Djokovic is on his way to glory, but it's still too early

Novak Djokovic (right) may be ascending quickly, but he's got a ways to go to overtake Roger Federer as the No. 1-ranked player. Matthew Stockman/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:

What comes first: Rafael Nadal becoming No. 1 or Novak Djokovic becoming No. 2?
-- Charles, St. Louis

Lots of questions this week about Djokovic's rapid ascent. First, to answer your question: Simply as a matter of math, Nadal is much more likely to unseat Roger Federer at No. 1 than Djokovic is to unseat Nadal. In fact, a strong push this fall by Nadal and it's certainly within the realm of possibility that he will finish 2007 ranked No. 1.

But it's hard not to get swept up in the wave of Djoko-hype. If it weren't already clear that he's the world's third best player, he cemented this in Montreal. Should he do well in Cincinnati, you have to consider him the next favorite to win the Open after Federer.

Djokovic is a nice compromise between Federer and Nadal, he hits plenty hard but there is a fluidity to his game. He's rock-solid off the ground but can come up with some nifty shot-making too. Perhaps most important, he suffers no shortage of self-belief. He's an outgoing, personable kid but he still manages to project a sense of: I deserve to be here.

Still, I think we ought to tread a little cautiously here. A few months ago, Federer lost four straight events and too many in the tennis salon were ready to declare that the balance of powers had shifted. In retrospect, that was silly.

Likewise, it's premature to anoint Djokovic as the New King on the basis of a fine summer and a smashing Montreal event. (The guy did lose to someone named Viktor Troicki last month.) There's a sense -- even in the locker room -- that this is a future champion. But let's hold off before saying he's cracked the Federer-Nadal axis.

In this week's 'Bag you said, "Anyway, are the Williams sisters 'talented' per se? Not in the conventional way we perceive tennis talent. But they're two of the best competitors and big-match players the sport has known, and that will compensate for mechanical flaws and wavering commitment levels."

I am going to give you an opportunity to recant. When Serena was a youngster, nearly beating Monica Seles at the Virginia Slims in Chicago (yeah, that long ago), every commentator in the world exulted her serve, movement, backhand, etc. Most still say her serve is the best in the game and among the three best of all time. Her backhand and movement are among the greatest as well. Jon, buddy, what gives? Lindsay Davenport's a great player, but she falls behind both sisters on the GOAT list. Clearly.
-- Dart, Atlanta

I think we need to settle on a better definition of "talent," perhaps. In the context of tennis, I think of talent as a raw skill for hitting the ball. It incorporates touch and feel and playing as though the racket were an extension of your arm. The Beethoven stuff. John McEnroe had infinitely more talent than Ivan Lendl; he wasn't necessarily a better player. By my definition, Richard Gasquet has more talent than, say, Nadal; though Nadal is obviously the superior overall player.

This wasn't meant as a put-down of the Williams sisters. They have tremendous athletic talents. They're strong. They're fast. They employ more strategy than they're usually given credit for. Above all, both Serena and Venus are perhaps the best sheer competitors tennis has known. Ever. (And while I'm not sure how you got on the subject of GOAT, there can really be no reasonable argument: Serena and Venus both rank ahead of Davenport in any "best ever" discussion.)

1 of 3