best, indifferent. Upstarts unable to afford aides-de-camp are unfairly disadvantaged. Above all, it corrupts one of tennis' great virtues: the demand for self-sufficiency. With no caddy to consult, no cornerman to bark instructions, no coach to call timeouts, players are solitary figures left to solve their own problems and fashion their own strategies. A shame the WTA is ruining this.