Thoughts on Davenport, Olympic tennis and Federer

Lindsay Davenport upset second-ranked Ana Ivanovic 6-4, 6-2 in the third round at the Sony Ericsson Open. AP

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:

KEY BISCAYNE, Fla. -- What do you see Lindsay Davenport accomplishing before she eventually retires?

I think she could definitely bag another Slam. Davenport has always been a top competitor and could likely get hot at a Slam and take the title. People are quick to forget what a consistently elite player she was before her hiatus and still is. On the right day she could still beat anyone in the world, including Justin Henin, Maria Sharapova and Serena and Venus Williams.
-- Mike, Nepal

Not sure if your question was submitted before or after Davenport ran roughshod over the world's second-ranked player, Ana Ivanovic. But that win said plenty. As for her chances of winning a Slam, I wouldn't rule it out by any stretch. She still hits a big ball -- not just hard, but oppressively deep -- and has fashioned a game that masks her movement. The extra day to rest between rounds would really help her too.

But this reminds me a bit of the discussion a few weeks back about Pete Sampras. He can beat virtually anyone on any given day. But can he return for the next match and sustain that level of play? In Davenport's case, 24 hours after beating Ivanovic here in Key Biscayne, she wilted in straight sets against Dinara Safina.

And apart from the physical component, Davenport still has that unfortunate habit of getting so down on herself when the match isn't going her way. It's really a fascinating tic: A player otherwise mature, self-possessed and grounded becomes irrationally negative. All college psych majors: There's a senior thesis here.

Could you please give more of an explanation to why you believe that tennis should not be in the Olympics?
-- George Tehan, Auburn, N.Y.

I have several gripes here. The biggest is philosophical -- seems to me that if your sport is going to be in the Olympics, it should represent the pinnacle of achievement. It should be the ultimate title. In tennis, most players would still rather win majors. So you're left with the equivalent of TMS Event or a WTA Tier One with a gold medal for the winner and a cool opening ceremony.

And if you're going to have tennis in the Olympics, at least add a twist to recognize this is an extraordinary competition. Do something team-oriented. Have a mixed-doubles draw. Something to distinguish this from another whistle-stop tournament.

Also, at a time when the IOC is trying to limit and eliminate sports, it seems unseemly that tennis is in. Maria Sharapova, Roger Federer and company already make their millions and get their recognition. Seems a shame they get the Olympic experience and some female softball player or jujitsu expert doesn't.

From tennis' perspective, the Olympics muck up the calendar (this summer's U.S. Open series will be ugly) and the payoff is pretty minimal. In the Olympic tableau, did, say, Justine Henin's gold medal in Athens really do anything for the sport? As my esteemed colleague S.L. Price put it best a few years ago, "Tennis doesn't need the Olympics. The reverse is true, too."

1 of 3