ESPN.com

ESPN.com: Peter Bodo Blog

Peter Bodo, TENNIS.com

Has Ana Ivanovic hit rock bottom?
One of the biggest questions in women's tennis these days isn't a very pleasant one: How much worse can things get for Ana Ivanovic?

The 22-year-old Serbian had the world eating out of her hand as little as 18 months ago before a horrific tailspin, and just when it seemed like it couldn't get any worse (she lost to Gisela Dulko in the second round of the Australian Open), it did. Ivanovic, a former No. 1 and French Open champion of 2008, was so unimpressive in Fed Cup this past weekend that you almost wanted to turn your eyes away.

Fed Cup may not be the most high-value target for a player, but it's a resonant event in a small, proud, success-hungry nation like Serbia. And that's where Ivanovic almost single-handedly lost the tie to Russia before some 10,000 mortified hometown fans. To make matters worse, her frenemy, Jelena Jankovic, another former No. 1 who's struggled, if not nearly as fruitlessly, had Ivanovic all setup to be a hero on two occasions. That's no mean feat in a five-match Fed Cup tie.

Ivanovic lost the first match of the Fed Cup tie to Svetlana Kuznetsova. There was no shame in that, although getting just one game in the first set and losing 6-4 in the second added up to a blowout. Jankovic came through in the second and third matches for Serbia, stepping up to beat Alisa Kleybanova and Kuznetsova in back-to-back three-setters that left Ivanovic in position to clinch the tie with a win over Kleybanova.

Ivanovic lost that one, 6-3, 6-3.

Well, there was still the tie-closing decisive doubles, featuring the four singles players. Apparently, Russian captain Shamil Tarpischev sensed that seeing Kuzzie and Klebs again might seriously disrupt Ivanovic's resolve in a way that sending in fresh troops would not. About that, he appeared to be right. Ivanovic played poorly and the Serbs, despite being at home on the surface of their choice (indoor hardcourts), were beaten pretty savagely, 6-1, 6-4.

Fed Cup may not mean as much as most tour events, but you know that Ivanovic will feel the pain of this one for some time to come. She not only faces the tough task of getting somewhere (anywhere) back into the mix near the top (she's currently No. 23, a remarkable, perhaps unprecedented drop for someone who won a major and reached the No. 1 ranking in June of 2008). She must also win back the heart of Serbia. That, at least, will be a far easier task; when you fall far enough, there's a measure of sympathy accorded for slumping.

Ivanovic's biggest problem appears to be a loss of confidence. You could see it on numerous occasions last year, and most especially when she handled the service toss as though she were being asked to hit a live hand grenade instead of a tennis ball. Along the way, she also lost many matches that she seemed to be in a position to win. But when it came to closing the deal with strong, confident, aggressive play, she retreated and developed a case of what the golfing crowed calls "the yips."

The thing that has been missing from Ivanovic's game is that firm, steady hand that guided her to a major title at Roland Garros -- a degree of focus and free-flowing shotmaking that reminded many observers of Chris Evert. Ivanovic was never explosive (like a Serena Williams), overpowering (like a Kim Clijsters) or particularly artful (like Justine Henin). She won because she remained precise, modulated and cool.

It's not that far from cold to frozen, and that's just what her problem is now: competitive paralysis. You can only hope that she's one of those players who needs to hit rock bottom before she can start back up. It would be hard for her to sink lower than she did this weekend. I'm glad that spring, the season during which she's done well in the past, is just around the corner.

Forget Fed Cup? Careful who you tell it to

The first round of Fed Cup starts Saturday, and you can almost hear the collective groan going up in some places. Who cares about Fed Cup, right?

Well, obviously Venus and Serena Williams don't care much about the event -- at least not any more. But apparently Svetlana Kuznetsova is invested enough to have rearranged her schedule to help Russia in a tough first-rounder against Serbia. And obviously Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic care, and have been trying to fire up the Serbian base in advance of the tie, which Serbia will host in Belgrade.

It's the same old story we've heard before in the U.S. when it comes to Davis Cup: Nobody cares. Oh yeah? Tell that to Italy, which has emerged as a Fed Cup power simply because the leading Italian women -- Flavia Pennetta and Francesca Schiavone -- support the idea and the event. Pennetta, in fact, passed up an opportunity to play in that Tier II championships in Bali in order to represent her country in the final last year. Hence, the Italians won.

