Serena impressive in her own right

Be sure to check out Andre Agassi's revealing autobiography excerpt in this week's Sports Illustrated. I'll be taking all questions on the must-read next week.

Love your column so hate to point out a typo, but in your last mailbag you said, "Serena would have a chance against a male outside, say, the top 200." I'm assuming you meant 2,000. Against players such as Raemon Sluiter (No. 215), Nicolas Mahut (226) and Amer Delic (232), points would be very tough to come by for Serena. Not at all a knock on the great champion that Serena is, but let's stay real about this.
-- Steve, Chicago

• Lots of you roasted me for this. I try to stay away from this question because too often it's used to denigrate women's tennis. We all know that the gulf between the top men and the top women is a vast one. Chris Evert has said when she and John Lloyd played practice sets, she was lucky to get a game. She was No. 1 in the world; he was barely top 100. Nadia Petrova used to practice with the Yale men's team and allegedly had a hard time keeping pace. Of course, Karsten Braasch, the chain-smoking German, beat the Williams sisters a decade or so ago.

Last week's question was specifically about Serena and I think her game (and her disposition) is singularly well-suited to take on a man. Does she have top 200 talent? No way. Would she beat a decent male college player? I might be inclined to take that bet.

But let's just stress this again: The St. Louis Rams would destroy the Florida Gators. Yet the Gators draw more fans, attract bigger television audiences, generate more passion among fans, etc. There's a reason for that. Don't use the qualitative differences between men and women as justification for "hating on the WTA," as Venus Williams might put it.

Nikolay Davydenko: 2010 Grand Slam champion, or solid and steady semifinalist?
-- Andrew Miller, Cambridge, Mass.

• Honestly, "steady semifinalist" is an overreach. If Roger Federer is 30 Rock, Rafael Nadal is The Wire Andy Murray is The Office and Novak Djokovic is Mad Men, then Davydenko is, like, maybe, How I Met Your Mother. Admirably steady, nice staying power, but not terribly compelling. Hey, this is fun. Let's take this a step further. Andy Roddick is Curb Your Enthusiasm -- not the most versatile, but reliably strong. Juan Martin del Potro is Glee, a strong newcomer ...

Anyway, give Davydenko his props. He's not the flashiest player or, for that matter, the flashiest guy. He tends to earn his rankings points opportunistically, winning, say, the indoor Masters Series event in Shanghai when the top players are hurt and/or mentally checked out. He's obviously best known for his alleged role in a betting scandal. Yet here he is. This question by Gwen Barde of Haastrecht, Netherlands, encapsulates it nicely: "When the top eight ATP players go to London for the year-end championship, won't Davydenko feel out of place or intimidated by the fact that the other seven (Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, del Potro, Roddick and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga) have become superstars and have fan bases? Or should we just call it the sublime character of his career -- low-key but hanging on there?

For the players who always seem to linger in the top 10-30, what is their primary motivation that keeps them going? (Three examples from both sexes I can think of: Nadia Petrova, Daniela Hantuchova and Amelie Mauresmo; Tommy Robredo, Tomas Berdych and David Ferrer.) Is it the money? Love of sport? Or hope that they'll have a surge "this year" and break into the top five again (or for the first time)?
-- Vincent, New York

• Motivation? See, the Phoenecians invented this thing called money that can be accumulated and then used to purchase goods and services. Less cynically, most of us will never be the absolute best in our career. But there is virtue in clocking in, trying our best, drawing satisfaction from small triumphs and motivations from shortcomings.