Talk:Roger Federer

Template:WP1.0

Good points (although "lie" is a very strong word here)

I have toned down the praise to match the references. But perhaps the problem is that the more "reluctant" references are 6 slams old? So we could probably dig up sources that backs up what was said before.--HJensen, talk 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if it can be supported with citations then there is no probably. But it isn't right now. As it stands now, the only person who is on record as changing his mind is Jack Kramer. Sylvain1972 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs)

"an increasing number of them concluding he is the best ever". Who are those increasing voters? I am a big fan of Federer, but, that statement gotta go. This is WP not a teenager blog. I propose even removing the whole greatest ever debate or something to that effect. I will edit to tone it down a little. - RC 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the "best ever" statement is to be continuously voided out - and it should be remembered that it references an on-going debate, not my pov - then comparable statements on other pages (see, for instance, the entry for Bjorn Borg) similarly have no place. Schpinbo 04:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement is not being "voided out," it is being changed to reflect accurately the sources cited. I've outline the sources above in painstaking detail to illustrate what they actually say. If you find a reputable source that supports your claims, then we can change the paragraph. That is the standard for all of wikpeida. Sylvain1972 16:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may have the temerity to contradict you - yes, it is being voided out. Here are some of the requested reputable sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2005/09/13/sthodg13.xml

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/7005666

This second source begins thusly: "Roger Federer is the best tennis player ever ... or is he? That is the *debate that rages* after Federer, 25, won Wimbledon Sunday for the fifth time in a row." (emphasis added).

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20070918_All_hail_King_Roger_the_Great.html

This third source, an article in the Philadelphia Daily News, goes further, suggesting Federer "be acknowledged as the most dominant professional athlete in the world" -- never mind tennis player.

Sufficient evidence, I would suggest, that my prior dispassionate entry that "many observers now consider him the best male tennis player ever" (or words to that effect) should stay. I agree that simply stating "He is the best player ever" would be patently partisan. And it would obviously be disingenuous (at best) to include myself among the "many observers." But relating the fact that such a view is gaining currency in sports reporting is a perfectly objective statement to make. Schpinbo 00:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Telegraph article has a misleading headline. Agassi does not say in the article itself that Federer was the "best ever," only that he was the best that he (Agassi) ever played against. The Fox article supports your claim somewhat, but only Cliff Drysdale comes out saying he thinks Federer is the best--everyone else says wait and see. The Philadelphia Daily News says only that he is "arguably the best ever." Being the dominant professional athlete in the world at the moment is not the same as being the great tennis player of all time. At this point, I think the sources justify "some observers now consider him the best male tennis player ever."Sylvain1972 15:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your solution strikes me as quite in line with my original phraseology. Thank you. Schpinbo 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The existing statement, as is, is accurate as per the sources cited. Not one respectable tennis historian or former great has came out out right and told that Federer is the greatest ever. The major theme is that he's one of the greats and is accurately reflected. Please be constructive and let the article flourish rather than putting obstacles on hindering its growth. The statement "some observers now consider him the best male tennis player ever." is absolutely not supported by the references. I am huge, huge Federer fan and I run a very popular blog on him and been following Roger very closely for number of years. It will be an absolute pleasure for me to claim Federer to be the GOAT. Give him a few years and please let this article grow! Please forget about that statement. There are plenty of work around this article that needs updating and please refer to GA and FA comments. Thank you! We would do much favor to Federer by getting this article on front page of wikipedia :) - RC 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the articles you quote e.g. Larry Atkins teaches journalism at Temple and Arcadia universities is not quite considered "authorative" on tennis or its greatness. Nor is Dan Weil. Reputed Mark Hodgkinson of Telegraph, in the article you quoted has made up that headline. Here's the exact quote from Agassi, as per that same article. ""Roger is the best I've ever played against," Agassi said. There's nowhere to go. Roger makes you play on the edge. You need to play the craziest tennis you've ever played." "Pete Sampras was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you did it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger," Agassi said." No where in there Agassi talks about all time etc. He just talks about the players he played again. I am not going to keep commenting on this issue. Thanks! - RC 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your plea to let the article flourish is taken very well. In fact, that's what I'm trying to do. There is no question but that a debate is growing as to whether Federer is the greatest ever -- apparently one which you follow avidly, by your own confession. Admittedly, it takes the form of a question in nearly all cases. You'll find many more articles titled "Is Federer the best ever?" than "Federer is the best ever." I grant you that. But surely we can take cognizance of what is a growing debate by -- to some degree -- touching on the fact that there is a debate on this question.

Is it really "hindering its growth" or putting an "obstacle" on the ability of the Federer entry to flourish, to note that this is a debate which is the subject of many, many articles written by third parties? Permit me to suggest that in the name of letting the article grow, you are denying someone their right to grow the article. I would suggest, in fact, that to keep the spirit you suggest for the Federer entry, it is exactly the right thing to do to allow the audience to know what is currently being said about Federer, or asked about Federer's stature.

Audiences are tantalized by questions that cannot yet be answered, of course. A good novel, after all, gripping to read in its plot twists and turns, is a novel you hate to have end. You don't want to put it down. And I can see how you might interpret my suggestion as a way of ending this plot prematurely. But if journalists and other informed citizens (surely a professor is someone who can be trusted to elevate him- or herself- above the level of "teenager enthusiasm") find themselves entering a growing (and serious) coversation as to whether Federer is "the best ever," and if not what it will take for him to be pronounced as such, under what pretexts do the gatekeepers of this entry get to keep that debate from being known? Schpinbo 15:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Refer to archived dicussions for plenty of debates on this "greatest ever" position. I am not trying to subdue discussion. I just would like to see more discussion on several different aspects of Federer rather than just this "best ever" issue. WP not a novel. We just stick to know proven facts. I highly suggest reading more about Wikipedia and its pillars. Feel free to link to any meaningful debates from tennis authorities. Plenty of them are already source in this article as well on the Tennis article. Thanks! - RC 15:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, archived discussions which never make it on to the main Federer page. You now profess to be supressing my contribution because "we just stick to known proven facts." This is demonstrably false. "[H]e is considered among the elite group of all-time great male tennis players" is not a "proven fact", it's a point of view. One that apparently you agree with - so it gets to stay. By what rationale do you countenance some POVs and not others?

There are countless wikipedia entries which describe POVs, naturally without endorsing any particular one. Countless pages refer to debates, historical or contemporary, about personalities or events. And none of them apparently abide by this apparent "just the facts" clause. I want to see discussion of other aspects of Federer as well. But your plea to broaden the discussion cannot be an excuse to prohibit another discussion -- one which the average reader will find much more salient than the fact that he's the first living Swiss to appear on a postage stamp.

I have linked meaningful debates already. What you are doing here is moving the goalposts. You now claim to raise the bar by admitting only the writings of "tennis authorities". Would you kindly define who a "tennis authority" is? How does one get professionally credentialed as a "tennis authority"? Someone's blog obviously doesn't count. But what about a sports columnist who gets to write about the topic for an established newspaper or news outlet?

I repeat my request that reference to this debate be included on the main Federer page. The wording I suggest is: "Federer's acheivements have given rise to a debate as to whether he might be the best male tennis player of all time." The citations I offered can then be used -- and if you want to, I can find others to firm it up further. Any third party would find such wording entirely dispassionate and unprejudicial. Schpinbo 13:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I strongly agree, please, Wikipedia is a neutral encyco, no federer fans should be allowed to write these things. The line should say that " he is considered by many to be one of the greatest players of all time".

For heavens sake, do not disrespect players like connors, borg, mcenroe (who says that fed is the most gifted he has ever seen" which doesnt necessarily means that federer is the greatest mcenroe has ever seen), players like laver, rosewell, gonzalez and many more sampras, agassi, please BE NEUTRAL.

All these Fed fans are making wikipedia less reliable and more biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.174.11 (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What the DUCK is this? The start of the article says ALMOST all people consider him the Greatest of all time? who are those all? hellooo. The sources are old. Stupid. Those were the times when fed beat stupid players like hewitt roddick blake in his slam finals. they couldnt even stay with fed. Waht about now, nadal murray djokovic simon are kicking his butt all the way.

and please refer to the interview given by rod laver in jan 2008 to time.com about all this hype about fed.

the article should say, He is one of the all time greats, nothing more and nothing less —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.14.253 (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

2005 Tennis Masters Cup surface

Ok, I kept on pointing this out way back then, and even to some editors now: the surface used for that event was Indoor Carpet, not Indoor Hard. If you don't believe me, try accessing the info from the ATP website. Probably, the very evidence that speak for itself is the fact that despite that loss in the final, his record hardcourt winning streak then was still alive (i.e. it got snapped only in 2006 Dubai tournament). In any case, I edited this fact then, but editors kept on reverting, insisting that it was played on Hardcourt. This might affect the hardcourt and carpet win-loss record not just of Federer, but of other participants, for the year. The same goes for the 2007 WTA Tour Championships, when almost all player wikipedia articles pointed out that the surface was Indoor Hard, when as per the WTA website, it was Indoor Carpet. Of course, I wouldn't mind editing this, but since I had a bad experience with the 2005 Tennis Masters Cup, I'll just inform other editors till we reach a consensus. Joey80 (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the answer: Hard. Here is the website: [1] Not sure where you saw carpet, but it was hard, and I think I remember it being played on it too. Sorry to break it to you, but I was in the mood for editing today as you can see from my history (no one cares about my history :) )

~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sure it was carpet, Joey80 is right about the hardcourt streak being mentioned as continuing until his Dubai loss to Nadal, and the ATP website in Federer's playing activity lists it as carpet, while the ATP's record of the tournament also lists it as carpet. I remember them changing the surface in response to player feedback, and an article written at the time also calls it 'carpet-indoor' (in the grey box on the right). I would say that the TMC website was trying to rewrite its own history. But I won't edit it, if people have now decided that the carpet never was. OSmeone (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd add a few links to support that it was indeed on carpet, since I too was curious about this tonight and found this talkpage while googling. The precise type of carpet was Gerflor Taraflex. Here's an interview with Federer after his first round robin match in which he's asked twice about what it's like to play on "this surface".

And I think I know why the "official" surface is listed as hard in many places: the ATP signed a 3 year deal with Gerflor to use Taraflex at the TMC beginning in 2005, but obviously they only used it that one year before switching to some sort of hard court in 2006. Sounds to me like they tried to sweep this one under the "carpet" ;) --Armchair info guy (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

2007 hardcourt/carpet win totals

I fixed an incorrect statistic listing Federer with 7 carpet wins in 2007 when he actually only had two. The previous edit was under the assumption that Basel was still played on the "artificial grass" (i.e. carpet) surface of Taraflex, when in fact the tournament recently switched to GreenSet, listed by the ITF website as an acrylic, or hard, surface. I obviously added the 5 wins to his hardcourt totals.--12.218.84.248 (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

True for the fact of the Davidoff Swiss Indoors surface. But Federer's 2007 single carpet record was 3-1. Two wins coming from the Davis Cup match in Prague where he beat Stepanek and Berdych. The other win was his opening second round match at the Paris Masters before losing back-to-back against David Nalbandian who had beaten him in the Madrid Masters final two weeks before. Seems that the Paris AMS matches were listed as hard court. Changed that in the statistics. --FeinerMax (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ghost scare tactic

It was mentioned on the pre-match coverage when Federer was playing on the BBC that before each game he puts a white sheet over his head, goes into his opponent's dressing room and makes what he describes as "ghoulsih moaning sounds" in the hope that they will mistake him for a ghost and forfeit the match through fear and distress, thus meaning Federer wins without having to play, but they also mentioned it has only been successful twice. Has this been mentioned any where else? It may be worth adding to the page under the "playing style" section if true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.208.154 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Be BOLD. If you believe that there is information that can enhance this article, then feel free to add the info. Don't worry about adding sources, someone else will take care of that. Your job is simply to report the facts.68.83.95.212 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

please, that is nonsense, be bold but don't make up crap like this. i can't find anything to support what you said, and i can't believe i looked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demondayzzz (talk • contribs) 19:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Rivalry

ok. That section absolutely sucks. I think this is unfair to say that Nadals main reason to win against fed is that he is left handed and his forehand goes to feds backhand. Someone should also notice that Federes forehand also goes to the nadal backhand but he cant break down nadal on that side. I think this line should be added. ANd dont say that there is no reference for it as there is no reference for the fed back nadal fore, either.

that's because fed's forehand doesn't have half as much topspin as nadal's does, and even if it did, nadal has a double handed backhand which he can hit high balls with, whereas high balls are tougher to hit with federer's backhand, especially when they are spinning off nadal's forehand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demondayzzz (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually their forehand topspin are 4,400 rpm (Nadal) and 4,000 rpm (Federer). That's about 10%, but it makes an obvious difference. Until Nadal came along, Fed's forehand was one famous for its topspin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.154.136 (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Career statistics format

two things:

First one, I think that Summer Olympics should be between Master Cup's and ATP trophys (like Rafael Nadal's one), because being under ATP doesnt fit the "importance" table that they should have.

