Dementieva a major contender, more mail on eve of U.S. Open

PRINT EMAIL FACEBOOK DIGG TWITTER RSS SHARE

Elena Dementieva's recent success has her primed for a U.S. Open run. Ezra Shaw/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

A 'bag before the big dance (and we don't mean this).

Re: the best-of-three recap: no love for Elena Dementieva, again?
-- BB, Columbus, Ohio

Maybe we should go best-of-five? Then we would have lavished praise on Dementieva. No question she deserves heaps of credit for her play last week in Toronto. And, more generally, she is on the short list of contenders to win the U.S. Open, playing some of the best ball of her career. I would add that for all the drama and melodrama on the WTA Tour, Dementieva has pretty much gone about her business, stuck to herself, declined the "sex sells" sensibilities, and almost a full decade after reaching her first Open semifinal is still in the hunt.

The inevitable "yes, but," is that she remains Slam-less, one of those players who can be dynamite in Tokyo or Rome or Toronto but has yet to string together seven wins at a major, the real tennis benchmark. With Serena Williams' generally shabby play this summer, the WTA hierarchy is as shaky as ever. And the questions/critiques keep coming. But I'm sticking to my story: In a perfect world, the top players compete consistently and don't allow their level of passion/play to drop depending on the event. It would be great if Dinara Safina or Dementieva or Jelena Jankovic could crush it at a major. It would be great if the Serena of Wimbledon could surface in Cincinnati or Los Angeles. I still, however, would rather shine at the Slams and bomb out in Madrid than vice versa.

I agree completely with you that the interpretation of postmatch comments has become a "gotcha" game for both professional commentators and bloggers. Don't you think the biggest problem is that the answers are quoted without context of the questions? A player's statement could just be agreeing with the question or replying to something specific that a player would never have brought up. I have started reading the full transcripts and you get a completely different view. I think many of the questions do not seek info or feelings from the player, and are just designed to elicit the quote of local interest or to create controversy. It's getting as bad as politics!
-- Ilene Staff, Hartford, Conn.

I wouldn't go that far. Joke: How do you know when a man is lying? When he appears on C-SPAN. But Ilene makes a good point about context. Andy Roddick will be asked whether he prefers facing Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer. He'll answer the question and someone, seeing only the snippet, will complain, "How come he didn't even mention Andy Murray or Novak Djokovic?"

Shame on you for the sexist comments that many women "would drop like flies if forced to play best-of-five" and "it is an acknowledgement that their bodies are different." Women are great marathoners. Many women tennis players have practices more grueling than best-of-five. They could adapt to best-of-five. You sound like things I have read from the '50s where "experts" said women can't serve well because their shoulders are different; women shouldn't lift weights because they will look like men; women shouldn't play physical sports because they might get hurt; women shouldn't engage in strenuous activities because they will have trouble having kids, etc. Women's and most men's tournaments should not be best-of-five because of time problems for television, spectators, tournament directors and an extra burden on a long season --not because they can't play it.
-- Jay, Little Rock, Ark.

Jay, I'm playing the "you mischaracterized my position" card. Here's what I wrote: "This is not an indictment of their fitness so much as it is an acknowledgement that their bodies are different and they often hit many more balls per rally." If women had the bodies to hit dozens of aces per match and keep points short, they could play best-of-five. (Exhibit A: the 77 aces in the Wimbledon men's final.) Since they don't win as many "cheap points" and hit more shots per rally -- not a criticism -- best-of-five would be difficult.

How can you pick Murray as the U.S. Open winner? Granted, he is a remarkable retriever/counterpuncher but does not finish points well enough and his second serve is questionable. Further, his body may not hold up with all that pounding he is taking.
-- Dean Pendergrass, Dana Point, Calif.

I picked him weeks ago and feel like it would be dishonorable to desert him now. After last week in Cincy, obviously Federer is the favorite. (Oh, yeah, that five-year winning streak bodes pretty well too.) But I do like Murray. His body will be fine -- his fitness level has gone from liability to asset in a short time. He's already won multiple Masters titles on hard courts this year. Like Daniel LaRusso before the California karate tournament, Murray is just ready to take that next step.

I hate to do this (well, not really), but a couple of mailbags ago you attributed Kim Clijsters' success to "a tired [Marion] Bartoli" in response to a sad-state-of-the-WTA argument. Now that she's added victories against Svetlana Kuznetsova and Victoria Azarenka (No. 6 and No. 8 in the world, respectively) to her unretired résumé, is this just Kimmy being that good or do you feel the need to revisit your stance on the WTA? And before you answer that, ask yourself when you last saw as many double faults in a men's semifinal match as you did in the Dementieva/Jelena Jankovic match in Cincinnati.
-- Jon F., San Diego

Are you down on women's tennis? Because I don't do down. Last question first: The stats from Dementieva/Jankovic match were outrageous. Apart from the double faults I believe there were nine consecutive breaks of serve to end the match. Still, can't that be entertaining in its own way?

As for Clijsters, I'm sticking with the half-full explanation. If she were winning matches and playing like Gail Stanwyck in Fletch, it would be one thing. But from what I've seen, she looks pretty much indistinguishable from the Clijsters of old. Also, one of you was savvy enough to note that she missed the 2006 U.S. Open so she's actually riding a seven match USO winning streak into town!

No U.S. Open wild card for Donald Young. Fair, foul or about damn time?
-- Pam, Amherst, N.Y.

Based on results and momentum, it would have been hard to justify giving him a wild card. The good news is that Young's ranking will entitle him to a spot in the qualifying draw.

A reader wants something on Philipp Petzschner? Gladly. In Montreal, he was in my opinion the best player on the court in the Petzschner/Lukas Dlouhy win over Bruno Soares/Kevin Ullyett. In the next round, in a moment of exasperation after a point he whacked a ball sideways, hitting the coach of one his opponents. PP took more than a tad too long to apologize to him, then objected (but not loudly) to the umpire's giving him a code warning. After the match (he lost), he shook hands with the guy he'd hit and talked to the umpire to try to persuade him to "please do not report me."
-- Allison, Wethersfield, Conn.

For the record, I was able to corroborate most of the above.