Talk:Roger Federer/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Murray match

Can someone update with Federer's silver medal in the infobox and article? Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, why has it taken so long to update this? 2.28.46.179 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This page is currently protected and can be edited only by administrators. I don't know why, this is unusual. Gap9551 (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually question administrative decision but I have to say that fully protecting Federer's page the day before the Olympics until four days after they end is amazingly poor foresight. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Fully protecting a page also comes with the responsibility of looking after it, especially in the case of such a high profile article. Gap9551 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. I get that the lede has been disputed, but this article is now badly out of date. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Still no edit hours after the match has finished - this is ridiculous. Cypkerth (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Might as well fully-lock the Usain Bolt page as well. Utter imbecile, whoever did this. 2.31.10.222 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected, thanks to Courcelles. Gap9551 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Done Gap9551 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2012

Winning statistics/percentages W-L (853–192 (81.63%) . . .) should be updates to include the wins at the Olympics 2012; as per http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics the matches at the Olympics count in the ATP World Tour.

Also, before or after or within the statement that starts off "Federer also shares the Open Era record . . .", please add: Federer has the record of winning his 5 US Open titles on consecutive years, and is the only player to reach 6 consecutive US Open finals (2004–2009). Also, Federer has the record of winning his 5 consecutive Wimbeldon titles (shared with Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras), and is the only player to reach 7 consecutive Wimbeldon finals.

168.122.11.236 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Already done Or so it appears... Mdann52 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal life: Childhood and early life

In later life, Federer has been friends with the great golfer Tiger Woods.

Do we really need the peacock word "great"? Suggest we change this to In later life, Federer has been friends with the golfer Tiger Woods. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I second this request. Regards --Huligan0 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You can make the edit yourself. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing Federer/Murray Rivalry

Could someone change this section to mention that Murray now leads 9-8 in this rivalry, with the two level at 1-1 on grass? This is due to Murray defeating Federer at the Olympics on grass this month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetradge (talk • contribs) 17:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We know, we're trying to get that changed but unfortunately some cretin set the page so only admins can edit it, and they haven't bothered keeping it up to date.2.31.10.222 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The records are now correct, but the last sentence still reads "Their latest meeting was their first on grass in the 2012 Wimbledon final won by Federer in four sets." This obviously needs to be updated.Sbell772 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Gap9551 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this? (lead, GOAT)

How about this:

Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981, Switzerland) is a professional tennis player who currently ranks amongst the best players of his era. His 17 Grand Slam titles, numerous other records (including most weeks as the ATP World No 1), as well as his general playing style have led many to label him as "the greatest tennis player of all time".[a] Among his achievements are: holding the top-ranking for a record stretch of 237 weeks (291 weeks overall), reaching the finals of each Grand Slam tournament at least five times...etc, etc...

PS: I'm slightly in preference of leaving out "current World No 1" in the lead as that's not a constant and would require (atleast potentially) weekly edits to keep up-to-date. The info box is better off for that.

the greatest is too much of prominence.. one of the greatest can be agreed. fed can be considered lucky that he did not have as many tougher opponents as players like sampras or lendl did. So this greatest tag was done without consensus. the consensus was one of the greatest. once the protection tag is gone, it will be reverted back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.177.132 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the greatest tag is supported by references and there is no issue with how it is currently stated. Several current and former players including Sampras, Lendl, Borg, Nadal, not to mention mutliple sports writers have labeled him as such so there's no argument with the statement in the article. Your obvious axe to grind with Federer is quite evident in your above statement and recent edits, many of which constitute vandalism. Fracktheocre (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Addition

Worth mentioning somewhere that he's been the ATP Council president 2008-2012 and will be there until 2014? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.105.106 (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Fed Murray rivalry.

It says that " They have never met on clay, usually due to both the lack of consistency the two generally have in clay competitions, and the fact that they're often placed in different halves."

This is unfair. Federer has made numerous RG finals, winning one. He has won a lot of clay masters events and so I think it should be made clear that Murray is the one who loses before he has a chance to meet Fed.

" They have never met on clay, usually due to Murray losing early, and the fact that they're often placed in different halves." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.193 (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2013

Please change discussion of Federer's loss to Murray in the Olympic final from 'This came after a monster match in the semifinals against Juan Martin del Potro that went to 19–17 in the final set' to 'This came after an epic four hour 26 minute semifinal against Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina that Federer went on to win 19-17 in the third and final set'. The reference given here doen't work, so please change the citation to http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/03/roger-federer-del-potro-olympics. Thank you Lhindson1 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Dianna (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2013

In the Federer vs. Djokovic rivalry section, the following text appears: "Djokovic is the only player besides Nadal to have defeated Federer more than once in a Grand Slam tournament since 2004". If "more than once in a Grand Slam tournament" is taken to mean "more than once in the same Grand Slam tournament", then it is correct. However, the meaning of the current text is unclear and should be amended for clarity. It's possible that the text could be interpreted to mean "more than once in a Grand Slam match," meaning that the matches in question could each be from different Grand Slam tournaments. In that case, the text is incorrect and should read: "Djokovic is one of only three players (along with Nadal and Tomas Berdych) to defeat Federer more than once in a Grand Slam match since 2004." This is true because Berdych beat Federer at the 2012 US Open and at the 2010 Wimbledon as well. For reference, here is a link from the official ATP World Tour page: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=BA47 Thank you for letting me submit my request. Raz1024 (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Already done Pol430 talk to me 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wimbledon Records

Between 2005 and 2006, Roger Federer has won 32 consecutive sets, more than Bjorn Borg's 24 Consecutive sets won.YYWALB (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YYWALB (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion request 6 February 2013

I feel that the Federer season from 2008-2012 should be separated, into a subsection in the article, from the current season. Someone needs to come up with a snappy and honest appraisal that summarizes that five year period of his career. This would fit in with the rest of the structure of the article as each subsection covers five year periods of his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.192.153 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, although why is his junior years pre-1998 when 1998 was his best and last junior year, i understand federer played only 3 adult tournaments that year though all 3 were local (2 in switzerland, 1 in austria). So shouldn't it be pre-1999 as 1999 was his first full season on the atp tour? Then it be 1999-2003, 2004-2008, 2009-2013. Which would seem to me more realistic as the first shows his climb up, the second his rise and (first) fall from number 1 and the third (which finishes this year) will be about his longevity and record-breaking ability. If he were to continue say to 2017 then that would sort of fit then for his whole career? That to me as a Federer fan, breaks up his career better and sorts out his junior years bit, remember in 1998 he was junior world number 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, the ordering seems to make a lot more sense and it covers the turning points in his career. It would be nice if one of the people who has editing abilities could comment? The 2009-2013 period could be called 'Coasting at the top', or preferably something much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.72.114 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Federer vs. Ferrer rivalry

There should be an additional rivalry discussed, that being Federer against Ferrer.. Federer leads 15-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.156.132 (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not much of a rivalry, is it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

By that logic one should discount the Roddick-Federer rivalry. It is more matches than he had against Safin and although he is unbeaten some of them came close. A rivalry is defined as competing for the same objective or for superiority in the same field. Which they have done - 15 times and for many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.192.153 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If another rivalry is to be added it should be against Berdych, now that he's beaten Federer in multiple slams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.17.249 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Roger Federer is often compared to the greatest tennis player ever, Jonny Stob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstob17 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2013

Please add Djokovic after Agassi to edit the following statement to become: "Federer also shares the Open Era record for most Grand Slam titles at the Australian Open with Agassi and Djokovic (4 titles)". 71.255.166.150 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Already done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Records list is a duplication

The records list is getting ridiculous and bloating this article over the 100k limit. And most are already on the List of career achievements by Roger Federer article. These need to be trimmed to a top 10 records or completely removed and placed on the career achievement page, which was made specifically for this type of thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps both? I'd suggest that the list be placed under a "Summary" section created on the List of career achievements by Roger Federer article, and a summary of some sort placed under the subsection on the main article. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. In the last few days the list has even gotten longer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. What astounds me the most is how artificial records are being added, such as consecutive quarterfinals at a specific GS tournament and consecutive GS match wins on a particular surface. IMHO, this is all pure trivia. I'd suggest moving the table itself to the career achievements page and deleting the corresponding records that are already contained in the C.A. page. This is because the table format is utilized in every major tennis players' article (e.g. Sampras, Borg, Laver, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, etc.). Any thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you do it you'd have my backing. Fed's career achievement page is actually hard to read. The\is Fed article is over 100k even without the records. I keep thinking it's because of all the sources (which add a lot to the size) and I wonder if there are sources used multiple times or even one source that could do the job of many? But being so popular, so talented and 31 years old this article is probably doomed to being oversized. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be best for the page, this is about Roger and his general/most well-known acheievements, this table table should be moved to the page you mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Federer was #4 in 2011

The first paragraph claims that Roger Federer has "continuously" ranked in the top three rankings since 2003. That is not true. He has continuously ranked in the top FOUR since July 14, 2003 Federer dipped to #4 in 2011.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=rh 96.25.189.9 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This is true and should be updated, he was #4 seed for 2003 wimbledon as well so its probably since the end of the 2003 french open he was #4 i.e. June 2003 not July 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2013

There's a space missing: "Swiss luxury watch brandRolex" should be "Swiss luxury watch brand Rolex" 95.22.61.210 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?)

