Blake's performance is stirring, but Federer's real test

Next for James Blake in the quarters: Roger Federer, against whom he's 0-7 all-time. William West/AFP/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:

MELBOURNE, Australia -- I'm dragging from jet lag, but I've called the trainer. After this rubdown, I should be good to resume my duties. OK, where were we?

What's up with James Blake? He had a downer of a year in 2007, lost to Fabrice Santoro the week before last and I didn't have high hopes for him at all. Now he is in the quarterfinals, the last American man standing. To what do you attribute this hot streak?
-- Jim H., Manhattan

At the risk of dousing your fire, I'm not sure how much I'd read into this streak. Blake is playing well and doing what's necessary to win. But look at his draw. His last two matches came against a past-his-prime Sébastien Grosjean and a not-yet-at-his-prime Marin Cilic. Blake's next match against Roger Federer will tell us plenty.

I watched about half of Blake's match against Cilic Monday, though, and was impressed. He made a pretty good case for having the most explosive forehand in tennis and defended exceptionally well. Most points ended with Blake blasting a forehand or running down enough balls to induce an error from the frustrated opponent. Got to think that if Blake could just do this, serve well and hold his nerve in tight situations, a top-10 ranking is very attainable. Watching him, I also wonder why he couldn't reach the second week at Roland Garros.

My viewing pleasure was interrupted in the third set when the security guards gang-tackled some drunken idiot. The guy was on the ground, caught in some UFC jujitsu hold, barely coherent, but still able to ask his friend to pass his beer and lighter while waiting for the police to arrive. Nice that they play up the festive atmosphere here, but there sure is a public intoxication problem here that doesn't plague the other Slams.

The media and Andy Roddick himself have recently been excusing his losses by claiming his opponents have played "out of their mind" sort of speak (i.e. Federer at the U.S. Open, Richard Gasquet's final three sets at Wimbledon and now Philipp Kohlschreiber). While it's nice to act anti-Serena and give your opponent credit, isn't time to start wondering what about Roddick's game keeps bringing out the best in people? It can't be a coincidence.
-- Trevor, Williamsburg, Va.

In fairness, what's he supposed to say? But I agree with you to a point and have noticed the same thing. Why is it that everyone plays the match of their life when they beat you? And what is it about your game that invites this?

One problem with Roddick is that the book on how to beat him is not only out but it's dog-eared and tattered: Work the backhand, invite him to approach, let him self-destruct. The other problem is his comportment.

I feel like we've covered for Roddick and given him benefits of the doubt in the past, but I cringed watching his behavior the other night. Telling the crowd to "shut up" and calling a grown an "idiot" is just weak, petty stuff. It's right out of the Jimmy Connors self-pity, you-against-the-world primer. But not only is it an indefensible way to act; but also it only hurt his tennis.

Inquiring minds want to know: You've predicted that the Fed will win two Slams in '08, but you've also picked him to win Australia. So which of Wimbledon and the U.S. Open do you expect him to lose, and why?
-- Susan Bartlett, Edmonton, Alberta

Provided he doesn't lose in Australia, I suppose the U.S. Open is the other event, by default. None of this is meant to discredit Federer. For everyone else on Planet Earth, two Slams is a career year. It's just that particularly with the Olympics wreaking havoc on his rhythms, you figure the guy is due for a letdown somewhere along the line.

With Guga Kuerten announcing his retirement after the French open this year, do you think he will be a shoe-in in the Hall of Fame?
-- Jimmy, Washington, D.C.

Absolutely. Again, unless something affirmative is done to reverse precedent, how do you deny a guy with three Grand Slams titles, a No. 1 ranking and a sporting disposition? Pretty hard to enshrine, say, Gabby Sabatini and then turn away Kuerten.

Lleyton Hewitt is trying to trademark a hand gesture he calls "C'mon." The problem is that the gesture is identical to the "Vicht" hand gesture popularized by Mats Wilander and fellow Swedish players a long time ago. Any thoughts on this?
-- Anders Lilja, Princeton, NJ

Weird Al Yankovic wants his dance move back. Not sure anyone should be clamoring for credit on this. On the other hand, if it spares us a few guttural "C'mawwwwwwnnnnns," I suppose we should be happy Hewitt "sampled" as it were.

The first anti-Grand Slam winner of '08: Kevin Anderson (South Africa). You read it first here.
-- Niazz, Dallas

As I look at the draw, that's not bad. By the way, a few of you noted that Marat Safin was the anti-winner of the '04 U.S. Open and then the winner of the '05 Aussie Open.

Santoro

Shamrock

Just to point out that you missed several opportunities to give a nod to Evonne Goolagong for making it to No. 1 30 years ago. Come on, give her her props already.
-- Jeff, St. John's, Newfoundland

Props to Evonne, already. And at some later date, remind me to tell you a Goolagong story.

• Lots of great offerings for our nickname contest. We'll do some every day. Today's winner is Jonathan Scott of Indianapolis: Conspiracy (Thierry) Ascione and Michael (Llodra the Rings)

• A UFC look-alike courtesy from Mike of Alameda, Calif.: Santoro and Ken Shamrock. (Don't get Fabrice started on Tito Ortiz ...)