Why Williams may be best women's player of all-time

	Serena Williams is seventh on the career list of Grand Slam singles titles in the open era with eight crowns; Steffi Graf won 22. AP
	RELATED • GALLERY: The best of Serena's Slam victories
	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 Mailbag as we await the Battle of the Surfaces:

You say, "Rev up a tape of Borg or Vilas, watch where their shots land, take note of the pace and I defy you to tell me either would stand a chance against Nadal. Heresy, I know. But I'm telling you it wouldn't be close." All right then, how about this: Rev up a tape of Evert, Navratilova or Graf, watch where their shots land, take a note of the pace, and I defy you to tell me any of them would stand a chance against Serena. Heresy, I know. But I'm telling you, it wouldn't be close. I also would point out that Serena is way ahead of Nadal in Grand Slam wins and will likely stretch her lead in the next few years. So, using your logic, does that make Serena the greatest women's player of all-time?
-- Roger Prine, Charlottesville, Va.

No, because there are additional factors, just as there are additional factors working against Nadal. But I do agree with Roger's other premise: Head-to-head, Serena beats everyone. Ply all the greats with the same racket, pit them in a tournament and my money is on Williams. And I think that should have some bearing on how history recalls her. As I wrote last week, Serena will not surpass the Slam total of Evert, Martina, Court or Graf. But a few more majors and I think we have to speak seriously about her as a female GOAT candidate.

We could sit at the bar and debate this until last call, but look at it this way: Bill Russell won many more NBA titles than Michael Jordan. Kareem-Abdul Jabbar won (several) more MVPs. Wilt Chamberlain had a higher career scoring average, et cetera. And yet at some point there is a generally accepted recognition that Jordan is the Best Ever. Why? Because non-empirical factors (depth of competition, mental toughness, arc of career and, yes, a sense that in absolute terms there was never a better player) work in his favor.

Nadal on his way to being the best ever on clay? Why not Nadal on his way to being the best ever -- period? I think it is so easy for people to forget that he's only 20. Roger Federer was nowhere near as accomplished or talented as Nadal when he was 20. Federer truly hit his stride around 23, and does anyone doubt that Nadal with be a threat for every major at some point in the next two or three years?
-- Vincent Dorrough, Nashville, Tenn.

I like Nadal as much as anyone, but I think this is waaaay premature. The guy is an A-plus player on clay. Off of it, there is a significant drop. Let's see him win a Slam outside of Paris before we pull any muscles genuflecting. Also, the guy has the misfortune of competing in the Age of Federer. So long as your contemporary wins three Slams each year, it's going to be hard to build the case that you're the best ever. True, Nadal holds a sizable head-to-head lead over Federer. But if Nadal played as well on hard courts as Federer played on clay, I suspect they'd have met a lot more times and the "rivalry" would be a lot closer.

Among the voluminous talents possessed by Federer, is it not true that he also has a tremendous talent for remaining healthy? I can't recall a time that he had a significant injury since reaching the pinnacle of the sport. I attribute much of it to his great movement, as well as the fact the he surely weighs no more than 175 pounds.
-- Dale Stafford, Atlanta

Good point, and a relevant one as health becomes a bigger and bigger issue in tennis. Federer is uncommonly healthy but I'm not sure it's a "talent" so much as it's a manifestation of his maturity and professionalism. He sticks to a meticulously planned schedule; he paces himself; he's intimately familiar with his body; he's smart about not spreading himself too thin. He also plays a game that, at least relatively speaking, is not particularly taxing.

I think it's tempting to say he has an ideal tennis body for remaining healthy. I'm not sure there is such a thing. Like Nik Davydenko -- the ultimate workhorse -- Federer is sinewy strong and light on his feet, built more like a runner than a running back. There might be some truth to this, but plenty of other similarly built players (the wiry Gustavo Kuerten, for instance) have spent years on the injured list.