Edit request - lead

For accuarcy and fairness, I believe that one word in a lead sentence should be replaced with two words. The sentence says, "Many commentators and former and current players consider Federer the greatest tennis player of all time." I feel that it should instead say, "Many commentators and former and current players have called Federer the greatest tennis player of all time." So change the word "consider" to "have called". Some of the sources are from several years ago, including one from six years ago. Just because someone said at one point in time that Federer is the greatest player ever doesn't necessarily mean they haven't changed their mind. For example, 10 or 20 years ago many people thought that Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg (or someone else) was the all-time greatest player, but today they may feel that someone else is. So what we know for sure is that the various people from the sources did indeed name Federer as the greatest ever, but the sentence, as it's worded now, implies as fact that all of those people still feel that way today; that it's current. But we don't know that to be a fact. Therefore, I believe this slight change to the wording should be done to put the sentence in proper context. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Dianna (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sections for Roger's career

Isn't it about time for a new final section to cover his career? The last one is titled 2008 to present: Dominance of the Big Four but this covers nearly 6 full years where the first 2 cover only 4 years each, my point being in the last 2 1/2 years Roger has won 1 Slam. Shouldn't it get broken down now to look something like 2008-2010 dominance of the big four which gives way to 2011-the present The Waning of his career or A Waning Star (or some title indicating his time at the top is clearly ending).--203.79.96.4 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree with you there. Calling him a waning star is completely respectless to him and everything he has achieved. Just because he only won one Grand Slam during the last 2 1/2 years i wouldn't call him waning. If you go by the same definition you could call Djokovic, Nadal and Murray all waning too since they have only won 2 Grand Slams each in the last 2 years. And what about Del Potro who has won only one Grand Slam in the last four years ? The reason why Roger's successes in recent time have dropped somewhat is that the level of opposition has clearly risen. He is still one of the best players out there and you can't call him waning at all.--Tvx1 (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Federer was ranked #5 only since July 2013

In the first sentence it states that Federer "as of May 2013, is ranked World No. 5 by the ATP.". This is inaccurate as he was ranked at number 2 and number 3 during May 2013.

ATP Ranking History - Roger Federer

Scottnch (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

US Open 2013 4th Round scoreline

The scoreline of Federer's loss to Robredo was 6-7, 3-6, 4-6. Please note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayslaydax (talk • contribs) 08:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no place to put it on his main page since scores aren't allowed in prose. It is however noted in the chart on his yearly page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Roger Federer's ranking is 6, not 555 85.28.98.186 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done:: The 555 is his doubles ranking, not his singles ranking. NiciVampireHeart 19:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hewitt-Federer Rivalry

This has probably been said before, but there should be a section on the rivalry between Lleyton Hewitt and Federer. The two have met 27 times now (Federer leads 18-9) and they are both of a similar age. Additionally Federer rarely lost to Hewitt during his peak years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erriene (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The Grand Rey Gordo Nalbandian, his most talented nemesis?

Nalbandian had a positive record against Federer until quite late in both their careers and was his main rival for nearly a decade until the advent of Nadal. Their matches in Shanghai 2005 and Madrid&Paris 2007, are without a doubt among the greatest matches ever played in terms of pure skill and spectacle. Thank you Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.170.37.65 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In relation to Roger Federer's "Play Style"

Hello. In reading this article about Roger Federer, particularly his play style, I couldn't help but noticing how much of the section was devoted to praise about Roger Federer's shots, plays, etc. A Federer fan myself I cannot but realize how un-Federerlike it is to spew praise about him. Federer is a humble man, possibly the last of his era. Unfortunately the section on his playstyle chooses sources that give information mostly putting Federer in a positive light. While he is a great player, at least let readers know some of his weaknesses, such as a vulnerable one-handed backhand instead of just: "topspin winners and possesses a 'flick' backhand with which he can generate pace with his wrist." To me, this is a gross injustice to Wikipedia, for what would we be if all facets of a situation were not considered? To prove my point, here is a webpage detailing his weaker backhand: http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Rethinking-Federer-Nadal--Roger%E2%80%99s-Backhand-Puts-Hi

Avenzhang (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

Hi,

Please correct statement: "He has also won the most matches, 260, in men's Grand Slam tournaments". Change 260 to 265, following the recent AUS 2014 Open. According to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records after the AUS 2014 Open, Federer's total number of Grand Slam match wins in now 265, not 260. 128.197.87.34 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Kap 7 (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oldest and youngest rival

An interesting data is who was the oldest rival of Federer and the youngest, I think the oldest was Olivier Delaître (born 1967), and the youngest so far is Bernard Tomic (born 1992). They could be father and sun. --200.86.235.249 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Coaches

It's a good section (on the right) but I wonder if it gives misleading importance to the role of coaches. Fine to put maybe his current team (as is done for other tennis players), but giving sidebar prominence to all of them, even people like Kacovsky is not the best use of space in my opinion; Kacovsky has very little relevance to his overall career. Especially when for so many years he was coachless bar Luthi in a behind-the-scenes way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.54.238 (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to update Roger's 2013 Tennis Career Section

Appreciate the way Tennis Career section is written. I was wondering if the following text can be added to reflect exact state of Roger's form at the end of 2013 season.

"Federer appeared in his third final of the season at the Swiss Indoors Basel where he was defeated by Juan Martin Delpoto in three close sets. By appearing in his 10th final at Basel, Federer became the only second man in tennis history to appear in most finals in a single tournament. Guillermo Vilas is the only other player to have appeared in 10 finals in a single tournament and he achieved this feat at Buenos Aires in 1982. Federer ended the season by making semi final appearances at the Paris Masters tournament (lost to Novak Djokovic) and at the Year End Championships (lost to Rafael Nadal)"

Varunvenu (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The atp world tour website (atpworldtour.com) is a good source for facts on any players career and playing activity, which should be considered reliable since they are the organisers of the mens tour. The summary given is correct according to [1].

Please could Federers 2013 career highlights, on the main page, be moved from the section 'Dominance of the Big Four' to 'The later years', since his 2013 season was certainly not dominant and it is misleading having it where it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erriene (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It probably should... BUT you never know what could happen in tennis. Remember the section is Dominance of the Big Four not Dominance of Roger Federer. As it stands now the Big Four ended in 2012 but it seemed fair that we have some overlap. Hence 2014 starts the later years. We may tweak it in a year or two to include 2013 in later years. But tennis can also be weird. What if beyond reason Roger turns back time and wins a whole bunch this season? Then we might have to remove the later years section and include 2014 in Dominance. The Big Four is over say the sources, but I say we wait till we move 2013 anywhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the dominance of the big four, but there was no big four in 2013. If Roger does win a load of titles this year then his 2014 season shouldn't be moved to the big four, it should be in a new section, such as 'resurgence' or 'resurgence of the big four' if those four are dominant this year. Also if that happens then 2013 should have it's own section - 'Anomalous Results'! I agree about waiting though, this page can't really be perfect until he retires and may that not be for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erriene (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2014

Can someone please update # of matches and % won by Fed? Should now be 943 after his win over Karlovic a couple of days ago in Sony Open. Someone staying on top of this? 155.41.106.31 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2014

To add Federer's new children's names. The wiki states rightly that he has two children on the 6th of May. I wanted to add that their names are Leo and Lenny.

Thanks

Thedeliberative (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added this without seeing the request but you need to give a link next time.Disability expert (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Length of 2003-2007 compared to 2008-present

Why are Federer's prime years of 2004-2007 so short compared to 2008-2013? Can we either expand his prime years or contract years like 2011 and 2013.

