76.189.114.243 (talk) |
|||
Line 903: | Line 903: | ||
::::--[[Special:Contributions/76.189.114.243|76.189.114.243]] ([[User talk:76.189.114.243|talk]]) 20:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |
::::--[[Special:Contributions/76.189.114.243|76.189.114.243]] ([[User talk:76.189.114.243|talk]]) 20:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::Given the discussion at hand, there's clearly not consensus for your version of the lead. Because it was a recent change, [[WP:BRD|we typically revert the change]] until there's consensus for whatever version that is proposed. Please keep this in mind before continuing [[WP:EDITWAR|the previous edit war]]. Thanks. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 20:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:30, 24 July 2012
Roger Federer has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||||
Records section has a dubious (and unclear) new "record"
Ja, Federer very Bagus at Wimbledon this year. Same same but different.
The latest record added after 2010 Australian Open is unclear and potentially misleading. Oh no.
"Simultaneously held Grand Slam titles on clay, grass and hard court two times."
What does that mean? It seems to say, on first reading, that Federer won Slams on three surfaces twice in his career, but that of course is impossible because he's only won the French once.
I think it means that in July 2009 he was simultaneously holding Slam titles on hard court (2008 USO), clay (2009 French) and grass (2009 Wimbledon). After he lost the 2009 USO he no longer held a title on hard court. But now with the 2010 Australian Open, he again holds a hard court title.
It's very hard to make sense of this new "record", and even the reason for including it is unclear (is this an attempt to differentiate him from Nadal, who also held titles on three surfaces?)
It's also a dubious record, because it's as much about his loss at the 2009 USO as anything else. If he had won there, ironically, he would no longer have this new "record." Krosero (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Federer-Hewitt Rivalry
Anyone thought of adding a Hewitt or Nalbandian rivalry section (link to own page)?
I would consider adding Hewitt first, since he has the longest rivalry with Federer (started at the World Youth Cup in 1996). Hewitt is also one of few active players that has a leading head to head against Federer during the beginning of his career. At the US open this year they met for the 23rd time.
It's more interesting since both players were both number ones around the same time and battled out for that position on few occasions (to which Federer always prevailed). Hewitt's time at number one was actually long enough to be considered an era (unlike Roddick, Ferrero, Safin or even Nadal); holding the ranking for more than 1 and a half years, and only one of five players in ATP history to rank number 1 for every week of the year.
There are a lot of classic matches eg. The semi-final of the TMC in 2002, Davis Cup semi-finals 2003, Cincinnati Semi-finals 2007, US Open finals 2004 etc.
What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenger777 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's an idea but it would need some sourcing too Spiderone 17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay started working on the Hewitt rivalry. Please help to chip in anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenger777 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Well if you guys add the Roddick rivalry then you should definetly make reference to Federer's rivalry with Lleyton Hewitt. Federer has played Hewitt more times than he has played Roddick, and Hewitt has beaten Federer more times than Roddick has. --Excelsus (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenger777 (talk • contribs)
Definately need nalbandian....we got andy lleyton and rafa...definately need nalbandian.Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
agreed, a federer-nalbandian rivalry is essential due to their numerous grand-slam, masters series and masters cup meetings. also, the head-to-head is close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.224.124 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
personally, I think there is no reason to have anyone but Nadal listed a 'rivalry'. He's beaten Hewitt handily for like the last 7 years including 14 straight and while Roddick had the epic Wimbledon match, he's 19-2 against him as well. Nadal is the ONLY player with whom it can be said he's got a genuine rivalry. There's no way a whole new section on Nalbandian should be added. A 'rivalry' implies that the opposing player can actually beat him semi-regularly in semis or finals. Arleach (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Guys, if you doubt that Federer has had a rivalry with these players, you need to look up what the word 'rivalry' means. "Competition for the same objective or for superiority over the same field". What does 'competition' mean? "The activity or condition of competing". What does 'compete' mean? "Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same". So in other words, Federer has a rivalry with anyone he's played consistently (hence they are 'competing for the same objective' i.e. to win tennis matches/advance further in tournaments), especially in finals (hence they are competing for 'superiority over the same field'), whether he loses the majority, wins the majority, or generally wins as much as he loses. Maybe a skewed head-to-head record could be seen to imply the lack of a 'competitive rivalry', but the word 'rivalry' itself is not loaded - it's a neutral term, as described above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.52.59 (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Update to Roddick - Federer Rivalry
at the end it says:
On February 2, 2004, Federer supplanted Roddick as World No. 1 to begin his record reign of 237 consecutive weeks at number 1. Federer and Roddick are the only players to have finished each tennis season in the ATP top 10 every year from 2002 to 2008.
it should be switched to
...to have finished each tennis season in the ATP top 10 every year from 2002 to 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.51.158 (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done
Darth Federer
Should Darth Federer be added to the nicknames? This has been a common reference to his all-black outfits worn during night matches, especially at the US Open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.37 (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
dont think it should be added....the name pretty much dropped after '07 with the black shirt and black shorts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someoneawesomlycool (talk • contribs) 22:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
22 Grand Slam semi-finals
"...and as of July 2009, has reached the semi-finals or better of the last 22 Grand Slam tournaments"
The correct month is September due to have reached the semi-final in the current 2009 US Open. --201.199.71.26 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
can someone change the pic?
This picture makes Federer look very short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.182.59 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
greatest
- Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time.
What about fellow active players? Most of them agree as well. It's an open secret that losing against Federer is not considered a stain, and many still active players have said so at many points. 78.34.101.44 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Biased Intro?
The intro seems really biased somehow. Maybe it could use a little tweaking? TY Kausill (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Opening sentence - greatest of all time?
Rod Laver won 2 calendar year grand slams, has won more singles and doubles titles and was world number 1 for a much, much longer period of time. This sentence may be able to be sourced, but it is untrue. Federer is one of the most successful tennis players of all time. There is no best. Federer is undoubtedly the most successful tennis player of recent times, but he certainly isn't the most successful of all time, he's got a fair way to go yet. He himself also admits this and one of his biggest inspirations/idols is Rod Laver himself. Nick carson (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Rod Laver's first though was when Ken Rosewall and Lew Hoad were playing professionally, and were better than him at the time. Federer's 15 Slams do make him the most successful, and he has reached all 4 finals twice in one year, winning 3 (and has a chance to repeat that in 2009), so he has been very close to doing a Laver. But you are right though, impossible to say who is the "best" of all time. Pancho Gonzalez was so good they changed the rules twice to try to stop him, for example! 86.177.171.46 (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Federer has won few titles in his career (67 at feb.2011) compared to Laver,Rosewall,Connors or Lendl (more than a hundred each), so he definitely cannot be considered "the greatest ever". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.123.187 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Greatest of all time, indeed!
On several counts you are mistaken, Nick. Federer holds the record for most CONSECUTIVE weeks at number one, 237. He holds the record for most majors won (15). He's the only man ever to have won 2 majors 5 years in a row. He holds the longest grass-court and hard-court winning streaks in history. He's the only male player ever to win 3 majors in 3 different years, and the only player in the open era to have won 5 Wimbledons and 5 U.S. Opens in a row! Rod Laver played 3 of his 4 majors on grass; Federer has won all 4 majors on 4 different surfaces (clay, grass, and two different kinds of hard court).
Please note, too, that the sentence in the first paragraph merely quotes the legends and experts of the game. Wikipedia is not taking a stand on "greatest of all time"; it is quoting many who believe Federer is the greatest. Thank you. TheTennisObserver (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver
- Greatest male player perhaps. Greatest player? Not so sure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.213.116 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like every time I come here someone's questioning, challenging, denying, or altering the latest version of this sentence. I can hear the opposition now: "And I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids and your dog." In all seriousness, it's nice that there's been such careful consideration and civility displayed by both sides. -- James26 (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, James. I've always maintained that there is a clear and important distinction between Wikipedia coming out and proclaiming Federer "the greatest of all time," and Wikipedia citing the opinion of tennis legends and other serious commentators who believe that. Frankly, I don't know why some people object to the wording of that sentence. It is both accurate and neutral. TheTennisObserver (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver
- In order to maintain factual accuracy, I'd suggest Many sports analysts, tennis critics, former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time. be replaced with Many sports analysts, tennis critics, former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest male tennis player of all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.62.147 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- The word "male" is superfluous, since the best male tennis players of all time are undeniably better than the best female tennis players. Besides, the people Wikipedia is quoting usually say about Federer that he's "the greatest of all time" (no qualifiers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Federer is the greatest player of all time. His career is unbelievable, and he is playing in modern tennis unlike Rod Laver. We all know Laver played amateur tennis half of his career.vdcvtv (talk)
I think it should be clearly stated that Nadal is quick to refer to Federer as the greatest even though they are rivals. Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Like who cares, you can't compare different eras, it's an absolute absurd and pointless topic. Surfaces were alot different before the 2000's and you seldom saw people doing what Federer does because it was naturally a lot harder, if Sampras played on the current French courts, I would see him doing slightly better, and same for clay courters like Kuertan among others at Wimbledon. It's a null topic and should just be "regarded as ONE of the GOATs". - Jack Moult 28th January —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Moult (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the current wording where it makes reference to the opinions of others is fine, previously it was a much more judgemental statement. It is wholly a matter of opinion and hardly cut and dried - Federer obviously holds many records on paper but that does not necessarily, factually, make anyone the GOAT. There are several empirical factors that the claim can be disputed on - the arguable weakness of the era, Nadal's utter dominance of their rivalry, his inability to win the Grand Slam, etc. 203.33.163.120 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
"...Nadal's utter dominance of their rivalry...": 16-8 over 'the greatest'... 84.221.100.243 (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Federer was damn good in previous years but he has been losing too much lately and making some ridiculously crap shots. I know the article's statement "greatest player of all time" in this article is meant to reference claims by a number of authoritative sources, but most of these claims were made years ago when Federer was in his prime. Now I'm not so sure they would say the same thing, so if he continues down the path of losing and making piss poor shots, an update may be in order.... Pick it up Fed! --82.31.164.172 (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Adding Rivalry with Roddick section
It is rare for Roger Federer to play a single player many times, since he has faced so many different opponents in the GS final until recently. As everyone knows the Federer/Nadal Rivalry, Federer also had a rivalry with Roddick going back to 2004 and 2005 Wimbledon. He also played him in an US open GS Final a few years back and the Wimbledon this year. Even though Roddick has never beaten Federer in a Grand Spam, I think its a noted rivalry to add to this page. Does anyone else agree?--Harish89 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC). This page needs to be archived again.ROxBo (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- A few years back - I think it was after the Wimbledon final in 2005 - Andy Roddick said, only half kiddingly, that until he starts beating Federer there really isn't a rivalry between the two. This, I think, is one of the questions people could raise: can you have a rivalry when one guy has won 19 of 21 encounters? Maybe we can use a different word than "rivalry"? I agree, though, that some reference of the Federer-Roddick matches is in order. Many of their matches have been close, and an equal number have been entertaining. Thanks. TheTennisObserver (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver
Well if you guys add the Roddick rivalry then you should definetly make reference to Federer's rivalry with Lleyton Hewitt. Federer has played Hewitt more times than he has played Roddick, and Hewitt has beaten Federer more times than Roddick has. --Excelsus (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)````
Guys, if you doubt that Federer has had a rivalry with these players, you need to look up what the word 'rivalry' means. "Competition for the same objective or for superiority over the same field". What does 'competition' mean? "The activity or condition of competing". What does 'compete' mean? "Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same". So in other words, Federer has a rivalry with anyone he's played consistently (hence they are 'competing for the same objective' i.e. to win tennis matches/advance further in tournaments), especially in finals (hence they are competing for 'superiority over the same field'), whether he loses the majority, wins the majority, or generally wins as much as he loses. Maybe a skewed head-to-head record could be seen to imply the lack of a 'competitive rivalry', but the word 'rivalry' itself is not loaded - it's a neutral term, as described above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.252.41 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone Please Revert & Protect 1st Paragraph of Federer Article
I noticed today (July 16) that the vandal "Zohair" has once again changed the wording of the first paragraph of the Roger Federer article. This guy has not contributed to the discussion page at all. Why he hasn't been banned from editing is beyond me. Thanks in advance. TheTennisObserver (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver
military service
- Like all Swiss males, Federer is subject to compulsory military service in the Swiss Armed Forces. Unfortunately, long-standing back trouble led him to be declared inapt in 2003 and he was unable to fulfill his obligations[22]. Nevertheless, he did not let it affect his tennis and bounced back to win Wimbledon that year.
I think this piece of information has not much to do with Federer's personal life (by the way his being photographed as King Arthur neither), and it carries heavy irony. It is permissible in a newspaper but not in an encyclopedia. I delete the paragraph. Pumukli (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is very proper that you start a section on Talk to explain your deletion. Thank you. As the author of the piece, please allow me the right of reply; First of all, I am British so I tend to be genetically disposed to irony - what to me is mild tongue-in-cheek might seem heavy to others. Secondly, I learned recently about Federer's military service history and was so amazed by it, I came to Wikipedia specifically to check it. When I found no mention of the subject, I thought I'd better put something in.
