Final French Open thoughts, more

Once Roger Federer dropped the first two sets to Rafael Nadal, he seemed to pack it in. Bob Martin/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

Let's start with the fallout from the men's final in Paris. There were a lot of questions about the Nadal-Federer match and its consequences. In the interest of economy, I'll condense to five thoughts.

1. All this talk of Roger Federer's "failed strategy" seems a bit silly to me. Rafael Nadal is so superior to everyone on clay -- particularly when he's playing this well -- that tactics had very little to do with anything.

Federer plays patiently? He loses the majority of the rallies with impenetrable Nadal. Federer attacks? He watches passing shots scream by. He drives his backhand down the line to Nadal's backhand? Nadal runs around it, whips the forehand to the open court. He drops shots? Nadal chases them down and whaps winners. He slices and chips? Nadal feasts on the slow pace. Bottom line: Nadal is virtually unbeatable on clay, an inconvenient truth that no game plan can offset.

2. Federer's attitude, on the other hand, was puzzling. He seemed to sense defeat early and betrayed no body language that indicated he thought he could win. For as much as we mock fist-pumps, "C'mon," "Allez," "Vamos" and "Eh-Dah" (or whatever it is Ivanovic says), at least they send a message: "I'm fired up and I'm coming for you, pal." After a set and a half, Federer sent this message instead: It's not my day.

One of Federer's admirable qualities is his measured self-awareness. It's what enables him to come across as one of us, and not some deity. But it can work against him, too. Down two sets to Nadal, he's almost too rational. He can't delude himself into thinking he has a chance, so he more or less packs it in.

3. Federer is mentally weary. Tennis stars invariably reached a point when the grind of the circuit wears them down. In his new book (plug alert), Pete Sampras mentions that the Slams were always fine, but the Cincinnatis and Hamburgs induce the burnout. I suspect if Federer could, he'd only play majors (and maybe Basel and Dubai) from here on out.

4. No, I don't think this brutal loss cuts against Federer's GOAT status. He's playing on his least favorite surface. He reaches the final for the third straight time. He has the misfortune of playing perhaps the greatest claycourter ever on a day when the guy can't miss. One of you said belligerently, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never saw Sampras lose like that in a final!" No, he just lost to some Galo Blanco in the second round.

5. Yes, Wimbledon suddenly becomes very interesting. Nadal displayed unbelievable defense in Paris. I wrote in SI this week that all you need to do is notice the tracks and slashes in the clay. He chases down everything. But once he was in the point, he hardly played classic claycourt tennis. Right up on the baseline, he played like a hardcourter who happened to be on dirt. Even without the big serve, if he can continue this style and quality of play on grass, he could do one match better than last year. I think Federer is still the slight favorite at Wimbledon. But would anyone be at all surprised if Nadal pulls off the double?

You comment on the Virginia Ruano Pascual/Anabel Medina Garrigues news conference without giving us a link! Why say "check out their transcript" when going to the Roland Garros Web site or Googling doesn't find such a thing! Can you rectify this oversight by providing the link in your next mailbag? Thanks.
-- Warren, Montreal

Lots of you mentioned this. I checked out the French Open Web site and it's not there. I'm going to take the liberty of assuming that this was an oversight and include it at the very end of the Mailbag. I might have oversold this, but you should be able to sense the unalloyed joy. We all love the stars. But there's an entire rank-and-file who are moved to tears by accomplishments like an unexpected doubles title.

As I'm sure someone has already pointed out to you, Nadal did not beat David Ferrer (the fifth seed!) 6-1, 6-1, 6-1. He beat Nicolas Almagro (the 19th seed!) by that score. Ferrer lost to Gaël Monfils in four sets. Still, your point is a good one. I'm often annoyed by how anything that happens in the women's draw is somehow an indictment of the women's game. World No. 83 wins the Australian? Women's tennis is too weak. Top four seeds make it to the semis? Women have no depth.

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga makes it to the Australian Final? The men's bench is just so deep! Rafael Nadal loses three games against a top 20 player? Well, that's only because he's the greatest clay court player ever. Still, much like Davenport in Australia, don't we owe Almagro a bit of an apology? He took three games off of Nadal. Federer took four. Federer was seeded HIGHER than Nadal (which is meaningless obviously, but nevertheless ... ) So, just as Davenport put up as good a fight against Maria Sharapova as Justine Henin did, so did Almagro play at least as well as Federer.
-- Joshua, Portland, Ore.

A lot of you mentioned that error and it was just a total brain cramp on my part. Unforced error, all the way. Of course, Nadal beat Almagro (the 19th seed) with triple breadsticks. Ferrer lost to Monfils. I felt a little better when someone pointed out that another prominent site referred to Nadal as the "Moroccan Bull." That's what deadline pressure does.

But let's talk about this double standard a bit. Earlier in the tournament, Martina Navratilova was asked to pick a women's champ and ticked off 10 names. When talk turned to the men, the consensus was that no one other than The Triad (Nadal, Fed, Novak Djokovic, obviously) had a shot. Tell me again -- which tour lacks depth?