And you know who they beat? The Williamses-less U.S. team.

Italy, the nation whose Fed Cup women have found a measure of glory that their male ATP countrymen can only dream about (despite the lack of a superstar, the Italians have played three finals, winning two, since 2006), travels to Ukraine to meet the battlin' Bondarenko sisters, Alona and Kateryna. If the Italians advance, it keeps their effort to build a dynasty alive.

The highlight of the weekend probably will be Russia at Serbia. The two international stars of the host nation, Jankovic and Ivanovic, can use a morale-boosting victory in front of their wildly enthusiastic home fans. It will be interesting to see whether Alisa Kleybanova, who had a good Australian Open, can give Kuznetsova enough backup to secure the tie.

But even American fans who have no use for Fed Cup might want to pay attention this weekend as the U.S. meets host France. Melanie Oudin, who became an overnight sensation last summer, has two winnable matches (against, probably, Alize Cornet and Julie Coin), and how she does may be a bellwether for the upcoming big events at Indian Wells and Miami.

But there's a caveat: The French chose to host this match indoors, on red clay, on which Oudin's penetrating, flat game is less effective than on hard courts. If she plays well, though, the U.S. might steal out of France with a win.

The only tie of the eight-team World Group I lineup that doesn't have some intriguing overtones is the Czech Republic versus Germany, although I'm not sure Czech or German fans share that sentiment.

We have three good reasons to follow the Fed Cup results, even if the event seems less compelling than a WTA main-tour tournament or major. And even if you choose not to tune in, you can bet that many other fans as dedicated as you, around the world, will.

You may now resume your groaning.

Five things we learned Down Under

Is anyone out there in ESPNland still awake? Before we dive into bed to catch up on two weeks' worth of sleep, let's look at five big takeaways from the just-completed Australian Open:

1. In the WTA, it's all about who finishes second. This was a critical major for the women, for one reason: Had Serena Williams lost to either Justine Henin or Kim Clijsters, it would have cast doubt on the roughly two-year period during which those Belgian stars were absent.

The message would have been that Williams, who has the kind of game and personality with which you can find fault (if that's what you're looking to do), was just keeping the throne warm for a continued reign by Henin or a continuation of Clijsters' development as a dominant player -- a mission she abandoned in the spring of 2007 after getting to at least the semifinals at five majors, including the first one she won, the 2005 U.S. Open.

By beating Henin in the final, Williams established the fact that the best player has always been present and accounted for -- and that the titles she won during the Belgians' holiday were legitimate. Henin might yet put together another amazing year like the one she enjoyed in 2007, and Clijsters still has time to dominate the game for a good few years. But Williams is still at the head of the class.

2. The Australian Open is no longer the stomping grounds for "surprise" finalists or semifinalists. It wasn't so long ago that you could expect a Rainer Schuettler, an Arnaud Clement or a Thomas Johansson to figure in the finals action; a fit, opportunistic guy could do some real damage before the top players rubbed the offseason out of their eyes.

And that was an improvement over previous years, when you couldn't even bank on some top players making the trip Down Under. But it's different now; the guys who are supposed to get to the late stages keep their appointments. Everyone now starts the year in fighting trim.

3. Watch out for those floaters, ladies. The depth of the WTA game continues to improve, and no player who hasn't won at least one major (and some who have) is safe at any stage after the first or second round. Dinara Safina (she gets a partial pass because of her back injury), Jelena Jankovic, Caroline Wozniacki and Ana Ivanovic -- all established stars at the beginning of this year -- have to watch their backs. Victoria Azarenka, Vera Zvonareva, Yanina Wickmayer, Nadia Petrova, maybe even Flavia Pennetta and Maria Kirilenko all have out the long knives. And, oh, what about the two talented Chinese players, Li Na and Zheng Jie? The pecking order in the women's game has never been less stable in that Nos. 3 or 4 through No. 10 category.