2003-7 years are about the same as 2008-10 years. That's about right considering he has individual articles for each and every year. Maybe a little short. We probably need masters/slam finals reached/won and year end ranking. So while 2003-9 could be slightly expanded, 2011-14 need to be crushed down a lot. That's my opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed down some of the bloated sections of 2012-2014. Mostly removed things like withdrawls from tournaments and losses at small tournaments that are extensively covered in the separate articles on those seasons.

Section title

2013: Decline due to injury seems POV because it's saying the decline is due to injury. Perhaps 2013: Decline and injuries is better because it doesn't express a causal link between the two. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and updated.--Wolbo (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014

Please add the word "semifinal" in 2.8, in the sentence "He reached the _____ of the 2012 Australian Open..." Haisuli (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Good catch.  NQ  talk 12:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wimbledon 2014

The entry lists him as winner, not runner-up. Also the set results are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.171.108 (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for minor changes to the introduction

I would like to propose two minor edits to this paragraph

Federer has appeared in 25 men's singles Grand Slam finals, with 10 in a row, both records, and appeared in 18 of 19 finals from the 2005 Wimbledon Championships through to the 2010 Australian Open. He is the only man to reach at least the semifinals of 23 consecutive Grand Slam tournaments, from the 2004 Wimbledon Championships through the 2010 Australian Open.[19] At the 2014 Wimbledon Championships, he played in a record 59th consecutive Grand Slam tournament, reached a record 42nd Grand Slam quarter-final (surpassed Connors' record of 41), a record 35th Grand Slam semi-final and a record 25th Grand Slam final. Earlier at the 2013 French Open, Federer reached a record 36th consecutive Grand Slam quarter-final. He has also won the most matches, 274, in men's Grand Slam tournaments and is the only player to record 60+ wins each at all the Grand Slam tournaments.

1. I would change "(surpassed Connors'..." to "(surpassing Connors'...".

2. I would change "is the only player to record 60+ wins each at all the Grand Slam tournaments." to "is the only player to record 60+ wins at each Grand Slam tournament.

If people with authorization to make changes to the page agree with these suggestions, please implement them for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.9.243 (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2014

Age is 33 Kragha 26 (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct - and happy birthday Roger - I didn't change it, the article auto-updates his age - I assume you saw a version of the article before this happened. - Arjayay (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Like

Summary of Federer's Gram Slam wins

Would it be possible to add the following addition to Federer's introduction "...winning 17 Grand Slam singles titles; (4-Australian Open (2004,2006,2007,2010); 1-French Open (2009); 7-Wimbledon (2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2009,2012); 5-U.S. Open (2004,2005,2006,2007,2008)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.142.91.41 (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's right there in the infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Children

His children are minors, they are not notable on their own, and there is no reason to name them in our article. That the names are referenced is immaterial to me: it's part and parcel of being a celebrity, but that doesn't mean we have give their names in the article. "There is no policy that says we shouldn't name them"--well, WP:BLPNAME mandates we use "editorial discretion...[to decide] that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". I propose that Roger Federer is a tennis player first, at least for us encyclopedia writers, and that while the fact that he has children may be worth noting, the names of his children are in no way "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". NeilN, this hopeless exercise you're forcing me into is dedicated to you. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I agree, based on BLPNAME. Adding the names and birth dates of the children does nothing to enhance a reader's understanding of the article subject. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to add a diff to your post at BLPN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, whether I minded or not, you did, and I posted my own hopeless note there. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I don't really care if kids are named with birthdates, but it seems to me that this would need to be a wikipedia issue, not a Roger Federer issue. I looked around and it is common practice to add these items to celebrities. See Andre Agassi, Brad Pitt, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jon Bon Jovi, etc... To remove them simply from Roger Federer would be wrong. Good or bad, this is a wiki-wide issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck, I hope you realize this works both ways, since there are lots of articles that don't have such names. So to re-add them to Federer would simply be wrong? Drmies (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Is that because the names don't appear in reliable sources? I obviously agree with Fyunck. This is a wiki-wide issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It might also be that editors haven't tried to add them to other articles. Certainly children's names can be censored out at wikipedia if enough editors agree. There are other examples of wiki-censoring of that type, so it wouldn't be unheard of here. We had someone try to add... I think it was Serena Williams shoe size... and it was deemed too trivial even though it was sourcable. I don't think kids names fall under the same trivia (maybe their birthdays do – a year date seems good enough to me). Things like Encyclopaedia Britannica don't seem to have a problem with kids names/birthdates of celebrities. Wikipedia almost always has more info than a paper encyclopedia – it would seem a bit strange that it would give less info. Whether or not minors should be granted special consideration for safety sake here at wikipedia is a valid concern, but again that's a full blown wikipedia issue not a Roger Federer issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, no, I think that sourcing has nothing to do with this. Obviously if something in a BLP can't be sourced reliably and it concerns a minor (well, other things as well, like praise or awards) it should go. I'm talking about things that can be sourced but don't need to be in our articles. And I wouldn't say that a shoe size was "censored" out, or that children's names need to be "censored" out--it's not censorship, it's judgment. It seems to me that you all think that the baseline is for inclusion, but I do not believe that that is the case; I do not believe it's normal or anything like that to insert children's names. Rolf Bremmer has children, and I could probably source that, but why would I? He's a scholar of Old Frisian--what do his children have to do with that? What do Federer's children have to do with his playing tennis? Theodor Schieffer had a child, and the child is named--and linked, since he's also a notable scholar of German history, so that makes sense. (Plus, I'm trying to get him to collaborate on a book...)

And sure, it's a wider issue, and I posted at BLPN, but someone with an axe to grind (with me) jumped on my comment rightaway (and totally misread it...), so I'll leave that discussion alone.

Fyunck(click), having children is far from trivial (I should know--I have a couple of 'em), and it's incredibly important to a person's life, but it does not (always/often/whatever) necessarily have anything to do with what makes them notable (unless you have 19 children and you're making a TV show about your life). I think we should err on the side of caution, which is exclusion, privacy, even if the rest of the internet does have those names. The rest of the internets has lots of things which we typically exclude. Now, that is my opinion, sure, but mutatis mutandis what you and others are giving is also an opinion, it's not law or policy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Playing Style Improvement

I think federer's forehand should be detailed a bit more including a mention of his inside out forehand he produced during his dominant years. His forehand is by far the highest rated aspect of his game yet gets little explanation.

A small bit on Federer's serve placement as being a key part to his serving and effectiveness of his serve.

There should be mention of his use of serve and volleying during the 2014 in his playing style section.

There should be more discussion of federer's backhand slice which has been described by a number of pundits including mcenroe as being the best ever.

It should be included in the dropshot mention that it was key too his 2009 french open tournament and win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.67.95 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014

Please change the overall prize money to 88,611,538 (This is as per atpworldtour.com). Looks like you have not taken into account his prize money from the ATP World Tour Finals. Varunvenu (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done----Wolbo (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Lack of info from 2014

2014 lacks information on his runs at the French Open (lost to Gulbis in the fourth round), US Open (lost to eventual champion Cilic in the semis after coming from two sets down against Monfils and saving match points for the first time in a grand slam), ATP tour finals (reached the final saving match points against Wawrinka before withdrawing with a back injury), and the Davis Cup final (part of the winning Swiss side and won the decisive fourth rubber over Gasquet). This lack of info looks amateurish for such an established player. 2.30.126.74 (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Peacock & length

How do contributors feel about the tone and language used in this article. While many adulations are duly warranted given Federer's unique place in tennis of the last decade, is that appropriate for Wikipedia neutrality? I hope to gain consensus here before editing further. I added a tag on the article indicating that. Also the length of article for a bio seems to be vastly exhaustive. Thoughts? - RC (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that this is currently considered a Good Article, a Good article reassessment would be warranted if the concerns are not addressed.—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Picture

Shouldn't a more recent photo be shown instead of 2009? Maybe from 2014 Wimbledon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmoledMan (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

Can someone please check this out, the sentence "In 2014 the Match for Africa 2 between Nadal and Stan Wawrinka, again in Zurich, raised £850,000 for education projects in southern Africa" doesn't match the reference, according to which the match was between Federer and Wawrinka. Tennispompom (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a match between Federer and Wawrinka and has been corrected. Does not have to be vandalism, could just be an honest mistake. In any case if you are sure it is incorrect there is no need to discuss it here first, just be bold and correct it.--Wolbo (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Section 8 :Career Statistics-Grand Slam Tournament Performance Timeline

Query in Section 8 Career Statistics-Grand Slam Tournament Performance Timeline

For the Win Loss Row, Shouldn't the Win-Loss numbers be the same for 2006 and 2007 as 27-1? Since he reached all 4 Finals and won 3 of them,however its 26-1 for 2007. Could some one please clarify on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkthinks (talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC) He won one round of those matches with the withdrawal of the opponent, so it doesnt count as a match victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy Boy (talk • contribs) 03:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Rivalry

What is the criteria for the inclusion of a rivalry, what about rivalry with Agassi, Soderling, Gonzalez, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Tsonga, and Ferrer. These are as important as some of the included in the articles, by opponent ranking, number of matches, and grand slam final matches. --Tommy Boy (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Membership of All-England Club

Roger mentioned recently on TV that he had just been invited to join the Club. I was under the impression that he had become a member after winning his first championship, like every annual champion (with the notable exception of John McEnroe).

