Is Henin's behavior fitting of the top women's player?

Justine Henin is certainly not the only player to benefit from on-court coaching, but she's among the most prominent on the WTA Tour. Manny Millan/SI

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:

Justine Henin most certainly is not the "worst flouter" of coaching "rules"[Oct. 3 Mailbag].There are several (many) WTA players ranked in the top 20 who interact far, far more with their coaches during matches. Have you seen Nadia Petrova, Nicole Vaidisova or even Svetlana Kuznetsova matches lately?
-- Adam, Wiltshire, England

I think this falls under the same heading as, "Where was the media outcry when Nikolay Davydenko, like Serena Williams, also referred to an opponent as lucky?" No one is saying that Henin is the only player to flout the coaching rules. Far from it. But when you're the top player in the world, it stands to reason that you are subject to more scrutiny (and responsibility) than someone below you. By the way, did we mention we hate the WTA "innovation" that permits mid-match coaching? (On the plus side, I now know how to say, "Um, keep fighting," in seven languages.)

I know it is far too late to make a case for a stricter criteria, but would it have been better to ensure that players will only get into the Hall of Fame if they have attained three things: They have won two different Grand Slams, have held the No. 1 ranking for over 20 weeks and have won more than 25 singles titles? Is that too much of a stretch? Is it a big step to say Rafael Nadal isn't eligible but Maria Sharapova is? That ensures Andy Roddick and Kuznetsova get in. How harsh can they be? Should there be different levels of Hall of Famers?
-- Milagros, Melbourne, Australia

I'm always surprised at how much attention this Hall of Fame topic gets. But since easily half the questions this week pertained to enshrinement, we'll indulge. (But next week: No Hall of Fame questions!) There's no easy answer here. Adding rigid pre-reqs doesn't solve problems of fairness.

As Milagros suggests, if, for instance, you make the two-different-Slams minimum, there's something counterintuitive about leaving out Nadal (three French titles and two Wimbledon finals) versus Sharapova. If you keep going at the current rate, you risk diminishing the value of enshrinement, letting in many good-but-not-great players, and creating a Hall so vast that it extends down the Rhode Island coast into Connecticut and parts of Westchester.

My solution: Without passing a formal edict, we note that some recent enshrinees were able to take advantage of a "soft period." Without revoking their honor, we tighten the screws and say, "From this point forward, a solitary Slam wouldn't cut it."

Can you explain to me how the USTA goes about picking a host city for the Davis Cup? I heard that Portland, Ore., [was selected] for the finals. I believe we would gain an advantage by choosing a city like New York, Philadelphia or Boston, where the crowd is a lot more hostile towards our opponent.
-- Andrew, Philadelphia

So here's the problem with Davis Cup venues: The structure of the event is such that the host countries have to act fast. The U.S. wins the semifinals round in September and plays again in the final nine or 10 weeks later. It's not as though, on such short notice, the USTA could book Madison Square Garden or the Staples Center or the Fleet Center. There are also issues of signage. (The Davis Cup has its own sponsors that need to be satisfied.) The pool of arenas -- clear of competing signage -- one can lease for a week on barely two month's notice is a limited. Hence, you're often playing in outposts where there are no competing pro teams, which means smaller cities.

1 of 3