Federer impresses sans nastiness

It would be hard to fathom Roger Federer giving a speech filled with back-handed compliments as Michael Jordan did recently. 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

Many sports media members are still discussing Michael Jordan's vindictive speech at his induction into the Basketball Hall of Fame. Am I off to say Jordan's rancor is akin to that of Jimmy Connors? Connors did not attend the opening of Arthur Ashe Stadium in 1997. He initially balked at being inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1998, contending that he had never retired. What do you suppose makes Jimbo and Air Jordan tick? Is it a personality type that does not age well?
-- Dan Martin, Dayton, Ohio

• You know the first person I thought of when I heard about Jordan's monologue? Roger Federer. In a million years, could you ever imagine such a tone-deaf, ungracious, self-absorbed speech at his Hall of Fame induction? Could you even begin to conceive of his calling out former junior rivals, recalling decades-old feuds, trashing Rafael Nadal, making only awkward passing reference to his own kids and threatening a comeback at 50? The Jordan apologists have cited this as an example of his "pride," a vivid illustration of his "fierce competitiveness," his "killer instinct." Whatever.

Episodes such as this ought to heighten our respect and admiration for Federer, who's managed to achieve all he's achieved without such an aggressive streak, without the me-against-the-world self-delusion. The knock on Federer is that he's not a killer, that doesn't have that "assassin mentality." To me, it's just made his accomplishments all the more impressive. He became tennis' analogue to Jordan based on his physical ability, superior fitness and accomplishments on the big stage, but without that "killer instinct" and the attendant nastiness.

Wow, Kimiko Date's win offers further proof (to me, anyway) that the women's field is really open for anyone to just step up and take the prize. How do you think a Kimiko Date from 1996 would fare in today's field? I could easily see her winning a Grand Slam or two.
-- Andy L., New York

• Date's winning an event at age 38.996, beating some decent players in the process, is a terrific achievement. But let's try to enjoy it without indicting all of women's tennis. (The ogre will note that she didn't have to play anyone in the top 10. Plus, it's the fall, when bodies are in the breakdown lane.) Even with the uncertainty and shaky play at the top -- you likely saw that Dinara Safina fell in her first match in Tokyo -- the women's game evolved immeasurably since Date's heyday in the mid-1990s. I'm telling you, spark up YouTube and compare a player from then (Steffi Graf and Monica Seles notwithstanding) with a comparably ranked player from today and you'll see what I mean. Bottom line: No one is claiming that this is the high-water mark for women's tennis. But let's not get carried away.

Inconsistent? Why were you all over Jelena Jankovic last year for playing 84 matches, but you (or anyone else) have not commented on Caroline Wozniacki's 80 matches this year? Besides, Caroline enters doubles about half the time.
-- Jerry White Mineral, Va.

• Another double-standard badge! Hey, if Wozniacki's body can stand it, power to her. The problem with Jankovic was that she would play relentlessly and then complain that her (insert body part here) was hurting.

Let's say the WTA realizes the good moment and turns the end-of-the-year tournament into a 12-player field with four wild cards -- Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin, Maria Sharapova and Melanie Oudin -- as well as Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Dinara Safina, Elena Dementieva, Caroline Wozniacki, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Victoria Azarenka and let's say Flavia Pennetta. Fans, media? Could it get any better?
-- Antonio Rabello, Brisbane, Australia

• The wild card to Oudin would rankle (at least the other three were former Grand Slams and No.1s). But if the WTA can finagle the rules to get Clijsters, Henin and Sharapova to show up, it would increase the star wattage by a power of 10. Perhaps you saw the splashy announcement that Serena and Venus qualified for the doubles.

Please excuse my ignorance, but why is one of the courts at the U.S. Open named after jazz great Louis Armstrong? No one I asked knew.
-- Karen Renfrew, Scotland

• Armstrong was from nearby Queens, simple as that. Sadly, The New York Times sports columnist George Vescey's suggestion to nickname the stadium "The Satch" never got traction.

I'm wondering if you are going to address the crisis affecting the ATP and WTA Tours: a seeming inability to dance! Martina Hingis was the first one out of Britain's Dancing With the Stars, after Monica Seles was the first one out of the U.S. version. The ATP and WTA apparently need to hit the ballroom as well as the gym! Anyone got game on the dance floor?
-- David, Wisconsin

• Tennis needs to serve up Gael Monfils for the next show. That will solve the problem.

Having just seen Marat Safin obscurely situated in the Bangkok draw, I couldn't help but wonder: Has he UNRETIRED already? (These "retirements" are getting shorter and shorter ...)
-- Jerry Woodbury, Minn.

• You'll note that one of his agents runs the event. What got me: This depleted soul who claims to be so burnt out and so ready to jump off the tennis ride is playing singles and doubles this week? The U.S. Open was Safin's final major, not his final match per se, so I don't think this counts as an unretirement. (Fabrice Santoro was also in the draw, though he too will play no more majors.)

More a comment than a question: I enjoy tennis (about the only sport I like) because it is more melodrama than sport. It's rich people and the commentary strains for personal storylines and players' personal lives. The game is almost an afterthought. I've gone to the U.S. Open a few times, and most people don't even know anything about the game -- they are just dressed and know the names that are in the news. It's Dynasty more than sport to me.
-- Tim D., New York

• Obviously, some fans have more interest than you do in the competition. But your point is well taken. The plotlines, fashion and (melo)drama are a significant component in the appeal. Other sports would kill to have fans so interested in the players as "figures" and "personalities" in addition to athletes. (What more does the average baseball fan know about Albert Pujols -- the best player in the game! -- that isn't contained on the back of his baseball card?) Tennis has a million marketing challenges, not least the itinerant nature and absence of a home team. But it also has some real built-in assets.

I read your book on pool hustling and couldn't stop laughing. But I have to ask: How good of a player are you?
-- Rich McClintock, Chicago

• Dude, when I'm done playing pool, I don't count my money. I weigh it. Sorry, I always wanted to use that line. Actually, I stink. (And I'm not saying that to sandbag.) I'm a decent shotmaker but never figured out positioning, which, as any decent player knows, is the real trick to the sport.