- Apart from the irony aspect, I'm not quite sure what's wrong with the piece. It is an important fact that has attracted some discussion in Switzerland and which costs Federer over 400,000 CHF a year (he has to pay an exemption tax). I hope you don't object that the piece reflects badly on Federer; we are not writing a hagiography of the man, are we? So, if you don't mind, I'll remove the irony and put something like this back in: Like all Swiss males, Federer is subject to compulsory military service in the Swiss Armed Forces. However, long-standing back trouble led him to be declared inapt in 2003 and he was not required to fulfill his obligations[22].--Oscar Bravo (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- The problem I have with it is that it should perhaps be noted that he was not fit enough to be part of the military, yet he was fit enough to win Wimbledon. I'm very tempted to do some research to see if there is anything about this on the internet, because it all seems very iffy to me. Anyway, at the moment I think it should stay in the piece, because someone might think "don't all swiss people have to do military service? I know, I'll check wikipedia to see if Roger has done some!" This, for me, is a good enough reason to keep it at the moment. Alan16 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support, Alan16. I live in Switzerland and can assure you that the story is true. I will check up some links.
- It caused a great deal of debate at the time and the issue was re-ignited recently when his local cantonal authorities decided not to call him up for Civil Defence work (usually the alternative for people who cannot do military service). The general consensus was that Federer has already done rather a lot for his country by his tennis exploits and so most people were quite happy for him to be excused. However, it raised the question that shouldn't there be a systematic and official way of excusing elite sportsmen, performers, scientists etc. from their obligations, without resorting to rather fishy appeals to ill-health (I assume most people would agree that if someone is fit enough to win Wimbledon, he should be able to do a bit of square-bashing).--Oscar Bravo (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, neither version posted here is on the actual article. I think something along the lines of what was there without perhaps the "didn't let it affect his tennis" bit - that's a little POV. However I think it is worth stating that he was too ill to do his military service yet he won Wimbledon - that is NPOV and it suggests the "iffyness". Alan16 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
re Oscar Bravo: sorry for answering this late. I mainly objected to the irony and the placement of your paragraph. I actually rather enjoyed your remark in general (my nation also like humour and irony) : what made me think it was heavy is that it not only made me smile, but I immediately felt that in this context such a remark affects his image in a negative way, and the damage is not proportional to the mischief. Let me explain: in this article his character is not at all reflected on (and it may be right), but without a proper characterisation such hints get too much emphasis, and a random reader immediately catches their connotation. You and I know what a person Fed is, and we do enjoy such a history, but if somebody comes across this article without knowing him, he would think Fed is a liar. Also the placement of your paragraph underlines this effect: it is right in the personal section at the beginning of the article: too much in the centre of attention. Pumukli (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since we seem to agree, I've put back in an irony-free version. The Personal Life section is the only part of the article that isn't about tennis so that's the only place I can think of to put it (please move it if you think of a better place). BTW, I don't actually know RF at all. I have never met him and what I know about him comes only through the media. I don't know why he didn't do his military service; may be he really did have a bad back (he's pulled out of competitions on this basis).--Oscar Bravo (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think, the sentence should read "all male Swiss" (or "all male Swiss citizens" or similar) and NOT, as it is now, "all Swiss male". Thank you for correcting this stylistic error. 92.107.46.56 (talk)
how many swiss athletes do military service anyway? philippe senderos? valon behrami? thabo sefalosha? stanislas wawrinka? don't make it sound like Federer was the only one. On a less serious point- Swiss military- oxymoron! i thought they were neutral in everything. what was federer going to do, learn how to use knives that could open a tin can in two weeks? i'm sorry, that's terrible of me. i love the swiss.
- You are mistaken. Core element of our Military training is exercise in shooting precise holes in cheeses... --84.74.149.202 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
New edits
It would be nice if someone could edit the final paragraph in the '2009' section and the comment for 'runnerups' since, to me, they read as being opinionated and in favor of Murray and, especially the second one, aren't really necessary (I think the runner up section was removed at some point anyway?). I was also thinking that if we have a paragraph like the one for the Rogers Cup for every tournament Fed partakes in for the rest of the year, while all the information is great and I like reading it, the whole thing's going to get very long - maybe it should be more concise? Idk, just some thoughts :) --86.157.53.253 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
exactly, i missed ur comment and posted something similar. oops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demondayzzz (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Runner Up section bias
"As shown above, Federer has never lost a Grand Slam final to an opponent other than Nadal, which greatly contributes to their rivalry. With the rise of Andy Murray to World No. 2 (supplanting Nadal) and the 2009 U.S. Open just around the corner, this unique statistic may change. After all, Murray reached Federer in last year's final when he was only ranked World No. 6 before that tournament. Moreover, Murray walked away from Montreal with another Masters title, whereas Federer exited relatively early, after losing unexpectedly to seventh seed Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. This is significant, because that tournament marked the beginning of their participation in the hard court season."
Scrap everything after the first sentence, which is all speculation, and making a meal out of winning the Rogers Masters. Federer was horrible last season in the US open run-up, lost his #1 ranking, then ended up winning it. Anyway none of that has to do with the section it's in.
Someone should delete that part. It's complete out of place. It seems that a "Murray fan" put his hands in this section. Is all speculation like saying Andy Murray is going to win this next US Open because he's having a good US Open season. Please I recommend the owner to remove this section rigth away. Otherwise I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josema18 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
if not already deleted it should be....he lost to del potro in five at us open —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someoneawesomlycool (talk • contribs) 22:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It is well known that Federer completed his carrer Grand Slam. Is it that Federer is the only person who can obtain championship and runner-up in every Grand Slam? Are there any player except Roger can obtain all runner-up in every Grand Slam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.242.233 (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Lendl and Laver both also have been at least once runner-up in all Grand Slams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Playing style
Shouldn't there be a bit more in this article about Federer's playing style? A good deal of everything that is said about him during his matches revolves around the grace of his game. Federer has perhaps the best footwork and anticipation in the world, which is why he rarely looks hurried and always appears to be in position to hit the ball.
Perhaps there should also be mention of his fitness -- if Nadal receives so much attention on account of his fitness, why shouldn't Federer? After all, consistently playing 6 or 7 matches in Grand Slams for the last five years, Federer has never retired or even appeared to suffer the effects of fatigue, and he's certainly never lost a match due to lack of fitness. The most obvious and recent example of fitness deciding a Federer match was Wimbledon 2009, where Federer and Roddick were dead even until the latter began to tire visibly and produce unforced errors.
Also, nothing is really said about his general style, which is to say aggressive and attacking. Calling him an "all-court player" is too brief, in my opinion. It ought to be noted that, while Federer is capable of playing skillfully anywhere on the court, he is generally aggressive. Instead of relying on errors or fatigue to doom his opponents, he is renowned for constructing points (hence his artistry), maneuvering his opponent into a bad position, and then hitting a clean winner.
Anyway, these are just items for thought and, hopefully, further discussion. I just believe it would be appropriate to expand this section a bit. Federer didn't earn the nickname "Swiss Maestro" for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pntgrdtim (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
agreed about the fitness thing; his 800+ matches without retiring is a record and it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.224.124 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Should his second tweener at the U.S Open 1st round be mentioned after the one from last year's U.S Open?86.45.142.189 (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)BadgerPM
Typo
"continuing a fourteen match winning streak again him." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.69.66 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Done PizzaofDoom Talk Edits 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have found a second problem, though i dont know if it's considered a typo. In the article, it states under Rivalry with Rafael Nadal, "Nadal has not lost a French Open (4) or Australian Open (1) final, while Federer was undefeated in US Open until losing to del Potro (5)." This is incorrect. Federer wasnt undefeated overall, he was undefeted in US Open Finals
- Done Someoneawesomlycool Talk Edits 16:46, 31 December 2009
Residence?
How come his residence is not listed as Bottmingen, which every broadcast on CBS or NBC uses for his residence!98.240.44.215 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
IPA removed?
Why was his IPA removed? Spiderone 15:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Reference for Roger's "best shot I ever hit"
The between-the-legs, inside-out forehand Roger did in the US Open 2009 is a rarely used shot that was used by the first time in an official game in Indianapolis, 1975 by Guillermo Vilas. Due to its origin, the shot is called "Gran Willy" (Great Willy) by Spanish talking people (Guillermo = William)
There is an article in es.wikipedia with the history of this shot: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_willy
Translation summary follows: Guillermo Vilas said that to create this stroke he was inspired by a polo shot done with the mallet between the legs of the horse. He used it for the first time in and exhibition game in Obras Sanitarias de Buenos Aires (1974), against French player Wanar N'Godrella. In an official match, the shot was used by Vilas for the first time at the Indianapolis tournament (1975), on clay, against the Spanish player Manuel Orantes. It is a defensive stroke, an exceptional response to a lob when the player has already been surpassed by the ball. The player must run to the ball, his back to the net, step over the ball when it is about to reboud a second time and, synchronously, hit the ball. Although it is a desperate stroke, the player may surprise the opponent. Typically, it goes just over the net, producing a remarkable passing shot. Eventually, the shot may be used to produce a lob, as Nicolas Lapentti did at Roland Garros (2003), Fabrice Santoro in Newport (2008), and Gaston Gaudio in Argentina (2008). Brindis15 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindis15 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we can't use other wikis as a source if that's what you mean. Spiderone 17:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Some advice
I think it's a shame that this isn't a GA. Maybe I'll work on it one day.
Anyway here's some stuff:
- en dashes should be used for scores
- too much overlinking: players like Andy Roddick and Rafael Nadal are linked several times and should only be referred to by their surname other than in the first mention
- Is the Federer-Djokovic rivalry notable if it doesn't have an article any more?
- There are a few unsourced statements but this isn't the main problem.
Spiderone 17:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let me know if I can help. The article seems like it's close to GA-quality. Enigmamsg 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes a lot of the basic criteria for GA status are met in the article. It has a reasonably good lead, the coverage is probably as broad as a tennis bio can be and it seems to be quite stable. Perhaps a peer review would be necessary before GAN and I can see a lot of players with names linked twice in the same paragraph which is frowned upon. Also I did notice a "citation needed". Spiderone 07:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try to finish with the en dashes next week, and then maybe we can try another GAN. Enigmamsg 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, can you find a source for that "citation needed" as well? Spiderone 07:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a little tricky. On his ATP World Tour page, it states "Joined Laver as only players to win at least three Grand Slam titles in two different seasons (Laver won Grand Slam in 1962, ‘69)." Federer did win three in 2004, 2006, and 2007, which implies that they've erred in not recognizing that. Enigmamsg 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Shall we just remove the statement altogether? Any potential GAN would be ruined as clean-up tags result in a quick fail. Spiderone 17:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
En dashes Done for entire article. Only thing I left was records like in the Federer/Nadal rivalry section. Enigmamsg 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Any further comments? When can we nominate this? Enigmamsg 06:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think there's probably still sourcing to do. I'll get a peer review. Spiderone 07:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I can comment on the PR page since I'm not a volunteer there, but I have issues with how the "Childhood and personal life" section is written/organized. There is a lot written about the charities he participates in and random information about stuff he's a fan of. I don't think it's important to mention he's a fan of certain sports... but I highly suggest looking at Tiger Woods' article, and you will see there is a section called other ventures that goes into the charities he's involved in, and really, other major involvements. I suggest, since Woods' article is already GA class, that you take a look at how it is written and possibly emulate what would work into Federer's article, especially since I think once Federer's article is more neatly organized, it can be use as the template for other tennis players' articles. oncamera(t) 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Aren't we about ready to try for another GAN? By the way, tennisman, this wouldn't help towards the one FA per quarter. :P Enigmamsg 18:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
del potro loss score wrong way round
in the runners up section under Grand Slam performance timeline should be 3–6, 7–6(5), 4–6, 7–6(4), 6–2
not 6–3, 6–7(5), 6–4, 6–7(4), 2–6
- Done PizzaofDoom Talk Edits 04:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Previous picture?
I know about the whole fair use policy of the pictures used, and how multiple pictures that qualify are all equally good. But I wonder why the picture has been changed now from the last one? I thought the last one was really great, but I guess my opinion on it doesn't matter here. Or was it changed just to do regular changing as time goes by? Just a fill-me-in would be nice. I still miss the old picture though lol ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Picture changes should always be discussed on the talk page beforehand. Spiderone 10:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Images facing text
According to this images must, if possible, have their eyes facing the text. Could alternative images be used for the 2009 French Open and 2009 Wimbledon to fix this? Simply moving them to the other side would look awkward I feel. Spiderone 17:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- This has to be a bad joke, on photo of Federer and one of Nadal in the FEDERER article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.150.47 (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Retiring from matches
I think it's an interesting bit of trivia (and says something about his dedication) that Federer has never retired from a match in his entire career, but I can't think exactly where it would fit in. Any ideas?