What gives?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Rivalry with Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

I think we could add Tsonga to Federer's main rivalries. They faced in one Grand Slam semifinal, four Grand Slam quarterfinals, one World Tour Finals final, two Masters 1000 finals. Federer leads 11-5 overall and 4-2 in Grand Slam events. Lirecestrefuserdemourir (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015

Please change "is a Swiss professional tennis player who is currently ranked world no. 2 " to "is a Swiss professional tennis player who is currently ranked world no. 3" Also change ranking in bio. Ref:http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles

182.68.237.168 (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical edit suggestion

In the paragraph on Federer's equipment, both the past tense forms "strung" and "stringed" are used. The correct form is "strung"; "stringed" is generally limited to the locution "stringed instruments."

I hesitate to make the change because I am no tennis expert and because of the odd coding (which I don't understand) around the word "stringed," which seems to have started life as "strings."

I leave it to the experts to deal as appropriate with what seems (to my ear and experience) to be an error.

03:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC) KC 03:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

Reference to "end of his career" which hasn't happened yet

I suggest changing "At the end of the year he would suffer a back injury that would prove to be reoccurring throughout the end of his career." in the 2008 section to something like "At the end of the year he would suffer a back injury that would persist in future years."

It doesn't make sense to reference the end of his career if his career hasn't ended yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.38.169 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done I changed it a bit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed. The sentences do not make any sense and are unclear.

"In the quarterfinals, he defeated Feliciano López in straight sets to set up a semifinal clash with Andy Murray. Against Murray, he won in two close sets to progress to the final.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC12:2C20:5480:C2E7:9028:C406 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC) 

Hmmm... it seems clear to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

: Done Slightly rephrased to "he defeated Feliciano López in straight sets to advance to a semifinal match against Andy Murray." --Wolbo (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015

he is currently ranked no 3 not 2 2602:304:B232:A490:ED80:81D6:43C7:CA5A (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done I just checked here and he is ranked number 2. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Roger Federer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090306062623/http://www.rogerfederer.com:80/en/fanzone/askroger/index.cfm to http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/fanzone/askroger/index.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100225093113/http://www.australianopen.com:80/en_AU/scores/stats/day19/1701ms.html to http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day19/1701ms.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Won IPTL ?

Would it be relevant to insert in the team competitions section of the infobox that he won the 2014 IPTL ? Schnapper (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roger Federer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070225151333/http://www.rogerfederer.com:80/en/fanzone/askroger/index.cfm to http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/fanzone/askroger/index.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation indicated is correct, but it's the Swiss German pronunciation. In Germany and Austria his name is pronounced [ˈfe:dəʁɐ]. Given the fact that he is a Swiss, I recommend to keep it like this, but add the word Swiss before German pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.193.238 (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The pronunciation [ˈfeːdərər] is indeed German, not Swiss German. Of course, it is not Germany German. It does not need to be. Wikipedia does not have a bias towards Germany. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Worth expanding legacy section

Despite not being retired yet there are already numerous publications and information highlighting his impact on tennis and sports. For example being number 2 on Sports Illustrated top male athletes of the 2000's and being Tennis.com's greatest player of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangermonth (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Roger Federer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/mediacorner/mediareleases/mediareleasesdetail.cfm?uPressID=145
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090725062052/http://www.rogerfederer.com:80/en/fanzone/askroger/index.cfm?uNC=44884627&uPage=3&uCategoryID=3 to http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/fanzone/askroger/index.cfm?uNC=44884627&uPage=3&uCategoryID=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Roger Federer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091018040912/http://www.lematin.ch:80/actu/suisse/roger-federer-exempte-pc-143403 to http://www.lematin.ch/actu/suisse/roger-federer-exempte-pc-143403
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927003712/http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/fanzone/askroger/index.cfm?uNC=97027562&uPage=1&uCategoryID=3 to http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/fanzone/askroger/index.cfm?uNC=97027562&uPage=1&uCategoryID=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Military service

Surely the statement that "2003 he was deemed unfit because of a long-standing back problem and was subsequently not required to fulfill his military obligation. Luckily, he managed to overcome this ailment enough to win Wimbledon later that year" is a joke? He cannot have been unfit for military service if he was competing in professional tennis.101.98.74.13 (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The actual term was "unsuitable" for military service. As is now sourced, he instead entered the Swiss civil protection force and forfeited salary. I'm guessing all sides of the issue benefited from the compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Money leader

Correct mistake that he is all time money leader. Joelstevenwright (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

Sally foster (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC) changing the section about his wimbledon titles to add to the part about seven titles

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - and won't be done. The article states "Federer shares an Open Era record for most titles at Wimbledon with Pete Sampras (seven)" - the Open era (or professional era) started in 1968, whereas William Renshaw died in 1904 - Arjayay (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016

116.193.131.19 (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) federer backhand is very poor and attackable.

 Not done Not clear what requested changes are. Gap9551 (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2016 (Regarding addition of info about Peter Carter)

Please add info about Peter Carter. There isn't one mention of Federer's childhood coach, who was possibly one of the more influential people in his life (see [1] and [2]). Someone who played such a formative role in Federer's career deserves at least one line in this Wikipedia entry, if not more, simply out of respect for the man's memory.

References:

[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/peter-carter-the-coach-who-moulded-roger-federer/story-fnbe6xeb-1226462726142?nk=18c774d08e21663c77c36b5c6f5ae949-1472115079

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,1270865,00.html

Byt3sm1th (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

some records

reached 10 final together and then 8 together.

STANISLAS.

223.225.190.103 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

Roger Federer was in the Australian final 2009.

It should have F 2009 next to the other years he has also won.

Eg

Grand Slam Singles results Australian Open W (2004, 2006, 2007, 2010) F (2009) <ADDED HERE French Open W (2009) Wimbledon W (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012) US Open Danielwaynehunt (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done If you are talking about the infobox, we only put in the "best" result. If a final is the best result he ever attained we would put in all finals. Since he has won, we only put in wins. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017

In the Federer vs. Nadal section, please remove "by far" from the sentence, "Of their 34 matches, 15 have been on clay, which is by far Nadal's best surface." This is a user opinion drawn from the statistics within the given cite, in which "by far" is not mentioned (the ref is dead, by the way: I'm reading it via Wayback Machine). Reads very much to me like an apology. Cheers. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:A42A:1CC3:C0B2:D0EA (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016

In the section- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Roger_Federer#Olympic_Games , under Doubles Finals, and then in the Tournament tab, Beijing has been spelled wrong (as Beijimg). Please correct 'Beijimg' to 'Beijing'

IshMohanGupta (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, one corrected in Doubles Finals could not find any others. MilborneOne (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I clicked on the tab for "New Section":
This quotation about Roger Federer from the Wikipedia doesn't seem to make much sense. Can you figure it out?:

"At the 2016 Wimbledon Championships, Federer reached a record 48th Grand Slam quarterfinal and a record 40th Grand Slam semifinal. Earlier at the 2016 Australian Open, he played in a record 65th consecutive Grand Slam tournament. Earlier at the 2015 US Open, he reached a record 27th Grand Slam final. Also earlier at the 2013 French Open, Federer reached a record 36th consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal."

