Nadal's dominance, Monfils mania and more from the Mailbag

Rafael Nadal is looking to become the first man since Bjorn Borg in 1978-81 to win four French Open titles in a row. 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

Checking in from Paris with the Thursday Baguette. But before getting to your questions, here's a brief audio refresher of today's happenings around Roland Garros:

Based on the scores Nadal is chalking up would you agree that, unlike previous years when he was the pre-tournament favorite, this year Nadal is far and away the favorite over any of the other three men still standing? Thanks again.
-- Patty McDaniel, Houston

• Keep in mind Nadal was the favorite in 2005 when he'd never before played a match at Roland Garros! So calling him the far-and-away favorite is relative.

It's funny. Before the tournament there was a sense that he was a teensy bit vulnerable. He had blisters. He'd played a lot of tennis. He had so much pressure to defend points because of his unremarkable hardcourt results. Suddenly he simply looks to be playing another sport from everyone else. Not saying it can't happen. But right now Nadal's level will have to fall off dramatically before he can be touched.

Hey, Jon, I'm not sure if you'll agree with me on this one, but you take the partisan crowd's enthusiastic cheering away and Gael Monfils becomes one of the least entertaining tennis players on the tour, especially on clay. His modus operandi: smack a big serve and, if he doesn't win the point immediately, retreat to eight feet behind the baseline and loop the other player to tears. He'll chase down a lot of balls with his speed and length and every once in a while close his eyes and try to hit a highlight-reel forehand winner, but stylistically I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many top 100 players not named Ivo whose matches are less interesting to watch. Still, he's playing with a lot of confidence all of a sudden, and has an uncanny ability to make his opponent play subpar tennis. Roger better be on his game!
-- Mike, Paris

• Agree that Roger had better be on his game. But I disagree about Monfils' game being tough on the eyes. He's a terrific athlete who combines exceptional defense with fun shotmaking. His level of play can be all over the map but this adds to the enjoyment. Also, it's hard to divorce his essential game from his personality. Any tennis player who does a Soulja Boy dance, loves the NBA and, candidly, shatters so many perceptions about what a tennis star should look and act like, is easy to like.

Ljubicic's point about the differences in outside-the-court dimensions between show courts and where the hoi polloi play is similar to my complaint about Hawkeye: what other sport has different arbitrating conditions co-existing at the same competition? Pretty unfair, and silly, no?
-- Mike, Berkeley, Calif.

• Well, in fairness, no two baseball parks are exactly alike. And obviously every hole is different in golf. And at some level this is practical. To accommodate the crowds, a "show court" must necessarily be quite deep.

But Ljubicic's point is a good one. I saw Nadal practicing on court 12 today and there's hardly any room between the baseline and fence. On the other hand, on the main court here, you could hold a Jerry Lewis rally in that space. Check it out next time TV shows an aerial view: the baseline on Chartrier is literally equidistant between the net and back wall.

Jon, please give one or two reasons why extra room behind the baseline would create a decided advantage for players used to playing on the show courts. Do players used to playing with shorter backstops have a built in "warning track" programmed in their minds that causes them to fall on their rears when scurrying especially deep on a show court?
-- Bill, Long Valley, N.J.

• Imagine you're Nadal and base a lot of your game on retrieval. On one court you can run a few meters before you crash into a fence. On another court you scramble halfway to Normandy. Clearly one court provides an advantage over the other one. And I don't know if you were being facetious but I think your other point is a good one. The stars are the main courts, all the time, at every event. They know the nooks and crannies. They have the perspective down. When some Kaia Kanepi comes out for the first time, it must take her a while to get comfortable with the dimensions. Again, it's not as though the surface is different or the court itself changes dimension. But these are the kinds of incremental advantages that can make a difference.

Suppose Federer found a magic lamp, rubbed it and let the genie out of the bottle. He gets his choice of three wishes: either the French, Olympic gold and the Paris Masters (but does not end up at No. 1 at the end of the year); or the other majors (except the French), the other Master Series Events (but not Paris) and the No. 1 ranking at the end of the year. He asks your advice regarding which package of wishes to take. What do you recommend?
-- Scott Humphrey, Pflugerville, Texas

• Do genies really traffic in Masters Series titles? Not sure I totally get the question, but I think at this stage in his career, Federer would take a French Open title over anything.

Elena Dementieva is one of my favorite players and I was hoping the French Open would be her comeback tournament, especially after being given so much hope when she was serving for the match, up a double break at 5-2 in the second set against Dinara Safina. Does losing a lead that huge set her back indefinitely or do you see her dusting the clay off in time for the American hardcourt season?
-- Chris Rodriguez, Austin, Texas

• Five years ago Federer suffered a devastating loss. You know what? Hold that thought: Can we just take a second to reflect on the fact that five years ago today, Federer has zero Grand Slam titles to his name? Anyway where were we? Oh, right. Five years ago Federer suffered an awful loss here. Four weeks later he was on his way to winning relentlessly. Jana Novotna and Amelie Mauresmo both suffered brutal defeats in the latter rounds of Slams, but recovered to win big prizes. In the postmatch presser, Dementieva was almost shellshocked yesterday. Eyes ringed in red, she could barely muster a sentence. But another Slam begins in a few weeks. One nice thing about tennis: there's always another opportunity.

Yep, seems like your boy, Monfils, has finally heeded your clarion call to perform.
-- Mark Shleck, Walnut Creek, Calif.

• Quick word about Monfils: Some of the cynics noted that he had a favorable draw. Beating a past-his-prime Ivan Ljubcici on clay is not exactly the toughest way to a Grand Slam quarter. But after Monfils took out David Ferrer yesterday, I think props are really in order.

Marginalia:

• A correction from the other day: Mauresmo has spent 39 weeks at No. 1 as opposed to Clijsters' 19. I had those figures reversed in my notes.

• Anthony of La Jolla: A few weeks ago you mentioned siblings who were excellent players and coaches. I'd like to remind you of Neale and John Fraser- John, who made the semifinals of Wimbledon, both singles and doubles (with Laver). Neale of course was Australian Davis Cup captain for almost 25 years. It doesn't quite fit with your original question though as Neale (doubles career grand slam) was a better player than John. Nevertheless, thought it worth bringing to your attention

• Andy in the Da Bronx: The Tennis Channel has been streaming the French open for free.

• Christopher M. Jones of West Chester, Pa.: With all due props to the pairing of Nicolas Almagro and Count Chocula, I had my own matchup: Almagro and Seth (Jonah Hill) from Superbad.