Wonder if anyone has done a study of this: No one, other than Rafael Nadal on clay, has gone on to win the next tournament or even the next match, after beating Federer. Thus, every time someone beats Federer, the brouhaha is that this is a rising star (Richard Gasquet) or someone making a comeback (Guillermo Cañas.) Nothing comes of it, and it's happened to tum-tum David Nalbandian. True?
-- M. Ng, Vancouver

My sense is that it's mostly coincidence but I've noticed too: players beating Federer seldom use it as much of a springboard, Nadal, I suppose being an exception. Watch for this.

Players clearly detest the pre-match interview moments before walking onto the court. They're already mentally dialed in and don't want any distractions. Can we simply stipulate that "he/she is a tough competitor" and "I'm just going to play my game" and dispense with these awkward encounters?
-- Rich, New York City

I agree in theory. But they do it in every other sport -- good logic! -- and if nothing else, it gives us an up-close look at the players as well as a chance to hear their voices. Also, once in a while you get some good video. Anyone remember Stefan Koubek talking with Michael Barkann before his match against Blake? The dude wouldn't shut up!

My favorite interviews aren't pregame or postgame but the halftime spots during basketball games. The buzzer sounds and the players make a mad dash to the locker room. In keeping with the broadcast contract, the poor p.r. guy has to wrangle a player and station him next to a reporter. The interview is a banquet of clichés ("We just have to keep fighting hard in the second half.") Then the player sprints away, as if released from a POW camp. Absolutely pointless.

Why is it that a player has either a one-handed backhand or a two-handed backhand? Why can't he have both shots in his repertoire just like he has, say, both a sliced backhand and a top-spin backhand?
-- Stephen Bloch, London

Good question. Someone out there -- perhaps a teaching pro -- want to fire away with an answer? Honestly, I've never given it much thought. Every now and then you'll see a two-hander get pushed off the court and try to zing a go-for-broke one-hander. But that's about it. Is it really such an ingrained stroke that a two-hander couldn't mix it up?

Maybe I'm a little early asking about this, but how do you fancy the U.S.' chances against Russia in the Davis Cup final? Any word how advance ticket sales are going in Portland, Ore., for the final? Given a pretty lackluster 2007, does Patrick McEnroe [sit] Blake, or does he roll the dice thinking that he is finally due for a good showing?
-- Steve Adams, New Hope, Minn.

I have to think the U.S. is in a good spot here for a variety of reasons. It is the home team and selected the surface. The Russian team is in chaos, what with Davydenko's credibility getting shredded, Dmitry Tursunov in a slumplet, Marat Safin being Marat Safin and Mikhail Youzhny playing erratically. The American players have made no secret that winning this thing is an A-list priority.

There's often a lot of intrigue surrounding Davis Cup ties, but I think it's pretty simple here: The Bryans are a virtual lock at doubles. And Andy Roddick, resigned to the fact that he's not making inroads against Federer, knows this could be a career-defining weekend. He's been building around this event all year and will simply will himself to win twice. Anything the U.S. gets out of Blake is a bonus. Looking at this objectively and not as a rah-rah jingoist, says here the Americans win this thing.

Shots, miscellany

• New York readers: If you ever wanted to meet a real, live pool hustler, this is your chance. I will be doing a reading at the Greenwich Village Barnes & Noble on Thursday, Nov. 1, at 7 p.m. and will be joined by the formidable Kid Delicious. Feel free to stop by. (I promised my publisher I would make that announcement.)

• Eduardo Gigante of São Paulo, Brazil, notes: "Federer has already released his '08 tour schedule. The list is pretty much the same, with two notable exceptions: He will play in Estoril, a low-level clay event (prep for Roland Garros) and the Beijing Olympics. He also has already included the Tennis Masters Cup in his schedule, which would be smug if he were not Roger Federer."

• Moles tell us the WTA is putting "on-court coaching" before a vote this week and will make a decision in the next few weeks.

• Apropos of nothing, how about props to the Mad Hungarian, Agnes Szavay, who started the year ranked No. 207 and has quietly infiltrated the top 20.

• Jai of Stanford, Calif., writes: "Don't look now, but Lleyton Hewitt and Ivo Karlovic are tied in the rankings ... both are a spot ahead of Juan Carlos Ferrero."

• And don't look now, but Mauresmo, a No. 1 last year, is the third ranked Frenchwoman behind Marion Bartoli and Tatiana Golovin.

• John Cyran of Denver writes: "After clicking on your Björn Borg video last week, I stumbled on this video of Borg and John McEnroe competing at a supermarket. Very funny, especially McEnroe's "get outta here, man" at the end. Here's the link."

• Gilbert Benoit of Ottawa writes: "In case people are curious about the caliber of play in Challenger tournaments, both John Isner and Jesse Levine (of "training with Roger Federer" fame) lost in the quarterfinals in Rimouski, Quebec."

• What's motivating Venus Williams?

Karlovic

Holmes

• Note to the ATP headline writers: Can we please put a cease and desist order on the phrase "Gonzalez upset"? The guy is so erratic, is it ever really an upset when he loses?

• One of you was savvy enough to note that in winning his first title in more than five years last week in Lyon, France, Sebastien Grosjean was not required to beat a top-45 opponent.

• If you have HBO On Demand, check out Martina Navratilova's performance on last week's episode of Real Time with Bill Maher.

• Ivan H. of New York City, our designated long-lost siblings savant, finds us Karlovic and Sherlock Holmes.