Wrapping Serena-gate, assessing Djokovic's dominance, more mail

For those tired of discussing Serena Williams -- and you're well within your rights to be -- skip this section. There was so much residual email, I didn't want to ignore it entirely, but I feel like we could all stand to move on.

Here are a few points trying to sum up as many Serena-related issues as possible.

• As any criminal lawyer will tell you, the past is relevant. Part of what made this episode so ugly for me was the context. At her previous U.S. Open, Serena had an ugly meltdown with an official and was put on probation. She's never been particularly remorseful. Given every chance to apologize or express regret (again, using a criminal court analogy, that's the first thing judges like to see from defendants), Serena either jokes, calls the 2009 debacle "awesome" or claims it's ancient history. During the final, on 9/11 no less, she feels victimized and again loses her cool with an official. Also, she references an earlier incident (in yelling to chair umpire Eva Asderaki, "Aren't you the one who screwed me over last time here?"). So she can invoke the past, but no one else can? And again, there's little in the way of self-realization.

Bigger picture: I was just talking about this on a radio show, but I hate that Serena has become this polarizing figure who -- judging from your mail -- is losing fans in droves. Tennis WANTS to like her. She is a 13-time Grand Slam champion. She is smart. She can be charming. She is independent. I look at the reception Venus currently enjoys and shows the capacity of most fans to warm to a player. Serena has done the hard part: winning titles in bunches and playing at extraordinary (unprecedented?) levels. It's a shame she can't get out of her own way sometimes.

• A lot of you brought up Mike Bryan's $10,000 fine for making contact with an official and wondered where the outrage was. Valid point, but I think you could argue the following: A) Track record matters and both players were affected by past acts. B) An episode that takes place on court during the women's final (with video available) is going to get more publicity than an act during a back-court doubles match. C) An episode involving a star and 13-time Grand Slam champ is going to get more attention than one involving a doubles player. (A really extreme example, but imagine if this were Kobe Bryant or LeBron James?)

• Predictably, a theme of race seeped into a lot of questions. Again, sometimes an antisocial act is an antisocial act and you should be able to criticize Serena without being cited for bias. The flip side: We should think about where our outrage was when Jimmy Connors called an official "an abortion," Andy Roddick referenced "1-800-rent-a-ref" or even Mardy Fish declared to the umpire at the U.S. Open, "I don't speak French, dumbass." (By the way, didn't he write the Three Musketeers?)

• I don't think there's much validity to the "heat of battle" argument. Plenty of us -- and plenty of other players -- have been in pressurized situations and kept our emotions in check. One of you wrote that if your child threw her peas and said, "But Mom, I am so intense," you wouldn't waive punishment.

• Asderaki sure likes herself some hindrance rule.

• Why wasn't a let called? Good question, but think about how this could play out. You sting a forehand to the corner. I barely get there and throw up a weak defensive lob. As you're about to drill an overhead, I yell, "Come on," and we simply replay the point.

• Now that the hindrance rule is hindered no more, it must be invoked against the grunters. The WTA ignores this problem at its peril. It alienates fans (and I can show you hundreds of emails confirming that) and it's officially become an issue. Why is "Come on" any different from the exhalations?

• What about Serena's generous remarks in defeat? I think this is a mitigating factor to some extent. My read is that she realized she had gone too far, that her outburst could dwarf the story of Sam Stosur winning and, admirably, she tried to steer the discussion to the winner. Other emailers make the point that Serena's ability to show a "good" side makes her lapses all the more upsetting.

• Many of us probably got a bit too passionate here. Serena's outburst was regrettable. But it does bear mention that she didn't swear, didn't make contact and didn't attack anyone. And regardless of what answer we ultimately reach, it couldn't hurt to ask ourselves: Would we feel this way if the athlete in question weren't African-American? Common ground (no pun intended): With Serena in the mix, it's never boring. On this surely we can all agree. Now let's move on. At least until the next time.

