Is ice-cold Federer victim of his own high standards?

Roger Federer has sputtered since winning his 12th Grand Slam title at last year's U.S. Open, losing back-to-back matches twice. Hassan Ammar/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:

I just heard Roger Federer went out to Andy Murray in the first round in Dubai. Question: Is it because Roger doesn't have enough match play? Is he on a slip, which is normal considering you can't stay at No. 1 forever? I seem to think both. I also think Roger wouldn't mind doing well against Pete Sampras on March 10. A tired Federer wouldn't do the trick. I miss him winning, though. And I hope he finds a way to win the French.
-- Adrienne Kostal, Bethel Park, Pa.

What do we make of Federer's decidedly slow start to the year? Even his most loyal fans have to be a bit concerned. Not simply with the match results but with the body language, the on-court passivity, the rise (finally!) of challengers, the uncharacteristically tactless remarks. (Murray hasn't improved lately? Really?) What's more, we're about to enter the U.S. hard-court season, where Federer laid two eggs last year.

Yet, in the spirit of the Ohio and Texas primary, here comes the second half of a lame, political answer. (But it comes from the heart!) Let's not sell our Google shares quite yet. And let's not treat Federer like a condemned building either. Two losses -- to young, talented upstarts -- doesn't mean he's done.

Recall last year that he went through a similar rough patch. As his tennis epitaph was being etched and the critics were administering last rites, Federer beat Rafael Nadal on clay, reached the French Open final and then, essentially, ran the table the rest of the year. More optimism: He has a chance to make up beaucoup points in Indian Wells and Miami.

At some level, Federer is victim to the goofily high standards he's set for himself. Win 90 percent of your matches over the last five years and it becomes a crisis when you lose two straight. Come within a match of winning the Grand Slam and your year takes on the whiff of anticlimax when you lose the first one. If Federer hasn't won a tournament heading into, say, Roland Garros, we can talk decline. But until then I think it's premature.

As for his exhibition match against Sampras at Madison Square Garden, it certainly has some currency in Tennis Nation and especially here in Manhattan. But I don't think Federer lost in Dubai because he was thinking about an exhibition in New York.

Since you brought it up in your Andy Roddick column last week, what do you think is responsible for the decline of American men's tennis?
-- Mike L., Daytona

I think there's a collision of factors here. First is the globalization of the sport. One could write a book on this topic, but when they suddenly play tennis everywhere, including Belgrade and Beijing, it becomes increasingly hard for any country to dominate.

In the U.S., it's particularly difficult since there are so many other options for athletically gifted kids. As more tournaments go overseas and there are fewer opportunities to watch the pros in your hometown, the trend accelerates further. (Note to Arlen Kantarian: Get back on the stick with the regional tours idea!)

Now that there's a bit of historical detachment, let's take a moment to reflect on the Sampras-Agassi-Courier-Chang era. Statistically, it was just absurd. We're talking about four players from one country, born within two years of each other, winning in excess of 25 Grand Slam titles.

It reminds me of the Seattle music scene in the early and mid-90s. You had four top-tier bands -- Pearl Jam (Sampras), Nirvana (Agassi), Alice in Chains (Courier) and Soundgarden (Chang) -- emerging from one region. (Continuing the analogy, Todd Martin is, presumably, Mudhoney.) When, a decade later, Seattle fails to have this kind of impact, it doesn't mean the local music scene is dead. It just highlights how exceptional the previous generation had been.

1 of 3