In quarterfinals, setting the record at 36 consecutive does not seem to be relevant, since Federer now holds the record at 48.
Thus it seems that Federer has set records at 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 consecutive quarterfinals in the Grand Slams. If you are going to mention two of them, then you need to mention all of them...
47.215.211.115 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope, 48 is overall quarterfinals. 36 is consecutive ones. Those 36 formed an uninterrupted string of Grand Slam quarterfinal appearances. The 48 doesn't.Tvx1 18:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

203.125.224.229 (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017

gustav kuerten won 3 5 set and 2 4 set matches on his way to winning 1997 french open 117.209.248.230 (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Removed the clearly incorrect claim. Thanks for your request. I felt it was wrong right when I saw it. Some quick research also found Gaston Gaudio at the 2004 French Open and Stefan Edberg at the 1992 US Open.Tvx1 18:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Didn't Roger Federer's ranking move up from 17 to 10 after winning the Australian Open? Kenneth701 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

For this comment in the beginning " His accomplishments in professional tennis have led to him being regarded by many as the greatest tennis player of all time," Is it known who exactly regards him this way? Kenneth701 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You can find them by the bushel barrel on Google. But it should probably be written as "some" instead of "many." Different Eras all had different importance on things. He will always be mentioned in the same conversation as Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, Sampras and Nadal. It's great to have choices. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be neither. They are both to vague and are weasel words. We should be more specific. Regarding his ranking, rankings aren't updated until Monday.Tvx1 23:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

They are not weasel words if it can be sourced over and over and over again. Saying "some" is so easy to source it's downright ridiculous. It could be changed to "multiple." Many or Most are much more difficult. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure they are. Sourcing alone isn't sufficient. We need to actually attribute the claim within the article by actually naming the people. From the guideline: Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.Tvx1 22:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Rivalries

Do you think the statement is contradicting and confusing? "One of Federer's longstanding rivalries was with American Andy Roddick. Roddick lost his world No. 1 ranking to Federer after Federer won his first Australian Open in 2004. Federer and Roddick met on 24 occasions, including four Grand Slam event finals (three at Wimbledon and one at the US Open – all won by Federer). Federer's record is overall 21–3.[177] Roddick himself said it was not much of a rivalry, being so one-sided." Also the link to Roddick's quote doesn't seem like a neutral source as it's quoting Roddick but using his statement to compare two other relevant players. Dhk1016 (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it seems very clear. It was a rivalry, but it was a one-sided rivalry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2017

ATP ranking changed. Roger has become World No.6 123.136.170.195 (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done - by another - at 06.58 - Arjayay (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017

In the 2017 section, the formatting used for the score "6-3 6-4" (Miami final 2017) is not correct, the dash should be the long one and not the short one. Also, a space is missing before the comma. Therefore, please replace "6-3,6-4" by "6–3, 6–4". Thank you for adjusting this. Chogall~enwiki (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Actually, scoring is not supposed to be in prose so it was removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

Vs604 (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Vs604 (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Roger Federer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160609050443/http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles to http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115064147/http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/men_s_singles.html to http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/men_s_singles.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513071553/http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/history/pastwinners.html to http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/history/pastwinners.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222190523/http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/mschamps.html to http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/mschamps.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523070633/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140122070945/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=MC10 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=MC10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090820165327/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=D683 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=D683
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://2012.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/articles/2012-01-26/201201251327479058509.html?promo=rss
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601051854/http://www.wimbledon.com/heritage/history/championships-history to http://www.wimbledon.com/heritage/history/championships-history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913191148/http://www.usopen.org/pdf/Record_Book_Most_Championship_Titles.pdf to http://www.usopen.org/pdf/Record_Book_Most_Championship_Titles.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6ALsJvhSv?url=http://www.usopen.org/pdf/Record_Book_Singles_Records.pdf to http://www.usopen.org/pdf/Record_Book_Singles_Records.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2017

Please change "He is listed at no. 5 on the Forbes "World's Highest Paid Athletes" list." under endorsements, to no.4, as specified on website. Polipuff (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Altamel (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2017

I just want to mention that you haven't added one of the achievements of Roger Federer. When he won 2010 Australian open, he became the first man to hold 3 grand slams on 3 different surfaces, i.e French Open 2009, Wimbledon 2009 and Australian Open 2010. Kindly add this, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.130.24.122 (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017

Please change "lost in the quarterfinals to eventual bronze medalist James Blake" to "lost in the quarterfinals to James Blake" because James Blake did not win the Bronze Medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Jfcasella (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank you for helping to improve this article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 and Ken Rosewall

"the oldest player to win a Grand Slam tournament since Rosewall's 1974 win."

This is inaccurate - Rosewall lost in the 1974 Wimbledon final (to Jimmy Connors). He did win the Australian Open in 1972 at the age of 37 years and two months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.110.29 (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yep. Someone made an error on the date. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roger Federer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141007051148/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-Home.aspx to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-Home.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208095044/http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/roll_of_honour/boys-doubles.html to http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/roll_of_honour/boys-doubles.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030220621/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=R485 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=R485

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice job. Geoffreybmx (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"Runner-ups"

"Runners-up" is the plural of "runner-up." Please fix this. --73.14.141.82 (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This is only partially true. Normally when talking about multiple individuals the correct term in runners-up. That's what's used 99% of the time. But when tallying the total of runner-up finishes the correct usage is runner-ups. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Male player

The longstanding consensus sentence of "regarded by many as the greatest tennis player of all time" seems to be in dispute as far as adding the term "male" to the sentence. It should remain without the term "male" until consensus is reached here, since that's the way Wikipedia normally works. But it needs to be worked out here and not in the article via edit warring. So bring all the arguments to bear and try to convince others here that adding the term is better for our readers. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Like I said in my last edit: When was the last time you heard a player or an analyst say that Federer was greater than Serena or vice versa? The reality is that most of them don't bother comparing the greatest of men and women's tennis and Wikipedia should reflect that reality. And a number of sources in which players are calling him the greatest while discussing only male players (thus the overwhelmingly most likely scenario is that they're talking about men's tennis) doesn't change that reality. Considering there are only a couple of sources which say that he's considered the greatest of both tours, what would adhere to the neutral point of view policy here would be saying that many players and analyst have called him the greatest male player of all time and some have also called him the greatest of both tours. Narciso003 (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

They only say he is the greatest or one of the greatest. I often hear female attached to female greatest, but not often male attached to male greatest. It's usually implied that great male players are better than great female players. I think adding it is overkill, but it's a small matter to me as far as what needs fixing in tennis articles. What concerns me more is standard Wikipedia protocol. If you add something new (like the term "male"), and it gets reverted, you DO NOT add it back. You bring it here and try to convince others that it is better to have it. You don't edit war to get your way. The article is protected temporarily, but I would hazard a guess that most editors do not want the "male" part added. I guess we'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"It's usually implied that great male players are better than great female players." And here I thought sexism didn't adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. My point remains: if the vast majority of analysts and players are not saying he's the greatest of both tours then Wikipedia has absolutely no business saying they do, because it's blatantly false. You're right about the edit war, I shouldn't have done that; the "male" part had stayed there for months before this happened, though, and nobody seemed to be bothered about said part before today. Narciso003 (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of sexism, it's a fact! If the vast majority call Federer "one of the greatest tennis players of all time" then we would also call him "one of the greatest tennis players of all time." From past head-to-heads the top female tennis player is not going to beat any of the top 200+ male tennis players. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is what is given to us in sources. And not everyone edits every day. I see you were battling on this front back in April when you were in another edit war with 3 reverts. It should have been brought here instead of you forcing it through. It should not be there unless you can convince others that you are correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't matter. What matters is what happens in real life regarding this situation, and the sources have to be subordinated to that. If, in real life, the majority of analysts and players don't say (nor imply) that Federer is the greatest player of both tours (because, again, nobody compares them), then Wikipedia has no business implying they do. Especially if that's based on a number of sources in which players call him the greatest, but are, in like 15 out of 17 of them, more than likely discussing just men's tennis. Those sources are a very poor argument in favour of this article's continuing to imply something that just doesn't happen in real life. Narciso003 (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh they easily imply it. They don't say he's one of the greatest of the ATP or WTA... they encompass it all. It implies he's one of the greatest humans to ever play, man or woman. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to grasp, but I'm not wasting more time going in circles. You have not convinced me, but I'm only one person and might be in the minority. That's happened many times. We'll see if others chime in supporting your view. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

They never say "one of the greatest" they all say "the greatest". 15 out of 17 sources when exclusively discussing male players and thus obviously men's tennis, not men's and women's tennis. Pretending they're talking about both when that's clearly not the case just so that Federer's article lede can imply he's the greatest of both men and women's tennis is an obvious violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Narciso003 (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