4. Rafael Nadal is in trouble. At the risk of sounding flip, there's a serious risk Nadal has lost his mojo -- or at least suffered its diminishment due to his ongoing injury issues. Each week the guy isn't out playing and contending at tournaments takes a little away from his aura -- a glow generated by his ironman stamina and, more importantly, by the way being on a roll event after event now seems to have been so critical to his success as well as his mystique. Nadal's physical problems are bad enough; the mental struggles they forecast also are cause for concern. The best chance Rafa has to turn it around would seem to be a healthy, renewed assault on the European clay-court circuit, picking up where he left off in the spring of 2009, pre-Madrid.

5. Roger Federer is going to be Serena Williams in 2010, and I don't mean he's going to show up at the player party in Miami with his legs bandaged and wearing giant hoop earrings.

In 2009, Williams won three tournaments: the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the season-ending WTA championships. In Melbourne, Federer showed us those recent losses in Basel, London and Doha meant absolutely nothing. His terrific performance at the Australian Open has to convince him that he doesn't need to sweat the small stuff anymore. Showing up for the big events, like Williams does, isn't just possible -- it's the best way for him to extend his already-unsurpassed career.

With more motivation, Murray may have the ad

Quick, somebody get the blindfold and the cigarette for Andy Murray.

That's the feeling many people had after they watched Roger Federer disarm the potent game of big, strong, athletic Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the Australian Open semifinals, to set up a championship match with Murray.

But let's remember one thing before we hand Federer the title: Murray is a young player on the upswing; Federer is a veteran layering more frosting on a career that, although not complete, is already fully baked. And that just might be the difference in the final.

High achievers in the late stages of their careers have one thing in common: While they're capable of playing their best tennis on any given day, or any string of given days, they're also prone to experiencing puzzling letdowns -- days when the engine just won't hit an adequate RPM to beat a certain guy or take a title.

Federer's recent history with the guy who has been gnawing at his ankles in recent months was a case in point. Nikolay Davydenko has trouble bringing his A-game (or maybe it's his A-brain) to really big matches. He surprised Federer, who previously owned him, in their past two meetings before the Australian Open, one at the end of 2009 and one earlier this year in Doha.

Davydenko also jumped out to a big lead over Federer in their quarterfinal meeting, but Federer's alarm bells went off in the nick of time. Which happened to be the same time Davydenko seemed to realize that -- despite those two recent wins over Federer -- what he was on the verge of accomplishing wasn't supposed to happen to a guy like him. So it didn't.

The world No. 1 and 15-time Grand Slam winner can't afford to dilly-dally like that against Murray, unless the rising Scottish star gets a little gun-shy in the final. That's unlikely to happen, given the way Murray has progressed through the draw. Statistically, it's as close to a dead heat as you can get.

Murray has lost just one set during the tournament (and that was in the semifinals) and, just as significantly, he has played just two tiebreakers. Murray's ace count is 56, and he has won 33 return games. Federer has 46 aces -- not bad for a guy even more prone than Murray to use his serve as a set-up -- and he has won 35 return games.

Federer's first-serve percentage dipped below the 60 percent mark just once (59 percent, in the quarters). Murray has broken that plateau in just two matches, so you could give Federer a slight edge there. But neither of these guys is serve-dependent, so that edge is negligible.

Murray has a 6-4 head-to-head advantage against Federer, but as Davydenko showed the other day, beating Federer on a Grand Slam stage is a whole other matter. And Federer won his only Grand Slam clash with Murray in straight sets at the U.S. Open in 2008.

The one big intangible that Murray has going for him is that career momentum advantage, fueled partly by the theme that he doesn't have what it takes to endure the two-week grind of a Grand Slam event. Roger needs to be careful, though, because he can't afford to have a senior moment.

Henin's last step in comeback is a doozy

The only thing standing between Justine Henin and her return to the top of tennis -- a comeback the likes of which we haven't seen in four whole months now! -- is Serena Williams.

That's a pretty big obstacle. A lot bigger than the one that faced Kim Clijsters, the other Belgian comeback kid, who made a triumphant return to tennis after a sabbatical of almost three years last summer. Clijsters hit a few balls, won a few matches, and the next thing we knew, she was the U.S. Open champion. But she won her title over first-time Grand Slam finalist Caroline Wozniacki, who's no Serena.

