Federer's comeback is timely, but let's not get crazy

	Roger Federer's win over Rafael Nadal in the Hamburg final broke the longest slump of his three-year reign atop the ATP rankings. AP
	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:

Programming note: Check in later this week for our 2007 French Open Seed Reports.

Should we go ahead and give the title of GOAT to Roger Federer, along with the French Open? I say this because I think Roger's Hamburg win was not just another victory. I think he has overcome the mental block and has gotten the clay monkey off his back. Do you think he is the favorite at the French now? Also, how will this affect Rafael Nadal?
-- Andrea, Richmond, Texas

So one weekend we're confounded by Federer's slump. We're second-guessing his decision to dump hapless Tony (Papa) Roche. We wonder why he doesn't hire a proven expert like Jose Higueras or -- heaven help us -- Mats Wilander to help him navigate these choppy waters. We're questioning his switch in rackets (which, by the way, was from one 90-inch Wilson to another, not to a smaller frame as noted.) The next weekend we're ready to anoint the Greatest Of All Time, based on one win.

Dozens of you wrote about this abrupt plot twist but this was my favorite, courtesy of Patrick Formanes of Bayside, N.Y.: "According to a wire story, numerous tennis journalists are being investigated for the mysterious disappearance of hundreds of crows. German authorities questioned one writer in his hotel. The writer, who begged to remain anonymous, reportedly munched on a crow during questioning. When asked why he was doing that, he tearfully explained, 'Federer beat Nadal on clay.'"

Three points: 1) All credit to Federer for this remarkable turn of events. This is what champions do. Though it obviously wasn't a Slam, last week's win was loaded with significance and does indeed count for something in the GOAT ledger. Chose your cliché: His back was against the wall and he delivered. And apart from that, this was another TMS title on his least favorite surface.

2) That said, no one -- neither journalists nor fans -- ought to be eating crow. Federer has set an absurdly high standard over the past three years. He'd failed to meet it of late, losing four straight events, three of them to players outside the top 20. What were the headlines supposed to say? "Federer loses to Volandri in Rome: This is right where he wants to be heading to Roland Garros!" Unexpected results like last weekend's are why we love sports.

3) The French Open -- and with it, Federer's Ahabian quest for the Grand Slam -- just got a lot more interesting. But I think you still have to put your euros on Nadal. He is the two-time defending champ. The best-of-five format is probably to his advantage. The faster clay is his ideal surface. Maybe coming in fresh off a loss is a disguised blessing. Heart says Federer; head says Nadal.

Nadal is better on clay. Federer is better on grass and hard courts. How about if we add doubles into the mix? Since '04, Federer's doubles record is a tepid 17-16, if I'm counting correctly. Nadal is a solid 50-36. (Federer has played mostly with Yves Allegro, career high doubles ranking 32; Nadal has played mostly with Feliciano Lopez (37), Fernando Verdasco (67) and Bartolome Salva-Vidal (161). And Nadal is 1-0 against Federer in doubles head to head. So if we factor in doubles (which is tennis, after all), how about if we declare a tie overall?
-- Scott Graham, Oakland, Calif.

Thanks for the research; it's an interesting stat. But I think this is limited value. For these top guys, doubles is essentially a lark, a way to get some extra match play and make some cash for their buddies. It's great that the top stars seem to be playing alongside partners again. But I think the results add very little to head-to-head comparisons.