Grass, clay and broadcasters among your concerns

	France's Marion Bartoli made it all the way to the final round at Wimbledon despite her shortcomings on grass. Adrian Dennis/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:

Once upon a time there was a surface called "grass." It rewarded aggressive play, and people who served and volleyed and returned and came in did very well. People who sliced and came to the net, like Martina Navratilova, were almost unstoppable when they got on a roll. Since the grass at Wimbledon is so slow, wouldn't it be "fair" to speed up the kitty litter-like surface called "clay" that the rest of the world is so enamored with?

Seriously, with all due respect to Marion Bartoli, would you have envisioned a two-handed player who doesn't serve particularly well and has trouble with low balls making it to a Wimbledon final? On a real grass court, with "antiquated" strings and balls of a half decade ago, a guy like Goran Ivanisevic would have tuned Nadal in straights. The way things are going, in 10 years we will see more volleys in the women's game than the men's.
-- Dave Hagler, Los Angeles, CA

• I don't disagree with what you've written, except that Bartoli does fine on low balls! But three-day-growth grass yields Federer-Nadal -- or, more accurately, it enables a player like Nadal to adjust his game from clay -- and clean-shaven grass yields Ivanisevic-Rusedski ace-a-thons. I'll take option A every time. Long rallies? Fewer aces? More intrigue on service games? An end to the era when guys would win the French, gain a little traction and then flame out (or decline to play!) the next Major.

Also, I kept meaning to make this point last week: anyone who is lamenting the death of serve-and-volley tennis has been awfully mawkish. Just watch some friggin' doubles, male or female.

Can you explain to me why so many French players, past and present, seem to perform better on the grass of Wimbledon as opposed to the clay surface of their home grand slam in Roland Garros?
-- Tanvir Mazumder, London, UK

• There are more fast courts than clay courts in France, and more pressure at home than on the road.

It's Saturday, just after the men's semis. I just heard McEnroe say (I'm paraphrasing slightly as I don't remember his exact wording), "I picked Federer to win and I'm not backing away from that now, but if anyone can do it, it's Nadal." Wow, that's going out on a limb, huh? Let's have a contest: most fatuous remark by a commentator during the tournament. You must have a favorite; let's hear it.
-- Gavin Spencer, New York, NY

• First, easy on Mac. On Saturday afternoon, that was the precise sentiment of everyone. "I picked Federer, but, man, something in my gut says Nadal has a real chance." The best commentator exchange at Wimbledon was between Todd Woodbridge and his broadcasting partner (don't know the name) on BBC radio during the Baghdatis/Djokovic quarterfinal. I got this second-hand, so I must paraphrase here too, but you get the gist:

Partner: "You know who Djokovic reminds me of? A younger Tim Henman."

Woodbridge (clearly frustrated): "Huh? They play totally different games."

Partner: "No, physically. The face, the short black hair. Maybe Djokovic isn't quite as pale but..."

Woodbridge: "Well, which one do you fancy?"

Partner (after awkward pause): "What do you mean?"

Woodbridge: "Which one do you find more physically attractive?"

Partner (after another awkward pause): "Baghdatis now down a break, but we have him seen come back, haven't we?"