Second one, this table and Rafael Nadal's table format is different under the Master Cup's part. One of them should be changed to make they have the same format, like every article-kind of wikipedia should do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.66.225 (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ranking not consistent here?

On this article it says 238 weeks - but on the ATP tour records article it says 236??? Do I need to count this myself again by hand........ ? GoldenGoose100 (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Tennis expert (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

pfft, now it says 237 weeks in the article lol. What a day Tennis expert... ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Added "Rivalry with Nadal" sub-section

I followed the precedent in the Pete Sampras article by adding this sub-section under the Career section. There's not much written because it's mostly to direct readers to the Federer-Nadal rivalry page. I also added the same sub-section in Rafael Nadal's page too. --Armchair info guy (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this bit should recognise that it's not a balanced rivalry - Nadal has had much the better of their encounters. Nadal has now proved himself to be a superior player to Federer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.56.85 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

oh my god give me a break! nadal just reached his first hardcourt grandslam final. his first! everyone seems to be in agreement that federer since the end of 2007 has had his worst year and nadal has barely scraped 2 major victories. don't give me this "nadal has now proved himself to be a superior player to federer" bs, nadal will never reach the final of a hardcourt without a great deal of luck, such as verdasco beating murray (and he barely beat verdasco as well), so on clay he is the top no doubt, on grass he's tied for #1 simply because federer has won FIVE in a row and lost the sixth by 2 points despite playing horribly on return games, and on hard he has just reached his FIRST hardcourt final. djokovic has reached more, and won one as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demondayzzz (talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Relax, guys. We're NPOV around here. --Armchair info guy (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Federer still #1

The chart at the end ranks Federer as #2 with Nadal as #1, but Nadal becomes #1 August 18th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.13.165 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oberwil

If you click the link to Federer's hometown Oberwil, you get a list of many cities of the same name in Switzerland. Could someone determing the correct one?Stevv (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

federer moved to wollerau .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.12.219.91 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

please add

Please add at the 2008 section, a photo of him on the podium with Wawrinka and the gold medals. It would fit very well here, since... it's the only important win of Federer on the entire year.

For example, I find this one very good: http://estaticos04.jjoo.marca.com/2008/imagenes/2008/08/16/1218880963_extras_portada_1.jpg

The problem is that I've read problems of images with opensource and such, and I really don't know how to find an image without any kind of copyright... thank you. 81.184.71.124 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Title Changes

From "Singles performance timeline" to "Performance timeline", this is cause the table now shows the progress on doubles on the summer olympics. Tell me if you find it good. Wikitestor (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it since it is a "Singles performance timeline" that somebody added the doubles gold to. I say revert it back to what it was before and remove the doubles gold - it's already in the infobox and the doubles section. Armchair info guy (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, I've done it cause that doubles bar on the summer olympics section but if you revert it back to normal (like it should be), please put the singles word on the tittle again. PD: Anyways what you do here, please go to the Rafael Nadal article and do the same, add the statistics table legend (the table that shows what is A,SF,QF,W,RR..) because the article is semiprotected and people is ignoring me there totally, appart of destroying the article. Wikitestor (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

Why the statistics section is not divided into singles and doubles like in the rest of articles? Nice try to sneak in his olympic gold to a more conspicuous position. 87.217.163.208 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

statistics table: 2 changes?

I think the background of the W on doubles olympics win should be color gold instead of green, since its a different kind of tournament, and Djokovic has the bronze colour on it. Also I've moved the Olympic section up close to the tennis master for 2 reasons:

- It has way more importance than an atp masters - We should equall all articles, I find it like this on Nadal's and Djokovic's one.

I've changed it for now, tell me what you think about it. 81.184.70.242 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to discussion on Tournament Names

Here is where the discussion on tournament names can continue --HJensen, talk 16:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being so blunt but this is wikipedia, it exists to provide a NEUTRAL point of view of things and personalities. I think this section mostly contains federer fans.

Why in statistics. Under Performance timeline, is Doubles gold medal award included??. Its an singles performance timeline. Just because federer won a gold and some fans want to let people know doesnt mean that it has to be in that section. The heading says sinles performances. Why is there a doubles performance, This would clearly lead to confusion amongst newcomers to tennis.

And if for some of you , it is right then how come you have not included his other master series titles in doubles in that section.

Please be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohair9034 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at Wikiproject tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

flag

The flag in the infobox should be removed per WP:FLAG.ThatsGrand (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedex1 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

federer has won 601 matches not 598 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedex1 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Career money

in one part says 43.6M, and in another says 43.2. Which is right? because if the first is, he is N1 in history and not N2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarejo (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

$43,138,419 is the official sum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.224.23 (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The ATP site shows that Federer won $1,370,000 for winning the US Open (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?player=F324). But in the US Open site it says the winner received $1,500,000 (http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/prizemoney.html?promo=topnav).

Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.203.45 (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Prize money problem

It's a problem with the prize money because if you sum all the money he earned each year, you don't get the atp official one. Federer turned pro in 1998, so he had to won 27,955 dollars that year for the calculation to be correct. However, we can't prove anything because i can't found any link to sustain that. What do you think we should do? Hadrianos1990 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to the ATP website and added all the money he won in 1998 and the total is 27,305 USD. Here are the links: http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?prevtrnnum=0&year=1998&query=Singles&selTournament=0&player=F324&x=11&y=11 and http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?prevtrnnum=0&year=1998&query=Doubles&selTournament=0&player=F324&x=9&y=13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.139.132 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Career record comparison table

How would you compare tennis players?
WIBNI there was a table with the career record statistics for each of them?
Something like:
Name W L Pct
R.F. 605 146 80.56
Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Greatest player? Ask Roger

I must say, the opening statement, that many critics hail Federer as greatest tennis player, and the ciatations there, border on the comical. First: The quotations simply don't say that (that is dicussed above).Collins say's explicitly, that - a it is now - he doesn't reckon Federer the best. At best,only the Kramer and Ferrer citations are somewhat useful.But Ferrer is a actual player with not the biggest knowledge of tennis history. Now it gets more comical. On top of the quotations, there is placed an interview with Federer on Federer's own webside. So Federer himself on his own greatness is obviously a trustful source under wikipedia-rules? If that is encyclopedic, Diderot will turn in his grave. (german Friend, 14.9.08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.154.191 (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many who testify that he is the greatest ever, including not just Kramer and Ferrer, but Agassi, Murray, Laver, McEnroe, etc. Even Sampras acknowledged that Federer possessed more talent than he, more or less. Someone who is not as lazy as me should take the time and unearth these quotes and use them in the article. 173.24.65.31 (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You have to take all these qutoes in context. No where did anyone of these players said that he is the greatest of all time. You cannot say one player in the greatest of all time. Laver said that in jan 2008 when fed was at his best peak. And yeah. Agassi said that because he previously said that federer had no weakness (ofcourse, how can a 35 yo find a weakness in a 23 yo) which now we all know that its not true. Nadal and Murray have shown us that there are plenty of weaknesses in federer's game.

Plus. Being one the greatest players of all time and being the most talented player of all time, are two COMPLETELY different things. So I think, the article should say that Federer is considered as amongst the greatest male single's players in modern era history of tennis. Saying that fed "is the greatest player of all time" is just stupid. What about the female players, are we being biased towards the female sex. Huh? Plus. Fed is certanily no where in the "greatest doubles player of all time".

Plus, we dont know how many great players came and went before open era who were better than federer and borg. So We can only say that Federer was the best of his era and considered as an all time great. That is what Rod Laver said and that is what i am saying —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohair9034 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing. You're negating actual facts and direct quotes. We're not saying he is the greatest. The sources are. And that's what we're implying. So what if you have your own opinion that he's isn't the greatest? Fine, blog about it, but don't you dare say you have more credibility than the likes of Andre Agassi. And yeah, why'd you put Nadal as the greatest clay-court? I'm not saying he's not, but you could refute it as well with your own explanation. And for the record, Nadal said he was the greatest (Wimbledon 2008) and Murray as well (US Open 2008). And those are the two people you thought that can prove he wasn't the greatest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.48 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

what actual facts are you talking about. Federe beating up stupid players like Roddick and Hewitt in grand slam finals.huh? and where are those 'QUOTES'. and i am not a nadal fan (so stupid these fed fans are). I am just saying that it is absolutely insane to call one player the greatest of all time and ignore all others that came before him.

If you arent a lazy ass, may be you should check out those references. Apart from Ferrer (who is not the greatest authority on tennis) no one says that federer "is the greatest". Agassi said that ":he is the best i ve played against" becuase he previously said that federer has no weakness. Which has been proved wrong by the likes of Nadal and murray. Fed does have weaknesses in his game, like in any other player. Its just that dumb players like Roddick, Blake and Hewitt who had so much weaknesses in their own games, werent able to find in Fed's.

And yeah. About the murray and Nadal thing. How would you feel, if you said that i kicked "the supposedly greatest player of all time"'s butt 12 times. Lead him by 12-6 in all career meeting while i am half a decade younger than him and that "supposedly greatest player of all time" is playing at his peak. Murray is like 6 years older than Fed. Still he has a 5-2 record against him.

Now fed is getting to see, what real talent is. Beating up 21 yo's in grand slam finals and stupid players like Roddick and Hewitt in grand slam finals in no biggy. Laver and Borg had way more better players to deal with at their times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohair9034 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

N yeah. About that Nadal greatest thingy. Well. You should be dumb enough to know that a guy who just turned 22, has a record of, 108 wins out of last 110 games on clay, and that too, way way before his peak, which comes around 27, Plus. He did it against the players with the quality of Federer etc. Not against players like Roddick, Hewitt and 35 yo agassi's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohair9034 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He kicked Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, in the grand slam finals. Not just those minnows you mentioned (When was the last time you followed tennis? Honestly). Why are you so defensive? You seem to hate him a lot. We're not asking for your opinion on his "greatest" status, which you solely imply here. The sources say (Go to the links and read it will ya?) that some professionals and former players call him the greatest. You don't have to put in the article that he's the greatest, but that current and former players, and critics call him the greatest. Why? Because there are those reference numbers that say that you moron. We didn't ask who he beat, or whatever, especially an opinion from you. Oh yeah, I wonder why you put Nadal as the greatest clay-court player? I think that was your contribution to that article "non-Nadal fan." I agree with that, but your reason for doing that is just the same as Federer being called the "greatest." You're to defensive and very prejudiced. Look at your argument. You FREAKED OUT. It was like you were trying to scream. Just saying. Oh yea, "Greatest ever? Ask Nadal." Yea even he said that. And if you wanna talk statistics, sometimes age doesn't matter. Federer has won 13 grand slams in 5 years. Nadal 5 in 5 years. Nadal is 12-6 to Federer but 9-1 on clay. Makes Federer on the winning side of the other TWO surfaces. Federer is the only player to have won 3 majors 3 times. Add to that the only player to win US Open and Wimbledon 5 consecutive times. And all this by 27 (Heck, there's one page in wiki entirely dedicated to his achievements!) And if your saying, "Oh, Nadal is only 22." Well SPORT isn't a line graph, and nobody is predicting he'll have 13 majors when he's 27, not to mention if he'll even reach that mark. You don't count age into these things. You count achievements. And if you're saying Nadal is greater than Roger ALL BECAUSE HE'S 22, wiki isn't the place for that. And, if he'll be come greater, that remains to be seen. What matters is what people are thinking now, as said in the references. AND PLEASE READ THEM FULLY. Wiki is a factual site. It's not your blog space. Zohair. Be fair. I'm only asking that what will be put is "Some current and former player, and critics, consider(this means he might be, and can be, and also IS) him to be the greatest ever." Sorry, I didn't put those references(Which are not updated by the way... someone deleted the newer ones where players such as nadal and murray say that he IS already the greatest... I dunno who, but I remember there 7 references, now only 5 [outdated] ones.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.48 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. First. I didnt say that he didnt beat nadal murray and djokovic. All were under 21 you moron. They are all half a decade ytounger than federer. And stats do tell all the story and dont misquote the stats. Your arguements are so deviated. Fed did not win 13 slams in 5 years,. Count those years too when he didnt win anything. at all. Plus. Nadal and Murray are not the greatest authors of tennis. They dont have enough knowledge of tennis history and i am not saying that i have. I am just saying that the sources have been misquoted. DO you want me to put another source there of Rod laver. HE said, "no one can wear the title of best ever, fe is only best of his era". Its just sad to see ppl like you going like, whos the greatest, tell me , or i ll die, i dont have a life.

