Rip Roddick if you must, but you can't ignore record

	Andy Roddick hasn't won a major since his '03 U.S. Open title, but he has been a consistent performer on grass courts. Clive Brunskill/Getty Images
	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 quick Baguette while waiting out the rain. ...

Dude, you should've noted that Rafael Nadal lost at Queen's mostly due to exhaustion. Andy Roddick beat a lesser version of Mardy Fish to win a "cheap title" and you're hyping him up as the second-best on grass? Are you high? Did you not learn your lesson at the Aussie Open? If you stopped hanging out with Pat McEnroe, you'd notice that besides the Fed, there are a lot of players far better and more well-rounded than Roddick: Tomas Berdych, Mario Ancic (when he's playing), Ivo Karlovic, Novak Djokovic, Nadal, Lleyton Hewitt. Who are you demagoguing to? Teenage chicks?
-- Ryan Curleym, Berkeley, Calif.

I must have gotten 50 e-mails similar to Ryan's over the past few days. Assume this was a hot topic on some anti-Roddick message board. Look, I know Roddick is a polarizing figure out there in Fan Land. I know a lot of you see him as a sort of emblem of the United States in general. All force, no subtlety. A smug manipulator of media. A creation of marketing. A Hummer to Federer's Prius. I don't agree but I get it.

But you guys need to get a grip here. We're talking about a two-time Wimbledon finalist who wins the Queen's Club tune-up as a matter of ritual. Go ahead and knock Roddick's results on clay. Assert that Nadal is the superior grass-court player and we can have a reasonable disagreement. (SI.com's Justin Gimelstob argued for Roddick before losing to him on Monday.)

But claim that Karlovic -- whose career record at Wimbledon in 5-4 -- is a better grass-court player than Roddick and you just come across as petty and vindictive.

Here's a suggestion on fines (since the top players can certainly eat $2,000 for coaching). Replace set dollar amounts with set percentage amounts. If caught coaching, you could be charged 5 percent of your take from the tournament. That way players of all levels would feel the blow equally. And who knows, a Grand Slam winner might give it a second thought if they have to cough up $50,000 of their $1 million prize.
-- Tim Hotchkin, St Paul, Minn.

I like that. A lot of you wrote in with similar suggestions, including upping the penalties based on the round.

Surprisingly, none of you suggested that we just cave in to the dishonest players and legalize coaching, thereby eliminating any conflict. It may compromise the integrity of the sport and send the wrong message, but, hey, at least it will keep the stars and their agents happy.

Given that professional tennis is designed to provide entertainment for the fans (and therefore generate revenue) wouldn't it seem that the qualification for the GOAT should have less to do with how many majors a player wins than with how entertaining a player happens to be? Who entertained more fans and brought in more money, Pete Sampras or Roger Federer? By this standard at least, Federer is a far superior player, although he'll have to compete with Andre Agassi if he wants to be crowned (at least in my book) the official GOAT.
-- Jon Emont, Ridgewood, N.J.

With respect to the GOAT, we're talking about achievement, not entertainment; substance, not style. It's the Greatest Player of all-time, not the greatest showman. But I think that "intangibles" do play a role, (consciously or not) when it comes to a player's legacy. Surely Agassi's magnetism, for instance, works to his benefit. Surely Ivan Lendl's lack thereof works to his detriment.

I note that Agnes Szavay, who is ranked 70th in the world, played in the qualifying rounds for Wimbledon. I always thought that the top 100 players had automatic entry. Can you please explain what the criteria is to gain straight entry into this tournament?
-- Merv Lowe, Auckland, New Zealand

It's just a question of when the cutoff gets made, which is usually about a month in advance. It's the same reason why Nicolas Mahut beat Nadal and came within a few inches of beating Roddick at the Queen's Club and had to play challengers the next day. (It sounds unfair on its face, but players need a chance to make travel arrangements.)

I see where your column says that the Tiger vs. Federer debate still rages. Interesting, as this dovetails nicely with my premise that, although not his fault, Federer's competition -- how do I put this nicely -- stinks. At least Woods' competition has some juice. I like Federer, but you can't even compare his career to people like Sampras, Lendl, etc., let alone an all-time great like Woods. Please, you seem pretty bright. There is no debate.
-- Peter Hall, Newtown, Pa.

Again there's something circular about all of this. If Federer weren't winning so many titles, his competition wouldn't appear so dismal. If the competition had some "juice," as you out it, Federer's dominance wouldn't be so comprehensive. Also, which of Tiger's peers is the second coming of Jack Nicklaus?

Shots, miscellany

• Look for a new ATP Doubles marketing campaign.

• Ivan H. writes: "Even the tennis world can no longer deny global warming! Noticed how each of the past four Grand Slams have been marred by adverse weather? Rain screwed the first week of the U.S. Open, the first three days of the French, the first days of Wimby now and extreme heat postponed most of the matches in Melbourne. I suppose it's a sign that both the ATP and mankind should start acting."

• Raj of Philadelphia sends this link to an interesting article by Tom Perrotta on the improvement in Nadal's game in the past year.

• Diana of San Francisco notes: "Here's the secret behind Nadal's mastery of the clay courts."

• Andy Murray is supposed to resurface at the Los Angeles event.

• Several of you noted the fine piece on Donald Young in the Sunday New York Times Magazine this past week. Not sure if this link will work, everyone, but here goes.

• Shaun Lawson of Oxford, England, sends this link to a terrific Tim Henman interview.