- It would need to be sourced first. Perhaps it could go in the playing style section. Spiderone 19:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
We can also add a new section on Roger Federer Trivia, with this and other facts. Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Style of the Equipment, apparel, endorsements section
Based on oncamera's advice above, I made some changes to this section that seem like they'll make it look considerably cleaner. While the current version used on the page is full of jargon and excess verbiage, I condensed it into a list more resembling the similar section on Tiger Woods' page. The version I came up with can be seen here, and I'd appreciate any comments and criticism before I introduce this section into the actual article. --tennisman 20:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I like the organized manner of the list and how it makes it a lot easier to read. It no longer is unnecessarily wordly and now expresses the information in a precise and effective manner. I would support changing the current version to your version. I went ahead and edited the "Childhood and personal life" by condensing information and removing information that does not seem relevant to Federer's Wikipedia page. Comments on this move by my part are welcomed. Also, references should be added to the paragraph about the charities Federer ploppy is involved with. oncamera(t) 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, though. Based on One of AndyZ's criteria, it would seem that having a list like that is a bad idea. I went ahead and wrote it in paragraph form but removed some of the material as well as trying to make it considerably easier to read - if you take another look at my sandbox page you can see the paragraph version below the list. Let me know which is better in your opinion and I'll go ahead and use that in the article. --tennisman 01:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- oh, and I didn't ignore your edits either. I think it looks considerably better; the section is condensed to a more reasonable level of what meets encyclopedic content. Nice job getting rid of extraneous details and still keeping the main idea of the paragraphs. I'll see what I can do about sourcing that information now. --tennisman 01:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for sourcing the charity paragraph.
- I can see the reasoning behind the no-list when it comes to his equipment; it works well in either form so if you think it'll come up as an issue in the GA NOM, feel free to use your paragraph version. With the list-into-paragraphs style in mind, the section "Records"... it seems really long in the tables format; this information is probably important, but perhaps it could be condensed somehow--into paragraph form itself with the most important statements and the rest put at List of career achievements by Roger Federer. I'm not knowledgeable with the history of how that section came to be the way it is today. Maybe it'll be better to put the more important records into the opening lead of the article since I think the lead is a little short in comparison to the size of the article: "This page is 102 kilobytes long."
- Another issue, minor as it seems, is the annual paragraphs under the "Top 10 and Grand Slam success: 2003–present" ; each year separately makes the Table of Contents (TOC) box longer then it needs to be; perhaps a 2007-08 etc. system is necessary to cut the TOC list down a bit? oncamera(t) 01:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I added in the no-list version per your comments. I've seen a sports GA with a similar section in list form, though, so if the good folk at GAN don't like that format, I still have the list version available for easy copy-pasting. I'm going to take the Records section and the Grand Slam section over to my sandbox and see if I can't get those fixed up as well; I think your idea is right - remove the tables from the achievements section since those are already available at the relevant page, replace with a couple of lines of strong text regarding his achievements; following that I'll see about combining the two sections. I really like the way the Tiger Woods page has it, so I'm going to base my work on that. If you want to help, pop over to my sandbox and feel free to play around with it.
you need to fix the name soccer to football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.82.180 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Too many photos?
There are 13 pictures of Federer in the article, not including the one in the infobox and the one of Nadal. Isn't this a bit overkill, not adding much to the article, especially when they are fairly similar? 212.225.114.44 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I got rid of one that was unsightly Spiderone 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
i dont think there are too many, one picture per year though is enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someoneawesomlycool (talk • contribs) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
almost career golden slam?
should it also be stated that federer is the only active player to come close to agassi's career golden slam? Fed has a singles career slam and a gold in doubles. Agassi has a career slam and an olympic gold both in singlesSomeoneawesomlycool (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be a good idea. Then we'd have to go and add "almost" to a lot of other tennis players articles for the things they almost did. Haha, oncamera(t) 02:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- yes ... you're correct. Thanks :)Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2010
I have added a 2010 section to his tennis career. Please add on to it! :) Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Split
A major split of information was made from this article to Roger Federer career biography. If anyone has any comments on this please leave them here. Polargeo (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- No one's discussing it there. Just thought I'd say the split was done very badly imo. Absolutely nothing about his actual career was kept in apart from the introduction, and the fact that he's won the career grand slam. As someone else stated, it gives undue weight to stuff like apparel and rivalries, and all the pictures were deleted too (apart from one of Nadal which was kept in?). Also, this just makes me laugh:
- "Roger Federer is a world renowned tennis player, and his career is a storied one of many grand accomplishments."
- Well done, whoever decided to butcher the career section. Feudonym (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
6 july 2009
As of the 28th of December 2009, he is ranked world number 1 by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP). Wrong--Lerman Kruger (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Enigmamsg 18:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think it means that he is world no 1, but just in case, 28 december has been put there so the person cannot be blamed for wrong information. the 28 was when the info was added onSomeoneawesomlycool (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- He was ranked #1 in December and still is ranked #1. I don't see what the article says that is wrong. Enigmamsg 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, i think i miscommunicated. The article isn't wrong, it is correct. Correct me if im wrong, but i assumed you are asking, "why doesn't it say the date that Federer won Wimbledon 2009?" my answer to this question is that the December date has been used instead of the July date so that the user who made this change to the article, cannot be blamed if for example, federer would lose the top rank the following week, before the user was able to change it. For this reason, to protect himself or herself, the user has used the December date, likely the date at which the change was made. Please tell me if this is not your question, or i haven't answered it. Anyway, in the article, it has been changed to 25 January 2010. Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- He was ranked #1 in December and still is ranked #1. I don't see what the article says that is wrong. Enigmamsg 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think it means that he is world no 1, but just in case, 28 december has been put there so the person cannot be blamed for wrong information. the 28 was when the info was added onSomeoneawesomlycool (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Time for another Good Article Nomination
The 2010 grand slams have started. Enigmamsg 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
A and LQ in Grand Slams table
Could someone please add footnotes to the Grand Slam Tournaments table, explaining what A and LQ stand for? I found out by looking at some other articles, but I don't think their meaning is obvious. Thanks. Mbiyetifono (talk) 0:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Intro needs an omission.
"He is the only man to regain number 1 ranking after losing it"
How can this be true when in the article titled "List of career achievements by Roger Federer" under "# 4 Ranking and points" it states, "Federer is the second man to regain the year-end No. 1 ranking (2009) after Ivan Lendl (1989).[31]"
One of these must be wrong.
Thanks,
YK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.152.173 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The statement in the introduction is completely untrue in every sense. It is almost true if you are talking about year-end rank, but the fact about Lendl given later is true. Also, nowhere in the citation given is it mentioned that Federer is the first to regain the number 1 ranking. Please delete this sentence. Chad (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Also agreed. According to this list, he is at least the 15th. 220.245.167.225 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Federer-Nalbandian rivalry
Should we add a section for this rivalry, as the rivalry has been listed as No. 4 of the Rivalries of the Decade by ATP. It could be a major rivalry. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 18:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I say no. No one ever talks about a Federer/Nabandian 'rivalry'. The only real rivalry is with Nadal. Is every player he plays semi-often over the years now a 'rival' ? It seems stupid to make such a broad classification. Arleach (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- you can look up head to head stats here, where you can see that while Nalbandian has beaten him a few times in the last 3-4 years, most all of his wins came before Federer "took over" with many in quartefinal or earlier matches. I think the big matches could certainly be mentioned within the article itself but I don't think it's worthy of adding a whole new section. Arleach (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Career biography
I've restored this as it should not be missing entirely from this article as it is vital information. Rather a condensed version of it should be written here. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Good, it should definitely stay, imo like you say it should be condensed... for example, I know it's recent but details about the score in every single match he had in the AO this year don't need to be included, and that goes for other more recent slams as well, in the earlier years it just says he won the final against bla and the score was this, which I think is all we need to know really, especially for smaller tournaments outside of the slams. If people want to find out the fine details they can click on the link to the tournament. MIght be worth mentioning the tough matches where he just scrapes through but not the ones where it's just a walk in a park. Anyway that's just my opinion thanks for restoring it :):) --Roamed (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no need to cover every match in the main article. A summary of the most important matches/events is what is needed. Somebody please gradually cut this article down, leaving the most important points. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly! Scores for finals aren't even necessary for minor tournaments IMO. —Aaroncrick (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Statement about record number of Australian Open titles may be misleading.
"This win tied him for most Australian Open victories at four with Andre Agassi"
Apparently it is presumed that because the tournament is named "The Australian Open" the reader will realise that Federer's (And Agassi's) four victories is an open era rather than an all time record. The complete list of men's singles winners on the official Australian Open web site indicates that Roy Emerson won in 1961 and then consecutively from 1963 to 1967, a total of six victories.
Would it not be better, perhaps, to indicate explicitly that the record of four wins applies to the open era? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.243.118 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
nicknames
I reverted 2 POV edits talking of "marvelous" and "miraculous" shots and then remove the talk of nicknames altogether as it doesn't belong in the 'playing style' section. Start a new section, I guess, but keep ridiculously obvious POV out. Arleach (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not in playing style, but I definitely think the nicknames deserve to be included somewhere.. --Roamed (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
New picture
It's nice and everything, but I think up the page people decided it should hopefully be discussed on the talk page before changes are made? I kind of liked the old one :P Although with this being from the AO it's more up to date I guess.. --Roamed (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The new one is more relevant to his current success, but the old one with him serving at Wimbledon much more sums up his already historical and legendary status, while also showing him in his entirety and not just a close up shot of him hitting. I don't hate the new picture, but I feel the old one was a much better representation to what Federer has brought to tennis and how fans and other tennis players view him, and no less at the tournament that undoubtedly means the most to him. I feel it should be changed back. Wanabedamned (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree I want to 2009 Wimbledon photo back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.150.3 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
File:Roger Federer (26 June 2009, Wimbledon) 2 new.jpg
No one seemed to be arguing to keep the new picture. I changed it back. Wanabedamned (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's just been changed back again.. I vote change back (again) to the Wimby one, I think it's a nicer picture than the current one even though the current one is also nice. It would probably be easier if we discussed photo changes on here first? :) --Roamed (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sad it was changed back. I like the old one, but the one from AO was impressive and current. It would be nice for a tennis player's page on wiki to have a really professional looking photo. If any tennis player's page deserves that, it would Roger Federer's. Heck, Jimmy Connors deserves a better front photo. (kvdoglover (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC))
AO 2010 or World Tour Finals 2010 are the two tournaments which have shown the most recent glimpses of 'on form' Federer, they should be used, Wimbledon 2009 way too outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.113.223 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Reorganised career biography
Thumbs up to whoever has been working on it, I think it's a great layout now with the summaries and other articles for different years! :) --Roamed (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have done this because I want to set-up a new standard for how tennis articles are suppose to be done for players of Federer's stature like Rafael Nadal, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, and Justine Henin! I want to see more get to be FA or at least GA.BLUEDOGTN 12:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, you all can help out by expanding the Year Summary on the yearly articles!BLUEDOGTN 12:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
How about adding...
ATP World Tour Masters 1000/Year End tables from Roger Federer's career statistics, since article has been edited down.
Is the Win–Loss for 2007 correct? Shouldn't it be 27-1 as 2006? Avanze (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have not edited anything down, but expanded this page to other yearly pages to be more indepth, where I provided just the yealy stuff, which I allowed the career stats article to be a comprehensive on his career and the whole chart is still their. I have just touched the slams not the Year End/ATPWTM1000 tables at all!BLUEDOGTN 20:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the grand slam win-loss record for 2007 is correct. He won one match due to a walkover in 2007, which does not affect the win-loss record Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Roger Federer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- The following senteces doesn't make any sense. ("Federer made six doubles finals during this time, but lost the Indian Wells Masters event in 2002, which the most prestigious events won are two Rotterdam 500 series events in 2001 and 2002" and "Federer would go onto win two other events that were Master Series 1000 tournaments in Madrid over Rafael Nadal in the final on clay by a score of 6–4, 6–4, and he would win Cincinnati over Novak Djokovic by a score of 6–1, 7–5, which he would lose in one 500 level event final in Basel to Novak Djokovic 4–6, 6–4, 2–6.") Armbrust Talk Contribs 04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- This was actually in 2006, which I took it out, and go look at [Google cashe]!BLUEDOGTN 05:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Overall:
How can I be added to the list of users that can edit the Roger Federer article?
I wanted to update the first line from:
"Roger Federer (born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player. As of 15 February 2010, he is ranked world number 1"
"Roger Federer (born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player. As of 8 March 2010, he is ranked world number 1"
Since that was out of date :) He is number one in March! Anyways, I'm a big fan and I would like to contribute to his wiki page.
Noelandres17 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Have responded on user's talk page. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Fed in '10 match table
In the page Roger Federer in 2010, i do not know how to add to the table listing all the matches he played...someone please do this for me Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Wording and structure of lead section
I've recently noticed an edit war of sorts between B. Fairbairn and ScipioAfricans over the wording and structure of the lead section of this article. For example, the wording used to describe Federer's achievements is in dispute ("many sports analysts" vs. "some sports analysts). I've restored the article to the version as it stood before this conflict.