The fact is that Laver again Recently said that tennis has changed so so much that you cant compare players from different era's. and I am not giving opinion unlike you. I can also quote like a million records of sampras and borg over here but that doesnt matter much and I think I am being fair, by calling fed as one of the greatest of the open era. Not before that.

Why dont you dufus's understand. How the FUCK are you trying to compare a borg and a federer. Borg didnt have these rackets, borg didnt have dumb player like roddicks and safins, Borg didnt have these slow surfaces. Borg didnt have advanced medical treatments. Borg didnt have all these things. Whereas, same can be said of fed too. So i think a sane and educated statement would be that either federer is considered to be one of the greatest make singles players of the open era or he is considered to be best player of his era. Which sounds good too. How the fuck, are you negating the players who played before the open era.

Thats sad, to say the least. And also, fed is a male singles players. He cant even touch female players records (margeret smith won 62 slams combined) ok. and fed is certainly not the best doubles player. So all i am saying is that Fed should be called the best of his era or one of the best of the open era mens singles players.

First of all, calm down. Shouting and cursing won't change anyone's mind.

Now, back on topic. Your edit isn't accurate, because Federer is indeed widely considered one of the best tennis players of all time. Even though you cannot compare players from different eras, the statement is true. Even if your opinion or Laver's opinion is different, the statement is true. The article doesn't say "Federer is the best player of all time", it says that he's considered one of the best tennis players of all time, and that's a true, encyclopedic info that belongs to Wikipedia. Please explain why saying that he's considered one of the bests of all time isn't true. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 15:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is what i am saying with a little difference. See. you cant say all time as we do not know how many good players went before the open era, who may have had records to which federer doesnt even come close to. So I think, its better to say he is considered as one of the greatest male singles players of the OPEN ERA, not all time. Which is correct too. Ofcourse, a guy who has won 13 slams has got to be one of the greatest, but of the open era, not all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.165.227 (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

But saying "one of the greatest male singles players of the open era" is inaccurate. Yeah, you can't compare players from different eras and sexes, be it doesn't mean he isn't considered one of the best tennis players of all time. He is considered one of the best tennis players of all time, and saying he isn't would be lying. ofc, your version is correct as well, but it isn't as accurate. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 11:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. First, Federer is a male, so we must add a male to his "goat" thing. Second, he is not one of the best doubles male players of all time. So we must add singles there too. Thirdly, stats have only been recorded from the open era (previous ones were not accurate), so i think it is justified that federer is one of the greatest male singles players in the open era. Plus, I dont think anyone who would visit wikipedia, would want to go into that detail, that whether he is the one of the best of all time or of the open era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohair9034 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Nadal today: "you are one of the best players of the history". Does he mention male? does he mention open era? does he mention singles? no, because that's what he's considered to be, whether he's indeed that, or whether it's comparable. Look at the Björn Borg article: "who is widely regarded by observers and tennis players as one of the greatest players in the sport's history." Again, it doesn't mention male, singles, nor it mentions open era.RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 18:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Helooooo. It is also because the general media has a tendancy to exclude woman from the greatest player of all time talk, i think we should atleast start this at wikipedia of not to discriminate amongst males and females. I think you should all take that in context. I am just doing it for the common man who doesnt know these things and may get the wrong impression that federer excels at doubles tournament too. Ok. Since i am not here to argue for nothing. I think that it can be all time, so you can remove the open era if you want to. But i think, the male and singles should be there. and since there are like 50 people in history who have won more grand slams than fed (combined slams) so i think, a player ranked at 51 in terms of slams cannot be one of the greatest players of all time.

And nadal also said that laver is the best and has said about a number of players. These are all human beings, they will at one point or another call anyone and everyone one of the greatest. Thats not an issue whether fed is one of the greatest or not. I am just saying that we should specify this by including male and singles.

As federer hasnt excelled at doubles. Ok. SO singles is must. when any of the ppl like nadal, say that fed is one of the best, than it is always taken in context that he is talking about mens singles game. But here, at wikipedia, we should take no such chances and specify everything. We dont know how fed wouold have played against the women players, so we should add male there as well.

Borg article does say that what you have said, but that is not my concern. I cant edit the profile of 100 ppl. I ll try by the way. Because i think, there should be equal distinction and value, for the male and female, doubles and singles players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.167.113 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And also, in thing we must take into consideration that this is wikipedia. a neutral and fair place to talk facts. We should not underestimate the value of a doubles slam or a mixed doubles slam. I know, audience likes to only talk about singles as they think, only this is hard but doubles is hard too and even if its not, wikipedia, should specify as not to mislead someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.167.113 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

if you are wanting to truly be neutral and fair, and if you have actually watched doubles tennis, you will know that it is of a different level than singles (much much worse) and the same goes for female singles vs male singles, it isn't unbiased to say that male tennis is of a level that women's has not reached, or that doubles matches and slams are of a much lesser quality than singles, it's the truth! doubles is still best of 3, federer had a few halfhearted swings at it and won the gold medal with stanislas wawrinka (horrible volleyer), and beat paes and bhupathi i think and the bryan twins along the way, some of the top pairings in doubles tennis. no one takes doubles (as) seriously, and we shouldn't either. and male gs champions and female ones shouldn't be compared, period, if you want to avoid any "controversy" in telling the unpleasant (not for me) truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demondayzzz (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Zohair, with all your talk about 'singles' and 'open era' and 'male', tell me then why you put that Nadal is considered by many the greatest clay-court player ever? It just shows how much you want to desecrate Federer's article, being a Nadal fan. I can't understand why though, Nadal likes Federer and vise-versa. And even if you weren't Nadal's fan, the same reason goes. And if you're still not convinced, the sources inputted at that line are pretty old. You might want to update it to say, Wimbledon 2008, where Nadal said he IS the greatest ever?(Can't remember what he said Aussie 2009) Or US Open 2008 where Murray said he IS the greatest ever. Hey, I'm just typing down WHAT THEY SAID.

OK FIrst off. Are you really this stupid or are you acting like one. See, I would do the same what nadal says about Federer when I know that I own his ass. LOok at how Nadal is starting to change his view about Fed being greatest and no one has EVER called him the greatest, atleast not any expert. There were contexts to what Mcenroe and Murray said ok. Secondly. I didnt say that doubles or womens side were weaker or stronger. I just said that we dont know. Those who say that fed is great, call him great for singles, not for doubles and not for womens singles or doubles.

PLus. This is just pure subjective uneducative emotional ranting that you are saying here, things like womens side is not good, double aint good. Fact is we can never know. One match doesnt mean that Fed is going to beat them everytime they play. What about INDian wells 2009. Bryan brothers killed fed n his patner 6-2 , 6-0.

PLus. Everyone in the tennis world assumes that when fed is called one of the greatest, he is actually being hailed as one of the greatest male singles tennis players. But at wikipedia, there may be some people who may be new to tennis, do not know this and it is important to tell them that he is considered as one of the greatest male singles player.

Plus. I did not put that on Nadals article and i am not his fan. Put it off. I just think that some retards disrespect other past greats by saying this stupid GOAT things about fed, laver, lendl, borg, mcenroe, sampras. Borg has won more than Nadal on clay, so we will see who is better still though, You cant put one over the other because of different eras and different rackets.

Another thing. Ask any expert now. Lendl said that he cant consider federer as the greatest ever, Rod laver also said that. So there is mixed of opinion. What is confirmed though is the federer is the best player of his era. Not all time. No one can be

Another thing. See, when murray says that fed is greatest, he only says that because he also owns him like nadal. So why give fed the sense of revenge by saying things that fed wont like.

look at nadal. When he knew that he caould not beat fed if fed plays his best, he said things like, fed is goat and stuff. Now when he has owned him on every surface. He said at the australian open 2009, that fed is the greatest he has ever seen but my uncle tony said that laver was the best. So whats the deal with that? Simple. They are all humans and they will change their opinions every now and then.

Stop disrespecting past players. the GOAT has been used for every eras world number 1s so it is no surprise that they used it for fed too. Beating players like roddick, hewitt, safin, 20 yo nadal 20 yo nole does NOT make someone the greatest. If fed has the balls, he should try to prove ppl wrong about his luck of playing, in arguably the weakest era that has ever lived in tennis history through 2003-2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.170.103 (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Arguably the "weakest era"... before you give lectures on respect, you should start respecting the present players. You state that different eras can't be compared, yet, you do so. Don't dismiss Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian as weak players, just because they didn't win 5 or 6 GS: it was only because they had few Grand Slams left for them. Somebody always wins the tournaments that are there to be won: and they would have won them, and consequently, with several GS under their belt, would have been considered worthy opponents by you, but for Federer. That Federer was highly above all players doesn't mean that those others were poor; it can simply mean that though they were as good as any, Fed was even better. If you protest against comparing eras in a subjective way, don't do it yourself. You can never know, and never compare the level of play (that's the only thing that counts here) in different eras, because of the different equipments, opponents, circumstances (eg. media pressure), etc. You can hardly know for sure about past circumstances, and if it was easier or harder for Emerson to win his GS titles than for Sampras, who knows? That's why you can't compare players and chose the GOAT, but that's why you can't call an era weak either. Pumukli (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me tell you something. Though you have a point. Have a look at all the previous best players rivals, and feds rivals. Fed rivals had obvious weaknesses which Borg's eras rivals did not have. Borg had mcenroe, connors and villas on all surfaces neither had any obvious weaknesses while in feds case. Look at roddick, no return game, hewitt, hardly hits any winner and tries to win based purely on over running the opponent, no serve either. Safin, hardly can hit two winners back to back, did not have the head to go with his wonderful technique. same the case with Nalbandian, who actually has a pretty good recrod against federer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.164.2 (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't be sure about McEnroe's, Connors's, Vilas's weaknesses: I'm sure they had some weak points; everybody has. As for your criticism about Roddick, Safin, Hewitt: it's way too harsh. That Federer has been so much better than them may give the false impression that they were weak - but you have to overlook the actual results when forming an opinion about the level of play. I recommend you to rewatch Fed's matches against those opponents, eg. the 2006 US Open SF against Hewitt, or even the 2007 AO SF against Roddick... they were not playing bad. They are professional tennis players, former No.1s, you can't be serious about Hewitt's not being able to serve, etc. Of course their momentary form depends on the opponent they play, and if Fed was able to expose their weak points, it's his merit. Same with Safin: it's absurd that he can't hit 2 winners back to back: of course he can (he has beaten Sampras as well) - but Fed may have got the better of him mentally sometimes. Same with Nadal now: he could do this against Federer. But if you can't win against one single player, it doesn't mean you are bad - maybe your nemesis gets beaten by somebody whom you can beat regularly... A tennis match depends on a few important points, and at this level, it's most of the time a mental game: but this must have been the case in McEnroe's or whoever's time, and I'm sure the past champions also feared some particular opponents, also collapsed sometimes and lost their serve to love. If you can develop a mental advantage against somebody, it's your merit as well. Tennis players are human, and there are lots of factors that influence their game - so eras can't be compared. Pumukli (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? how can a sane person even try to compare villas with roddick, safin with mcenroe and hewitt with connors. I am not comparing eras. I am just saying that, calling federer the greatest male singles player of all time is absurd at best if not outright wrong. Also, You can clearly see that federers rivals were weak by the way novak and murray and nadal have despatched them with ease at such a young age. Yes novak lost to roddick two times this year but novak is in his worst of the year right now. PLus. Beating sampras one time doesnt make a player good or bad. Do you know a player known has hrbatry? (fuck the spelling), he has a winning record gainst fed, nadal and murray and that that doesnt make him as good or even good for that matter.