Isn't it a little premature to be calling Novak Djokovic's season the best ever? In 2006, Roger Federer won three Slams and made the final of another. He won the year-end championship and 12 titles. Djokovic is close. Three slam wins, and a SF, slight edge to Federer. He has 10 titles to Federer's 12. He has five Masters 1000 wins, one more than Roger. Roger went 92-5 in 2006. Djokovic is 28 wins shy of that right now. It may turn out to be the best season ever, but he's not yet earned it.
-- Mark Bradbury

• Djokovic could, of course, fail to win another match the rest of the year. But barring the supernatural, I think this has to go down as the greatest year ever. At least among men in the Open era. He's won on every surface, all over the world, under every circumstance. He's done this when the sport has never been more physical. He's done this when the sport has never been more global -- we've spoken about the rigors of travel and immune system and jetlag. Most important, he's done this in the era of Federer and Rafael Nadal. What was the one knock on Federer circa 2006? The competition might be considered shaky. (To wit: Marcos Baghdatis to the final in Australia?) Can't say that here.

What do we make of his "defeat" last weekend at Davis Cup, his third loss of the year, the same number John McEnroe had in 1984 when he went 82-3? At some level, a loss is a loss is a loss and players retiring shouldn't be gifted an asterisk. (What's the Aussie adage? Oh, right. "If you're fit, you play. If you play, you're fit.") But I can't help cut Dokovic a break here. He wins the U.S. Open with one of the most purely physical matches I've ever witnessed. This was the ultimate tennis knock-down-drag-out. Then he flies across an ocean and, less than a week later, is asked to play a Davis Cup best-of-five match against a high-caliber opponent in Juan Martin del Potro. Had he begged off, he would have been thoroughly justified and his record would be intact. Seems a shame to dock him for this.

Why did Djokovic get a pass on the post-match sophomoric chest beating and gauche gyrations? Can you imagine Bjorn Borg, Arthur Ashe, Pete Sampras or, for that matter, Roger Federer or Juan Martin del Potro carrying on in such a fashion?
-- Russell Greenidge, Yuma, Ariz.

• Different people, different personalities, different means and modes of expression. You win a Grand Slam and you can do what you like. Let me take this opportunity to stress a point I don't think has been made forcefully enough: Djokovic has really acquitted himself admirably as the No. 1. He's been charming and funny and outgoing and accessible. He's won. He's played to the crowd, letting it "in." No blunders, no fits of pique. (Consider this a dual legacy of Federer and Nadal, too. They've set the standard for how a No. 1 comports himself.) Some players have found tennis' equivalent of the green jacket to be uncomfortable and confining. Sure seems to fit Djokovic fine, doesn't it?

What's the point of being No. 1 if you're in the same half of the draw as the No. 3 seed? If the seeds are set up so that No. 1 plays 3 and No. 2 plays 4 in the semis, doesn't that make being No. 2 preferable to being No. 1?
-- Daryn, Troy, N.Y.

• Great question. My friend and colleague Joe Posnanski -- whom you should be following at @JPosnanski -- encourages us to discuss the seeding. Specifically, "Why doesn't tennis follow traditional seeding whereby a No. 1 plays No. 16 in the fourth round, No. 8 in the quarters, No. 4 in the semis; but instead places Nos. 1 and 2 on different halves but then randomly puts No. 3 and 4 in the two remaining quadrants, etc.?"

The answer is that if the rankings/seedings don't budge, the random seed placement helps with variety and helps ensure that, say, No. 1 (Djokovic) wouldn't play No. 4 (Murray) in every single Grand Slam semifinal. The great irony, of course, is that randomness has backfired, and a system designed for variety has bred very little of it. If this were coin-flipping, we'd be on a hell of a run. Federer and Djokovic (now No. 3 and No. 1) face each other time and again. Same for Murray (No. 4) and Nadal (No. 2). The big winner here is Nadal, I suppose, who should be drawing the third seed but always seems to draw the fourth seed.