I personally believe that the wording "many", and the current structure of the lead, is fine. The statment "many" appears in is well sourced, and I don't believe B. Fairbairn's changes are quite justified in this regard. The 888th Avatar (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- The original edits smacked of bias, with B. Fairbairn attempting to discredit the sourced statements with a POV fact, and I continued to revert the changes made. I don't necessarily think stating Federer is the greatest ever somewhere later on the page is a bad idea, it just seemed that B. Fairbairn was trying to undermine the article. Perhaps a bit of discussion on the opening paragraph is a good idea. ScipioAfricans (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just noticed someone else has changed it to just 'The Greatest of all time' in the intro.. perhaps something like 'Commonly referred to as the greatest player of all time' would be more appropriate? --Roamed (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Rivalry with Nadal needs clarification
The article states that Nadal leads Federer 14-7 in their head to head. No mention is made that 12 of their 21 meetings have been played on clay, Nadal's best surface and Federer's weakest surface. Only 3 (14%) of their meetings have been on grass, Federer's best surface. Lastly, and most importantly, the section doesn't mention that off clay, Federer actually leads Nadal, 5-4. I think this additional information is relevant and important; it will help readers see that Nadal's dominance of Federer has occurred only on one surface rather than multiple surfaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTennisObserver (talk • contribs) 05:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Shut up please, that's no matter because Nadal has beaten Federer on all surfaces. Federer only beat Nadal in grass (2-1), tie in hard, and in clay Federer gets owned. Remember this words: "Oh god! It's killing me... ha-ha". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.89.250 (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- You, the guy from Madrid, if you cannot discuss something intelligently, then don't discuss it. Whether you like it or not, the facts clearly show that Nadal has outperformed Federer on clay, but off clay, he trails in the head to head, 4-5. This should be mentioned in the article. TheTennisObserver (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
In addition, surfaces are never mentioned when speaking of head-to-head. Do not be silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.89.250 (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- In this particular instance, the surface tells the story of the Federer-Nadal rivalry. Nadal is one player on clay and another off it. It's quite striking that Federer is 2-10 against Nadal on clay and 5-4 off it. I think we it owe to the readers to provide this information. TheTennisObserver (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would have to agree that this information should be added to the article for balance. If Nadal was as consistent in getting to finals on his weaker surfaces (hardcourt and grass, also Federer's strongest) as Federer was in getting to clay finals in his prime, then the head-to-head would probably look quite different. (This last bit is just food for thought, I'm not advocating its inclusion in the article!). mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
And if my grandmother had wheels, would a bicycle.
You're talking nosense. For example, you say the clay is the "Federer's Weakest surface"?... How many Roland Garros and Masters Series would have won Federer, if Nadal did'nt exist?. Nadal is the king of clay, and Federer the master of grass and hard, and probably the best tennis player of the history, the rest are guesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.88.173 (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I said "clay is Federer's weakest surface" because it is. That does not mean he's "weak" on clay; it means that as good as he is on clay, he's better on grass and hard courts. More importantly, almost 60% of Federer's and Nadal's matches have been played on Nadal's best surface. This is an important fact that readers of the article should be treated to. TheTennisObserver (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I repeat... when speaking of Head-to-head, never refers to the surfaces. If readers want to know what surfaces has lost more times, they can look the finals results (like you've done). It's no secret, everybody knows the thruth!. It seems unfair, because even he has won Grand Slams on grass and hard... and 12 to 21 is not so much, only 3 of difference!. But I respect your opinion. Greetings, and sorry for my bad English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.88.173 (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- As contributors to Wikipedia articles, we don't want readers to go someplace else to look up information. We want them to get their facts right here! Even a simple statement like "on clay, Nadal leads 10-2; off clay, he trails 4-5" would give readers additional perspective about the rivalry. I think it is better to come down on the side of revealing facts than concealing them. TheTennisObserver (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok. It is your opinion, I respect, but do not think the same. Instead of reporting, it appears that attempts to justify Federer or Nadal's victories detract ... Because I've never seen specify the surfaces when talking about head-to-head. This is tennis. Or more importantly a victory on clay than hard?. I have nothing more to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.88.173 (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have seen it talked about many times CBS Sports, USA Today, Tennis X, NBC Sports. What do they all mention SURFACES because it MATTERS!69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Confused regarding Roger's first title
The main article says Roger won his first title at the 2000 Milan Indoor, but the acticle of this tournament has Marc Rosset as the winner that year. Roger is shown as the winner, defeating Julien Boutter in the final of 2001. I assume it's correct that he didn't win in 2000, but is the win in 2001 still his first title? -Yes, according to the career statistics page, but the article of Roger's early career shows him as the winner in Brest 1999. I don't know if there is something about this tournament in Brest that makes it ineligible for the honor of hosting Roger's first win. Skroting (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Endorsements: add Lindt?
Roger Federer is associated with chocolate manufacturer Lindt & Sprüngli of Switzerland as of October 2009. He is a "Lindt Ambassador" -- whatever that means. I've provided a link to the press release from the company: http://www.lindt.com/int/swf/eng/company/news/roger-federer-becomes-lindt-brand-ambassador/ I suppose this should be added to the endorsements. Thanks. Katarina YYZ (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
In the article's navboxes at the bottom of the article, shouldn't the "a" in achievement be in lowercase and not capitalised? There are two right now: "Roger Federer (Achievement precedessor & successor)", and "Roger Federer's Achievements". The "a"s there should not be in caps but should be in lowercase right? Do contact me at my talk page if you would like a reply soon. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 12:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 83.251.82.9, 17 October 2010
{{edit semi-protected}}
change country to Switzerland to include the flag
83.251.82.9 (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
'Rivarlies' section intro
Someone has put that Federer's best-known rivarly is with Lleyton Hewitt, and mentions Andy Roddick as his other primary rival. That same person has identified Rafa Nadal as a perennial number 2 and clay-court specialist, and said he is no match for Federer on other surfaces. Whoever has authority to edit this article, can that nonsense please be removed? Perhaps it would have been appropriate in 2004, but we're on the doorstep of 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.158.1 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Roger Federer and rivalries discussion
pronunciation
What is the original pronunciation of his name? Infel (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Federer vs. Agassi rivalry?
Agassi was undoubtedly one of Federer's biggest tests in the early stages of his career. Like Nalbandian and Hewitt, Federer lost his first few encounters before finally turning things around. They have played several high quality and important matches including a five setter at the 2004 US Open. Their matches have also included a Tennis Masters Cup final in 2003 and a US Open Final in 2005. The record is 8-3 in Federer's favour.
From MiniFats01 (19/12/10) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiniFats01 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: "Greatest" Line in First Paragraph
Somebody has inserted the word "male" after the word "greatest" in the first paragraph. "Male" is unacceptable for two reasons. First, the experts cited in the article say simply that "Federer is the greatest of all time" without qualification. Second, the best male tennis players are better than the best female tennis players; this is beyond dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
carreer grand slam, three different grounds
- "He is one of seven male players to capture the career Grand Slam and one of three (with Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal) to do so on three different surfaces (clay, grass and hard courts)."
There are only four grand slams and they cover the three different surfaces. As I noticed, the US open changed from grass to clay to hard court and the the austrilian open also changed from grass to hard court, although a different type. The australian open actually changed its type of hard court again in 2007, thus in this sense there are even more different surfaces. It is not as if it is the players had any influence on the surfaces, while the remark (about the 3 different surfaces) implies that this is some special performance. Thus I honestly do not see the added value of this remark about surfaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythicism (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- (I have taken the liberty of making a minor formatting change to the above for readability.) I was puzzled by this sentence in the article. At first I didn't know what it meant at all. Then I guessed it must imply that the surfaces on which the events are played have changed over time, so that some older grand slam winners played on fewer surfaces even though they won all four tournaments. I think if the comment is to be retained then this ought to be clarified in the article. I don't think it is obvious to people who do not follow the game closely; it is natural to assume that the format of the tournaments has always been the same. 86.176.208.187 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"every single week"
The article says:
- "...holding at least one Grand Slam title every single week from Wimbledon 2003 until Wimbledon 2010."
Is there any reason for this odd "every single week" wording? I am minded to change it to "continuously", but I'm not sure if I may be missing some point. 86.160.215.119 (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Mind-numbing text
The following "paragraph" is quite impossible to read. This mass of detail needs to be shunted off into a table somewhere, if it is to be kept at all:
- At the start of the 2011 season, Federer defeated Nikolay Davydenko, 6–3, 6–4, to win the 2011 Qatar Open without dropping a set, winning his third title at the event following wins in 2005 and 2006. Federer was defeated in straight sets during the semifinals of the 2011 Australian Open by Novak Djokovic, marking the first time since July 2003 that he did not win any four of the Grand Slams he appeared in consecutively. In his next tournament in Dubai, Federer lost the final, 3–6, 3–6, to Djokovic. Federer then entered the first Masters 1000 event of the year, the 2011 BNP Paribas Open, and flew through to the semifinals by defeating Igor Andreev, Juan Ignacio Chela, Ryan Harrison, and Stanislas Wawrinka in straight sets. He then fell to Djokovic in three sets, 6–3, 3–6, 6–2, and relinquished the no. 2 ranking to him. Federer also reached the doubles final alongside compatriot Wawrinka, beating rival Rafael Nadal along the way, but they lost to Alexandr Dolgopolov and Xavier Malisse, 4–6, 7–6, 7–10 in the doubles final. Federer then entered the 2011 Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, defeating Radek Štěpánek, Juan Mónaco, and Olivier Rochus in straight sets.. He then defeated Gilles Simon, when he retired at 3–0 due to a neck injury, setting up a 23rd match-up with arch-rival Rafael Nadal. Nadal dominated the match and beat Federer, 3–6, 2–6, bringing their hard-court head-to-head even at 4–4. Federer then moved on to the 2011 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters and played an impressive match against Philipp Kohlschreiber, defeating him, 6–2, 6–1, in the second round. Federer then moved on to the third round of the tournament and defeated world no. 22 Marin Čilić in similar fashion, 6–4, 6–3. Federer was defeated by world no. 9 Jürgen Melzer in the quarterfinals in a surprising straight-sets loss, 4–6, 4–6, which gave Melzer his first victory against Federer in four meetings. Federer's next appearance was at the Madrid Masters. He struggled through his opening match and barely came out with a win against Feliciano López after three tiebreak games, finishing with a score of 7–6, 6–7, 7–6. He then flew through the next two rounds, defeating Xavier Malisse and Robin Söderling with tallies of 6–4, 6–3, and 7–6, 6–4, respectively. He met Rafael Nadal in the semifinals and fought to advance to the final, winning the first set, but Nadal took control of the rest of the game and defeated Federer, 5–7, 6–1, 6–3. Federer then moved on to compete in the Rome Masters, where he opened with a victory over Frenchman Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, 6–4, 6–2. He faced Frenchman Richard Gasquet in the third round, but lost a very close match in the third-set tiebreak, 6–4, 6–7, 6–7. Federer then competed in the 2011 French Open, expressing relief that some pressure was off him and that more had come onto Novak Djokovic, who was still undefeated.[61] He won his first round rematch with Feliciano López in straight sets, 6–3, 6–4, 7–6. He faced French wildcard Maxime Teixeira in the second round and achieved a straight-set victory, 6–3, 6–0, 6–2. He defeated Janko Tipsarević of Serbia, 6–1, 6–4, 6–3, in the third round to reach the round of 16. He then defeated Wawrinka in their third meeting of the year in straight sets, 6–3, 6–2, 7–5, to reach his 28th consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal. He defeated Gaël Monfils, the last Frenchman in the draw, 6–4, 6–3, 7–6, to setup a semifinal with Novak Djokovic. In the semifinal, Federer ended Djokovic's undefeated streak of 43 consecutive wins and kept him from gaining the world no. 1 status with a phenomenal win, brushing past him with a score of 7–6, 6–3, 3–6, 7–6. This set up a final with Rafael Nadal, to whom he lost, 5–7, 6–7, 7–5, 1–6. At Wimbledon, Federer survived an early tiebreak against Mikhail Kukushkin and won, 7–6, 6–4, 6–2. He then went on to defeat Adrian Mannarino and David Nalbandian with straight-set wins of 6–2, 6–3, 6–2 and 6–4, 6–2, 6–4. He rolled past Mikhail Youzhny, after dropping a close tiebreak to him, winning the match 6–7, 6–3, 6–3, 6–3. He advanced to his 29th Grand Slam quarterfinal, but lost to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in a shocking five-set loss, 6–3, 7–6, 4–6, 4–6, 4–6. It marked the first time in his career that he had lost a Grand Slam match after winning the first two sets. After Wimbledon, Federer played the Davis Cup match-up between Switzerland and Portugal. Federer won a singles rubber against Rui Machado and a doubles rubber with Stanislas Wawrinka, helping the Swiss team move on to the World Group Play-offs with a sweep of Portugal, 5–0. After receiving a bye in the first round of the 2011 Rogers Cup, Federer beat Canadian wildcard Vasek Pospisil, 7–5, 6–3, in the second round. In a second meeting with Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, he suffered a disheartening 6–7, 6–4, 1–6 loss, his second straight defeat at the hands of the Frenchman. He began his run at the 2011 Western & Southern Open as the two-time defending champion with a 6–3, 7–5 win, by snapping a two-match losing streak to Juan Martín del Potro. He then flew by James Blake in straight sets, 6–4, 6–1, but failed to defeat Tomáš Berdych, who had defeated him in the 2010 Wimbledon quarterfinals, and lost in straight sets, 2–6, 6–7. At the 2011 US Open, Federer began with two straight-set wins over Santiago Giraldo and Dudi Sela, winning with 6–4, 6–3, 6–2 and 6–3, 6–2, 6–2 tallies, respectively. He then faced Marin Čilić in the third round, who had surged in the US Open, but defeated him soundly in four sets, 6–3, 4–6, 6–4, 6–2. He then flew past Juan Mónaco with a 6–1, 6–2, 6–0 score, avoiding the impending rain, and repeated his feat with a quick win over Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the quarterfinals, reversing a two match loss streak against him with a win in straight sets, 6–4, 6–3, 6–3. The win set up a much-anticipated match with Novak Djokovic, touted as a rematch of the previous year's semifinal match. Federer lost an arguably closer match to Djokovic in five sets, 7–6, 6–4, 3–6, 2–6, 5–7, ironically repeating his previous year's result against Djokovic and adding a second loss from two sets up to his record. The loss at Flushing Meadows meant that Federer did not win any of the four Majors in 2011, the first time this has happened since 2002. After the 2011 US Open, Federer competed in the Davis Cup in Australia. Citing nagging injuries, he pulled out of the 2011 Shanghai Masters, which Andy Murray successfully defended, hence Federer without defending his ranking points from the 2010 Shanghai Masters final dropped out of the top 3 for the first time since June 2003.[62] Federer made it to the finals of the 2011 Swiss Indoors Basel for the sixth time in a row, after defeating his friend Stanislas Wawrinka in an all-Swiss semifinal, 7-6(5), 6-2. In the final Federer defeated Kei Nishikori, 6-1, 6-3. This was his sixty-eighth career title, the fifth at this tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.113.18 (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Big agree. The 2007-2009 bits are fine, 2010 gets a little long and 2011 is ridiculous. Especially because there are separate articles that cover the years fully. It's also another reason why scores should be kept to a minimum in prose. This will need a massive prune-job. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Clarification for one of the greatest player Federer.