While I personally feel that the quotes have probably been made with consideration to both tours, I think it is unfair to make that assumption and not mention 'male' without any source explicitly stating the same, and 'probably' isn't good enough. Although one could also argue that even if the word 'male' is left out, it's sort of implied that it only refers to men's tennis considering how they are separate tours... Anakimi (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I reverted that last edit before I saw the talk page (my bad). Won't rv again unless we have some sort of consensus. Also, if it helps, other players in other sports (for e.g. football) don't mention the word 'male', because it's sort of implied. If it's an article about a male player, then the implication is that they are talking about the men's version of the sport. Whether or not people would extrapolate this to mean that they are better than women doesn't really matter, because they don't compete with one another (no consideration given for mixed doubles here). But I think arguments such as the top female tennis player is not going to beat any of the top 200+ male tennis players are best avoided altogether. Anakimi (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I was also looking at basketball. Michael Jordan has the same type of thing.... just greatest ever. While his counterpart, Cynthia Cooper-Dyke, says greatest women's basketball player. This is normal for basketball and boxing and tennis. Regina Halmich is considered the 2nd greatest female boxer where male is nowhere to be seen at the Joe Lewis article. Maybe not so in Dressage or jockey greats... or even mixed doubles tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

What looks like has to be done is an RFC on whether we should add the word "male" to Federer's article. I'll double check to see if an RFC has been done on this sort of thing before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, in the view of keeping things uniform with other sports, it makes sense to leave it out IMO. I was wrong to revert that edit. If someone wants to embark on the crusade of having the sex prefixed to every great player across all sports, those changes can be made all at once if everyone is convinced. Until then I think it's ok to stick with the convention as it is in other sports. But to be honest, adding the sex seems the "fair" thing to do, especially because the articles almost never explicitly state that it is across genders. Whether or not its worth the effort to change it everywhere is a different issue. WT:SPORTBIO – If people really strongly feel about enforcing this change. Anakimi (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Women's basketball is nowhere near as popular as women's tennis, though. In tennis you've got periods like the late 90's or early 2000s where women's tennis was arguably more popular than the men's, something that hasn't really happened in other sports. So to imply that the greatest of men's tennis is immediately greater than the greatest of women's tennis (even though he is 5 Slams behind her) for no other apparent reason than being a man to me just seems like the definition of sexism, with arguments like the "Top 200 men's players" one being poor attempts at justifying it from someone who has had multiple complaints of an excessive pro-Federer bias before. But it's true that if it was changed here it might have to be changed in other articles, so in that sense it is a complex subject. Narciso003 (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what popularity has to do with the price of eggs, but women's basketball is pretty popular. And the pro-federer bias now like then is a heap of lies so keep that garbage to yourself and worry about all your own biases and baloney. With all the tennis articles I edit, I wear my anti-Federer, pro-Federer, anti-Nadal, pro-Nadal, anti-Navratilova, pro-Navratilova, anti-S.Williams, pro-S.Williams, anti-Court, pro-Court, etc... I wear all those attacks as a badge of honor and the price of doing business here at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't it orginally without 'male'? I remember looking at Federer's profile a few years ago and there was no argument of male and now it seems there's an animated debate of it. Personally whatever the decision is made, the rule should be applied to other codes of sport, so there's no bias. I think when Federer retires, people would have a better understanding of using the debated phrase, but that's just my opinion. Aether fzn (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes... it was recently added and contested without consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Coaches?

Why aren't the coaches listed in Federer's infobox like they are with other players? Was it decided not to include them for some reason? Anakimi (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that parameter is abused terribly. It is supposed to be for the current coach... that's it! If warranted, the rest of his coaching info should be in prose, not in the infobox. That's the way all the players are supposed to be. I would guess that for most players, multiple coaching changes would be be too trivial to even mention. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Should the term male be inserted into "greatest tennis player of all time."

In the lead section of the article, the longstanding consensus is the phrase "Many players and analysts have called him the greatest tennis player of all time." Shall that be amended with the term "male to say "Many players and analysts have called him the greatest male tennis player of all time." Some feel the term is understood and obvious, is sourced without "male", and is simply word bloat if added, while others feel it is a slight on women and the WTA to not include it, and is NPOV, especially since some articles, such as Serena Williams, use the term "female." 18:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• A. Support the addition of the term "male" - Many players and analysts have called him the greatest male tennis player of all time.
• B. Oppose the addition of the term "male" to keep as is - Many players and analysts have called him the greatest tennis player of all time.

Survey

• Oppose - As nominator. I feel it's frivolous to add the term "male" to the article. Sports articles like Michael Jordan, Jack Nicklaus, Don Bradman, Wayne Gretzky, Rod Laver or Pelé don't, and I don't think most sources add the term "male" to Federer either. This might be different if it was dressage or chess, but it isn't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Competitive male tennis is at a more advanced level and thus Federer is the greatest player of all time. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand User:Narciso003's argument in the section above, and "the greatest player" may be taken to imply that Federer relative to the men's field is better than any female player compared to the women's field, which is highly questionable and something that sources usually do not state. But "one of the greatest" is clearly stated in the combined sources. "The greatest male player" may be supported by various sources, but there are similar claims for other players in other sources, so that is not a good alternative. Federer can be said to be "one of the greatest players" overall (regardless of the exact interpretation on how to compare male and female players) as well as "one of the greatest male players". That is, if you group men and women together, then he certainly is one of the greatest, since the men's level is higher in the absolute sense. If you consider men and women separate and judge them relative to their own gender only, then still Federer is among the greatest, since at most a handful of women have been more successful. It doesn't matter whether he is just above or just below e.g. Williams in this interpretation, because of the "one of the" part. Gap9551 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support It's very minimal bloat and serves a practical and informative purpose. I agree with Gap9551 that "one of the" would eliminate the need for the gender specification, but "one of the" severely undercuts the weight of the statement. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 13:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't tell sources what they ought to have said, presumably when they said 'greatest', they actually understood that there are also female players, they chose not to qualify with 'male', why should we? Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose You have to really stretch it out to see some sort of problem with the statement. Stikkyy t/c 05:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per Pincrete, we must stick to what the sources say. Jschnur (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Summoned by bot. Again, it is our responsibility to report what is covered in reliable sources. If sources say he is the "greatest tennis player of all time" then that is what we include. Meatsgains (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. Are we seriously playing this SJW game? "Serena won more slams". Yeah, and she plays best of three, while Federer plays best of five. Woman have their own division in the first place because they're unable to be physically competitive with the men. We'll call Fed the best male player once Williams beats him in a match. Spoiler: she never will. And anyway, the sources say nothing about "male". 82.132.220.179 (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Section is for detailed arguing about the topic.

Missing record?

I think he is the only male player ever to reach all 4 Grand Slam Finals at least 5 times (11 Wimbledon, 7 US Open, 6 Australian Open, 5 French Open). Maybe it is mentioned somewhere but i couldn´t find it... Cheers--Niten Doraku (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Gap9551 (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Roger Federer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141007051148/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-Home.aspx to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-Home.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530045808/https://sponsorship.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=344692&coid=279860&lang=EN to https://sponsorship.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=344692&coid=279860&lang=EN
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100520042433/http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/rogers/news/newsdetail.cfm?uNewsID=889 to http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/rogers/news/newsdetail.cfm?uNewsID=889
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061024155855/http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/rogers/news/newsdetail.cfm?uNewsID=211 to http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/rogers/news/newsdetail.cfm?uNewsID=211
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029190622/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/2001/01/06/hopman_saturday_ap/ to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/2001/01/06/hopman_saturday_ap/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170129155912/https://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/match_reports/2017-01-29/federers_high_five.html to http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/match_reports/2017-01-29/federers_high_five.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619010708/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=D643 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=D643
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710103823/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=S741 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=S741
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813091326/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N301 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N301
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111105055543/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017679597?Federer%20Express%20Cruises%20To%2016th%20Grand%20Slam%20Title%2C%20Tops%20Murray%20In%20Australia to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017679597?Federer%20Express%20Cruises%20To%2016th%20Grand%20Slam%20Title%2C%20Tops%20Murray%20In%20Australia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127071601/http://sportal.com.au/Tennis-news-display/hewitt-eclipsed-by-fed-84756 to http://sportal.com.au/tennis-news-display/hewitt-eclipsed-by-fed-84756
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612031302/http://2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html to http://2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523065818/http://essentialtennis.com/tournews/2010/07/best-serve-and-volleyer-in-the-world/ to http://essentialtennis.com/tournews/2010/07/best-serve-and-volleyer-in-the-world/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100122055338/http://tennis.wilson.com/rackets/blx/rackets/player/six-one/six.one-tour-blx/ to http://tennis.wilson.com/rackets/blx/rackets/player/six-one/six.one-tour-blx/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206153857/http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/rogers/sponsors.html to http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/rogers/sponsors.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing record

