Defending Federer, assessing Oudin's future, more Mailbag

Sheesh, Jon. Your love affair with Roger Federer is getting downright embarrassing. Have you ever written one mailbag column that didn't include, at minimum, a reference to him and how wonderful you think he is? I challenge you: Go back through your archives and see if you can find one column without a loving reference to Federer. Enough already. He's old news.
-- Sharon, Vancouver

• I probably got a dozen of these last week. Maria of Dallas went so far as to diagnose my condition.

I've been thinking a lot about Federer recently, particularly on the occasion of his 30th birthday, particularly while watching, voyeuristically, the unfolding parable that is Tiger Woods. Federer is the most decorated male player in tennis history. After a decade in the public eye -- scrutinized like none of us will ever know; the face of the entire sport -- what's the absolute worst thing you can say about him? At times, he comes off as arrogant? When beaten, he doesn't always heap praise on his conqueror? He's stubborn about his equipment? He's ... um ....I'm stuck. He wears white after Labor Day? Really, what?

Consider other athletes of his stature. Tiger is an obvious and easy comparison. But from Kobe Bryant to Alex Rodriguez to Brett Favre to Michael Vick, we see flawed athletes done in by everything from criminal behavior to hubris. We kill these athletes and celebrities -- just roast them -- when they disappoint us. Well, when they don't, that ought to be acknowledged.

We also need to take stock of Federer "in decline," such as it is. In other sports, athletes can drift downward. The system accommodates diminishing skills. You take a designated hitter spot. You make like Shaquille O'Neal and take a reduced role on a winning team. In tennis, you either win or you lose. Look at Bjorn Borg. He loses his magic, jumps on a plane and isn't heard from again. Federer is no longer the player who routinely wins three majors a year. But he's ranked No. 3, he's still on the caravan, he's still taking his job seriously, downplaying his age, resisting the notion that it's all gravy.

Perfect? No. That No. 15 jacket? The ungracious press conference after losing to Tomas Berdych at Wimbledon? We've called him on those accordingly. But those are -- to use a great Australian line -- pimples on the butt of an elephant. It's not a question of Fedophilia or, for that matter, Fedophobia. Consider his body of work in absolute terms. Or look around and see how he's comported himself relative to similarly situated peers in other sports. It's hard to avoid reaching the conclusion that tennis is pretty fortunate to have him around.

Why are Federer's ground strokes so shallow? How could he and his coach not see this and try to fix it? Trying to keep the ball deep is good tennis strategy, isn't it?
-- Venki, San Jose, Calif.

• More shallow than a Jay Leno interview? A puddle in New Mexico? The exegesis at the Jersey Shore book club? I'm not sure that the lack of depth on his ground strokes is Federer's biggest concern. But, sure, the deeper the better.

Melanie Oudin loses in the first round of Toronto qualies. Is she done?
-- Pam, Amherst, N.Y.

• No. If we've learned anything, it's you don't write off anyone -- even retired players! But there's no question Oudin has gone cold (like, cryogenically frozen cold) lately. This has to be a difficult period for her. It's a cruel lesson in the fickle beast that is fame. You're 17, and you're the darling at the U.S. Open, the special guest of the network morning shows. You have endorsement deals and make the rounds during the exhibition season. Then you're 19 and you're outside the top 100, your ranking falling as if it's on a greased pole. You're losing in qualifying draws and at Challenger events. That has to be a rough adjustment for even the most self-possessed teenager.

You want the unvarnished truth about Oudin? She wasn't as good as people thought she was two years ago. (Credit here to Lindsay Davenport, who took some heat at the time for being insufficiently enthusiastic about Oudin's long-term prospects.) Right now, she's not as bad as people think she is. Body and spirit willing, she could be a top 50 player. Wish her well.

I have asked before if we can finally pull the plug on Donald Young's career. After his performance at Legg Mason (where he reached the semifinals), I am not taking him off light support, but I do feel a pulse. What do you think -- the start of a trend or an aberration?
-- Phil O'Donoghue, Florence, Mass.

• Credit where it's due. Now that he's earning spots in draws -- as opposed to being gifted wild cards -- it's having a nice effect on his game. Is he a future Slam winner? Unlikely. Is he a tricky, flashy, Arctic-or-Sahara player who can spring an upset, win some matches and perhaps crack the top 50 (he's ranked 89th now)? Sure. Bear in mind, too: For all the drama and melodrama here, he turned 22 just a few weeks ago. Still time to polish the script here.

Jon, regarding Martina Navratilova's prediction that Federer would own multiple French Open titles if he had a two-handed backhand, she's assuming you can neatly plug in a different stroke and not affect the whole package. Without the one-hander, Roger is a different player. Different tactics, point patterns, movement and most likely a diminished slice. One could argue that he might own fewer French Opens, not more.
-- Curtis Sayers, Newton, Mass.

• I was talking to a tennis group recently and encouraged it to read Nadal's press conference transcript following Wimbledon. It's one of the more candid sessions and it spoke to just how intensely mental tennis can be. We get caught up talking about deep ground strokes and high-bouncing lefty topspin to the one-handed backhand and superiority in forehand-to-forehand rallies. But in the end, I think so much of tennis goes on between the ears. James Blake is wired one way. Novak Djokovic is wired another way. And X's and O's, while important, aren't likely to offset those differences. Curtis is ultimately right. Federer with a two-handed backhand makes for a totally differently player. Different philosophy. Different patterns within a point. Different positioning. But more importantly, Federer is Federer.

Does anyone (perhaps Greg Sharko?) have a tally of the Williams sisters withdrawals since turning pro?
-- John Gordon, Toronto

• I'd ask Sharko but I worry about a bandwidth issue.

I have little patience for "anti-doping" -- a hypocritical and tyrannical regime that is based more on moral indignation than science, and which wants me to believe that ingesting drugs is bad, but drinking Gatorade or buying the fanciest racket one can find is good because ... drugs are bad! The entire anti-doping house is built on a foundation of silliness, lies and false notions of "purity." Nonetheless, I have to say that I don't understand why you think it matters that Robert Kendrick didn't "intend" to enhance his performance. Anti-doping is a slippery slope. He did intend to mitigate the effects of jet lag, which in itself could be viewed as a performance-enhancing act -- in fact, if this pill actually did help him recover from jet lag, this almost certainly was more beneficial to him than the stimulant effect. I don't think this pill has any effect on athletic performance or anything else. Most illegal performance enhancers are ineffective if not outright countereffective. But that's not the point. The anti-doping overlords believe it's effective, and taking it "on accident" (but totally on purpose) doesn't change anything. And Kendrick's one-year ban for taking something that might actually provide some kind of material benefit seems downright generous in light of Martina Hingis' two-year ban for a substance that could not possibly have improved her play!
-- Joshua, Portland

• I don't disagree with much of what you write. But here's a critical distinction with regards to performance enhancement: Does the drug or treatment take you to a baseline level? Or does it take you beyond? If a player gets Lasik to achieve 20/20 vision, is she cheating? Most of us would say no. She's just getting to par. If she gets Lasik to achieve 20/12 vision, we might think differently. In Kendrick's case, he wasn't seeking an advantage. He just wanted to get "un-jet-lagged," same as everyone else. (Obviously this gets trickier with testosterone deficiency and the like.)