The references are outdated and I have found a much recent one that puts it in debate that after being defeated to his 2nd best player of the generation, he is one of the great but not the greatest. Only the slams do not count, overall stats has to be taken.Please check this: http://debatewise.org/debates/898-roger-federer-is-not-the-greatest-tennis-player-of-all-time Seaboy123 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean they are outdated. It's been quite a few years since Federer has been in his prime. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- "[T]he slams do not count, overall stats has to be taken [into account]." What a typical response from a Federer basher. If we were to use your logic and ignore Grand Slams records (which are the most important tennis events that determine who is the GOAT) Federer would still beat out every player. Most hard court titles, most grass court titles, most consecutive tournament finals won, most consecutive weeks at No. 1, most consecutive wins on grass court and hard court and 6 year–end championship titles, to name a few. Head–to–head records are the weakest way to measure a player's greatness. Even Nadal himself admits that H2H are "a part of the statistics, but is not the decisive element." Plus, Davydenko has a 6–4 record against Nadal (which include winning the last 4 matches between the two). Does that mean he's better than him? And including GS records, Federer is the only player ever to win 5 consecutive titles at two different GS tournaments. That's true domination. Nadal has not been able to 5 consecutive titles at his beloved French Open and Borg did it at Wimbledon only. To top that off, Fed is the only player to have won 4+ titles at 3 GS tournaments. When another player (be it Nadal or Djokovic) is able to match that kind of domination, those kind of records, then we'll start to discuss the greatest player of all time. Not until. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Opinion, Federer who I admire and is the most complete and beautiful to watch all surface competitor I have seen in the last 30 years with Nadal becoming that (all surface only) not beautiful to watch its just pounding opposition into submission, Djock (wait and see), his records and slams stand they cannot be taken away from him that's just fact, but during his main dominance run (2003-09) he certainly had less serious competitors to contend in the top 10 for those consecutive years. Something to muse over. For my generation Borg who I also admire certainly had more notable competition to contend with during his his dominant run (1974-81) in all he had to face or contend with continually during his run 13 different Grand Slam Champions holding a total of 50 GS singles titles between them, he always had an average of at least 5 Grand Slam champions in the top 10 each year of his run. Fed by comparison during his dominant run (2003-09) in all he had to face or contend with 8 different Grand slam champions in the top 10 holding holding 21 Grand Slam titles between them with an average of 3 Grand Slam champions each year in his top 10 and certainly only 2 from 06 onwards. Borg the greatest (one of) Federer the greatest (one of). Fed title record breaker yes can't argue with it that happend did have less competiton to claim those records yes that's a fact the bottom line!! Gifted exceptional player (yes) who was in the right place at the right time who's run to 16 GST's was never really challenged because the only serious threat he faced at the beginning of his run was Agassi in 2003 when Agassi's 8GS career winning was over and really from 09 onwards when Nadal takes over from him then we have in 2011 Djokovic replacing him as Nadals new Federer. --Navops47 (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment.Records he doesn't hold Calender Year 'The Grand Slam' Laver two times, most consecutive Major titles Budge six, Most consecutive AO's Emerson five, Most consecutive FO's Nadal Borg four, Most consecutive WIM's Renshaw six, Most consecutive USO's Sears seven, Most AO's Emerson six, Most FO's Nadal Borg six, Most WIM's Renshaw Sampras seven, Most USO's Tilden Larned and Sears seven. Most career titles won Laver 200, Longest Match winning streak Tilden 95, Most Year end championships McEnroe eight to name a few not that I'm stiring things up but look at the Big Picture of tennis history which are hoping to provide readers with shortly and last Most Major's GSlam's and Pro Slams and here Majors technically Rosewall 23.
- Opinion, Federer who I admire and is the most complete and beautiful to watch all surface competitor I have seen in the last 30 years with Nadal becoming that (all surface only) not beautiful to watch its just pounding opposition into submission, Djock (wait and see), his records and slams stand they cannot be taken away from him that's just fact, but during his main dominance run (2003-09) he certainly had less serious competitors to contend in the top 10 for those consecutive years. Something to muse over. For my generation Borg who I also admire certainly had more notable competition to contend with during his his dominant run (1974-81) in all he had to face or contend with continually during his run 13 different Grand Slam Champions holding a total of 50 GS singles titles between them, he always had an average of at least 5 Grand Slam champions in the top 10 each year of his run. Fed by comparison during his dominant run (2003-09) in all he had to face or contend with 8 different Grand slam champions in the top 10 holding holding 21 Grand Slam titles between them with an average of 3 Grand Slam champions each year in his top 10 and certainly only 2 from 06 onwards. Borg the greatest (one of) Federer the greatest (one of). Fed title record breaker yes can't argue with it that happend did have less competiton to claim those records yes that's a fact the bottom line!! Gifted exceptional player (yes) who was in the right place at the right time who's run to 16 GST's was never really challenged because the only serious threat he faced at the beginning of his run was Agassi in 2003 when Agassi's 8GS career winning was over and really from 09 onwards when Nadal takes over from him then we have in 2011 Djokovic replacing him as Nadals new Federer. --Navops47 (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from Navops. Don't worry, you're not stirring things up. We just have to remember how much the game of tennis has evolved over the years.
- Just looking at Renshaw's record of consecutive Wimbledon titles that you posted above. We must not forget that he only had to play one match (i.e. the Challenge Round) for 5 of those tournaments (as he was the defending champion).
- Only 40 out of Laver's 200 titles are recognized by the ATP.
- Furthermore, his calendar–year Grand Slams came when 3 of the 4 GS were played on grass courts. It's no surprise that Laver had an easier time accomplishing a GS compared to nowadays, where Fed "only" had a career GS that entailed playing on grass, clay and two distinct hard court surfaces (AO Rebound Ace & Plexicushion and the US Open DecoTurf).
- Nadal and Borg's FO titles (consecutive and overall): again, Federer is being "punished" for being the second best clay court player in his era (while being the best on grass and hard). Evident in the fact that Fed and Nadal met in 3 FO finals (2 when Fed was in his prime). In contrast, Fed and Nadal have never met at the US Open (let alone the final). And Fed's 2 meetings with Nadal in the AO came after his prime (i.e. post–2007)
- Lastly, 5 of Emerson's 6 titles came when pros like Laver and Rosewall were banned from playing in the Majors. Those two would have certainly challenged (if not won) the AO at least once during that time had they been allowed to compete.
- Anyways, point is, Federer has undoubtedly emerged as the most complete player out of all who played in the Open Era. And please note that I am not excluding/victimizing tennis players solely base on the fact that they played pre–Open Era. However, since the Open Era provided the most "equal ground" in that it allowed both pros and amateurs to play, the argument can also be made that Federer is the Greatest of All Time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Plus it's not like wikipedia itself is dubbing Federer the greatest of all time, it's a multiple source thing. Pete Sampras has the following line with sources in his article, "many regarded Sampras as the greatest player of all time." And Pancho Gonzales has "Many people connected with the game, however, consider Gonzales to be the best male player in tennis history." So it's not unusual to have those types of sourced lines. Most of the time for our articles the sources say "one of the greatest" so that's what gets put in an article... but in this case it is more specific. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with all points made the opening comment "slams don't count" was a bit of a silly thing to say. I did say records were made and stand (fact) can't be taken away the same applies to previous comment but what (real) competition (open era) was around when those records were happening. One of the most exciting years in men's tennis for my generation was (1985) when you had the top 6 looking like this holding or having won Major's 1. Lendl (French & US Open Champion) 2. McEnroe (Won 7 Majors) 3. Wilander (Won 4 Majors) 4. Connors (Won 8 Majors) 5. Edberg (Australian Open Champion )6. Becker. (Wimbledon Champion) imagine watching an ATP World Tour top 6 with that sort of caliber today.
- A little further back when I was a small 9 year old (1974) and actually even more impressive is the ATP top 10 today looking like this one (by the way this was the year Connors was in his run) 1. Connors (Australian, Wimbledon & US Open champion), 2.Newcombe (6 Majors) 3. Borg (French Open champion) 4. Laver (11 majors), 5. Vilas (YEC champion), 6. Okker (19 tour titles), 7, Ashe (2 Majors), 8. Rosewall (8 Majors), 9. Smith (3 Majors) 10. Nastase (2 Majors). How exciting would the tennis be if Fed, Nadal and now Djoko were facing top 7 players with those records & mental toughness it's all good.--Navops47 (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- What biased thinking about the competition. If Lendl had been a bit better and won almost all the Majors people would be saying that since no one else won slams it must have been a weak era. Ridiculous. All we can do is judge against peers and results. The players today have a massive advantage of not having to use real gut and wood rackets. If you heard the retired champion on tv 2 days ago he bought a bunch of wood rackets last year and tried to play with them.... after repeated use he gave up... he couldn't keep the balls on the court and never knew where his shots were going. But we can only judge by equal times and results while in their prime. The rest is hogwash. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click)I'm being objective your missing the point completley!! and exactly my point Lendl had to face similar line ups in the top 10 during his run hence why he lost 11 GS finals they were much harder to come by (in my opinion)!! so we beg to differ, but if you really are objective and take a good long hard look at his notable opponents in the top 10 from (03-09) only 2 Roddick and Hewitt (Agassi, Sampras in decline from 03 at this point) feature in the top 10's ATP World Tour Records (Grand Slams section) in 4 catergories whereas Lendl's multiple peers feature in the top 10 in 29 catergories out of the 35 listed he faced stronger multiple peers otherwise they wouldn't be in those lists. not 1 peer 2 at most and as I said earlier I love Federer for me to really see how great (which I still think he is) but I wish he was facing at least four of these notable players in his top 10 continually at some point during his run. Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Wilander, Edberg, Connors or Becker during his run what I'm saying is it gets a bit boring when only 2 players are winning everything (not undermining their ability) that's why I'm happy Djoko made the break through just hope Murray regularly gets in the mix at some point makes it more interesting. Laying it to rest now (smiling)--Navops47 (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- What biased thinking about the competition. If Lendl had been a bit better and won almost all the Majors people would be saying that since no one else won slams it must have been a weak era. Ridiculous. All we can do is judge against peers and results. The players today have a massive advantage of not having to use real gut and wood rackets. If you heard the retired champion on tv 2 days ago he bought a bunch of wood rackets last year and tried to play with them.... after repeated use he gave up... he couldn't keep the balls on the court and never knew where his shots were going. But we can only judge by equal times and results while in their prime. The rest is hogwash. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- A little further back when I was a small 9 year old (1974) and actually even more impressive is the ATP top 10 today looking like this one (by the way this was the year Connors was in his run) 1. Connors (Australian, Wimbledon & US Open champion), 2.Newcombe (6 Majors) 3. Borg (French Open champion) 4. Laver (11 majors), 5. Vilas (YEC champion), 6. Okker (19 tour titles), 7, Ashe (2 Majors), 8. Rosewall (8 Majors), 9. Smith (3 Majors) 10. Nastase (2 Majors). How exciting would the tennis be if Fed, Nadal and now Djoko were facing top 7 players with those records & mental toughness it's all good.--Navops47 (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with all points made the opening comment "slams don't count" was a bit of a silly thing to say. I did say records were made and stand (fact) can't be taken away the same applies to previous comment but what (real) competition (open era) was around when those records were happening. One of the most exciting years in men's tennis for my generation was (1985) when you had the top 6 looking like this holding or having won Major's 1. Lendl (French & US Open Champion) 2. McEnroe (Won 7 Majors) 3. Wilander (Won 4 Majors) 4. Connors (Won 8 Majors) 5. Edberg (Australian Open Champion )6. Becker. (Wimbledon Champion) imagine watching an ATP World Tour top 6 with that sort of caliber today.