He is the oldest man to win a grandslam without any set. Add it to his Wikipedia page! Mohit Kumar Dalal (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean without the loss of a set. Do you have a source for that? Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2017

In bio card change Born: 8 August 1981 (age 35) to In bio card change Born: 8 August 1981 (age 36) Josefomanu (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done August 8 hasn't passed yet. He's still 35. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Oldest player to win two majors in a season

Federer is the oldest player (man or woman) to win 2 singles slam titles in a calendar year (35 years old). This a remarkable feat and should be added to his list of slam records. (User talk:99.225.201.62) 17:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is remarkable that Federer has won two majors this year. Do you have a source this is a record and is listed as a record? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Coaches

This page needs a section with Federer's coaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.64.37 (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A need for Swiss German pronunciation THANKS

There is only a German pronunciation so a Swiss German pronunciation is needed thanks. LoveVanPersie (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: That is the Swiss Standard German pronunciation. German and Austrian Standard German don't allow word-final [əʁ]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: But the reference seems a German interview. And are you sure the Swiss German pronunciation is totally right? LoveVanPersie (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: Actually, it's probably not. In Germany at least, the first vowel of the surname is [eː]. I'll remove the source. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Roger Federer now the greatest grass court player of all time after winning a record 8th gentleman's singles title at Wimbledon

Can I now say he the greatest grass court player of all time after winning a record 8th gentleman's singles title at Wimbledon, surely he is now, statistics say so, he has won an Open Era record 17 grass court titles including an all-time record 9 Halle Open titles and an all-time record of 8 Wimbledon Gentleman singles titles. He reached an all-time record 7 consecutive Wimbledon finals from 2003–09, and has reached the Wimbledon finals 11 times and is the only player to achieve these feats in the Open Era. Federer has the longest grass court winning streak in the Open Era as he won 65 consecutive matches on grass from 2003 to 2008 where he was beaten by Rafael Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final. Amy foster (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

He is certainly one of the greatest grass-court players. But when you start talking tennis history, there are plenty of other players whose numbers are also impressive. I'd leave Federer as one of the greatest. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Roy Emerson (10), Bill Tilden (10), Rod Laver (9) have all won more grand slam titles on grass than Roger. I'm not sure but Laver might also have had a longer winning streak on grass during 1969 as well.Tvx1 05:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Roger Federer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202224210/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-08/federer-back-on-top-with-wimbledon-title-defying-tennis-old-age.html to https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-08/federer-back-on-top-with-wimbledon-title-defying-tennis-old-age.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131229183614/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aUxLXCgnHU70 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aUxLXCgnHU70

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

appearances in grand slam 1999

Did Roger really compete in 1999 Australian & US Open? If it is true, then he would have 73 not 71 appearances in grand slam, as it is indicated in Wiki ATP records. Accoridng to AusOpen in 1999 Roger competed only in French open and Wimbledon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glomek (talk • contribs) 12:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

He competed in the qualifiers.Tvx1 02:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Roger Federer height

Roger Federer is listed everywhere including Wikipedia as being 6 feet 1 inches in height, found a YouTube video from July 2015 when he opened the ball boys and girls new complex at Wimbledon where a high school girl him asked him his height barefoot Federer said he was 6'1.5 perhaps they round him down to 6'1 never seen him listed as 6'1.5 !!! What you think about a change to his height as it was a personal quote from himself. Amy foster (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Roger is from Switzerland where they use metric units. In all likelihood he was just inaccurate when converting to imperial units.Tvx1 02:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Clean up of article

This article contains a lot of overtly glowing and positive POV language. Terms such as greatest are used frequently without attribution, along with wording such as many and some, when making claims. There are also very few named critics and commentators when referring to these as a group. There is also no explanation as to why only a German pronunciation is given for his name, why is there not a French, Italian, or Romansh. As Federer is Swiss this needs explaining in the article. Sport and politics (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I count 15 iterations of "great". Twenty-six citations are paired with those iterations. Yes, there are one or two without citations. Perhaps instead of tagging this Good article for cleanup, the section with the problem could have been templated. Fdssdf (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sport and politics: I disagree with the tag as well. There are plenty of citations and the article has already been deemed a Good Article. If you disagree with it then you should look to have it reassessed or tag the appropriate section. Also, edit warring to have it put back while pointing to a discussion that you just started is not helpful. Nihlus 20:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the tag. There are many sentence which contain words a great or greatest which are in sentence contenting weasel words such as "some say". It can certainly be improved.Tvx1 22:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If the excessive usage of 'great' is a indeed a problem, then the article should be reassessed for its 'good article' label. I disagree with the tag as mere iterations of 'great' for a person who is considered the greatest in the history should not attract such tag for the entire article. I'd say we remove it and then clean up the words 'great'. A tag so prominent reduces the credibility of the information in the article, and it also shows the contradiction between the 'good article' label and the tag. Asad2723 (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit: I have cleaned up the repeated use of 'great' without references. I think it is now 'clean enough' for the tag to be removed. Asad2723 (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Is Federer the only Male player to win 2 grand slams six or more times

Roger Federer has now won the Australian Open for the sixth time I read in a article that Federer is now the only Male player to win two grand slams 6 or more times, 6 Australian open titles and 8 Wimbledon titles, I just want to know if this accurate information before I add it, because I am aware the statement stand's true for the open era but I am not sure for the pre open era. Amy foster (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Only 6 time winners:

• AU: Roger Federer 6, Roy Emerson 6, Novak Djokovic 6
• FR: Rafael Nadal 10, , Björn Borg 6
• WB: Roger Federer 8, William Renshaw 7, Pete Sampras 7
• US: Bill Tilden 7, Bill Larned 7, Richard Sears 7

Roger is the only one on there twice. Nihlus 21:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Federer is also the only male player to win three grand slams 5 or more times. In the Open Era, he is also the winner of most Wimbledon titles (stands alone), US Open titles (tied with Sampras and Connors), and Australian Open (tied with Djokovic). Asad2723 (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead section is way too short

In comparison to other prominent people on Wikipedia, the Roger Federer lead section has been chopped way too small. This is potentially the greatest tennis player in history. So when we look at other popular wikipedia bios we get Lady Gaga, Cher, Chester A. Arthur, Babe Ruth, Jerry Brown, Tom Brady, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Don Bradman... this article now looks anemic. Now it looks more like a journeyman athlete like quarterback Nick Foles. Heck it's shorter than The Cranberries. I was all for shortening the lead a bit but someone brought out a chainsaw and butchered it. It can't stay this way. We recently got a tennis player as a featured article and one of the best articles produced by the wikipedia community, Milos Raonic. Federer's should be better than that. The lead is a summary/highlight of everything below, and Federer's lead has become a shadow of what it needs to be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. His importance to the sporting and cultural world is not proportionate to his top section length, which is overly abbreviated. Fdssdf (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the lead section was very short. I have just restored some content which was removed by another editor from the lead. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

arguably greatest sportsman to ever have lived. I agree!! beef it up! 86.191.179.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Few things that I think should be added to the lead: 1. The Davis Cup win of 2014 - Federer had a major role to play in it. 2. The Olympic gold in doubles and silver in singles. 3. An additional paragraph can have 2-3 sentences on his sponsorships (RF brand is one of the largest personalized athletes brand) and Federer's foundation work such as schools in Africa. (Foundation work is important considering he plays 2-3 exhibition matches every year to raise funds. Hence, it is a prominent recurring thing). I am not putting this in the article yet because it'll be better to do it with consensus. Please add your thoughts. :) Asad2723 (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The lede should not contain any information about brands or sponsors or his charity work; those details might be relevant later in the article. His fame — by far — comes from his unprecedented tennis career, so I think the lede currently should contain information only about that. Fdssdf (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Boy I agree with Fdssdf that we should not be including sponsorship stuff in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Quite obvious what the lead section requires, a paragraph about his influence upon tennis, his popularity worldwide amongst fans, and his playing style. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Milos Raonic is a featured article, and has a paragraph dedicated to his playing style in the lead. Federer's playing style is undeniably a big part of his appeal, and probably the most admired playing style in tennis history. Michael0986 (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned sponsor and charity work because Michael Jordan's article does that in the lead. Anyway, we'll let go of it. What about the first two things I said? Davis Cup and Olympic medals? And yes, we need a couple of sentences on his playing style and fan-following. Asad2723 (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Case in point on how to condense all of this into a single paragraph; the Andre Agassi article, opening paragraph. Federer lead needs more than just his career statistics and awards. Michael0986 (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Took a jab at it, folks. Check it out! Asad2723 (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely going in the right direction. Good work. Fdssdf (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Greatest athlete???