When Henin and Williams meet in the Australian Open women's singles final, they'll be resuming a rivalry that was left deliciously (or annoyingly) hanging. Serena leads the head-to-head 7-6, although she was lucky to win No. 7. In that one, she crushed Justine 6-2, 6-0 in Miami in the spring of 2008. But that was shortly before the troubled, fatigued Henin decided to "retire" from tennis.

Before that, though, Henin had won their last three matches (all in 2007), losing just one set along the way. Henin's fans undoubtedly consider that a great omen and happily toss out Serena's last win as unrepresentative. But it's not as though those three wins Henin notched in 2007 were typical, either. That was Henin's career year.

The more relevant stat may be wins by surface. Henin is 4-1 against Williams on clay, and Williams leads 4-1 on hard courts -- the surface on which they'll soon meet. That definitely tilts the table back toward Serena.

From what we've seen in the past few weeks, Henin's game is virtually unchanged. She is still as deadly as a viper from anywhere on the court, especially with the backhand. She's still bold and quick and willing to approach the net to finish points. But she still has a fair-to-middling serve, and the number of times she has had to catch an errant toss in her past six matches tells you that she feels tentative and insecure about her ability to deliver a serve that doesn't leave her at the mercy of the returner.

The women's game is all about the return these days, partly because so few women have the raw material required for developing a great serve. Henin falls into that camp, but Williams doesn't. She has a terrific serve to go with her fearless, deadly return, and that helps explain why she has been able to handle Henin on hard courts since the very inception of their rivalry. Justine's lone win over Serena on a hard court was at the U.S. Open in that magical year of 2007.

The ability to hurt an opponent with the serve, as well as punish her with the return, is about as deadly a combination as you can create in tennis. And Serena has made the most of that one-two punch in Australia. Let's remember that there's no real strategic or tactical way to take away someone's serve -- or at least not the serve of someone like Serena. She can bring the heat like no other woman.

Of course, you can't predict how a player will serve on a given day, so all bets are off if the match becomes a track meet. But you have to like Henin's chances in a rallying and shot-making contest; she can conjure up breathtaking winners from anywhere on the court and has the nimble feet and slight build that enable her to run all day.

If Serena can win the battle of the first touch (the serve and return), she may yet prove that the WTA results of the past two years haven't been entirely irrelevant. She has made plenty of statements in the past, but with Clijsters and Henin back (and very close to the top), this would be the one with the greatest resonance.

Five faithless Aussie Open predictions
All right, the Australian Open draw has been made, let the punditry begin! Being a coward at heart, I'm not going to try to predict what will happen when they begin belting balls in Melbourne Park in … er, can anyone remember how to work out that time-zone thing? Is it four hours ahead and flip the a.m. and p.m., or … never mind. They're starting play any day now!

I hate making predictions; the only kind of glass I like staring into usually contains brown liquid. So instead of trying to tell you what will happen starting Monday (Australian time), let's list a few of the things that haven't a snowball's chance in hell of happening:

1. Justine Henin will not win the women's title. I think Justine has all it takes to win majors again, and for a period there a few years ago she looked like the only true warrior princess on the women's tour, but the girl is just too tightly wound. Melbourne isn't Brisbane (where Henin made the final, losing to her Belgian rival, Kim Clijsters), and Henin won't have the physical or mental stamina to go the two weeks -- especially not against quality opponents. I'm thinking Dementieva takes her out in Round 2 -- if that other Belgian, Kirsten Flipkens, doesn't beat her to the punch.

2. Roger Federer will not win the Australian Open. In a curious way, it's really a new career for Roger. Although he played reasonably well after winning his record 15th major at Wimbledon last year, he was mainly surfing the afterglow. Juan Martin del Potro shot him to rag dolls at the U.S. Open, and after that Federer seemed to develop something he's rarely had before: a stutter-step.

It really is a new start for Federer, and I can't see him surviving the bumper crop of great players just dying to take a shot at him. Igor Andreev in the first round is no gimme, and Lleyton Hewitt has been playing well. If he gets past both those guys, he'll still have Nikolay Davydenko and Novak Djokovic to contend with.

A year ago, this would have looked like a good draw, but I'm thinking that Federer is going to be suffering from a success hangover in the early part of this year.