- Plus it's not like wikipedia itself is dubbing Federer the greatest of all time, it's a multiple source thing. Pete Sampras has the following line with sources in his article, "many regarded Sampras as the greatest player of all time." And Pancho Gonzales has "Many people connected with the game, however, consider Gonzales to be the best male player in tennis history." So it's not unusual to have those types of sourced lines. Most of the time for our articles the sources say "one of the greatest" so that's what gets put in an article... but in this case it is more specific. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from Navops. Don't worry, you're not stirring things up. We just have to remember how much the game of tennis has evolved over the years.
- Let't not lose focus here about the original topic at hand. So, after this long thread of debate and discussion, I guess we can all agree that Federer's article should maintain the line that reads "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time," as opposed "one of the greatest tennis players of all time" (which is what Seaboy123 originally proposed). —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Navops, but Federer is still pretty much the king of the "more than" category. He has more Grand Slam singles titles than any male player in history (more than Laver), more Masters Cups than any male player in history (6 and counting), more consecutive weeks at #1 than any man or woman in history, longest grass and hard-court winning streaks, more slam semifinal appearances than any male in history, the only player to win two majors five straight times (Laver never did that), and on and on. It's also undeniable that many of the game's greats like Sampras, Agassi, Lendl and others are on record saying Fed is the greatest player ever. This really should put an end to the argument, which is only raised by Federer detractors, not objective observers of the sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't see why you're bashing Navops. As he previously said, "I love Federer for me to really see how great (which I still think he is)." So no one in this thread is a Fed detractor (except for perhaps Seaboy123, who had an issue with calling Fed the GOAT). And it's already agreed upon that the wording of Fed's article will continue to say that he is "the greatest tennis player of all time." Therefore, case closed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Federer's mum
"South African-born Lynette Durand, of Dutch and French Huguenot ancestry"
This sentence just sounds ridiculous. She (his mum) is South African, or Afrikaner if you want to be specific.
Afrikaners have been in South Africa for over 300 years. They are simply Afrikaners. They have been for a long time. That is their identity.
I had a look at the references and I'm amazed that someone went to such lengths or felt the need to split hairs. (Someone please take a look at the references, I suspect they're not in accordance with Wiki regulations, someones is making a conclusion based on the links provided rather than citing them as a source).
Afrikaners are of Dutch, French, German, Jewish, Scandinavian, Portuguese, Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Scots, Irish, Polish and non-white ancestry, such as Khoi African, Indonesian and Indian. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner ).
To simply choose two off the list is not only inaccurate, it has a slight hint of ethnocentrism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.72.57 (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I intend making the necessary changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.75.73 (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 July 2012
Abuse in the first line of the entry.
95.152.209.4 (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please refresh your cache and then report if some unreverted vandalism is still present. Materialscientist (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Dominik Hrbaty
In the Federer vs. Murray section it states: "Apart from Nadal, Murray is the only other active player to have a positive head to head record against Federer."
But Dominik Hrbaty also has a positive head to head record against Federer (see http://www.dominikhrbaty.com/) and has now come back out of retirement. Can someone change this? (Sorry, I can't be bothered to create an account) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.153.35 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit: Wimbledon/Federer
Roger Federer wins Wimbledon 2012. Current ranking has been changed to no.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skorp129 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Grand Slam tournament performance timeline
There were a bit too many edits around the time of the Wim 2012 final , and that caused a little confusion. His total number of Wim victories is 67, and total of grand slam victories is 244. The article is protected, so if someone with an account wants to correct that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.219.98 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 July 2012
In the below sentence "bet" should be "beat".
On 8 July 2012, Federer bet Andy Murray 6–4, 7–5, 6–3 and 6–4 in the 2012 Wimbledon Final. He equalled Pete Sampras's record of seven Wimbledon Championships.
Marcoberi (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like someone fixed this, so marking request as answered. RudolfRed (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 July 2012
Federer "beat" Andy Murray in 2012 Wimbledon, he didn't bet him.
Sullman7 (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, first set of Wimbledon, 2012 should be 4-6 (not 6-4).
Casper526 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like someone handled these requests, so marking the edit request as answered. RudolfRed (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
No mention of William Renshaw
Should William Renshaw not get a mention somewhere? For example in the records section it says Federer won 7 Wimbledon titles and shares this record with Pete Sampras, but Renshaw also has seven titles. I know, it was in the 19th century.. long time ago. But still, 7 = 7. --Plunged (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I believe these are all Open Era records while Renshaw played in the pre-Open Era. TheLou75 (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2011 ATP World Tour Final Scores
He beat Tsonga 6-3, 6-7, 6-3 (not 6-3, 6-2, 6-4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.178.129.238 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 9 July 2012
I already mentioned that yesterday, but his total of Wim wins is 67, not 66. 7*7+6+3*4=49+6+12=67 Which is annoying because 66 is consistent with the total of 244, which I thought was correct. Now the other totals (FO USO and AO) need to be checked. USO: 2+3*3+5*7+6+2*5=2+9+35+6+10=62 Off by one too, but the wrong way... FO: 7+4*6+2*5+2*4+3+2=7+24+10+8+5=54 OK AO: 4*7+6+5*4+3*2+2*2=28+6+20+10=64 Also off by one, also incrementing the error on the total. The correct total is 247 after all, not 244. Now this is funny, because I thought the total of 244 was consistent with what was in some news sites, but of course the journalists mentinning his record of 233 grand slam victories when he won the first or second round of FO 2012 were only basing this on this very page of wiki. And since people don't wait the end of tournament to edit this part of the article, errors arise. Well at least I think this is funny. Contamination and contagion of the "truth", and all that... 244 is consistent with the win-loss totals on the last line of the table, which means that there are mistakes also on this line. 2012 is off by one: Should be 17-2, not 16-2 2007 is also off by one: should be 27-1, not 26-1 I'll leave the last mistake as homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.219.98 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not done: The protection expired, so you can go ahead and make these fixes yourself. RudolfRed (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 9 July 2012
In the playing style section towards the bottom of the third paragraph it reads "employed this tactic especially frequently in his early career". Especially doesn't read well with me or sound right. A possible improvement would be to reverse the order so it reads " employed this tactic frequently especially in his early career." It just seems to fit better 92.2.22.189 (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done I completely removed especially. It was unnecessary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Some unnecessary clutter in introduction
I would edit this myself but I'm just checking to see if other people agree with me; stuff like "(Willie Renshaw and Arthur Gore did so before the challenge round was eliminated in 1922)" is really unnecessary since you've already clarified open era; the 286+ bit should be said before the 237 weeks, once he gets past Pete's record, as it will then be more important than that, and then we could get rid of "equaling the record held by Pete Sampras (who will be overtaken on July 16, 2012)" because though it's notable he will have passed Pete and Pete is amazing etc etc this ought to be said later in the article rather than in the intro as the fact that he has the record is more important than the fact that he passed Pete for it. Sorry if this seems nitpicky but the intro is already quite long and some stuff in there is unnecessary details about other people than Fed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.211.122 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Coaches
Very surprised to see no mention of coaches Peter Carter, Peter Lundgren, Severin Luthi, and Tony Roche. This is probably worth making a whole new section. Any preference on simply adding it into the narrative vs creating a new section? Supertigerman (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Uncertain tie break record
The reference for the record about the most won tie breaks misses many players, like Connors, Borg, McEnroe. Especially Connors played more matches than Federer and could have this record, but it seems hard to find out. As it is not an important record, one should remove it unless the reference can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.215.39 (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"Greatest player of all time" line needs to be protected
Some people want to fiddle with the "greatest player of all time" wording in the opening paragraph. Those contributing to this article should stop them from doing so.
Numerous tennis experts -- legends of the game, current and former players, etc. -- have referred to Federer as the "greatest player of all time," NOT "the greatest male player of all time." It goes without saying -- or should, anyway -- that male tennis players are superior to female tennis players; thus, it doesn't matter that Steffi Graf and Martina Navratilova have more Grand Slam singles titles than Federer, because neither one had to beat a single male player to win a tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Lead sentence
Schpinbo keeps changing the wording in the first sentence of the Federer article. He should be reported and (hopefully) banned from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why should he be reported? Just because you disagree with someone's edits does not make those edits vandalism and it is certainly no reason in itself to ban an editor. Try and be a bit more tolerant and argue your point of view. To me the phrase 'greatest male player' sounds perfectly legitimate.--Wolbo (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The phrase "greatest male player" may sound "perfectly legitimate" to you, but that is not what the tennis experts cited in the footnotes have said. They've said "Federer is the greatest player of all time," no qualifications. If you scroll above on the talk page, you will see that this issue has been covered already and resolved. Lastly, the user Schpinbo has not presented his case on the talk page here. He's developed a terrible habit of deleting others' edits willy-nilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, TennisAnalyst, but if you look at your talkpage, you will see precisely why I have reverted your edits. It is a simple matter of grammar. When you insist that the opening sentence should read "... Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely regarded as the greatest ever", you are - according to the grammatical rules of the English language - saying that Federer "is the greatest professional Swiss tennis player ever." Unless that is what you intend, you need to indicate what he is greatest *of*. If anyone is committing vandalism here, it is you with your constant reverts to ungrammatical English. What is it you don't understand? Schpinbo (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The phrase "greatest male player" may sound "perfectly legitimate" to you, but that is not what the tennis experts cited in the footnotes have said. They've said "Federer is the greatest player of all time," no qualifications. If you scroll above on the talk page, you will see that this issue has been covered already and resolved. Lastly, the user Schpinbo has not presented his case on the talk page here. He's developed a terrible habit of deleting others' edits willy-nilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're obviously trolling here. It's equally obvious -- except to you, apparently -- that the phrase "greatest ever" or "greatest of all time" refers to Federer as a tennis player, not to Federer as a Swiss tennis player in particular. This is the meaning of the sentence that everybody else understands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I find your petulance tiresome. And your attempt to silence me for breaking the three-revert rule shows your desperation. It is you who are doing the edit-warring ... and weakening your own case by refusing to address my points on the merits. Don't for an instant suppose that you speak for "everybody else," or are in a position to decide that really, we all understand what you "actually meant." The English language has rules, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with them. Schpinbo (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The word "ever" can't stand on its own at the end of a sentence like that except in colloquial speech or writing. It's really not a problem with the semantics of the sentence, it's all to do with the syntax. "Ever" used in this since must be followed by a noun phrase ("greatest ever tennis player"), or a verb in its infinitive or participial form ("greatest ever to play the game"). "The greatest tennis player ever" is not a grammatical construction in English. I personally don't like prescriptive grammar rules like this, but this is an encyclopedia, and the article should be written in standard English.
- Of course, not everybody agrees (the preposition rule too is a myth). How does this rule account for "I am the greatest ever"? Or should one just not say that over and over? Even if that is all one thinks about? Which grammar book did you find that rule in? Seriously, why don't you just make it "the greatest-ever tennis player"?Ajoykt (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I concur. The word "ever" is an adverb, though, not a preposition. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with constructions like "He is the greatest player ever." "Greatest-ever tennis player" sounds awkward. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, not everybody agrees (the preposition rule too is a myth). How does this rule account for "I am the greatest ever"? Or should one just not say that over and over? Even if that is all one thinks about? Which grammar book did you find that rule in? Seriously, why don't you just make it "the greatest-ever tennis player"?Ajoykt (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The word "ever" can't stand on its own at the end of a sentence like that except in colloquial speech or writing. It's really not a problem with the semantics of the sentence, it's all to do with the syntax. "Ever" used in this since must be followed by a noun phrase ("greatest ever tennis player"), or a verb in its infinitive or participial form ("greatest ever to play the game"). "The greatest tennis player ever" is not a grammatical construction in English. I personally don't like prescriptive grammar rules like this, but this is an encyclopedia, and the article should be written in standard English.
