A Gang of Four, Safina's level of play and Marat's mindset

Roger Federer is more than just one of the Gang, but challengers await him. 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

Now that Andy Murray has beaten Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal back to back, can we officially declare that the quadrumvirate era has finally arrived in the ATP?

Yeah, yeah, I know it's just an exhibition, but still... (Good thing there's no one who seems to be ready to break into the mix; I don't know what comes after "quadrumvirate"!)
-- Susie Q., Orange County, Calif.

• I'll take the easy way out and go with Gang of Four. (And maybe a five-way rivalry would be a quint-essence?) But I do think your question is valid. Over the last six months, Murray has shown that he belongs in the Big Boys Club. While he obviously lacks the Grand Slam title the other three have accomplished, one senses that it's a matter of when and not if. Exhibitions are obviously short of the intensity level and incentives of "real" matches, and are therefore of limited value. Nevertheless, no one is playing to lose. When Murray beats both Federer and Nadal in the course of a weekend, it has to mean something.

I spoke last spring with one player who was dismissive of Murray and who made the valid point that he got an undue amount of hype because of his country of origin. Today, one gets a much different sense. Between winning multiple big-ticket events in 2008 (something Federer did not achieve last year), beating Nadal to reach the final of the U.S. Open, and even signing with CAA, Murray, one could argue, arrives in Australia with as much expectation as anyone.

Do you have any inside information on Tatiana Golovin's health and career? There have been a lot of rumors going around online that she's retiring and then she's not retiring. She has so much talent but is always injured.
-- Paul, Minneapolis

• Oddly enough, I recently visited with Golovin at an undisclosed location (How's that for cryptic?) and am pleased to report that she's not retired. Her back, however, continues to bother her and she has no firm timetable for a recovery. She claims that she's working hard to keep her spirits up but she'd be lying if she said it hasn't been frustrating.

What are your thoughts on Safina and whether she will continue to play at a high level at the Aussie Open and upcoming season? Last year, she suffered a second day upset in the year's first Slam, which was a bad result but not so surprising -- given her past. This year, any exit before the fourth round on the hard court has to be considered a disappointment.

Safina's year was reminiscent to Sharapova's 2004 campaign without the Slam. My opinion is, she's always been gifted, but mentally frail. Something clicked this year. Beating three reigning World No. 1's en route to three Tier I titles and a slam runner up was no fluke. I hope she gets a slam this year (post-Justin era French Open perhaps?). What are your thoughts?
-- James Albertsen, Seattle, Wash.

• Let's start by noting that three of the top four WTA players -- Jankovic, Safina and Dementieva -- have never won a Slam. Hard to imagine that's ever happened before. I'm not quite so bullish on Safina. She had a terrific 2008, made admirable fitness improvements and played well on a variety of surfaces. Still, there's a world of difference between running the table in Berlin or Montreal and doing it at a Slam. (Comparing her 2004 to "Sharapova without the Slam" is like comparing a singer to Mariah Carey "without the range." It's all about the Majors.) Deep in a Grand Slam, I still don't entirely trust her self-belief just yet. Hope she proves me wrong. And long as we're picking on the clan...

I think Marat Safin kinda sorta announced this would be his last year on tour in a Hopman Cupinterview this morning. I knew this was coming, but preparation doesn't make me feel any less devastated. Your thoughts?
-- Sidrah Haque, Lahore, Pakistan

• And here we thought his street fighting exploits were the most noteworthy tidbit to come out of that press conference. True, Safin said, "It's probably going to be my last year for sure and I'm moving onto my new life." But A) this is Safin we're talking about. He's been threatening retirement for upwards of a decade now. B) More generally, I think athletes often make these claims as a means of motivating themselves. It either takes the pressure off -- "I'm outta here in a matter of months, so I can just swing away." Or it galvanizes them -- "This might be my last year/season/fight/race, so I'd better make it count." Either way, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if Safin appeared in Australia in 2010. No doubt making similar claims.

After winning a combined 16 Slams over a nine-year period, I think referring to a Slam each for Venus and Serena as "unconventional" sounds a little stale. After a decade peppered with streak after streak of dominating Slam victories over the elite players, I think they have forged a new norm. If winning Slams is the measure of greatness, then doing it by running the field year after year is the definition of winning, and winning big. They've helped redefine women's tennis and bring the sport into the 21st century. And, I beg to differ -- the women's match of the year was definitely Venus and Serena in the Wimbledon final. Great drama, steely nerve and stand-alone serving from Venus under pressure, not to mention the best serving and volleying on the women's side since...Navratilova maybe?
-- Andrew Roth, Sacramento

• I don't think the term "unconventional" undercuts their achievements. What they've done is amazing. But is there any doubt they continue to blaze their own trail? Look at everything from their schedule to their practice sessions to their coaching choices to their choice of string (Serena uses natural gut?) and it's clear they resist the prevailing norms. Nothing wrong with that. Have they "forged a new norm" as Andrew says? I would say not. I don't see too many other players emulating the Sisters' m.o. Have they "redefined the women's game?" Absolutely. But, as ever, it's been on their terms.

A number of you nailed me for the "Match of the Year" choice. Again, as much as I admire two sisters playing in a Grand Slam final, the Williams-Williams encounters just lack the required tension. Qualitatively, the Wimbledon final, in particular, was excellent. But when the competitors are (understandably) ambivalent about the outcome, it makes for awkward viewing.