Tennis as a game is richer when it sports a monopoly

Because of his dominance, Roger Federer has eliminated the possibility of mediocre players breaking through for Grand Slam wins. 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:

OK, I lied. Last week I said we were going to present the annual Baggie Awards. But because we got a welter of Davis Cup questions (and because I'm still recovering from a hellish redeye) we'll do a 'Bag this week and present the awards next week.

Looking at the last four years in tennis, which of the two scenarios would you have preferred?

1) Roger Federer has been dominating like none other in history. It's been a pleasure just to be in the same era and watch him play.

2) Federer never existed, it's been a golden era of modern tennis with Americans Andy Roddick and James Blake battling it out against Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, David Nalbandian, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, etc., all with their own styles. It's just been a pleasure watching the rivalries and tennis is making headlines in sports news.
-- Vijay Kalpathi, Houston

We could debate this until closing time. In the spirit of the Iowa caucus, here's my straddle-the-fence answer: Ordinarily, I think parity is preferable to dominance. (Part of the inherent beauty of playing sports is the "anyone-can-win" intrigue.)

But in the case of Federer, he a) plays such exquisite tennis and b) is such exemplar for everything right about the sport, that I chose him over an Any-Given-Sunday scenario. Were all sick of the Federer-Tiger comparisons, but it's apt here. The guy is so absurdly good (and poised) that watching him play is a riveting experience, even when we know he will win.

On a more crass level, I think tennis benefits when there's a monarchy and not an oligarchy. The ATP has gone through periods of almost unrelenting parity. In 2002, eight players reached the finals of the majors. At one point earlier this decade, eight different players won eight consecutive Slams.

Instead of relishing "rivalries" and "Cinderella stories," much of the public had a collective yawn. Players weren't able to gain any traction (how do you promote Albert Costa or Thomas Johansson when they might not win a round of the subsequent major?) and there was a sense that everyone was mediocre. As much as Federer sucks the drama out of most draws, at least there's no contesting his singular greatness.

I enjoyed your observations on the Davis Cup. Yeah, it was a terrific result, but I got news for you. There's nothing to build on here. Back on the East Coast, we hardly noticed, even those of us who are hardcore fans. The DC is moribund. Come out of the ivory tower and see what the people see.
-- Peter Kelly, Newton, Mass.

Ivory Tower? Trust me. I have no delusions here. I was on a general sports radio show over the weekend and was asked about my location. When I responded that I was in Portland covering Davis Cup, the host shot back: "Davis Cup? That thing still exist?"

I watched much of the Davis Cup action this weekend, and I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about Jimmy Arias being an A- List commentator. Listening to Arias' thoughtful, incisive comments about the players' styles and strategy had me wondering: My memory of him as a player is one who was almost stubbornly one-dimensional. Arias possessed a superb forehand, a weirdly constructed backhand, a reliable, but not great, serve and a net that was reliable as well -- provided he could get to the net, which he rarely did. How could a person so blinded as a player, be so all seeing as a commentator?
-- Phil O'Donoghue, Florence, Mass.

Arias is the perfect mix of an insider and outsider, knowledgeable without the uncomfortable conflicts of interest. He knows tennis and picks up on nuances, as one would expect from a former top-10 player. But he's sufficiently removed from "the scene" that he is unafraid to voice unfiltered opinions.

One example: He minced no words questioning and dissecting Blake's mental toughness -- "And that one five-set win came against 53-year-old Fabrice Santoro!"

For a variety of reasons, not too many other announcers would be inclined to make such a strong statement. Arias isn't Blake's Davis Cup captain, nor is he intricately tied to his management agency. Nor is he seeking Blake's participation for his charity event. Thus, his commentary has a certain unvarnished quality to it, sometimes lacking among announcers.

1 of 3