What i am saying is that, federer's opponents had such obvious weaknesses, there is no such thing as fed was way too better, if you have a weakness, you have a God damn weakness. All Feds rivals are now no where to be seen inside top 50 except for Roddick and that too, because his serve is superb.

And it can also be judged from the fact that Federer always says that in his interview that his era wasnt weak and stuff. If his era wasnt weak, why does he keep on mentioning it. Plus. Federer didnt have to wrestle the number 1 spot from any player. Either great players were going out when fed came or coming in when fed came. Nadals case was way way way more difficult. He had federer at his peak and maintained pressure on him and got the number one ranking from his. Wrestled it back.

All I am saying is that, yes. Federer is one of the greatest male singles players of all time. but he nor anyone else can be considered to be the greatest of all time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.15.227 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fed obviously has to answer the questions asked. As for the GOAT: I too think it's impossible to chose, and it's even unnecessary. So I am not arguing with you about Federer's being the GOAT or not. Anyway, I think Federer himself has quite justly (and rather ironically) settled the question:

"Probably never quite know who was the greatest of all‑time in tennis, and I think that's quite intriguing as well. Of course, if somebody goes off and wins 35 Grand Slams then you made your point as a player."[2]

The point I do argue about is your saying that it was the weakest era in tennis history. Nobody can claim such a thing objectively. Because everything changes constantly, even the game, and you can't even know for sure if it was easier or harder to play tennis at all in Laver's or in McEnroe's time. Who knows, maybe now it's harder because you need more force and strength, because of the new equipment, the slowing courts, the baseline play etc. So don't make thoughtless statements about present players, if you want to ensure respect for others. Pumukli (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Or may be playing in that era was harder. Didnt have al these techs, personalized trainings. Big rackets. Fast fast courts. Every player had its own style because of the wooden racket. Now it is mostly power.

And the point I will make is that, no matter what the era. You cannot compare Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Blake, to all time greats (may be greatest for many respective fans) like Mcenroe, Connors, Borg, Villas, Lendl. That is what I am saying. Fed has dominated his nearest rivals like these guys, so he is obviously the best player of his era, May be Nadal and Murray would have a thing or two to say about that.

Even laver said that, there can never be a player who can have the tag og GOAT. So I do not know, why Rafa and Fed fans fight over who is the GOAT. Nadal has his case while Fed has his case.

But if you look at it objectively. Why have al federer's rivals have fallen so bad save for roddick when they are supposed to be at their peaks. Medically it has been proved that the body reaches its peak anyware from 27 to 35.

CLearly Murray and Djokovic present 2 times more challenge to federer at such an early age never mind being 5 years older. So Logic would say that it would have been interesting to see what fed would have achieved if Rafa, Murray, Djokovic and federer were of the same age or near to each others age like Mcenroe, borg, connors and villas were. Lendl becker rafter edberg were. Sampras and Agassi were.

But still winning 13 slams is a wonderful achievement and as nadal puts it"it does not matter who the opponent is as long as you get the trophy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.24.194 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I really don't see your point: I have already stated that I don't want to get involved in the GOAT debate. According to your post, you don't want to compare eras, so I'm positive that you won't call Federer's era weak in the future. As far as I see we agree :) So let's leave it here now, as I think our conversation is not constructive for the article any more: but if you wish I'm ready to continue it on my talk page. Pumukli (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So am i:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohair9034 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate solution: "Federer is widely considered to be the greatest tennis player of all time," should be replaced with "Federer is widely considered to be the gayest tennis player of all time." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.148.233 (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All credits to Laver, but many people forget he won 9 of his 11 GS titles on grass, 2 on clay. Ok, he lost around 4 seasons to play more, but it doesn´t change the fact 3 of 4 GS tournaments were played on grass at that time. Rod has never the same allroundskills like Federer, he was more a classical grass player like Sampras, Becker and Edberg. I highly doubt he had won the French Open against guys like Borg or Nadal, or be as dominant on all surfaces (hard, grass, clay, carpet) like Federer is. Take Care

His 2008 Year

He had mono at the start of the 08 season. Although he won't admit that's the reason why he did so poorly this year, it is the cold hard truth so get off of his back!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartguy5001 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why no picture of Roger

Who removed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.221.123 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was discovered to be a copyright violation. Unfortunately.--HJensen, talk 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Emotional Incident

Add Roger's emotional incident after winning against baghdatis the following year from his defeat to marat safin in the Australian open >:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.25.143 (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger's Idol

I remember watching a video where they interviewed Federer in depth. And they asked who his idol was as a youth. And Federer said that, "boris becker was my idol. In fact, early in my tennis career I tried to play just like him. But then I found out that it just wasn't going to work out." This wiki makes it soud like rios or soething was his favorite player or something, which is far from the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Federer's Playing Style

Better, more accurate information is required. For instance, all pros use the same ball toss to disguise their serves. And topspin is used by everyone as well, right down to club level players. Some details about why his one-backhand is effective among a broad field of two-handers is one of the examples of what would provide more sophisticated analysis of Federer's playing style. Existing information about his game is too generic. Technical, insightful additions to the section are welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.146.137 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Federer Orange Bowl winner 1998?

There is conflicting information here..

In the Early life/ Junior tennis section it says In 1998, his final year as a junior, Federer won the junior Wimbledon title and the prestigious year-ending Orange Bowl. He was recognized as the ITF World Junior Tennis champion of the year.[17]

However after reading the article on the orange bowl it then goes on to say for the 1998 boys final that Janko Tipsarevic won the tournament?

1998 Janko Tipsarevic, Yugoslavia / Yeu-Tzuoo Wang, Taipei (6-3,6-1)

Which one is actually correct here? I hate inconstancies on wikipedia!

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jah89 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SO WHO IS GOING TO FIX IT? PLEASE GUYS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.96.229 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your worry. Federer definitely won the RADO Orange Bowl tennis championship as it is published on his website . I believe there are two separate tournaments: Federer won the junior single's RADO Orange Bowl in 1998 in Key Biscayne. Janko Tipsarevic seems to have won some other much less well-known tournament also called 'Orange Bowl' that takes place in Miami. I think that the Orange Bowl article is very misleading and should be changed. I will get some advice from more experienced editors. Good spot! Bittersweetsmile (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Orange Bowl Page is probably wrong. According to the ITF website J TIPSAREVIC and Yeu-Tzuoo WANG have only played each other once at an Orange Bowl Championship. It was in 2000 in 'Round 16'. See: . TIPSAREVIC won this match but he did not win the tournament. Unfortunately records do not go back before 1999. The mystery continues Bittersweetsmile (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion between the Orange Bowl, a Grade A event for 16s and 18s on the junior circuit, and the Junior Orange Bowl, a separate tournament for 12s and 14s. The former is a big tournament (equivalent to a Masrer's series tourney on the ATP tour) for junior players at the highest level of the game. Roger won this in 1998. The latter tournament, for younger players, is what the "Orange Bowl" article redirects to.

For the record: Roger won the '98 edition of the ITF Orange Bowl, as indicated here. [3] He did NOT win the Junior Orange Bowl that year; he was WAY too old for it. This was a major tournament win, but NOT anything like a year-end championship. I'm not going to do it, but maybe someone ought to correct the other articles, to eliminate this confusion?  :,) Innocent76 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

rival instead of rivalry

At the end of the 2009 section, the third-last word (rivalry) should be rival.

Virux (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Retirement

If I am not wrong, Federer never once retired from a match since his debut in professionnal tennis (in 777 matchs on february 10th 2009). Maybe it is worth mentionning somewhere ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.69.32.50 (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

he retired once because of a back ailment, i can't remember the match. he mentioned it in the same interview where he called djokovic out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demondayzzz (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Volley-orientated game nonsense as explanation for Federer's defeats to Nadal

There you go. Both of the last two paragraphs of the rivalry section are pretty much bollocks, or half the story, or a very bad explanation, or has some irrelevant opinions, and its filled with crap such as wondering whether federer "will ever" beat nadal at the French. There's no room for that here. The genius who wrote that seems to think that they play the same match every time, and that obviously isn't the case. the high forehand spin to fed's backhand is clearly troubling on clay and slow hard, but fed's crosscourt backhand is fine, the losses at the french and wimb and ao featured many frailties he has when facing Nadal, and the backhand actually isn't the worst one. - His serve percentage drops drastically, even if he serves well the whole tournament, there will be crucial points when he can't buy a first serve, or he slows it down drastically just to get it in. - The volley nonsense is almost absurd, he has the same efficiency at net vs nadal regardless of the surface, obviously he doesn't go in as much on clay. All this tactical stuff that can be argued forever shouldn't be placed on wikipedia anyway. For instance, on fast courts the reason that federer wins isn't because of the volley! it's because the nadal forehand spins lower to his backhand, he can return it better, it's because his serve has more of a pop, his shots in general do, it's because flat shots to nadal's forehand recieve weaker replies on fast courts because nadal is only focused on keeping the ball in play, and that allows players to attack it. Nadal has lost in straights to Ferrer, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Federer, Blake, and nearly to Verdasco all on hard courts, and they are all heavy flat hitters. Standing back as far as nadal does in the return isn't as helpful on fast surfaces, watch Murray in the US final, he barely had a chance. - I'd' say the only major reason Federer loses is because he turns it into a mental fight, and tries to out-nadal nadal. The first serve % drop, the slices into the net on breakpoints, going up 5-1 three times or so and losing the set, all that is federer being worn down mentally, all nadal has to do is show up. tactically he should be able beat nadal on every surface (and he has), and it's just easier to execute the game plan on faster surfaces. Also of note is that they've only met twice on faster surfaces because nadal is so bad (ok i'm exaggerating) against everyone else (i've listed some of his losses in the earlier point) that he doesn't get to the final to face federer, and their only two meetings on fast hardcourt have come in shanghai in a roundrobin, and federer knocked him off the court both times. Basically someone get rid of that nonsense and leave it as just a link to the rivalry page, and maybe a tidbit about the history, how no two people have ever contested more GS finals etc. and if you have to talk about tactics don't make it sound so open/shut. Peace, out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demondayzzz (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The article says "However, Federer tends to beat Nadal on faster surfaces because a volley-orientated strategy works better". It's a totally wrong thing to say that Federer just "tends to beat Nadal on faster surfaces" as their record on hard courts is 3-3 and Federer leads 2-1 on grass.

there's a difference. the Australian Open is a much slower surface than the US or Shanghai, for example. And grass is very very slow now as well, though i don't have the details there are graphics from the BBC or ESPN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demondayzzz (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The logic used by demondayzz is absolutely bullshit. Everyone knows that Mentality is half the battle in sports and fed loses that to nadal everytime. So there you go, when nadal wins the 50 percent of the match, the other 50 he wins by his talent.

You wanna know why Federer loses his first serve percentage? thats because the guy on the other side will beat the shit out of the ball if its not a perfect serve. Watch french open final 2008, nadal hit winners on Federer's first serves which would have been aces against anyone else.

PLus. Fed is more knowledgable than a guy named demoddayz who writes crap on wikipedia discussion page, he knows everything that you know and that you dont know. ok.

SO stop this shit

The fact is, when it comes to facing federer., the only player who doesnt give a shit to whos standing on the other side of the net is nadal (and now murray too) and that is probably why fed loses cuz he cant just outclass him.