3. The Williams sisters, Venus and Serena, will not meet at the Australian Open, except maybe at the Melbourne Starbucks. We've had it pretty good (or bad, if you hated to see the sisters have to go at each other) for a few years now, but we're at the point where expecting both of them to play their A-games all the way to a date in the semifinals is too much.

4. Nikolay Davydenko will not win the Australian Open. He's been on a roll, no doubt about it. Kolya has won six titles since August, and he took out Federer in Doha, but this is a Grand Slam, and Davydenko usually has an anxiety attack somewhere along the trail at a major.

5. Fabrice Santoro will not beat Marin Cilic in the first round. Oh, sure, Pete Sampras called the little French dude "The Magician," but Santoro will need more than a top hat and a deck of cards to overcome the fact that he's 37 and hasn't played a competitive ATP match since he officially retired (kind of like Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin officially retired) in November. Santoro is here to extend his record number of Grand Slam appearances to 70. This is one guy who puts no stock in the expression "less is more."

They should do a little on-court ceremony, give Santoro a gold watch, and send him on his way -- or he can start working the wild-card angle and extend that streak to 80, 90, whatever …

It isn't a bad day to be Marin Cilic.

Henin's Brisbane result a precursor for the Aussie?

So what did the entertaining final between Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin in Brisbane tell us about the WTA? Just this: When it comes to the WTA, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

The biggest takeaway is that Clijsters isn't the only top player capable of taking a long break from tennis and getting right back into the mix at the top. Heck, pretty soon it might dawn on Venus Williams and Serena Williams, Elena Dementieva, Svetlana Kuznetsova (who's only half there at the best of times to begin with), Maria Sharapova and others that they too can pull the plug for a year or two without major career repercussions. The other girls will always keep your seat warm near the top and graciously scooch over when you decide to reclaim it.

Given the WTA's obsession with "crossover appeal" -- hey girls, you win that Wimbledon tournament and you might score a photo shoot with Annie Leibovitz; I mean, we're not promising anything, but … -- there's a certain appeal to the idea that top players could drop in and out of the game between bouts of rehearsing for bit parts in sitcoms, designing earrings, recording a compilation album of torch songs or even having babies (there's always that Ladies' Home Journal crowd).

But we're not quite there yet. I need more proof before agreeing that Henin is going to be a major force in the women's game in 2010, despite the noble effort Kim made to allow her to win Brisbane. In that regard, Clijsters has picked up right where she left off when she quit the game nearly two years ago; she's still a bit cowed by Henin. How else can you interpret the way she gave up that 6-4, 4-1 lead and almost blew the match?

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

But let's get back to Henin. Getting to the Brisbane final is small potatoes compared to winning the U.S. Open, which is what Clijsters did last September, in just the third tournament of her comeback. Henin looked terrific at times in Brisbane, but she beat a passel of B- and C-listers, which doesn't represent the level at which she hopes to compete again. Does anyone believe beating Ana Ivanovic is a "big win" these days?

And, Henin being Henin, she found a way to cloud Clijsters' win with a distraction -- the leg injury that caused her to pull out of this week's WTA event in Sydney. Henin does drama well, almost as well as she does backhands and volleys. She's a hugely gifted but complicated young lady, so it will be interesting to see what happens if she draws a seasoned A-list player or an adept warrior early at Melbourne -- a Dementieva or Caroline Wozniacki, maybe even a Na Li or Marion Bartoli.

Henin will go into the Australian Open with just that Brisbane result on her résumé, and do you doubt that the Henin narrative in Melbourne will revolve around her health and fitness? Let's remember, this is the same young lady who quit while getting her fanny whipped by Amelie Mauresmo in the Australian Open final of 2006. She has a way of making it all about herself.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Roddick, Blake leave untarnished Davis Cup legacy
It's a sad, somewhat sentimental day for American tennis, because for the first time in nearly 10 years, neither Andy Roddick nor James Blake will represent the U.S. in Davis Cup this year. Both men have taken their names out of contention (Roddick believes the decision will help preserve his knee, while Blake, presumably, wants to focus on his ranking) for places on the squad they helped create, with a big assist from the U.S. doubles team of Bob and Mike Bryan.

