Wimbledon's no-play-on-Sunday policy needs to go

	Scenes like this are all too common at Wimbledon, building the case for scheduled matches on the event's middle Sunday. Joe Klamar/AFP/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 still another rain delay ...

Is there going to come a time when Wimbledon outlaws the absurd "no-play-on-Sunday" policy? I think it's incredibly unfair on players who, with the ruination of Saturday, now rack up potentially a couple of extra five-set matches in the final week assuming the rain won't stay away for long. This seems very counter-productive and an unnecessary burden on the players caught out. What century is Wimbledon management living in?
-- Mel, New South Wales, Australia

Tradition, as you may have heard, dies hard in these parts. And there's something endearingly quaint about a sports institution passing up big bucks in the name of reverence for history. (Consider the other Grand Slams that have added a session and now host matches on THREE Sundays.) But I agree that it's time rethink the "open" middle Sunday. Particularly when rain wreaks havoc on the schedule, it makes no sense to black out a day of potential matches and then force competitors to play back-to-back best-of-five matches on successive days. As several of you also noted, is the winner of the match between Wayne Arthurs-Jonas Bjorkman match -- both of whom are in their mid 30s -- really going to have anything left for their next round?

What about the notion that for many, Sunday is the Sabbath and the village of Wimbledon doesn't need tens of thousand of tennis fans interrupting their day of rest? Not unlike the grass courts, I don't think this explanation holds much water. At least not so long as the men's final is also held on Sunday. As someone in the press room asked rhetorically, "Is the first Sunday in July somehow more holy than the second Sunday?"

So long as Wimbledon is building a roof, implementing replay technology and adding cheesy "video screens" to the main courts, it may as well get with the times and add sessions on Sunday. Look at it this way: the additional revenue will fund Brad Gilbert's salary to coach Andy Murray. Part of it, anyway.

I'm fairly new to watching tennis on a regular basis, so could you fill me in on what exactly has Patty Schnyder done to get all the comments about being a head case? I've noticed you mention it fairly often, and during coverage of Wimbledon today it was brought up a few times. What gives?
-- Matt, Gainesville, Fla.

• Where to begin? Actually, let's go right to the video.

Still not convinced? Check out her the transcript from her previous press conference.

Schynder's decided eccentricity is both an asset and liability. Her comportment probably kept her from maxing out her talent -- though a decade spent in or around the top 10 is nothing to sneeze at. On the other hand, her whimsical, unpredictable game has thrown off a lot of her opponents.

According to the Wimbledon Web site, the men have currently challenged 58 lines calls to the women's 14 and the men have had only 14 percent correct challenges to 43 percent for the women. The men play more points due to the three-out-of-five-set format, but even taking that into account, it seems the men are much quicker to challenge and much more likely to be wrong. Do you think these conclusions are aberrations?
-- Richard Wolf, New York

Interesting, but again, I don't think we ought too much into these stats. As you point out, the men play longer matches. What's more, there have been more men's matches on the courts equipped with Hawkeye. And I've seen several Sandra-de-Jenken-style "What do I have to lose?" challenges.

Martina Hingis avoided an upset to British teenager Naomi Cavaday in the first round of Wimbledon, on "Graveyard Court" Court 2. Some time after the match, Hingis declared that she's "not a contender" at Wimbledon. Even though she made some noise at last year's Australian Open by getting to the quarterfinals, and she teamed with Mahesh Bupathi of India to win the mixed doubles crown, I feel that she's not the same person since her glory days. She'll win tournaments, but as far as being a winning force at the majors, no way! Smart finesse players will get crunched by power hitters most of the time. Where does poor dejected Martina go from here?
-- Arthur Otsuka, San Pedro

I think a lot of Hingis' doomsaying comes from the fact that she is not 100 percent physically -- as was made abundantly clear in her loss to Laura Granville. Even so, it's hard to see her hanging in their with the heavy hitters, even if she's 100 percent. And if she's not competing for Slams, it's hard to see her lasting much longer.