Australian open court is the most neutral court there can be and a tired exhausted nadal beat fed on that.

He beat him a wimbe and he is probably gonna beat him at us open too.

Plus, federer beat nadal at shangai when nadal was like 19 and 20 and fed at his peak.

That is basically how fed has won all his gran slams. In all his slams, there are 3 scenarios. Either he gets a 35 yo or a 21 yo. And the third is that he gets players like Philophousis, roddick, safin, hewitt in grand slam finals and quite frankly, these players neither have the brain, technique or fitness to stay with fed on any given day.

Whereas Nadal and Murray do have all these.

I am not denying federers greatness, I am just answering these dumb logic that a bunch of suck ups put up on the net. Hellooo? fed is a 13 time grand slam champion. He would be dumb enough to figure out how to beat nadal and hasnt quite been able to do so, so far. And there must be a legit reason as to why he fades against nadal. Though I think he doesnt. The wimbe 08 and aus open 2009 are two of the best matches in history in terms of class play.

No one can maintain a standard of 10 from the first set to the last. So quit saying that Fed forehand or backhand deserted him in the end. Plus, whos fault is it that Fed isnt good enough to serve better percentages against top players? Nadals? or feds?. I would say, Feds (and nadals too as he intimidates Fed).

The fact is that Nadal is doing what fed did to all others for 4 years and that intimidate them.

Also, did i mention that grass changed at the time of borg or at max sampras. That is why baselineers such as Federer and Nadal have dominated wimbledon since. So if you are counting rafa wimbledon out then you will have to cut out feds 5 wimbe's as well. Good luck on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohair9034 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking some time away from the game

This section was removed from the discussion page with any valid reason being given. It is not up to another editor to subjectively remove material from a discussion page, particularly when they raise some pertinent questions about this player's performance.Seems I am addressing HJensen and Ged UK on this issue. Ivankinsman (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What has happened to the once mighty Roger? He was winning everything - particularly breezing thru the less important tournaments - but now he is being beaten before the finals. Is this simply due to this stomach virus or has he peaked and is now more mortal? I heard Djokovic say in an interview towards the end of last year that the men's locker room are now saying he is beatable and maybe this is true. Ivankinsman (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this talk page is for discussion of the article, how it can be improved etc, not about the subject. Thanks. Ged UK (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I only say this because I have been watching tennis since the days of Bjorn Borg, McEnroe and Gerulitis. I first noticed it with Pete Sampras that he started to look worn out from the constant pressure of being the world's top player. I think this may be affecting Rog. Sometimes I feel it might be better for him to take a break from the grind - even if a player has to maximise his playing time whilst he's still young - and then return refreshed and reinvigorated. Maybe go walking in the Andes/Rockies or something like that... Ivankinsman (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but then discuss those matters another place. Cheers.--HJensen, talk 16:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this article in The Daily Telegraph, 11th May, 2008, now confirms what I have been saying here, and perhaps some mention of this should now to into the article 'Roger Federer in crisis as opponents lose fear', Daily Telegraph, May, 2008 Ivankinsman (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Basel as an ATP 500 event

Somebody labeled Federer's wins and runner-ups finishes at Basel, Switzerland as being ATP 500 events. Basel is going to be an ATP 500 event for the first time in 2009. All past finals appearances at Basel should be labeled as ATP 250 events on the list of Federer's final appearances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.55.160 (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Protect page

{{editprotected}}

This page is not protected. Requests for protection should go to WP:RFPP but read the Protection policy first. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 07:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Convert the page in full protection

{{editprotected}}

Please

 Not done:, per above. Make such requests at WP:RFPP, but read the Protection policy first. --Amalthea 13:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The greatest... Again

I open a new section to be able to follow the conversation better.
There is a constant fight between the following sentences: Many journalists, and current and former players consider Federer to be the greatest player of all time.
Federer is widely considered to be one of the greatest male singles players of all time in tennis.
I think that the first sentence is completely true, as Federer is considered the greatest by many journalist, players, etc. > it is an opinion, which may not be right, nevertheless, it exists. As for the second sentence: it's not enough. As opposed to being THE greatest, being one of the greatest players is a fact in Federer's case, and we don't need to weaken it, and put it as a mere opinion. So I think that the present sentence is an understatement.
My suggestion is this: Federer's achievements place him among the most successful players in tennis history; a number of journalists, present and former players consider him the greatest male singles player of all time.
But if you still don't want to mention his being considered the greatest, I think we should at least write this: Federer's achievements place him among the greatest players in tennis history. Pumukli (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We still have to wait —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.134.113 (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think, federer is considered to be one of the greatest players of all time is totally justified. One, because he himself has said that he is not the greatest. Second, Rod laver has siad that you can only be the best of your era, not all time. Add to that, Who are the many journalists? We have authentic experts and sources, not someone who writes for bleacher report or bloomberg or espn's sports coloumists. THe only players I have seen, talking about fed as the greatest are Murray, Mcenroe (who changes his opinion every day) and Nadal (who has changed his opinion, by saying that the best player he has seen is fed but the best player his uncle saw was Laver). Murray also says that fed is the goat because he owns him 6-2, and plus, he is not really a tennis expert.

Plus, IN the references given, No where does anyone say that Federer is the greatest Directly. Some references say that he can be the greatest, other (like Agassi) just say some thing like "he is the best I have ever played" and one more thing. Saying that "federer is the most talented player of all time" is way way way different than to say "federer is the greatest of all time"

There is hardly a reference which can be taken as conclusive. While I can quote several where current players. former players and coaches, journalists have directly said that Federer is not the greatest player of all time partly because no one can be, and cuz nadal owns him, plus he hasnt won French Open

And, I want to request to ppl, we should alter the other articles too. Plenty of ppl (and by plenty, I mean plenty, no the "many joirnalists and past players like in feds case, who dont even exist) have said that laver was the best, borg was the best, lendl was the best, agassi was the best, sampras was the best. Gonazalez was the best.

So are you going to write for them individually that they are the greatest. I think it is most sensible plus neutral to write that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest male singles players of all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohair9034 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PLus, Federers achievements are not enough to call him the most successful player. There are many who have achieved the same as him.

I am not trying to argue here or something. Just presenting facts that there are other players who are considred to be the greatest and that is why, in their respective articles, it is said my way.

Saying that Fed is cosidred by many to be the greatest, is outright disrespectful, to past legends plus the common man. THis is wikipedia, no opinions should be published here.

PLus. No references that are given in this article actually have someone say that Federer is the greatest of all time. All the statements are from 2006'2005 till beginnng of 2008 except for murray one (who doesnt actually say that fed is the greatest, he says that there is a strong case") when federer was absolutely dominating and even then, the references say that, IF (mind you, IF) he continues like this, he can be the greatest" and as stats tell us that he has not really, gone from strength to strength after 2006 and 2007 especially after wimbledon 2007.

So i think it is safe to say for now that Fed is one of the greatest male singles players of all time. When he retires, then ppl will come out with their real statements as then Fed wont be able to change their views by his performances. Till then (which might be like in 5 years time) we should let this like "fed is widely considred to be one of the greatest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohair9034 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought. I think the statement "fed is considered to be one of the greatest male singles player of all time in tennis" fits the bill perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.12.142 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Convert this article to full protected.....

{{editprotected}}

Convert the article into fully protected mode.......

 Not done:, per above. Make such requests at WP:RFPP, but read the Protection policy first. And please stop misusing the editprocted template. --Amalthea 13:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Correcrt abstract: Federer is still active, and certainly not a "has been"

A quote from the abstract of the article: "... considered to have been one of the greatest ... of all time". Why use past tense? Since he still plays, it should read "considered to be", as in present tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.181.160 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead and change it, but don't be surprised if it gets reverted. For what it's worth I think you're right. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, because at the moment he is far from great. Also, does anyone think there is a case for mentioning that there have been a lot of people who have had a look back at his career and are now saying that he was great in one of the weakest ever eras in professional tennis history? Just a thought. Also, I'm not going to revert your edit, but I think there is certainly a case for it. Alan16 ^talk 19:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, let's not fall into a WP:RECENTISM trap. I suspect that since he still plays tennis professionally and well, he's now only what, second in the world (?), his tag should still be current. You're also right in suggesting it is a weak era, but you'll need several good sources to back that up. If you can find them then I see no problem with the introduction of this different perspective into the article which currently reads like a {{fansite}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I fear I'll never find those good sources. A quick search of Google, and the first 7 pages are basically fan sites. The only real evidence I can find is that when Pete Sampras played, he played against around a dozen players who had won Grand Slams. Federer plays against about half of that. Alan16 ^talk 21:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I will never understand this kind of attitude towards anything. Why are so many unable and unwilling to acknowledge greatness that is under their nose, and muse over the past with romantic longing instead? Why lessening the achievements of somebody?? How on earth do you know if it was actually easier for Sampras to win his Grand Slams? Or for anybody (let's say Laver)? You are treating a 13 time GS champion with injustice. Salakk (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I am not setting out to lessen his achievements. What I am doing is what you are not - I'm looking at his achievements critically, and when you look past the basic numbers, it shows a player who was playing in a weaker era. And I can never know if it was easier for Sampras or not, but let's look at the facts. Sampras had 12 players playing against him who had already won a Grand Slam. More than half of them still contenders. Federer had who? Roddick? Nadal in the French, but Nadal was no contender in anything else until the last year. So is Sampras a greater player than Federer? Who knows, but it was more difficult for him to win a Grand Slam. You accuse me of having my nose in the past? I'm seventeen. The past for me tennis-wise is Federer. Doesn't mean I need to consider him great. You, my friend, need to learn to think a bit more critically, rather than looking at the simple numbers. Alan16 ^talk 18:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm not as obsessed with numbers as you believe me to be, and you are more obsessed with them than you believe yourself to be. You argue with numbers (though you call them facts) against numbers. It's not only me who should think critically: you should as well measure the significance of the number of GS titles when speaking about opponents.

If I were you, I wouldn't drag numbers if I wanted to deny respect for numbers. I would never consider an era weak as opposed to an other without knowing objectively that the level of play was worse: and that you cannot measure by numbers, let alone by the number of title holders who contended against each other. And if I couldn't prove objectively that the level was better in other eras (that I bet you cannot), I would resolve on at least trying to respect achievements (yes, even statistics), instead of trying to play them down. Salakk (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have completely misinterpreted my ideas. I am not saying anything about the level of play, I am saying that Sampras won 14 GSs in a time when there was more competition, and in a time that was therefore more competitive if not technically better. And I don't disrespect his achievements, I just don't think he is the best ever, simply because he played in a clearly weaker era. Alan16 ^talk 20:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is no use arguing any more, you don't want to understand what I say. I know you were not saying anything about the level: I said you should, if you want to compare eras. Once for all: you can't call an era weak if you have no evidence that its level is worse than that of other eras. Competitiveness has nothing to do with level: competition can develop among children on the playground as well, and if there are enough children of similar force, than they are competitive. In Federer's era there was not much of competition, because he was clearly better than his peers: but those peers were as good as any, only they don't have results (numbers, if you please) to back them up! Still you can't measure the level, the standard of groundstrokes, serves, forehands, backhands they played, and can't say that it was easier for Federer to win the points and the matches than for Sampras! So if you can't comment on the level of play, don't comment on the era either! Salakk (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Salak and agree with the other guy in that fed played in a clearly weak era. The point of him beeing way batter is absurd. If you look at it, Sampras rivals did not have such obvious weaknesses which feds rivals had until nadal djokovic and murray.

Roddick had cleary no speed or stamina neither the head or backhand to play with fed. Safin made too many errors. Hewitt didnt know how to hit winners plus an obvious weakness in his serve. Sampras had Agassi, who was almost a complete player just lost a little bit of pace as he got older.

For me Borgs era was the toughest. Borg is the greatest player of all time behind lendl and Laver ofcourse.