Those four men have shown admirable loyalty to a competition that many top international stars, including Americans, often avoid. In the long term, Roddick's and Blake's most praiseworthy and lasting achievement might be having elevated Davis Cup back to a pre-eminent place in the eyes of young players and, to some degree, the public. Among others, Ryan Harrison, a rising American star (he's got a wild card into the Australian Open -- watch for him) is all fired up about playing for the nation.

Roddick and Blake leave significant statistical legacies. Blake was 21-12 (including 3-1 in doubles). Roddick's 31-11 record (all singles rubbers) is the best by any American player other than John McEnroe, whose brother is the 10-year team USA captain who put -- and kept -- together the Roddick-Blake team.

P-Mac, incidentally, doesn't want us to overlook the fact that most of the other U.S. players, most notably Mardy Fish, have always been ready and willing to step into the breech if needed. "You want to give Andy and James the props they deserve," McEnroe told me. "But the other American players were always ready to go, and when needed, they stepped up. It may be the end of an era, but I don't think it's the end of an attitude."

For example, in a relegation-round battle played in the Slovak Republic on clay in 2003, Dominik Hrbaty took out Roddick in the first match of the tie on an outdoor clay court. But in the next match, Fish stunned the Slovaks by taking out its No. 1, Karol Kucera -- despite the fact that clay is basically kryptonite for Fish. The U.S. went on to win (thanks, Bryans!) the tie. Remaining in the World Group enabled the Americans to make the final of 2004.

The U.S. lost that final, on red clay in Spain. But the team clinched the Cup three years later, beating Russia in Portland, Ore. Blake didn't handle Davis Cup pressure quite as well as Roddick, but he did a great job in Portland. After Roddick put the U.S. up one in the first match, Blake stopped Russia's Mikhail Youzhny in a tight second match before the Bryans clinched the shutout.

When you look at the success Spain has enjoyed recently (four Davis Cup championships since 2000), the U.S.'s 1-1 record in finals in this decade might not appear dazzling. But the astonishing global growth of the game (something for which Davis Cup rarely gets the credit it deserves) combined with the nosedive of the American game, presented formidable obstacles to success. What the U.S. achieved it earned with a rare degree of commitment, passion, team spirit, blood, sweat and tears.

Nobody bled or perspired or cried more than Roddick and Blake. You can throw the Bryans in there, too, but they're not done yet. In fact, if the team belongs to anyone now, it's Bob and Mike Bryan -- fitting role models for the Sam Querreys and John Isners of this nation.

Will Henin make a Clijsters-like return?
Shortly after Kim Clijsters opened the campaign of 2010 in Brisbane the other day, she said, "It was just a nice feeling to be out there again. I'm really happy that I'm here because it really makes the transition to Melbourne [site of the Australian Open] a bit easier."

But it's not like Clijsters needs a whole lot of transitioning to reach the level she hit about 30 days after taking an 18-month break from the game. Clijsters celebrated her return to tennis last summer by winning her second career Grand Slam title in just the third tournament of her comeback, at the U.S. Open. Heck, you could start the Australian Open tomorrow and she'll be just fine.

All seemed peachy for Clijsters until … Justine Henin's copycat decision to follow Clijsters back onto the tour.

Let's face it, Henin tormented and overshadowed Clijsters thoroughly through that Euro soap opera we might as well call Belgians Girls Gone Wild, Part I. Tiny Henin assembled Grand Slam titles left and right, while zaftig Kim had to settle for a reputation as the nice girl who finished second. At one point, Clijsters' frustrated dad caused a sensation by implying that Henin's physique and stamina had been improved (the job seemingly didn't require much) by the use of banned substances.

All this makes the tournament currently under way that much more interesting. Clijsters, the top seed in Brisbane, crushed Tathiana Garbin in a laugher in her first-rounder, 6-2,6-1. Meanwhile, down in the bottom half of the draw, No. 2-seeded Nadia Petrova put up stiffer opposition before folding and genuflecting to the sweetest backhand in women's tennis. She lost to Henin, 7-5, 7-5. Could we have a Henin-Clijsters showdown as early as this weekend?

I doubt it. While Clijsters made it clear last summer that it was safe for moms (and others) to walk away from tennis and then return after a reasonable interval to pick up where they left off (this will become a trend in women's tennis -- you heard it here first), I don't expect Henin to find her A-game as quickly as did Clijsters.

