Anyone dreaming of a career Slam?

Like Roger Federer, Maria Sharapova needs only a French Open title to complete a career Grand Slam. David Callow/SI Jon Wertheim's Mailbag Jon Wertheim will answer questions from SI.com users in his mailbag every Wednesday. Name: Email: Hometown: Question: SEND Follow Jon Wertheim on Twitter

True or False: Women's tennis is like men's tennis, only slower, with less variety and more errors. Seriously, give me a reason or two that a rational person would want to watch women's tennis that has nothing to do with sex appeal.
-- Wafo Rodriguez, San Antonio

True. I also believe that college sports -- to saying nothing of youth sports -- are worthless because the pros run faster and hit harder and jump higher.

Seriously, I think your comparison is artificial. Serena Williams or Maria Sharapova might make more errors and hit slower (though debatable) than their male counterparts, but they're engaged in honest, compelling competition. It's still a contest of wills and for most of us, that's plenty.

Also, sports are as much about drama than athletic excellence. There's a "reality TV component" that encompasses personality and history and culture and plot. For me, a match between Serena and Sharapova, for instance, is infinitely more compelling than a garden variety men's match. Even if the men are technically superior.

It seems like there are four players who could compete a career Grand Slam this year (Roger Federer, Sharapova and Lindsay Davenport need the French and Justine Henin needs Wimbledon). How do you rate their chances? With Sharapova winning her first clay tournament last week and getting to the semis of the French last year despite being somewhat out-of-form, I think she's got a better-than-decent chance this year.
-- Nick Einhorn, Greenwich, Conn.

I think Davenport could certainly challenge for a Slam but not one played on the clay. (That said, she could reach the second week on ball-striking alone; so why not show up, stay at the George V, take the kid to Luxembourg Gardens and enjoy yourself in Paris?)

Sharapova's movement -- or lack thereof -- tends to get exposed on clay; but she's the '08 MVP of the WTA so far, and she won on clay last week. I'd say she has a real shot, especially if Henin is still nursing assorted injuries as well as a bruised psyche.

Speaking of Henin, it's surprising that with her well-rounded game, she hasn't won Wimbledon. In a vacuum, she's a good bet to win, but not given the current state of her game. Same for Federer. He's a two-time finalist at Roland Garros and has beaten Rafael Nadal on clay. But he needs to get his game out of the breakdown lane before we start talking about his taking the lone Slam that still eludes him.

I consider myself a very knowledgeable fan, but I don't know the answer to this one. The next Davis Cup match for the U.S. is against Spain, and will be played in Spain! If the U.S. just won the 2007 Davis Cup and is the defending champion, then how does Spain get home-court advantage? What more does the U.S. need to do to get home court for all four '08 ties?
-- Rich, New York City

Knowledgeable fan? Hah! You must be a parochial, Ugly American! Everyone can follow the exceedingly logical Davis Cup format, except for the Tennis Philistines in the U.S.!

Typical American entitlement: You win the competition and expect to hold some sort of home-court advantage -- or get a first-round bye -- the following year! You probably also wonder why the April quarterfinals wrap up and the next round is held in the last weekend in September!

When it doesn't meet your simpleton standards, you complain about "inefficiency" and a "lack of continuity" and a format "that makes want to jab your eyeballs with forks it's so exasperatingly convoluted." You and your nation of botox and silicone, always looking for the quick cosmetic fix!

Tell the full house in Moldova and vast crowds in Slovenia that Davis Cup is in need of an upgrade! Go back to your logical "Electoral College" and your simplified "tax code."

I have to keep re-reading that Mailbag thing about Serena to be sure I am reading what I am reading -- that P-Squared guy wrote that Jelena Jankovic had "nothing" to do with the outcome of the Miami final [last week's Mailbag]. Did he mean besides the 43 unforced errors Jelena made? And how could you fail to notice that a counter-puncher like Jelena ... or Björn Borg or Henin or Chris Evert, often and intentionally do not dictate the offensive outcome of matches -- instead deliberately capitalizing on the erratic self-destruction of players like Serena ? This is like some football writer opining that ground-based offenses that protect the ball are better than high-scoring but turnover-plagued ones.
-- Chris Bennett, Springfield, Va.

I'm with P-squared on this. For much of that match, Jankovic was essentially irrelevant. That wasn't tactical counterpunching; that was simply a player put on the defensive by a bigger slugger on the other side of the net. But don't take our word.

Here's Jankovic: "I felt like that at a certain point when I was playing against Serena, I was just like there's no way I can play with this girl. She's just too strong for me.... I would say, oh, my God. Just hit a winner, but away from me. I don't want to see that ball near my body or anywhere else!... I felt, to be honest, it's like heavyweight champion and I'm a [featherweight] champion, you know? That's how I felt. I cannot match up against her. Just too much power for me to handle, especially on a good day where she's playing well."