Aussie upset king Gonzalez has changed his game

	No. 10 seed Fernando Gonzalez beat Lleyton Hewitt, James Blake and Rafael Nadal on his way to the Australian Open semifinals. Cynthia Lum/WireImage.com
	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 couple of years back, you did an article on Fernando Gonzalez. Looking back at his evolution from the big gun 'n' forehand guy to the current player who beat Rafael Nadal, what has changed?
-- Rex Jim, Leipzig, Germany

He always had the capability to win a big match. The problem was that he'd lose the next match 6-3, 6-3, 6-3. He's basically steadied (and gotten in noticeably better shape) and instead of being a hit-and-miss player, he's been all hit.

What is it about the persona of Nikolay Davydenko that seems to leave his fellow players, spectators and TV commentators alike, feeling cold? He was the third seed, yet the organizers only gave him the one appearance (grudgingly?) on the Rod Laver Arena, for his quarterfinal match.
-- Merv Lowe, Auckland, New Zealand

That settles it. Mark your calendars. The second Wednesday in February we're doing an all-Davydenko Mailbag. This guy is third in the world and has the status of a qualifier. Putting aside all pretense of journalism, we're going to make it our mission to boost his profile a bit.

As for your question, I think it's a combination of factors. His game isn't particularly remarkable in any way. His results are metronomically consistent but his ranking is as much a tribute to his playing schedule as anything else. His English is -- gasp! -- imperfect. And he lacks the movie star good looks of, say, Radek Stepanek.

If we are going to ding James Blake for his performance in the Slams, don't we need to widen the net a little bit? Nadal is ranked second and, other than the French and last year's Wimbledon fluke, he rarely gets past the quarters. Davydenko is third -- how far does he usually get? Ivan Ljubicic is fourth and we all know how well he does in slams. Tommy Robredo is sixth and has been an underperformer most of his career. The point to all this being that there are a bunch of folks in the top 10 who don't have stellar records in Grand Slams. Why single out Blake?
-- Lilas Pratt, Marietta, Ga.

No one is singling out Blake. But first, let's be fair. Nadal, 20, has reached a Wimbledon final and, even here, won a five-setter against Andy Murray that ranks as a 'big win" at a Slam. Davydenko has reached the quarters or better at three Slams in the past year. Ljubicic gets hammered (including in this space just a few days ago) for his shortcomings in majors.

And while Robredo gave a nice showing the other night against Roger Federer, I would agree he's probably underperformed. We could add David Nalbandian to the list, too. Actually pretty remarkable. Granted, Federer skews the math, but more than half the top 10 has never been to a Grand Slam final. Wow.

Back to Blake. I think marketing plays a role here too. Blake -- quite understandably, I think -- gets the endorsements, the Nike deal, the promotional materials. (And for that matter a four-page feature in last week's Sports Illustrated.) If he fails to live up to the hype, it's more conspicuous.

This may be belaboring the obvious, but it is worth noting that the eight surviving semifinalists at the Oz represent seven countries and four continents (hey, I know Maria Sharapova hasn't been back to Siberia for a while but it still counts!), and the tournament is being played on yet a fifth continent. With the exception of soccer, what other sport has that kind of range and depth? And are there any promising Antarcticans in the pipeline?
-- Bruce Douglas, Palo Alto, Calif.

Yeah, exactly. That's why it's hard to be doom-and-gloom about the sport. It's down in America but it's up in China. It's lagging in Australia but thriving in South America. If they could step back and ignore these turf battles for a while, the administrators might realize they've got something very special going on here.

Since Amy Frazier skipped the Australian Open this year, who took her title as the female player who has played in the most consecutive major tournaments?
-- Jay, Papillion, Neb.

Ai Sugiyama and Elena Likhovtseva are tied with 51.

What are your feelings on the 32-seed field for Grand Slams? I understood why it was implemented when it was, but today I think the game would be more exciting if it was back to 16. Most of the seeds ranked 17-32 lose in the first or second round anyway. A 16-seed field would allow for more exciting early matches for the fans. With parity in the game today, there are already enough dangerous floaters in the draw, so why not add a few more?
-- Ian, Toronto

The 32 seeding has grown on me. Sometimes you wish the early-round matches were more competitive, especially on the women's side. But the format pays dividends the second week.

With all due respect to Marcos Baghdatis, but is it possible that someone is feeling a little silly right now for giving him a special page in the ATP Web site?
-- Alvaro Leiva, Santiago, Chile

You mean they fit his whole image on a page? Oh, we kid the former finalist. This is why we love sports. We think Serena Williams is through and she is the toast of the tournament. We think Bag-man is the next big thing and he fails to deliver. How bored would we be if sports followed a logical script?