Here are my reasons: Henin always played a more precise, execution-heavy game than her hometown rival (let's face it, Belgium, for all its charms, is about the size of a town). It will take longer for her to get grooved and comfortable. Henin is also smaller and frailer than Clijsters; this will pose problems.

You can't simulate competition in practice, no matter how hard you go at it. It will take Henin time to acclimate to game-day conditions at the intervals demanded by tournament play. She'll have to develop the composure, physical comfort and reflexive decision-making abilities that her game demands. Henin had her hands full with Petrova, one of the more tentative and mentally frail of the leading WTA players. A woman with less talent but more grit will test Henin to the max.

You can't dial in as versatile and artistic a game as Henin's in one or two tournaments; the big question looming in my mind is just how patient Henin will be on her comeback trail -- especially when you consider the standard set by Clijsters. And age will be a factor for Henin: she's closing on 28, while Clijsters is two years younger.

But the big difference always was, and always will be, physical. If Clijsters were a car, she'd be a heavy-duty pickup with the off-road package -- a pretty rare and effective vehicle for women's tennis. Henin is a more familiar Ferrari, reliant on constant maintenance and fine-tuning.

For this long haul, I'll go with the pickup.

Will Agassi-Sampras competition ever end?

When Andre Agassi published his autobiography "Open" this fall, it added an astonishing coda not only to his career in tennis, but to his rivalry with Pete Sampras. And I'm not referring to the uncharitable comments Andre mixed in while expressing his grudging admiration for Sampras.

We now have official autobiographies from the men whose rivalry and all-around excellence are a high-water mark for the Open era. And a comparison of the books speaks, er, volumes. Read side by side, they underscore what radically different individuals these men are. Full disclosure is in order here: I was Pete's co-author for "A Champion's Mind," which you can take into account here any way you wish.

First of all, the two titles are telling. Andre wanted to fully expose his thoughts and emotions in his book; Pete wanted to let readers know how and why he went about becoming the all-time Grand Slam singles title record-holder in 2000. Thus, Andre's book is personal, as if he were saying, "This is who I was and how I felt about things." Pete's book is more general: "This is how I became a great Grand Slam champion, and these are the decisions I made while traveling that path."

Just as Andre rolls his eyes at the suggestion that he revealed as much as he did because he wanted to sell books, Pete scoffs at the idea that he was reluctant to reveal details of his personal life because he wanted to keep his dirty laundry secret. Andre didn't see the point in writing a book that was anything less than honest (and let's remember, that doesn't mean "objective"), while Pete didn't see the point in divulging details of his life that had no bearing on the story of how he became great. One big difference between the men is that Andre's personal fluctuations had a significant impact on his career; very little in Pete's personal life interfered with his own quest.

Ultimately, the dramatic contrast between the two men can be summed up pretty neatly. Pete's story is that of a guy who had a great gift, and treated it like it was gold. Andre had a great gift and for long stretches seemed to want nothing more than to trash it.

Pete's epiphany came shortly after he lost the U.S. Open final to Stefan Edberg in 1992. He decided he hadn't been willing to dig as deep as he needed in order to win, and vowed never to make that mistake again. He decided to accept the responsibility thrust on him by his talent, and the following year he won his second and third majors and it was off to the races.

Andre's epiphany more or less occurred when he won the French Open in 1999. That's when the storm clouds began to dissipate and he began to reconcile himself to the fact that as much as he might have resented the game and his personal history in it, tennis was the vehicle he could use to find his long-sought fulfillment. That was in his 14th season as a Grand Slam competitor. Pete's moment of realization came in just his fifth year as a tour player.

And lastly, Andre clearly wanted his readers to know how he really felt, every step of the way. (The book does a great job of unfolding in a perpetual present.) Pete didn't want to use his book for personal therapy, to settle scores, or to feed a reader's appetite for gossip or purely personal details about his own life.

The literary efforts of the men mirrored their careers and revealed basic truths about them: Pete resolved to remain above it all and tell how he triumphed. Andre wanted to dive deep into his often-troubled soul and tell us what it was really like down there. Both men succeeded, so once again we're left with the familiar choice: Sampras or Agassi?