But, not to discredit fed. No matter how weak the era, 13 slams is a rare feet. So I dont think we should berate fed by saying things like, weak era or slower surfaces or same kind of players coming up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohair9034 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with salak, because a tennis match is complex, and you can never know, if it was easier or harder to win the points and matches. You also can't compare the basic level of play. I wouldn't dare to compare say Roddick with Emerson... opinions on the level of play are very unsteady and subjective (you can actually quote players such as Agassi that Fed's play was the best he ever saw), so such a conclusion as "weak era" is subjective as well. The only problem is, that this assumption already tries to take away something materially from feds achievements, as if his slams were not of equal value. so I agree: let's respect him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.181.43.169 (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, Agassi did not say that, Agassi said that He tried to find a weak spot in feds game and he couldnt, and that is why Fed was the best player he ever faced. Now we know that there are many weaknesses in his game (rafa beat him on hard and clay and came close on grass every time, when fed was playing his so called INVINCIBLE tennis).

Secondly, whether eras can be compared or not but lets just NOT mention Roddick and Emerson in the same breath. That way, I could say that I cant compare Federer and Rafter, neither Federer and Becker cuz they are of different eras, you talk about respect then give some to emerson, the guy has won something like 28 slams.

I would have loved to see how Rafa and Roger would have managed to hit their SIGNATURE shots with those wooden rackets, thats just one part of a 1000 that has changed in tennis so much inside 40 years. So yeah, Cant compare era's but then again, one can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.63.153 (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Borderless section — maybe pages - while using the Modern skin

I am using the Modern skin (selected from My Preferences), the problem is some of the page is borderless (starting from the last language section, at the very left of your screen) Try to compare between this two pages — Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal using the Modern skin and you will understand. You can see the difference right ? I've tried to fix this on Roger Federer. But I can't. I didn't know what went wrong, i think it has something to do with the coding, perhaps. My question is, can it be fixed ? Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 11:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Information Being Added

Incorrect information stating that Roger Federer is once again world no. 1 has been added it says that Federer defeated Nadal at the 2009 Wimbledon to become World No. 1 but this is incorrect as Wimbledon has not taken place yet adn Nadal is still World No. 1 at the current space in time. Please do not re add this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.206.251 (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Marriage

In my opinion there is no need for marriage to be in a different section from personal life. Alan16 ^talk 12:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Federer as the greatest. Again.

Okay, I know this has been a controversial topic on here for a while now. My opinion is that the sentence "Federer is widely considered to be the greatest male singles tennis players of all time" should not be in the opening paragraph, or anywhere else in the article.

[It should be, for at least a few important reasons: 1. Numerous tennis experts, including legends of the sport and commentators, are on record saying Federer is the greatest player ever; and 2. Federer's accomplishments, records set and broken, and overall stats merit the claim.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTennisObserver (talk • contribs) 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that lots of people say he is the greatest. Those are all personal opinions. It doesn't matter whether Nadal, McEnroe, Laver or Sampras said it, they're all personal opinions. The may be opinions held by influential people, but the facts are as follows: Roger Federer does not hold the record for most grand slam titles. He doesn't even have all four titles. Yes, he was an extremely dominant player. However, it is impossible for anyone to claim that Federer is conclusively the greatest player of all time. He does not have the most slams, he doesn't have all the slams, and he can't even beat Rafa Nadal more than ~20% of the time in the last couple years. If he had 18 slams and had won each one at least twice, then yes, it would be pretty hard to argue otherwise, but as it stands, his accomplishments do not particularly stand out when compared to Borg, Sampras, or Laver.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective place. As far as I'm concerned, saying that "many people think Federer is the greatest of all time" is not factual, it's not objective, and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Try "widely considered to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time." That's one's undeniable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazuki (talk • contribs) 23:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

- And what do we do now? Dmontin (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Federer is not the best because he won the French minus Nadal. Alan16 ^talk 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't simply say that. Nadal played and lost in the same tournament. It's not Federer's fault that Nadal didn't get into the Final, whilst moreover Federer actually won against the player who defeated Nadal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.147.130 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't talk such drivel. Using your logic, Fred Hemmes Jr. is therefore better than Nadal. Fred beat Soderling in the juniors, so Soderling beat Nadal, and Fred beat Soderling, therefore Fred is better than Nadal. We both know that is not true, so Fed beating Sod is not on a par with beating Nadal. Fed is not the best ever in my opinion, no where near. Alan16 ^talk 23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Your personal opinion (and mine) is worthless, when there are sourced statements from previous tennis greats and current tennis players that Federer is the greatest player in the history of tennis. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 10:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a forum fellas. Discuss article improvements only. ^LeaveSleaves 23:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To all the people who are jumping on the band wagon and labelling fed as the best ever. HELLOOO. he may have won the french OPen, but how. No Nadal, NO dojo and No murray. Hell, he played only 2 players inside the top ten the entire 7 matches. That sucks. Beat world number 25 in the final. That kinda isnt what he wanted to do.

Ok he won french. So be it. He is the best of his era. No more than that. That is what I am saying and further proves my point. Fed still beats the players he used to beat in his so called 4 years of dominance. He just cant beat the new guns who are REAL players like murray dojo and nadal all 5 years younger than him.

I think the article should say "one of the greatest that is a fact. the greatest? isnt a fact, its just an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohair9034 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Detailed descriptions

As people keep adding more details, this page (as the pages of other Tennis players) has been growing in size. So I thought of moving the detailed information to new pages. See Roger Federer in 2008. Hope no one finds any issues with this arrangement.

See discussion over here. ^LeaveSleaves 23:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Create new article for 'Career in the ATP'

The current 'Career in the ATP' section, whilst highly informative, is bulky and cumbersome. Would it not be better to summarise this section on the Roger Federer page and create a completely new article entitled 'Roger Federer's Career in the ATP'. I realise that this is the main section of the article but this may be a step in the right direction considering the 'intricate detail' criticism at the top of the page.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittersweetsmile (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The solution in addressing the problem of "intricate detail" is to minimize the detailed explanation of Federer's performance in every round (in some cases sets) in various competitions. Creating fork article would decrease the coverage in this article, which is quite undesirable. ^LeaveSleaves 14:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you advise, therefore, that material should be deleted and not relocated as it is probably covered in 'Roger Federer career statistics'? Bittersweetsmile

Creation of Roger Federer career statistics makes structural sense, in that it is sort of an addendum to this biographical article. On the other hand if we create an article as you suggested, it takes away the core of this article only to create another article which, in a matter of saying, would take away this article's thunder. I see trimming of material as a more prudent option in improving the quality. ^LeaveSleaves 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Radical reduction of detail in 'Career in the ATP'

I have radically reduced the detail of his career but maintained the year by year structure. I have chosen to focus almost completely on the grand slams (but include some other significant matches). I still feel further reduction would be beneficial and to have other sections expanded (e.g. 'Technique' and 'Personal life'). However, my change is a radical one and I will change the article back if that is the general consensus.Bittersweetsmile (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your edit was rather too radical. It was a step in a desired direction, but I'd suggest moving at a gradual pace, making sure not to miss anything important. e.g. in your edit you removed his result at the Aussie Open. Remember that we need keep record of his participation in every ATP tournament. Just limit the description of the tournament to the final result, and try not to talk too much in detail about early round matches or actual set results etc. ^LeaveSleaves 17:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it is difficult to have other, more experienced editors review a change without actually doing it! A question though: Roger Federer career statistics actually covers every ATP result is it necessary to mention so many in this article? Nevertheless perhaps I will go paragraph by paragraph and attempt to re-write them rather than simply deleting sections.Bittersweetsmile (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we need to cover every tournament in at least one sentence. Grand Slam wins/runner-ups etc. might require a couple sentences more. Like I said above, presence of sub-article/s should not affect the quality of this article. We need to cover his career as succinctly as possible. And yes, it is difficult to make a large edit without it going unnoticed, at least for new users. ^LeaveSleaves 17:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Child

I removed the "reportedly a boy" statement, as the ref only said that they were expecting a child, it said nothing of the sex. Alan16 ^talk 16:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag of "too much detail" should go

I'd like to know who else thinks this page has too much detail. I vote no, I like to read about his tournament in the brief detail presented. I think the proposal to "just limit the description of the tournament to the final result, and try not to talk too much in detail about early round matches or actual set results etc." is a terrible idea. So one vote NO. Please comment. ROxBo (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider this: Federer has played around 800 professional matches to date. That is about 130 odd tournaments. If you consider adding details of all these matches into the article, can you imagine how long, not to mention boring, this article would be? And let's not forget his has fairly long career ahead of him. The idea is to present the information in summary form, be succinct and keep alive the interest of an ordinary reader who does not follow tennis. ^LeaveSleaves 16:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Per LeaveSleaves. This is why (1) we have WP:SUMMARY and (2) content forks. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But I am not advocating increasing the content. I would like to preserve the content largely as is, ie Grand Slam oreintated and definitely including mention of early rounds if particularily important or interesting. The article currently provides a compiled great depth of knowledge that would otherwise require sustained study to acquire. Shortening it to "he won the final with this score an no dropped sets" would lose a lot. I have no doubt there is some fat in the article in its current form, but I would not advocate wholesale change/cuts, rather cautious pruning? Anyway you're position on this is well known - let's see what the people in general think eh? 121.209.0.23 (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You (121.209.0.23) say you would advocate 'cautious pruning'. This is in fact exactly what LeaveSleaves has advised and I quote from his talk page: "cutting down the commentary/opinions is the major idea behind answering the "fancruft" tag of the article. Reducing the tournaments to Federer's final result would be ideal, although do not ignore if there was any major match during his progress in the tournament." Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, the fancruft was due to previous versions of the article not necessarily the current form. When the article is next assessed this may be removed. I think you may have misinterpreted LeaveSleaves' advice to me after I attempted a radical reduction in detail, which was a mistake.

I think, if anything, you are in agreement with LeaveSleaves' moderate approach (don't want to be too much of a suck-up but LeaveSleaves has helped me considerably with this article)Bittersweetsmile (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think you all are trying to degrade the accomplishments of Roger Federer by saying to much info, well I guess you all need to create a page with all of his results and matches. This will be comprehensive, and only the grand slam accomplishment will be included on the main page, with other notable info. I think we use fancraft rather inadvertenly and it needs to be stopped because if someone thinks it is fancraft quickly edit it out, and don't put the tag at the top of the page. I think it is rather apparent this 2009 year is not fancraft because I read it and it is pretty bare in scope and no subjectivity, which I think it is rather objective and consise. The page this needs to be similar for his results in tournament is List of tournament performances by Tiger Woods. TennisAuthority 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is sad that you feel we are trying to "degrade the accomplishments of Roger Federer". What I feel this article lacks (among other things) is lucidity and good structure within the sections. If the quality of the writing is improved then so will a reader's impression of Federer's considerable achievements. I have noticed that even featured articles make comments on a sportsman's performance if they are supported factually(e.g. "his good form continued" or "he really came into his own" from Marcus Trescothick) that helps the writing feel like part of an article, not a dull list. Would you be willing to help with this?

With reference to "you all need to create a page with all of his results and matches": Roger Federer career statistics details all his ATP tournament performances and some others. I agree this needs expanding - few details of his junior tennis for example.

I hope this helps you realise that we are not trying to degrade his accomplishments but need to improve the article so that they are presented satisfactorily; after all I think you can concisely describe an achievement and make it seem much more impressive with much less detail than a boring, overly intricate list of facts about it. Bittersweetsmile (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You want to know what people think about the level of detail? Sure. I've long thought that this article contains WAY too much detail about Federer's playing history (and I'm a tennis fan in general and a long-time Federer fan in particular). Readability is a major concern for a general reference encyclopedia, and this article fails in that respect. Sentence after sentence about his ranking jumping from 13 to 7 in fall 2002, his 2005 Masters Cup final lasting four and a half hours, and his accepting a last-minute wildcard into the Monte Carlo Masters in 2009, does not make a well-written article on Roger Federer.

