Federer's dramatic decline, the toughest of all time and more mail

Once thought to be immortal, Roger Federer is pained by the fact that he has not won a title of any size in the last seven months. 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

I have a theory that Roger Federer "jumped the shark" when he played the exhibitions with Pete Sampras last year. I know he did it as a nice gesture to interact with an idol and possible GOAT, but it seems he had nothing to gain by it and it perhaps made him doubt his own excellence and GOAT status. What do you think?
-- Daniel Fries, New York

• Just this past weekend, my cousin served up this same theory. Federer had an exceptional 2007, but it was still clear that Rafael Nadal was gaining on him. Instead of spending the offseason repairing his body or working on nuances to counter his rival, he goes on an exhibition tour. While Federer was certainly enriched, as was IMG, it came at a real price. The timing suggests as much, anyway. Federer started off 2008 in a hole physically, banged up and fighting mono. Plus, I wonder if these matches didn't exact a psychological cost. One envisions Federer saying to himself: "Wait, I'm struggling to beat a 36-year-old who hasn't played a competitive match since 2002, and I'm supposed to make inroads against Nadal?" It could, of course, be mere coincidence. But chart it all out and you could make a case that the "shark jumping" -- a term that itself has jumped the shark? -- started with those exhibitions.

As far as Federer's current state, the questions and comments keep coming and they're from two distinct schools. First: "Get off his case. He's still No. 2." Second: "He's cooked and we need to rethink the GOAT debate." I'll split the difference. Too many forget that Federer is not immune to laws of nature. Eventually -- especially as you reach your late 20s -- it's inevitable that the body will give in a bit and the competition will catch up. The pace of winning three Slams a year is not sustainable forever. These days Federer is merely excellent, not immortal, though some of the coverage would have you believe he's turned into a hack. A little respect for the man, please. And a little recognition that tennis careers undulate (See: Sampras, Andre Agassi, Serena and Venus Williams, etc.) and one rough patch doesn't mean it's over.

That said, I don't think many predicted that Federer's decline would be this dramatic, that he would go seven months without a title of any size, that his groundies would desert him, that he would weep and smash rackets and generally bear only a faint resemblance to the tennis demigod of 2004-07. (Reader Blake Redabaugh of Denver has this nasty stat: Since the U.S. Open, Federer is 0-7 against Nadal/Novak Djokovic/Andy Murray.) Many of you -- and many former champions -- have suggested that Federer has deluded himself into thinking he is still the best and he can still win on talent alone. Hence, the unwillingness to hire a coach or to take a few months off to retool his game, much as Tiger Woods once did. But I wonder if the opposite isn't true: Nothing if not a realist, Federer is intensely aware of the shifting powers; his confidence is fractured, he's second-guessing himself and he still at a loss regarding how to react.

Once again Serena Williams comes off as lacking grace. Why can't she congratulate Dinara Safina and say she'll redouble her efforts, play more tournaments and earn back the No. 1 ranking? She could easily do it. Why denigrate a fellow player?
-- Laura, Arnold, Md.

• I'm over it. I'm through calling out Serena on these kinds of remarks. Does one wish that her PR instincts or sense of sportsmanship were sometimes more finely tuned? Sure. But let's face facts here: We all know the identity of the best player in the women's game. And it ain't Dinara Safina. The truth is, at least half of the players in the top 10 rack up the points at smaller events, but are scared to win big matches. In Serena -- and, conflation alert, her sister -- we have a player who wins when it matters most, who stands and delivers, who will retire with double-digit Grand Slam titles. If a few impertinent, self-glorifying remarks -- however true they might be in this case -- are an unpleasant by-product, so be it.

How about a "tributito'' to Guillermo Coria, who retired last week? He was up two sets to love and two match points in his favor at the 2004 French Open final against Gaston Gaudio, but a couple of Gaudio's shots on those match points were an inch or two from being out. Coria was never the same again after that match. One wonders how much differently his life would have turned out if one of those balls were out.
-- Ian Katz, Herndon, Va.

• Amen. A fine career from a player who compensated for a lack of size and power with some of the best wheels in the modern era. Sadly, he'll be recalled as much for that French Open final and his doping suspension as for his more positive achievements. Hard to sugar-coat the French Open loss, one of the great chokes in tennis history. But read this before you rope him in with drug cheats.

You address a list of the greatest competitors the sport has ever known and you don't even mention Jimmy Connors? As Jimbo himself said, "I don't really ever lose. I just run out of time."
-- Dominic Ciafardini, Hong Kong

• I was only going for women. But what a great quote! I'd never heard that before. Also more than a dozen of you noted that we should have included Chris Evert on the "mental steel cage" list. Of course.