Roger's rationality, betting against Venus and Nadal's hard-court case

Rafael Nadal's super-human efforts brought down top-ranked Roger Federer, but he still must prove himself on hard courts. Getty Images 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

An unconditional Roger fan, I also felt crushed. Still I was able to come up with the following positives: 1) What Rafa did to win the match was extra-terrestrial and such a performance must be rewarded; 2) Roger is more rational than I am in interpreting the meaning of his wins and his losses; 3) Roger is not Justine, he will not disappear because the competition fundamentally suits his body and his mind.
-- Barbara Katzenberg Lexington, MA

• Yes, Nadal's effort was super-human -- and even so, he barely won the match. Roger is not Justine -- he will be back. I take issue with your other point. I fear his "rational" nature is not always conducive to success. "Rational" could mean: this is NOT happening again! I'm kicking his butt next time. "Rational" could also mean: jeez, the kid beats me on grass. Maybe my reign really is winding down.

If we're looking for signs of encouragement, how about this? Federer was down two sets to love and faced match points in the fourth set. He responds with reserves of courage I'm not sure we've ever seen before. Ironic that it came in defeat, but he answered plenty of questions about his willingness to scrape and claw and sacrifice art and creativity for street-fighting. He called this the worst defeat of his career and, given what was at stake and how drama-saturated the match was, that's understandable. But -- particularly after the debacle in Paris --there's plenty of reason for optimism.

I have heard you say several times something like "Bet against Venus Williams at your own peril". Yet, I think you picked Henin last year and Sharapova this year. Are you ready to heed your own advice next year?Also, given Sharapova's recent record against The Williams Sisters and The Williams' record at Wimbledon the last 10 years or so, why did so many experts pick Maria to win? After all, you've said what the Sisters have done in the season previously doesn't matter when they reach the" Lawns Of London"
-- RJD,Lake Charles, La.

• Imagine this: there's a player X. She is the Wimbledon defending champ and always does well on grass. But she hadn't won an event in 2008. Hadn't even reached a final. Not only that, she had lost to players you'd scarcely heard of: Petra Kvitova in Memphis, among others. In the previous Slam she lost in the third round. Then she declined to play any tune-ups before Wimbledon. If you'd chosen this player to win Wimbledon -- to win her first title of the year at the All England Club -- people would suggest you be institutionalized.

And yet because we're talking about Venus Williams, a player whose skills are equaled by her ability to elevate her game when it matters most, few even noticed how radically she repaired her game. Next time, I'll know better.

If Rafa goes on to win the Olympics and the U.S. Open, do you think he has a chance of being named Sportsman of the Year (but maybe not since SI will probably name Phelps or someone who wins eight Olympic golds). But if he was, how ironic would that be, given that Federer should have been named that for the past four years, and then suddenly Nadal gets it now!
-- Albert, Singapore

• Never say never. But I have to believe someone will emerge from the Olympics, Phelps being an obvious candidate. If Nadal and Federer reach the finals, can I count on you to join me in lobbying for a "Gentleman's Rivalry" selection?

Re: Nadal and the GOAT discussion - You say "come back to me when he wins a hard court Slam and then we can have a serious discussion." Exactly how many hard court slams does Bjorn Borg have? Is he not frequently mentioned in the GOAT discussion? I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Nadal CAN become the greatest of all time, but it'll just take much longer. Can he keep it up?

-- Michael Mungin, Seattle, WA

• Borg played at a time when the Australian was essentially optional. I stick to my guns on this one: a modern day player cannot be in GOAT contention until he wins on hard courts.

I hate to find a reason to bag on Rafael Nadal after his great Wimbledon victory, but I must ask: Why was he even thinking of playing in the Mercedes Cup in the first place? With his need to be constantly on alert in case of injury, and with his not-so-great results on the hard court season leading up to the U.S. Open, why had he planned on playing a clay court event? Seems to be that he and Uncle Toni would be better off planning a couple of weeks of vacation after Wimbledon -- regardless of how far he gets on the lawns.
-- RZ, Los Angeles

• Speculation: Nadal enters this event if he loses early in Wimbledon and needs to: a) recoup some points in his hunt for No.1 and 2) burnish his confidence, well, great, he's back on the court -- on his beloved clay, a short trip from home -- the next week. If he makes it to the final and he has to withdraw, well, who could blame him? And the tournament, while suddenly lacking a star, at least got to use his purported appearance to sell tickets.

So, Mardy Fish said, of throwing the first pitch in a Twins/Red Sox game, "It was by far the coolest thing I've ever done." I guess beating Federer just isn't what it used to be...
-- Jonathan, Columbus, MS

• And that whole Olympics thing? That didn't suck either.