If I had to prioritize the most important facts about RF's career, it might go something like: 1) he's won lots of major titles, 2) he was ranked #1 for a long time, 3) he's broken lots of tennis records, 4) many consider him a candidate for "greatest male tennis player of all time", and 5) he has a career-defining rivalry with Rafael Nadal. Maybe also 6) he's won plenty of other titles too, including many Masters Series events. Presumably these points would be what someone unfamiliar with Roger Federer's career would come to this page to find out. But to get this information, one has to wade through endless facts of far less importance, like who he lost to in the 2000 Hopman Cup (Jan-Michael Gambill). I'm not saying that everything should be deleted. I'm enough of a fan to appreciate the List of career achievements (a separate article), and I would be sad to see that information disappear. But I wouldn't want to see that list moved into the main article, and similarly I think the detailed playing history should be split off. My vote is to continue moving excessive content of lesser importance into new articles, where specialist readers can still find it but it won't impede the generalists. On the main page, I would argue for a summary of his playing career that comprises a few paragraphs painted in broad strokes, rather than the current year-by-year approach, which only encourages the inclusion of excessive detail. Sisterdetestai (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your ideas are very similar to my own. The problem is that we have no template to work with. Despite searching and searching there are no 'good' or 'featured articles' on tennis players. Therefore there is little we can use to support radically reducing the content of the page in one fell swoop. I think we need a serious discussion on what we can omit, paragraph by paragraph. It will take a long time but otherwise there will be revert mania! Bittersweetsmile (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement about Career Grandslam

I can't yet edit semi-protected articles, but for a clarification and addition of detail, Federer is the 6th man to ever complete a career grand slam, but he's only the 3rd man (in addition to Rod Laver and Andre Agassi) to complete the slam in open era tennis. Given the significant difference between open era and pre-open era in terms of difficulty, style, and overall prestige. I think this addition is worth adding. I'd appreciate it if someone could do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmittz (talk • contribs) 04:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Federer as "the greatest" (ie, singular)

Here are a list of former players and other all time greats, who have stated Federer as the greatest player in history, along with sources. I list them here, so that the article can accurately reflect their opinions (that Federer is the greatest ever in history)

1) Pete Sampras

"What he’s done over the past five years has never, ever been done—and probably will never, ever happen again,” Sampras said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=ap-frenchopen-sampras&prov=ap&type=lgns

2) John Llyod

"He's completed the set and in my opinion he's got to be the greatest player of all time," said Lloyd.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8088191.stm

3) Andre Agassi

"It ends the discussion of where he fits in the history of the game,"

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldOfSport/idINIndia-40154220090608

4) Andy Roddick

"props to fed.... thats an unreal accomplishment and puts and end to the GOAT question in my humble opinion"

http://twitter.com/andyroddick/statuses/2066245479

Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 09:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

5) Rod Laver says - NOT!

"Federer not the best ever, says Laver"[4]. Makes a good point. 2 calendar year grand slams also pretty good. ROxBo (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by people's obsession of making the definitive statement that "Federer is the greatest ever". That is an opinion and whilst many top-ranked players may share it an encylopedic article cannot make such subjective statements, which indicate that the encyclopia has a 'point of view' -it can only report that other people have made it. These are articles not editorials; opinions, other than quoted ones, have their place elsewhere. However, I will endeavour to add these to the article as quotes if appropriate. Bittersweetsmile (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can only agree with this...currently it says "Federer is considered by most people to be the greatest tennis player of all time". None of the sources state this; all that's happened is that a number of opinions have been aggregated. Even if a source could be found that said this, they couldn't possibly back it up, so what are we doing? Should we have a vote on here, if over 50% think he's the best, keep it, otherwise no? Or just have - "Federer is widely considered to be one of, if not the, greatest players of all time". Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying he is the greatest ever is an opinion, as stated above. A simple, "Federer is widely considered to be one of greatest players of all time" works for me. Adding "if not the" is unnecessary, I think, since that will lead to more debates. If you look at Michael Jordan's page, in the opening paragraph, it lists the NBA's website itself as a source for calling Jordan the greatest basketball player of all time. Unless the ATP says something like that on its official site about Federer, I think we should really avoid making the direct claim "of greatest ever." oncamera^(t) 22:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Your problem is one of phrasing. "Considered by many to be the greatest" is clumsy, and invites questions and objections such as "who?" and "how many?" Instead, say "has been called the greatest" and then cite a small number (2-3) of the most influential sportswriters and tennis players who say it. Our readers are not (generally) idiots, they know that someone else was called "the greatest" last year and someone else might be called "the greatest" next year, and that all such statements are inherently subjective. It is not the scope of a Wikipedia article to actually determine if he is the greatest, either by weighing and counting sources or by holding a steel cage match between Laver and Sampres. Keep it simple. Thatcher 17:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your argument; keeping it clear and simple works best. oncamera^(t) 21:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I must voice my strong disagreement with the views above. When the most respected names in the sport of tennis -- e.g., Jack Kramer, Cliff Drysdale, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, inter alia -- say that Roger Federer is the "greatest ever," surely this means something. This is not the collective opinion of laymen. If the world's greatest neurosurgeons weighed in on an important medical question, surely we wouldn't dismiss their collective viewpoint as "idle opinion." Secondly, and just as important, Federer's numerous achievements and records must be taken into account as well. These include the longest run at #1, of any player male or female; his 14 majors (tied with Sampras); his winning of a career grand slam (which Sampras never achieved), and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTennisObserver (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Realistically this question will not be resolved until Federer retires. Logically no definitive statement about Federer's career as a whole can be made until it is complete. Also the majority of commentators cited have some form of "special comments" or journalism income and are therefore more likely to sensationalise a current player (making headlines) than say some old man was once better.ROxBo (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotes?

I was just wondering what you all think about this Quotes. I tried to present both sides of the argument in them, but it is 70-30 percent for. Be Honest! TennisAuthority 03:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether such a section is appropriate, but sources should be provided for all of these quotes. mgiganteus1 (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Sources are provided in the HTML code for cquotes. TennisAuthority 08:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I'm surprised that the article 'List of career achievements by Roger Federer' has not been deleted in its entirety. It is another fork on the main article 'Roger Federer' and repeats much of what is already covered in 'Roger Federer Career Statistics'. From my point of view the two ('Roger Federer Career Statistics' and 'List of career achievements by Roger Federer') should be merged. I agree that the section 'Quotes' in not appropriate. These should be included in the main article 'Roger Federer' if they are deemed sufficiently significant. Bittersweetsmile (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Greatest Ever" Controversy

The phrase "widely considered to be the greatest tennis player of all time" is warranted when we consider how many tennis experts and former players have said this:

1. Sampras and Lloyd references – already noted in the footnotes. 2. Bjorn Borg: "Even today I regard [Federer] as the best tennis player ever to play the game." http://www.ft.com/c ms/s/2/f276c082-46ff -11de-923e-00144feab dc0.html

3. Jack Kramer: "I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer." http://www.guardian .co.uk/sport/2007/ju n/24/tennis.wimbledo n8

4. Cliff Drysdale: "[Federer's] the best player I've ever seen. He has a genius and a talent that is unmatched in the history of the game, in my opinion."

http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=521930

Others who echo the sentiment: Andre Agassi, Andy Murray, Nick Bollettieri, etc.

Moreover, Federer has set/broken numerous records: e.g., he held the #1 ranking for more weeks than any other player, male or female; he's the only player in the open era to have won 5 US Opens in a row and 5 Wimbledons in a row; he's made a record 10 consecutive finals in slam tournaments, etc. The language used in the first paragraph must reflect his primus inter pares status in the sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTennisObserver (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• DId you read what I said above?What is your obsession with the phrase "widely considered" anyway?

And Zohair, "Is one of the greatest" implies a factual relationship that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. "Table salt is composed of sodium chloride, plus trace elements" is a fact. Saying anyone is the greatest anything is a matter of opinion. Thatcher 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's not an "obsession." The language we use in the first paragraph needs to reflect the fact that numerous legends of the game, including Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, and Andre Agassi, consider Federer to be the greatest ever. It's dishonest to sugarcoat this fact with language like "one of the greatest."

"Greatest Ever" Controversy, Part 2

Wiki contributor Zohair is confused about a very simple point. The sentence "Federer is widely considered to be the greatest tennis player of all time" is not equivalent to saying "he IS the greatest ever." The phrase "widely considered" is defensible because numerous respected commentators of the sport, as well as tennis legends, are on record saying it.

Jack Kramer, Cliff Drysdale, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi are among the many experts on record saying that Federer is the "greatest ever." —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTennisObserver (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best way to handle this be to take the value judgments out of the article, and let the sources speak for themselves? State that McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal et al. have made that claim. Then, add a section on Legacy or something, quote from the statements those authorities have made, and add in some of the other comments (Todd Martin comes to mind) that express a different opinion. These arguments about how good a player Federer is, and how good his career has been, are really just heating up. It's a little early to assess the relative width and breadth of support for any conclusion. I think we should just stick to facts for now, and save all the pronouncements from on high relating to his greatness for a while yet. Innocent76 (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked how Wikipedia has handled the entries on a few of the other players rated among the best male tennis players ever. In the introductory section, Bjorn Borg goes with "is widely considered." Rod Laver says he was "rated as the greatest male tennis players of all time by several experts and polls," with links to the experts and polls. Pete Sampras reads, "he is considered one of the all-time greats of the game." No sources for that claim, but there's a paragraph that immediately follows that contains a list of highlights. Finally, John McEnroe contains no mention of his status as one of the greats -- although maybe not all you kids realize how good Mac was at his best. *wink*

If the community wants to continue this argument, maybe a constructive way to go about it would be to argue the relative merits of these four approaches. What does everyone think? Innocent76 (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I realise that this argument is important to many of you I would like to stress a point: this one statement about Federer as 'the greatest ever' is not the most important aspect of the article as it stands. If you would like to improve the article then there are many things you can do e.g. improving the sources and citations, removing unnecessary information, adding more appropriate results and improving the way the article reads. Once all these things have been done and the article is looking very good then, and only then, do I think it will be prudent to discuss this very specific issue. At the moment this part of the talk page is looking more like a forum than a constructive discussion page about the article. Bittersweetsmile (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Innocent, I appreciate your input and think your suggestion is quite fair. However, I fail to understand how the sentence "Federer is widely considered to be the greatest tennis player of all time" is a value judgment. The sentence can be substantiated. Numerous tennis legends, expert commentators, and other observers of the game have said Federer's the greatest ever. We're talking at least 2 dozen people here. None other than Pete Sampras, who has long been on the short list of GOAT contenders, is on record saying this.

I see that since I last contributed here, the phrasing has been changed to "Federer is considered by many to be the greatest player of all time." I think this new wording is adequate. TheTennisObserver (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC) TheTennisObserver

I concur :) ROxBo (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I do and do not, I think this has to be prefaced with the introductory word Arguably! TennisAuthority 09:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the following revision with references. Furthermore, the use of the word "by many" in this sentence carries the same connotation as "arguably" especially when substantiated by references:

"Federer is considered by many to be the greatest player of all time." TennisGrandSlam (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say I agree, but others might revert it back to one of the greatests and someone did that, but you can go ahead and do it but it would be a fight! I did the same on Rafa pages in terms of Best of Clay!TennisAuthority 13:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I sincerely hope people will not resort to facetious editing of something that is now heralded by many a great tennis pundit and player. Even if a case can be made for the invalidity of the "greatest ever" title in terms of non-comparision of eras it HAS to be substantiated by worthwhile references and included as a similarly arguable caveat to Federer's legacy and NOT as a complete detraction of his greatest ever mantle. TennisGrandSlam (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

TennisGrandSlam, I think your wording is the best I've seen. "Federer is considered by many to be the greatest player of all time" is accurate and succinct. Thanks. TheTennisObserver (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

TennisAuthority and Others: The question that should be uppermost in our mind is, "Have tennis legends, former and current players, and numerous observers said Federer is THE GREATEST (OR BEST) PLAYER EVER, or haven't they?"