I have changed the name of this section per WP:TALKNEW. TennisAnalyst004, please read WP:NOTVAND and refrain from calling good faith edits vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 04:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Prior to this evening, Schpinbo had not appeared on the Talk page to present his case for making changes and edits; he just made those changes willy-nilly, and often without justification. Sorry, but that is not what I would call editing in "good faith." TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- A reluctance to communicate is not vandalism. Wikipedia has a strict and narrow definition of what is vandalism. We are pretty clear on distinguishing these types of edits as they can be reverted without taking into account WP:3RR. This is not the case with Schpinbo's edits. --NeilN talk to me 05:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the meaning of "vandalism" here. You did not address the point I made above about Schpinbo's refusal to "edit in good faith." TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, a reluctance to communicate cannot be called "not editing in good faith". And Schpinbo's edit summaries are decent except for one. --NeilN talk to me 06:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't it protocol to propose changes on the Talk page before undoing others' contributions and edits? Or has that mumpsimus, Schpinbo, been given special dispensation? TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you make a change and another editor disagrees, they are free to undo your change, no talk page discussion is required. An explanatory edit summary or a note on a talk page would be nice but they don't have to initiate or wait for discussion. Your charges of vandalism or not editing in good faith simply don't wash here. --NeilN talk to me 07:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. This guy has violated the spirit [not the letter, but the spirit] of the three-revert rule; I would encourage you to go to my talk page and look at his history of deletions for July 15. He's deaf to others' points of view; he frequently insults those with whom he disagrees; before this evening he has never shown up on the Talk page, and when somebody calls him out for boorish behavior, he cries foul and threatens them. If all this is unobjectionable to you, so be it. Regards, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you make a change and another editor disagrees, they are free to undo your change, no talk page discussion is required. An explanatory edit summary or a note on a talk page would be nice but they don't have to initiate or wait for discussion. Your charges of vandalism or not editing in good faith simply don't wash here. --NeilN talk to me 07:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't it protocol to propose changes on the Talk page before undoing others' contributions and edits? Or has that mumpsimus, Schpinbo, been given special dispensation? TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, a reluctance to communicate cannot be called "not editing in good faith". And Schpinbo's edit summaries are decent except for one. --NeilN talk to me 06:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the meaning of "vandalism" here. You did not address the point I made above about Schpinbo's refusal to "edit in good faith." TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- A reluctance to communicate is not vandalism. Wikipedia has a strict and narrow definition of what is vandalism. We are pretty clear on distinguishing these types of edits as they can be reverted without taking into account WP:3RR. This is not the case with Schpinbo's edits. --NeilN talk to me 05:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Prior to this evening, Schpinbo had not appeared on the Talk page to present his case for making changes and edits; he just made those changes willy-nilly, and often without justification. Sorry, but that is not what I would call editing in "good faith." TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the sentence "Roger Federer born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player widely regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time." reads pretty well and prefer it to "Roger Federer born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely regarded as the greatest of all time." --NeilN talk to me 05:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can live with the sentence "Roger Federer (born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player widely regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time." I do think the second "tennis player" is redundant, though. What I do object to is referring to Federer as the "greatest male tennis player of all time," for reasons previously explained. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that "male" isn't needed or warranted. --NeilN talk to me 06:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Neil, we haven't seen eye to eye this evening, but let me say thanks to you for interceding and trying to resolve the matter. You didn't have to take time out of your schedule to clarify things and offer your point of view, but you did, so credit to you. Best, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks TennisAnalyst004. If all of us could just focus on discussing on how to improve the article then that'd be great. --NeilN talk to me 08:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Neil, we haven't seen eye to eye this evening, but let me say thanks to you for interceding and trying to resolve the matter. You didn't have to take time out of your schedule to clarify things and offer your point of view, but you did, so credit to you. Best, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that "male" isn't needed or warranted. --NeilN talk to me 06:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, didn't see all this before changing the lead sentence just now. I do think the way it was is a little awkward though. Feel free to change it back. I'm gonna leave it. Rracecarr (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why not remove the first "tennis player" instead? "Roger Federer is a Swiss widely regarded the greatest tennis player of all time." The problem with the current sentence is somebody new tinkers with it every day, without going through the talk page. The (small) problem with my formulation is it emphasizes the "Swiss" part a bit too much. Ajoykt (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- How about: "Roger Federer, of Switzerland, is widely regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time." Rracecarr (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I tried a version of if before: "Roger Federer, a Swiss, is widely regarded as the greatest . . ." Some new editor immediately removed the commas claiming they were clumsy (they were) and took us back to square one with: "Roger Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player regarded as the greatest ever." Ajoykt (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- How about: "Roger Federer, of Switzerland, is widely regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time." Rracecarr (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why not remove the first "tennis player" instead? "Roger Federer is a Swiss widely regarded the greatest tennis player of all time." The problem with the current sentence is somebody new tinkers with it every day, without going through the talk page. The (small) problem with my formulation is it emphasizes the "Swiss" part a bit too much. Ajoykt (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, didn't see all this before changing the lead sentence just now. I do think the way it was is a little awkward though. Feel free to change it back. I'm gonna leave it. Rracecarr (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Distinction between all-time/Open era records in lede
There seems to be some confusion here. All-time records are being bundled with and under Open Era records. They should probably be listed separately. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the first few paragraphs are a summary, and one shouldn't bury the main points with details. The open-era records are what matters to the layperson (this isn't a sports encylopedia); that some of those are all-time records too is, and perhaps should be, a side note. The text is precise as to exactly what type the records are; I don't know if the records are accurate. If they are, it seems to me better to leave the order alone: emphasizing the open-era ones, with the all-time ones mentioned in parentheses. Ajoykt (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Opening sentence: "widely considered to be the greatest player of all time"
I'm writing about the opening sentence of this article, which says that Federeer is "widely considered to be the greatest player of all time." Let me preface my comments by saying that Federer is among my top-three favorite players ever and I do feel that he's the greatest player of all-time.
However, when I read that opening sentence, what immediately struck me was the inappropriateness of the term "widely considered." One who cares about accuracy and objectity in this project would ask, "Widely considered BY WHOM?" Well, that question should be supported by the sources that are cited. But what the sources show is that a few former tennis "greats" (Laver, Kramer, Sampras, Agassi and Lendl), plus two lists from sports sites (Tennis Channel and Sports Illustrated) rank him as #1. Those are all great sources. But even so, they do not support the claim that he is "widely considered" the best ever. "Widely considered," as it's used in the sentence, clearly implies that it's widely considered by the people in general (the people of the world). Why not remove the "fan language" nature of the sentence and just state the facts (what we know for sure; what can be sourced)?
My suggestion is simple: Be specific in that opening sentence by narrowing the focus and sticking to the facts. Remove any trace of subjectivity. Rather than saying he's "widely considered to be the greatest player of all time," say something like, "he has been called the greatest player of all time by various sports media outlets such as Sports Illustrated and The Tennis Channel, and by several former tennis greats, including Andre Agassi, Jack Kramer, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras."
You can add John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg to the list. McEnroe said of Federer, "To me, he’ll always be the greatest, most beautiful player that ever lived."[3] Borg said, "For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game."[4]
So the updated sentence, with the two new sources, can be, "he has been called the greatest player of all time by various sports media outlets such as Sports Illustrated and The Tennis Channel, and by several former tennis greats, including Andre Agassi, Bjorn Borg, Jack Kramer, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras."
As as you get more sources for other tennis greats (or sports sites) who think Federer's the best ever, simply add them to the sentence. Including the names of all the greats in that sentence is powerful and certainly encylopedic. Readers will look at it and say, "Wow, look at all those amazing players who think Federer's #1." And then of course readers can link to the sources if they want.
No editor should argue with my suggestion because it states facts only, which are properly sourced. It removes all the vagueness, subjectivity and fan language.
By the way, I think the John Lloyd sourcing is very weak and shouldn't even be included among all those other guys who are legends. Lloyd was basically just an average journeyman. And let's be honest, his opinion on this matter carries very little weight. Only the most ardent tennis fans even know who he is. And some of them may only have heard of him because he married Chris Evert. Haha. I think he won a couple of grand slam doubles championships, but that was about it.
Also, link 7 (Times UK) doesn't even work; it goes to their current home page.
The editors who support that sentence in its current form need to understand and accept the fact that there are MANY people who do not think Federer is the best ever. I don't personally agree with those people, but that's the point. It's their opinion. Just like my view is also an opinion. But Wikipedia is not about opinions. It's about facts. Sourced facts.
I understand that there have been a lot of editors who change the wording of that sentence, which in turn has prompted a lot of reverts? That makes my point even stronger. If you take my suggestions, it will prevent the revert battles because the statement will be focused, factual and sourced. As it's written currently, it's just encouraging editors to fight over it.
Anyway, I hope you'll have the opening sentence changed. --76.189.114.180 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree with this. Though many of us Federer fans (like me) know he is the one and only Greatest of All Time, the fact that the first sentence labels him "the GOAT" outright is extreme, to say the least. Remember, we must put aside our devotion for the "Tennis king of tennis kings" and keep to WP:NPOV. The previous version sounded much better, stating "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time." That adds more credibility to what we are trying to convey. I propose we change it back to the old format. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. The original sentence you referred to ("Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time.") is far superior, and much more appropriate, than the current sentence. I think it would be fine in the opening sentence. But I also think it would be great to include the names of the tennis "legends" who have called him the best ever (as I suggested above). That could be further down in an appropriate section. How about having a paragraph or even section devoted solely to all the tennis legends who have said he's #1 of all-time, and then list their names and a quote from them.
- For example, the paragraph or section can begin with something like...
- "Many former tennis greats have called Federer the greatest player of all-time:
- Bjorn Borg: "For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game."
- John McEnroe: "To me, he’ll always be the greatest, most beautiful player that ever lived."
- Pete Sampras: "Roger is without question the greatest ever and would've beaten me every time."
- OK, I made up the Sampras one. I can't remember his quote. Haha. But the Borg and McEnroe quotes are accurate. Anyway, I just wanted to give an idea of what I'm talking about. --76.189.114.180 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've just discovered that WP:WEASEL typically prohibits phrases like "widely considered", particularly in this case because it can't be supported by sources. The existing sources simply show some former players, and two sports site lists, calling Federer the best player ever. The WP guidlelines on this even use "it is widely thought" as an example of weasel words. So that sentence needs to be changed, with the edit comment referring to WP:WEASEL. We must only include what is known (as a sourced fact) and eliminate the subjective language. I've added applicable templates to the "widely considered" phrase. --76.189.114.180 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say it'll be better not to list out players specifically who have said Federer is GOAT. That would clog up the lead unnecessarily. However, you could place it somewhere else in the article (e.g. Connors stating, "Nowadays, you're either an x court specialist, or you're Roger Federer"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've just discovered that WP:WEASEL typically prohibits phrases like "widely considered", particularly in this case because it can't be supported by sources. The existing sources simply show some former players, and two sports site lists, calling Federer the best player ever. The WP guidlelines on this even use "it is widely thought" as an example of weasel words. So that sentence needs to be changed, with the edit comment referring to WP:WEASEL. We must only include what is known (as a sourced fact) and eliminate the subjective language. I've added applicable templates to the "widely considered" phrase. --76.189.114.180 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I said, "That could be further down in an appropriate section." You must've been sleeping because I said everything you just said. Haha. But yeah, I agree. Quotes from legends like that would be great. And appropriate for the article. And they need to be quotes that directly say they think Federer is the greatest ever, not just making really nice comments about him (everyone does that). But first that sentence needs to be changed to fit within WP standards. ;) --76.189.114.180 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I, myself, do not see a problem at all with the phrase "widely considered." According to Webster's, "widely" means "by or among a large well-dispersed group of people." There are numerous fans of the game, legendary players, sportwriters, commentators, and former and current players who have said, in some cases quite often, that Federer is the greatest player of all time.
- Among the many distinguished players of the game who have said so: Rod Laver, Cliff Drysdale, Billie Jean King, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Pam Shriver, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras, and Andre Agassi. Among current players who have said so, at one time or another: Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Ferrer, Soderling, Tsonga, and Wawrinka. Among the many commentators/experts of the game who have said so: Simon Barnes, Robbie Koenig (former player as well), Nick Bolletieri, and John Lloyd.
- I know from reading various messages on news sites that scores of fans consider Federer the greatest of all time. Therefore, the phrase "widely considered" is eminently justifiable, indeed is objective fact rather than subjective judgment. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry TennisAnalyst, but your defense of the current text is contrary to WP guidelines. Did you read WP:WEASEL? Also, your own explanation contradicts itself and adds more support to the phrase "widely considered" being inappropriate. First you say there are "numerous" people who says he's the best. "Numerous" is not even close to "widely considered." Numerous simply means many. Many is a whole different world than widely considered. Then you go on to list the names of people you claimed have called him the greatest. Is that list of people sourced in the article? Because there are many things people have "heard," but it can't be included in an encylopedic article if it's not sourced. But even assuming they all said Federer is the best (and I don't doubt it), it still doesn't support "widely considered." Twenty people does not equal "widely considered." We could come up with a list of 20 people who say feel that Federer is NOT the best ever. Contrary to your claim, "widely considered" is NOT an "objective fact" at all. Where's the sourcing that supports that claim?? The only sourcing we have is that several players, commentators and sites, etc. have called him the greatest. In any case, WP does not allow the use of the term "widely considered" in this context. One final reminder, I personally believe Federer is the best of all-time. But this is an encyclopedia and we must stick to the rules of editing. There are many sources out there that make that claim that he is NOT the best. That's why this issue is subjective, not objective. There is no administrator/dispute group on WP that would allow "widely considered to be the greatest player of all time" to stand. I'm sorry, but I believe it is over-the-top and, most importantly, violates basic encyclopedic rules. On an interesting side note, here's what Federer thinks about the issue of whether he's the greatest ever. ;) --76.189.114.243 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest reading Michael Jordan. Obviously, if you ask most people, they will say the believe he is the greatest player of all-time. However, you will not find one blanket statement in the article that says that. No statement in the article says he is the greatest ever or even "widely considered" the greatest ever. In terms of a general statement, the furthest the article goes is to say, "Many of Jordan's contemporaries label Jordan as the greatest basketball player of all time." See, it doesn't say he IS the greatest basketball player of all time; it says many of his contemporaries say it. That's perfect. That's encylopedic. All references to his all-time greatest status is correctly attributed to a specific, cited source. For instance, the lead says, "His biography on the National Basketball Association (NBA) website states, 'By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.'" It does not say by acclamation he is the greatest ever, it says that the NBA website says that. And the statement is in quotes. That's exactly the right way to do it encylopedically. And then throughout the article, there are references about him being the greatest all-time basketball player or athlete, but what's key is that each of those references is attributed to a specific, cited source. Some examples: "In 1999, he was named the greatest North American athlete of the 20th century by ESPN" and "the Associated Press voted him as the basketball player of the 20th century". For Federer, we have similar sourced material. So all we need to do is make statements that show this person or that website said it, then attach the citation which supports the stated claim. But no blanket, weasel word statements like he is widely considered to be the greatest ever. If Rod Laver said Federer is the greatest ever, then say that. If Andre Agassi said that Federer is the greatest ever, then say that. If Sports Illustrated ranked him as the greatest ever, then say that. You can even say something like "A number of the most successful tennis players of all-time have said that Federer is the greatest player of all time, including Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver.... (rest of names)." Then add the proper citations to prove each person said it. Perfect and encylopedic. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Methinks you doth protest too much. You write, "Twenty people does [sic] not equal 'widely considered.'" How do you know that? What basis is there for such an assertion? I gave the Webster's definition of "widely," and it is clear that the examples I furnished constitute "a large well-dispersed group of people." How many legends of the game, commentators, experts, and fans have to say Federer is the "greatest player ever," or some equivalent, before the phrase "widely considered" can be used? I believe we've met the threshold here, and would encourage Bloom and other veteran editors to weigh in. (P.S. I did read the Weasel article.) Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please stick to the topic and refrain from personal insults ("Methinks you doth protest too much"). This has nothing to do with protesting. It is solely about doing the correct thing encylopedically. All your questions were clearly answered in my previous comments. I have provided more than enough information to support my views. Did you read Michael Jordan? You said you read WP:WEASEL, but you gave no explanation about why you believe "widely considered" doesn't violate it. It's interesting that you are so resistant to simply following encylopedic guidelines by saying specifically who is stating Federer is the greatest ever and citing it, rather than making a subjective, blanket statement without attribution. If you actually have a source that says he is widely considered the greatest player of all time, then source it and attribute it to that source. There are currently nine sources (not 20) that show a former player or website giving their opinions that Federer is the greatest player ever. I agree with them, but the point is that nine sources, or even 20, don't equal "widely considered." And if there were 20 players who said it, then say just that: "Twenty former tennis players who had very successful careers have called Federer the greatest player of all time. They include (person), (person), (person)..." etc., with a citation for each name. Follow the Michael Jordan example by following the rules of an encylopedia. You said you wished Bloom, a veteran editor, would weigh in on this. He did. Twice. You must have overlooked it. In reply to my comments, he said, "I fully agree with this. Though many of us Federer fans (like me) know he is the one and only Greatest of All Time, the fact that the first sentence labels him "the GOAT" outright is extreme, to say the least. Remember, we must put aside our devotion for the "Tennis king of tennis kings" and keep to WP:NPOV." Finally, I will once again suggest a replacement in the lead. Instead of "Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely considered to be the greatest player of all time", I suggest we say "Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player. "He has been called the greatest player of all time by various sports media outlets such as Sports Illustrated and The Tennis Channel, and by several retired tennis greats, including Andre Agassi, Bjorn Borg, Jack Kramer, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras." --76.189.114.243 (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Methinks you doth protest too much" is not an insult; it is the impression your meaty paragraphs have left me with. Nor did you answer my question earlier about how many people have to say "Federer is the greatest" before the phrase "widely considered" is justified. I do think the input of other Wikipedia contributors is most welcome at this point. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It is true that many tennis analysts and fellow players consider him to best player of all time with the finest all round game. I don't see a problem with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm not here to take sides or get on anyone's good side or promote one cause over another. I'm speaking from experience. I've been on a situation before where weasel words nearly got an article deleted twice in a little over a year (List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable). An article I was working on (but had not named or moved)got nominated for deletion simply because it had the word "considered" in the title (i.e. implying a high amount of subjectivity in its content). Using the old version is better (i.e. "Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time."). It offers a compromise solution. Federer fans like myself, TennisAnalyst and IP76 can legitimately call him the GOAT on WP, while not violating WP:NPOV. We must remember that since we are on WP, we must abide by its rules. The old version is what got this article to be a good article. If we ever want the chance to make this an FA, then we best stick with the old version. Otherwise, a delisting looms as a possibility in the future. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Haha Bloom, there's nothing wrong with taking sides on an issue. In fact, that's what everyone needs to do in discussions like this. ;) Anyway, as WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV clearly explain, articles must stay away from subjective terms to describe "how many" feel about something. Just state the facts! If you ask 100 people what "widely considered" means, you'll get dozens of different answers. If you ask 100 people what "many" means, you'll get dozens of different answers. That's why Wikipedia says DO NOT use terms like that. If nine people said something, then say "Nine people said...." or even "Several people said..." (nine qualifies, factually, as several). If about 40 people said something, then say "Dozens of people said..." But saying "widely considered" is, as Bloom described, extreme. Saying that Federer is "widely considered" the greatest ever is the same as saying that "most" people in the world or the "vast majority" people in the world feel that way. Sorry, but as Bloom said, that doesn't even come close to being appropriate for Wikipedia. So TennisAnalyst, what I have said clearly does answer your question: "widely considered" is NEVER appropriate for Wikipedia when describing someone's greatness in something. And that's not my opinion; it's Wikipedia's rule. And before, you said you really wanted Bloom's opinion on this. Well, he gave it. He said he disagrees with you and clearly explained why. So now you say you want someone else's opinion. And you still have yet to expalin why you think WP:WEASEL is not being violated. Also, you claimed that 20 people said Federer is the greatest ever, but the fact is that the article contains sources for just five former players who said it. (Previously in this discussion, I provided new sources for two other players who said it, so that would make seven.) We need to stay focused on the facts and what's actually contained in the article. And you have not explained why you would be opposed to a factual sentence like "He has been called the greatest player of all time by various sports media outlets such as Sports Illustrated and The Tennis Channel, and by several retired tennis greats, including Andre Agassi, Bjorn Borg, Jack Kramer, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras." --76.189.114.243 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, looking things over, I think an intermediate position might work. "Widely considered" does indeed seem to me is WP:WEASELy; but I think saying "consided by Foo, Bar, and Cheese as..." seems a bit too far the other way. Perhaps something along the lines of "Regarded by many in the sport as...", with a variety of sources either in place or in a footnote, might work? - The Bushranger One ping only 16:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not to digress too much but the Donald Bradman article mentions "an Australian cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time." with just one single source behind it. And that's a Featured Article.--Wolbo (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bushranger is an administrator and has confirmed what I've been saying about WP:WEASEL. And his suggestion is precisely in line with my suggestion of following the type of phrasing used on Michael Jordan, which says, "Many of Jordan's contemporaries label Jordan as the greatest basketball player of all time." They don't say he is "widely considered" the greatest of all time; they say that many of his contempories say it. This matches exactly what Bushranger is instructing us to do. As far as the Bradman reference, the cited source, ESPN Cricinfo, actually uses the term "the greatest batsman in the game." Therefore, the sentence in the Bradman article should absolutely attribute that quote to ESPN Cricinfo, and it should be in quotes. It should say, "ESPN Cricinfo called Bradman "the greatest batsman of all time." "Widely acknowledged" not only is not used in the source material, it clearly violates WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. ESPN said it. Period. This is very similar to Michael Jordan, which says, "His biography on the National Basketball Association (NBA) website states, "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time." That article is very careful to show that the NBA website said it and to put the statement in quotes.--76.189.114.243 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since this change was relatively recent (it doesn't exist before [5]), I moved it out of the lead and made the wording a little more neutral. It's clear that several people/sources believe him to be the best player ever, but it's far removed from the defining, non-subjective facts of his career—the statistics and awards otherwise either do or don't speak for themselves, depending on the reader, but we're not parrots to the judgment calls of others. As a rule of thumb, avoid coercing the reader to accept judgment statements derived from those made by others; that's part of the nature of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. --slakr\ talk / 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is nothing POV about citing various legends and experts who say Federer is the "best ever" or "greatest ever." I think it's very biased to leave such valuable information out of the article. This is a subject that has been hashed about on the Talk Page for years now. Before any such drastic change is made, several senior Wikipedia contributors and editors should be consulted. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- TennisAnalyst, no one ever said there was anything wrong with the cites. Where does it say that? Of course those cites are fine. You're missing the very clear point. The issue is the the weasly wording in the opening sentence ("widely considered the greatest player of all time").
- OK, here is my suggestion, based on what is currently sourced. For accuracy, we need to tone down the phrasing in the opening sentence, and I think we should also create a new section devoted solely addressing his all-time greatness (similar to the Legacy section on Michael Jackson). I checked all nine of the current sources for the "greatest of all time" statement. (The 10th citation, link [7], does not work. It directs to the website's current home page.) Of the nine links, five players (Laver, Kramer, Lloyd, Agassi, Roddick), plus two sports sites (Tennis Channel and Sports Illustrated), directly say Federer is the greatest ever. Two of the nine sources are the same Laver quote. Agassi hedged, saying that Federer is the best "right now" but that maybe Nadal would be the best ever. Sampras only said, "I have to give it to him" when he was asked about Federer's all-time greatness. The furthest Lendl went was to say that Federer is "arguably" the best ever; he did not actually say he's the best. So overall, we currently have just a few SOURCED quotes from players who actually said he is the greatest of all time. Certainly nowhere close to enough to be able to say "most" or "many" or "the majority of" or anything like that. And definitely not "widely considered" or anything similar (although those violate WP:WEASEL anyway). Again, I personally believe he's the best ever, and I believe many others feel that way, but those are opinions and we simply don't have the sourced material to back up the excessive (weasly) words.
- Therefore, what I propose is to change the lead (opening sentence) and to create a new section about his all-time greatness, as follows:
- CURRENT OPENING SENTENCE: Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely considered to be the greatest player of all time.[a]
- CHANGE OPENING SENTENCE TO: Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player. Some of the most successful players in tennis history, as well as a few sports websites, have called him the greatest player of all-time.[a]
- All-time greatness status (new section)
- Several tennis players, including a few of the most successful in tennis history, have said that Federer is the best player ever. Rod Laver said, “Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time if there is such a thing.”.[3][11] Jack Kramer said, “I never seen anyone play the game better than Federer”.[4] John Lloyd said, “in my opinion he's got to be the greatest player of all time”.[5] Andre Agassi said, “To me he's the best of all time now – maybe Nadal has a chance in his career to prove differently, but right now I think Roger's the all-time best”.[9] Ivan Lendl said Federer “is arguably the best player who ever played the game.” In 2009, when Pete Sampras and Andy Roddick were asked if they thought Roger Federer was the greatest player ever, Pete Sampras said, “I have to give it to him” and Roddick gave a simple “Yes.”[6]
- In 2012, Tennis Channel ranked him #1 on their list of “The 100 Greatest of All Time”, which included both men and women.[2] Sports Illustrated also ranked Federer as #1 on their list of “Top 10 Men's Tennis Players of All Time”.[8]
- I hope we can reach consensus soon, so we can make this right. Thanks.
- --76.189.114.243 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Given the discussion at hand, there's clearly not consensus for your version of the lead. Because it was a recent change, we typically revert the change until there's consensus for whatever version that is proposed. Please keep this in mind before continuing the previous edit war. Thanks. --slakr\ talk / 20:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)