Safina's breakout tournament, Estonian pride and more

After advancing to the semis on a string of stirring comeback victories, could this just be Dinara Safina's tournament? Jessica Kleutmeier/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

My Wednesday Baguette from Paris:

Don't you think Martina Hingis would have had a good chance to win her first French Open title had she been playing this year?
-- Peewee, Singapore

• I've wondered the same thing as, I suspect, Hingis herself has. With Justine Henin currently doing Sodoku puzzles in a mud bath, and Maria Sharapova and the Williams sisters out of the draw, it's tempting to envision the Chuck-strix, all wile and guile, winning that French Open title.

The sad truth is I'd give her little chance. I sat a few rows behind the court during the Safina-Sharapova match and was blown away (almost literally at times) but how concussively they're hitting. Same for the Serbs: Kuznetsova, Azarenka, etc. Especially with the clay playing faster than ever. Sadly, I think the sport passed her by. My question: Is Lindsay Davenport rethinking her decision to take a pass on Paris? I like Baby Beluga as much as the next guy. But when you look at Safina's success, I suspect ... oh wait, a question exactly to this point:

I have been wanting to ask this. I really like Dinara Safina. To me, she's like an exact clone of Lindsay Davenport. It's like watching Lindsay, since they're so similar in the way the play. Do you see a comparison between the two.
-- Thomas White, Arlington, Va.

• Good comparison. Ironically, I saw the two face each other in Miami a few months ago (Safina won) and remembering thinking the same thing. They're both tall, solidly-proportioned ballstrikers who aren't going to win any sprinting contests, but can dictate with pace and depth. Speaking of Safina, anyone else getting the feeling this is her event?

Jon, Jon, Jon! About two years ago I sent you a message wondering if there were any Estonian players coming up on the horizon. You quickly mocked the idea and, like the Bryan brothers, openly questioned "It is even a country?" -- all in good fun, yes! But revenge is sweet, my friend. Kaia Kanepi is into the quarterfinals and the brothers were blissfully bounced out of the tournament. Karrrrmmma. Any thoughts on Kanepi? Not a bad result thus far!
-- Mark Randmaa, Toronto

• Just to be clear, the Bryans wondered whether Estonia was a country. Not me. And I leave the karma determinations to Sharon Stone. But nice event for the Baltics, no? -- what with Gulbis asserting himself and Kanepi coming out. I think Kanepi is a nice enough player, but Kuznetsova highlighted the weaknesses today. Harsh as this might sound, I can't imagine her -- Kanepi, that is -- cracking the top 20. Not enough movement and variety.

We seem to be on the way to another Federer-Nadal final, and with Nadal the heavy favorite I'm always wondering what Federer can do to beat him. Of all the theories I've heard, the most sensible seems to be McEnroe's idea that Federer should take more chances on the return of serve. Chipping it back and getting into long rallies clearly doesn't work, so why not go James Blake on Nadal and just let it rip?
-- Michael Mulvey, Milwaukee

• You're really that quick to write off Djokovic? I think Nadal wins, but it won't be 6-1, 6-1, 6-1! I think that's pretty much it. As Nadal showed yesterday, you're not going to beat him simply from the baseline. Federer needs to serve well, attack opportunistically, hit over the backhand and hope he catches Nadal a bit off. And pray that's good enough.

Whose career would you rather have, Gonzales' or Blake's? On the one hand, Blake has been a much more consistent player, ranking in the top 10 for longer. But Gonzo made the finals of a slam, putting him in an elite club, even though he hasn't shown the overall consistency?
-- Michael, New York

• Not to take anything away from Gonzo, but what about the fact that Blake is just about universally well-regarded? Hard to recall many players with his level of reputation.

Strictly tennis? I don't see Blake versus Gonzo as a case of extremes. Blake doesn't obviously have Gonzo's gonzo tendencies, but his play can surge and fall, too. I suppose I'd go with Gonzo, simply because of the adrenaline rush and the possibility for greatness. Will I come out able to toast Federer? Of will I play like I belong on the State U junior varsity team?

What's with the success of Australian-Italian partnerships? A year after Molik and Santangelo take out the title, Dellacqua and Schiavone beat the third, sixth and seventh seeds (beating both teams that played in the Australian Open final) to have a shot at this year's doubles crown. Freaky coincidence.
-- Ian See, Melbourne, Australia

• Good catch. Never thought of that.

Your comparison of Mauresmo vs. Clisters was interesting, because it confirmed something I have thought for a while: Mauresmo has a cloud over her head. Why is it that if she retired today, she would be considered an underachiever when she reached No. 1 in the world and won two slams? And at the risk of throwing in a trump card, Mauresmo is possibly the only gay athlete ever to reach the highest echelons in his or her sport while out. We talk about her being a headcase, but I don't know how many of us can possibly understand the strength required to persevere in those circumstances. It is sad to see her fading, but Mauresmo deserves a little more respect.
-- Steven Gerard, Brooklyn, N.Y.

• I think you conflate issues. Let's start with Mauresmo's sexuality, which, I think is a shining moment for tennis. Mauresmo was 19 and very matter-of-factly came out. There was some brief backlash thanks mostly to Hingis' intemperate remarks. Then, it was back to business. I think for most of the tennis universe, the response was, "Gee, that's nice. I like her backhand." Her sponsors didn't drop her. She wasn't ostracized in the locker room. Fans didn't scream epithets. My sense is that for most people she was a tennis who happened to be the gay, the same way Lindsay Davenport is a tennis player who happens to be from California. For her part, Mauresmo, I always felt, handled herself wonderfully. She didn't hide her sexuality but it didn't define her. It was a case study in tolerance.

Yet I'm not sure any of this has much bearing when we assess her career. Here's my unvarnished opinion: she is (hopefully still present tense) a beautiful aesthetic player, with a fragile psyche that prevented her from winning many big matches. I have immense respect for her, and personally agree she had "strength required to persevere." Yet as a player, all those meltdowns cut against her legacy. Two Slams is nothing to sneeze at, but it could have so much more.

If people frown upon letting doubles specialists in the Hall of Fame, why don't they frown upon singles specialists? It seems that doubles specialists are discriminated against whereas singles specialists aren't.
-- Nick, Rochester Hills, Mich.

• I'm really torn on these Hall of Fame questions. They don't do much for me, especially the second week of a Slam. But they're so popular among you guys, so I feel like I need to stay true to the audience and continue addressing. Doubles and singles is a false comparison. I think all know that most players would rather win one Grand Slam singles title than a dozen doubles titles. My suggestion is to create a "doubles wing," acknowledging that it's really a separate endeavor from singles.

Also, I must have given a sloppy answer to the Guga-Novotna-Roddick questions because those questions keep coming. Here, for once and for all, is my stance. Under the classic benchmarks for admission in a Hall of Fame (which often induct just a few highly select players from each era) there is robust discussion to be had about whether a player such as Gustavo Kuerten has what it takes. However, given the mushy criteria precedent for the Tennis Hall of Fame -- where one Slam over the course of a career is often sufficient for admission -- a player such as Kuerten gets in without a second thought.

Can you take a break from talking about who should get into the Hall of Fame? The standards are so low, as you so often pointed out, that I find it difficult to care.
-- Chuck, New York

• Amen! Let's give this topic a rest for a while.