The answer to this question is "Yes, of course they have." Jack Kramer, Billie Jean King, Cliff Drysdale, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Rafael Nadal, Simon Barnes, Andre Agassi, and even Pete Sampras are ON RECORD saying so. This is not opinion. These experts ARE ON RECORD saying that Federer is the greatest of all time; not "one of the greatest..." but "THE greatest". The first paragraph must reflect this fact, or else, the Wiki community is being dishonest. TheTennisObserver (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

Split career in the ATP into two sections

I propose that the 'Career in the ATP' section be split into two sections: 1) Early Career in the ATP 1998-2001 2) Career in the top 10 2002-present This will allow the years in which he played in fewer matches to be merged and also reduce the size of this chunky section. I welcome comments from everyone but will most likely go ahead with the split if an experienced editor is in agreement. Bittersweetsmile (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-German bigotry or just annyoning vandals?

Federer says on his own webpage, and in several other places, his first and main language is GERMAN, not swiss german. Yet, for some reason people keep changing it here. It's been switched back and forth too many times to count and I'm sick of it. Now someone fix it because for some reason they locked this to wiki editing. This is right off his god damn "ask roger" page: "German is my main language, I also live in the Swiss-German speaking part of Switzerland." 66.190.29.150 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right but could you give me the exact link to the page where he says "German is my main language, I also live in the Swiss-German speaking part of Switzerland." Then I can cite it and make sure, if it is ever changed again, that it is changed back. Thanks for being someone that actually wants to improve the article! Bittersweetsmile (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/fanzone/askroger/index.cfm?uNC=85957342&uPage=7 fourth question from the bottom.66.190.29.150 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

One reason it keeps getting changed is that "German is his main language. He also speaks German" doesn't make a lot of sense. I have changed it to "speaks Swiss German with his family", with ref. I think this is a better reference, because in the other one, the questioner basically asks him to pick between English, French and German. Rracecarr (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It does seem odd to class your main language as something other than what you speak with your family. Your solution seems the most appropriate. Bittersweetsmile (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal Rivalry

After "Nadal leads their overall head-to-head series 13-7" the following sentence should be added: "Eleven of their 20 meetings were played on clay, Nadal's best surface and Federer's weakest surface." This helps put the head-to-head into context. Off clay, Federer actually leads Nadal 5-4. TheTennisObserver (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC) TheTennisObserver

I think you are right but perhaps a slightly more neutral phrasing e.g. the following: "Nadal leads their overall head-to-head series 13-7. However, it is interesting to note that excluding their matches on clay, Nadal's best surface, Federer leads 5-4". Still not quite happy with this, sounds like a defence of Federer. Thoughts? Bittersweetsmile (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I like your phrasing better, Bittersweet. And I agree, it is more neutral. Good work. TheTennisObserver (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC) TheTennisObserver

Sorry, but I think the new wording is pretty bad. (Who are we to tell the reader what is and is not interesting?) In my opinion, we should handle the rivalry simply by stating the facts. Nadal leads the series 13-7; Nadal has an excellent record on clay against Federer, putting up a 9-2 record; on other surfaces, Federer leads 5-4. Any other statement amounts to interpretation, and should be sourced before we include it in the article. Innocent76 (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Innocent76 - the concensus among editors is actually very similar to your own. We are handling it a different way. If you're interested in what we're aiming to do see: 'Federer Article: Federer-Nadal rivalry' section of TheTennisObserver's user page. Bittersweetsmile (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bittersweet, I actually think your wording is BETTER than what is there now. You mentioned neutrality in an earlier posting. It is not NEUTRAL to leave the reader with the impression that Nadal has dominated Federer on all surfaces - something he has not done. Some note must be made that 9 of Nadal's 13 victories have come on clay, Federer's worst surface and Nadal's best. Thanks. TheTennisObserver (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

Nicknames

Nicknames that are synonymous with Federer are mostly Swiss Maestro, which is how Federer pulls off shots so elegantly, gracefully, and majestically. Also, Federer is called Fed Express because of Federer's way of steamrolling thru matches, and gets the early advantage. Some secondary nicknames associated with Federer are Swiss Clock or Swiss Watch because of his speediness of play, and Swiss Knife for the multitude of shots he can play like all the gadgets and tools of a swiss army knife. Federer gets called on occasion The King of Grass, which is because Federer's dominance on the grass at Wimbledon. A recent addition that is being disputed is The King of Tennis and this is because of having fourteen grand slam victories and winning a career grand slam. Lastly,the Lone Roger, Federer is known by for being the only one dominating the sport in his era. TennisAuthority 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted feedback on the above: Many of the nicknames you have mentioned above seem well referenced so I advice adding them to the info box (with their relevant citation). However it is worth evaluating the quality of the sources i.e. news sites like usa today or nbc are particularly strong sources, personal blogs written by non-professionals less so. With respect to "The King of Tennis" and other 'controversial' nicknames: whilst it may be a legitimate nickname, this may be disputed by editors concerned over the 'neutrality' of the article. However, worrying over potential editorial arguments should not compromise the quality of the article so if you feel including them would improve the quality of the page as an encylopedic article, please do so . Bittersweetsmile (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nickname List

The Swiss Maestro[5]
Fed Express[6]
Federer Express, Fed'[7]
The Swiss Clock[8]
The Swiss Knife[9][10]
The King of Grass[11]
The King of Tennis[12]
The Lone Roger[13]
Rajah, Raj, Rog[14][15]
Lord of the Swings[16]
The Mighty Federer[17]

By the way, I can find more sources to back all of these reputable sources up, which I would do if required! I am mistaken about nicknames if they are suppose to be about more than just writing about someone like these authors have! Nicknames are used to describe characteristics of someone or an atribute of them! TennisAuthority 21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the validity of these is the important thing - it is just that they're not necessary. Apart from the Swiss Maestro and the Fed Express the others aren't used often enough in the main news sources to deserve a place on the page. Alan16 ^talk_count 21:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nickname (in this case) is something that is very commonly used to refer to certain player rather than titles they receive in opinion pieces or news stories. e.g. Rafa would be nickname because that's what he is commonly referred to as and at the same time is somewhat uniquely used to refer to the person. I'd mostly agree with Alan16; other than those two I don't see other true nicknames. ^LeaveSleaves 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rafa is not a nick name it is sort of like James to Jimmy, Robert to Bob, Richard to Dick, Christopher to Chris, which is just another common usage of Rafael is Rafa. This means his page should be Rafael "Rafa" Nadal Parera and his only nickname as the King of Clay! TennisAuthority 22:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most are not true nicknames in common usage enough to attribute them on wikipedia, except for three of the Maestro, Mighty, Express! Thanks for calling me out on that! TennisAuthority 04:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Importance of Article: Should be promoted to Top importance

I think it's pretty clear that Federer's contribution to tennis is rather significant and is in the same league as Borg for example. Therefore the article should be rated as Top importance on the project's importance scale. I'm guessing this can be done by the next reviewing team? 89.168.203.186 (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Navboxes?

Give me your feedback about the grouping of his navboxs, so I can get consensus! TennisAuthority 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Early Career in the ATP (July 1998- Oct. 2002)

There is some technical overlaps occurring in this section between the section edit links and the body text. I'm not sure how to fix this myself, so I thought I would post here to see if someone can fix it. Fdssdf (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also Oct 2002 seems a bit arbitary. Why not just have a 2002 year heading as well as 2003 etc, especially as he reached the top 10 (no. 6) in 2002 anyway. ROxBo (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it seems arbitrary and this was a consideration I made when splitting the sections. Although Federer only really played one important match in 2002 as a player in the Top 10 it would still be 'technically' incorrect if that section was included in Early career in the ATP. Actually no it wouldn't. I will change this so it makes more sense. But I am changing the current titles - his early career was still his tennis career! Bittersweetsmile (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Great table

This here is a great overview which uniquely illustrates Federer's dominance and success, and I'd like to suggest it is included in this main article as well. Just the Grand Slam bit of it. Somewhere down the bottom of the page. Anyone agree? ROxBo (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I hate these types of tables, I think they look quite ugly. That is just my, POV, and my NPOV is that I can see it being useful in the article, ugly thing though it is. Alan16 ^talk_count 02:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it's a beautiful table, and would agree with having the Grand Slam portion of it in the main article. Much like how Tiger Woods has the majors table in both the main article, and career achievements one. Supertigerman (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A note on the sources used for match results

As was kindly pointed out to me a little while ago www.rogerfederer.com should not be used as a cited source for match results as it is too close to having 'self-interest' in the article. Far better would be to use the ATP official site. Although this may be thought of as a primary source I have checked with Wizardman (who reviewed this article) and he agrees that the ATP is fine for sourcing match results. Bittersweetsmile (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is just for fun to get a laugh!

Federer isThe Big Cheese, The Time Piece, and The Sharp Object!, which this is in reference to the Swiss Cheese, Clock or Watch, and Army Knife! TennisAuthority 19:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy in detail

Why is there so much more detail about Federer's matches in 2008-9 than in 2006-7 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.179.223 (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC) And is including the scores of numerous Federer matches in 2008-9 really necessary and appropriate for an encyclopedia article ? It seems that the 2008-9 histories should be pared down so that they are in line with the 2006-7 style of writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.179.223 (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Hello, what do you all think of what I did to the start boxes and the navboxes on this page? TennisAuthority 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

While the compaction of awards and achievements is a good idea, the other two are sort of misleading. e.g. the template for "Australian Open men's singles champions" isn't about Federer's career is slams but is in fact about all Australian Open winners. Same way "Year-end championships winners" is not about "Roger Federer’s career statistics", but about the winners. I think both these compaction should be removed and the templates should be kept as they are. ^LeaveSleaves 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I did these to match the Tiger Woods pages and the golfers ones, which makes these articles flow better! The first is right slam are all of those combined and the other one we can change to achievements!TennisAuthority 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, the first one is okay, but other two are definitely misleading. ^LeaveSleaves 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So, does that mean the golfer ones are wrong, too! I think most certainly not! The call there's major championship like in tennis they call them grand slams! By the way, both of those are list of the major championship navboxes like I did for grand slams! I am trying to standardize wikipedia not having dueling standards, which this is done by multiple projects now like basketball, golf, football!TennisAuthority 21:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what the golfer one's are. I'm saying that the titles for compactions can be misleading. What you can do is create a general compaction with the title "Roger Federer - Navigation boxes and achievements". That way it won't conflict with what those navboxes stand for. ^LeaveSleaves 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is now taking place here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Start_Boxes_Templates_for_Tennis_Player.3F! Thanks TennisAuthority 03:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Forbes?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/17/top-earning-athletes-business-sports-top-earning-athletes_slide_8.html?thisSpeed=15000 Where should we put this that Roger is T11 on this list and makes 33mil.TennisAuthority 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody Please Correct & Protect 1st Paragraph

It is a documented fact that numerous tennis legends, former and past players, and esteemed commentators are on record saying Roger Federer is the "greatest (or best) tennis player of all time."

The wording of the first paragraph should reflect this fact, and any attempt to alter it should immediately be reverted.

Experts saying Federer is the greatest ever:

1. Jack Kramer: "I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer." http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/jun/24/tennis.wimbledon8

2. Pete Sampras: "What he's done over the past five years has never, ever been done -- and probably will never, ever happen again. Regardless if he won [at the French] or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8088265.stm

3. John Lloyd: "He's completed the set and in my opinion he's got to be the greatest player of all time. He's now won on all four surfaces and I think he's going to win more." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8088191.stm

4. Bjorn Borg: "Even today I regard [Federer] as the best tennis player ever to play the game." http://www.ft.com/c ms/s/2/f276c082-46ff -11de-923e-00144feab dc0.html

5. John McEnroe: "He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life..." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

6. Rafael Nadal: "Federer is the best player in history, no other player has ever had such quality." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

7. Nick Bollettieri: "Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player I have ever seen." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

8. David Ferrer: "He's not just number one, he's the best in history." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

9. Simon Barnes: "Roger Federer really is the greatest tennis player of all time. At last he has the stats to prove it, and the stats don’t lie." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/simon_barnes/article6451942.ece

10. Andre Agassi: "[Federer winning the French Open] ends the discussion of where he fits in the history of the game." http://tvnz.co.nz/tennis-news/agassi-fed-deserves-greatest-2771297

Are these 10 sources enough, or are more required? TheTennisObserver (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver