An early U.S. Open pick, keeping tabs on the ATP trial and more mail

Until it is taken from him, four-time champion Roger Federer still holds the U.S. Open title. AP 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

Federer or Nadal, who's your pick at the U.S. Open?
-- Chas, New York

• Obviously I'd rather wait until after the two Masters Series events and the Olympics to make the call. I know a lot of you will accuse me of willful blindness here, but I don't see how you pick against Federer.

He's won the last four titles in Queens; Nadal is coming off a fourth-round finish. I have no delusions about what Nadal achieved two weeks ago. Damn the rankings, he's the top player in tennis right now. But I still tip Federer on hard courts. A segue to....

You: "...a modern day player cannot be in GOAT contention until he wins on hard courts."

Me: a modern day player cannot be in GOAT contention until he wins on clay.
-- Patsy, Atlanta

• Fair enough. But don't three appearances in the final of the French -- each time against perhaps the best clay-courter of all time -- qualify as "winning" ? In Federer's case, I think it's pretty clear, he's the second-best clay-courter in the world. In Nadal's case, as things stand today, I don't think you can't say he's the second-best player on hard-courts. A lot of you took exception to this, but I stand by the sentiment from last week. At a time when two of the four Slams are played on hard courts, you need to at least have reached a final (!) before you're in GOAT consideration. Nadal, yes, has won TMS events on cement. But he needs to step it up both at the Open and Australia -- and he very well might -- if we're really going to discuss him as an all-time great.

Has women's tennis ever seen a less gracious loser? Serena ends up with more winners, fewer errors than Venus in the Wimbledon Final, but STILL says she did not play and fails to give big sister any credit at all. What gives?
-- Dallas Edmonton, Canada

• You know I had meant to mention this a few weeks back and I'm glad Dallas gave me the opportunity. In a perverse way, I was relieved that Serena was so typically sour and surly in defeat after the Wimbledon final. She falls in a close, well-played match to the defending champ -- who, oh yeah, is her sister -- and scarcely musters a word of praise. You know what? Good. It would be so distasteful and lame if Serena talked about Justine Henin's "lucky" shots or her lacking performance against Katarina Srebotnik in Paris and then was all smiles when she lost to Venus. She might be boorish in defeat. But at least she's consistently boorish!

Who do you think will win more Wimbledons: Federer or Venus?
-- Luke, New York City

• Good barroom question. I suppose the smart money is on Federer if only because he's younger. But don't discount Venus. I mentioned this during Wimbledon but particularly given how she rations her energy throughout the year, is there any reason she won't be playing (and winning) Wimbledon five, six, seven years from now?

Last week you mentioned that you wish you had followed your own advice and picked Venus Williams to win Wimbledon. What else do you regret writing or not writing?
-- Chris, Long Island, New York

• How much time do you have? It's interesting but most of the regrets are about omission and not commission. I wish I had written more about match-fixing when the story first broke. I wish I wrote more about players allegedly fudging their ages. I wish I had been earlier to the party drawing distinctions between Oracene Price and Richard Williams. That kind of thing.

Also, a lot of times I don't regret the sentiment, but rather the way it was expressed. A few months ago I roasted Andy Roddick pretty good. While I stand by the theme -- I thought Roddick had lost his muse and was discrediting himself with his behavior -- I could have chosen my words and examples better. Also, I recently came across a column I wrote a few years ago about Mark Miles leaving the ATP. I used a fake "farewell roast" as a device. Lame. If I had a mulligan, I'd have written that one straight.

In January, Federer's website listed Stockholm on his schedule, so it wasn't added in response to his loss at Wimbledon. It's curious, however, because it jams a lot of tournaments at the end of the year. The extra ranking points could end up salvaging his number one position at the end of the year because he has so few "other countable tournament" results. To be fair, he could pull a late withdrawal based on fatigue, but it may prove to be a great move. As impressive as the history of that tournament is, it currently draws a relatively weak field and could yield a fairly easy title.
-- Robert Webb, Dalton, Georgia

• Good point, and you're right to note that Stockholm was not added to Fed's schedule in response to Wimbledon. Still, I think it bespeaks just how intensely he wants to finish the year at No. 1. I commend Federer for his commitment, but I worry about his stamina. He's (allegedly) playing Toronto and Cincy, the Olympics, the U.S. Open, two Masters Series events in Europe, Stockholm and the Masters Cup. Get that man an armchair, a foot bath and a nice cup of tea!

What's the record number of match points saved in a match?
-- Kody Leonard, Portland, OR

• From Sharko:

This is a statistic that hasn't been monitored too closely in the past. But since 2001, the most match points saved on record is 10 by Rainer Schuettler, against Andreas Seppi 36 76 (13) 60 in the 2nd RD of Kitzbühel in 2004.

You posted a link to a good article on Daniel Nestor winning the career doubles Grand Slam. So, do you think he belongs in the Hall of Fame?
-- Rick Pittman, Toronto

• Again, I think the way to do this is to have a doubles wing. Comparing singles to doubles is like comparing relief pitchers to shortstops. It's just a different set of skills, a different set of criteria, different physical demands, different pool of applicants. Do I think of Nestor in the same way I think of a Jim Courier or a Boris Becker? No. Do I think he is among the finest doubles players of all time? Absolutely.

Jon, Here are some observations from Bank of the West Classic Last week - please comment:

1. Why would Serena want to play team tennis after Wimbledon? Why does anyone (not coming back from injury, suspension etc...) in the top 50 want to play team tennis?

2. Alisa Kleybanova - Does she not have the biggest young game in women's tennis? It's not always aesthetically pleasing - but sure is fun.

3. Sybille Bammer - top 10 game, girls 12 toss. (has she always thrown her toss up into the stratosphere?)

4. Alexsandra Wozniak - Steady wins the race.
-- Chris, Menlo Park Calif.

1) You got me. I love Team Tennis in theory. Mixed gendered events. Cheering. Experimentation. A cross between tennis and the county fair. But the scheduling -- always problematic -- is particularly dicey in this Olympic year. Players are always complaining about injury and overscheduling and then, in the weeks after Wimbledon and before the Open, during the grueling hardcourts, they're supplementing their schedule by playing in Sacramento and Schenectady? O-kay.

And the league also came up short when it suspended Justin Gimelstob for his untoward remarks, but insisted the suspension NOT be the match against Anna Kournikova (the object of said remarks) and her team. That one failed the smell test, big time.

2) There's a lot of game there, but (euphemism alert) there are some fitness issues that need addressing.

3) After her breakthrough in 2007, Bammer seems to have backslid in 2008. Never understand players with those moon-shot ball tosses. Seems to me, the higher you throw the ball, the bigger chance for inaccuracy.

4) Gotta take your word on that one.