Someone in the lead keeps putting in the Federer is the greatest athlete of his generation... so like the last 20 years. While I agree that "some" do call him that, to use the term many is not supported. There have been so many Olympic champions in that time period, so many soccer stars, football athletes, etc... to use that unsupported term. It's tough enough to use many even in terms of his tennis prowess because of sourcing issues. To use it for athlete is really stretching things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not Rank 1 Yet!

Federer will become Rank 1 on 19th Feb. Until then, Nadal will be at 1. Please don't edit the ranking until then. Can we protect this page for the next 2-3 days? We need this because there has been very frequent editing to change his Rank to 1. Asad2723 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It has been requested, though not to be fully protected... that would be overkill. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, semi-protect at least? But something has to be done quickly. Asad2723 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding Semi-protect request:

It looks to have been done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018

He's number one again! 85.148.84.12 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Not yet he's not. Wait till Monday. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2018

line 1 : No.2 change to No.1 AND in right table->Singles->Current ranking : No.2 change to No.1 Iranian fifer (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: See above: Rankings won't be officially updated until tomorrow.[2] ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? Adding more charts to the main page?

The reason the career stats charts were created was to keep all the technical charts on a stats page. Originally we only had a condensed grand slam only performance timeline on the player's main article, with the rest being put on the career stats article. A few players have somehow gotten the full grand slam chart added. That's ok I guess, though I wouldn't add it. But we certainly don't need any more than that. Year-end, Olympics, Masters 1000, Davis Cup, etc.... those charts should be on the career stats article only. It should be more like Steffi Graf or Rod Laver... or at most like Justine Henin. Those are longstanding consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Actual practice on Wikipedia does not show that your personal preference is any sort of consensus at all.

Of the 46 male tennis players who both (1) have participated in YECs since 1970 and (2) have both a main page and a stats page on Wikipedia, 24 of them -- a majority -- have year-end championship finals tables and/or YEC performance timelines on the main page, as of yesterday (Djokovic and Murray both had them before you and another user deleted them over the last few hours). Those 24 players are: Djokovic, Murray, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Agassi, Nastase, Vilas, L. Hewitt, Kuerten, Del Potro, Costa, Nalbandian, Gaudio, Ljubicic, F. Gonzalez, Ferrer, Gasquet, Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych, Dimitrov, Goffin. (The 22 players out of these 46 who did not have YEC finals tables and/or performance timelines on their main pages as of yesterday are: Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Becker, Edberg, Wawrinka, Rafter, Safin, Roddick, Cilic, Ferrero, Raonic, Davydenko, Robredo, Verdasco, Nishikori, Thiem, Monfils, Zverev.)

And more than "a few" players have Grand Slam finals tables. In fact, a vast majority of the 46 players (39, by my quick and rough count) listed above have these finals tables.

The information that has been added to these main pages is valuable and appropriate, in my opinion. What has been added is just a small fraction of the information contained in the often incredibly voluminous stats pages -- just the information concerning the two highest tiers of men's tennis tournaments (Grand Slams + YEC). (I'm of the opinion that Olympics finals results should be included as well, given the broad general interest in Olympics results.) The charts are at the bottom of the articles and do not make navigation more difficult; in fact, it just makes this rather small amount of information considerably more accessible. It seems to me a bit extreme and needlessly rigid -- and without any real logical purpose or net benefit to the reader -- to require that even information about these most prominent events and achievements be excluded from the main page. João Do Rio (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The information is not usually excluded... it usually in the prose section that they competed and won or lost. The 4 Majors are so far above the year-end events that it isn't even funny. Most readers stop with that and if they want more detail they can get it at the full stats article. You also aren't including the ladies, though I admit that I have not checked them to see the totals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And if your going to go through them all, let's really take a looksee, shall we? Many of the stat pages were created by one editor, "Fresternoch." He probably just wanted to make sure important players had stat pages... he didn't follow the norm but did the thankless work to get the pages done. Most of those article were created in late 2016-early 2017. They simply were never fixed as it was low priority. But let's look at all of them just the same. Hewitt's article is a mess as all the full charts were left on the main page... no editing at all. Gonzales is the same mess. But Kuerton, Del Potro, Nalbandian, Ferrer, Tsonga and Dimitrov are as you said... with performance timelines w/Year End added and separate extra tables for the Majors and Year End Championships. Then there are the rest...

Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Nastase, Gasquet, Ljubicic, and Goffin ONLY have the extra line in the Performance time line for the Year-End event. Do I think it should be there, no, but I wouldn't have reverted for just that tiny addition. Then we have the others...

Lendl, Agassi, Vilas, Costa, Gaudio, Soderling, Berdych - These have the extra line for a Year End event in the performance Time Line and they also have a chart with the detailed Majors listed. But no extra Year End chart. IMHO the chart for detailed Majors is unwarranted on the main page if it is also included on the Career Statistics article. That's what the mini-performance time line is for, to tell us how they did in the Majors... and you can click on each cell to find out more detail. And you can usually read about it in the prose of the article. Adding a year-end chart is even more over the top bloat for a main article if the statistics have been split off to a separate article. The year-end events haven't always been that important. Heck go back further and Davis Cup was more important to many players than the 4 Majors.

Having a mini Grand Slam tournament chart I think is very important to a player's main article. I have made it a point to fix those and remind editors that we require it on a player's main article. Readers should be able to see good prose and how a player has done in the majors. Those four tournaments are all most people outside of tennis will ever watch, so it is important they see a chart that gives them that perspective. They don't really need to see who they played, the playing surface, and what the exact score is. For that they can click on the performance key or click on the statistics article. While I don't agree that the full chart of majors is needed on the main page, I do recognize that Milos Raonic is our star pupil on wikipedia, as it has featured article status. He does have the added Grand Slam tournament chart but no mention at all of Year-end events. I would have to concede that the chart is at least a reasonable addition. They went over that article with a fine toothed comb, and I helped them out on certain items. But the year-end stuff, or Masters 1000/500 events are over the top. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Greatness RfC that may affect this article

Just a note to let editors know that there is an ongoing RfC about the term "greatest of all time" (especially in the lead). The discussion ongoing at Talk:Rod Laver. Either way you bend it could affect this article. Join in if you wish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017

The following source can be used to rectify the citation needed situation for the introductory paragraph sentence ("Federer turned professional in 1998 and was continuously ranked in the top 10 from October 2002 to November 2016."): http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/roger-federer/f324/rankings-history

Edit: I see change was made.

Adding timestamp for automatic move to archives Asad2723 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

New Apparel Sponsor

Federer announced a new 10 year deal with Japanese sporting co Uniqlo at $30 million a year. Ravishankarruchir21 (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Grammar error

Where Fed's back injury is first mentioned there is a grammatical error around the verb 'prove'. 2a00:23c6:781:4700:101f:66f1:f732:dc47 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fixed from prove to proved. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Grammar (kind of)

How about changing;

Mirka had retired from the tour in 2002 because of a foot injury, seven years before she married Federer.[34] They were married... in 2009

To: Mirka retired from the tour in 2002 because of a foot injury.[34] They were married seven years later. 120.16.68.181 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)MBG

 Done Not quite as requested but you are correct that it was a redundant line. Thanks for pointing it out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Experts are on record saying Federer is "the greatest of all time," NOT "one of the greatest of all time"

Jack Kramer, Cliff Drysdale, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Patrick McEnroe, and even Toni Nadal (Rafael Nadal's uncle) are on record saying Federer is "the greatest tennis player of all time." They NEVER said "one of the greatest players of all time." The latter is mere bias on the part of certain contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.186.174 (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Noted and changed. Someone recently edited it, and I reverted those edits. Thanks for pointing out. Asad2723 (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Many great players have had people saying that about them. It is extremely subjective and not proper for an encyclopedia... especially in the lead section. It is in Federer's legacy section, though it's really improper there too. It is also against consensus developed at Rod laver's talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

So, calling him 'one of the greatest' isn't subjective? It is also an orphan statement without any references to it.

Every opinion is subjective and which is why when an overwhelming opinion builds up amongst those who have credentials to give a well-informed opinion, it becomes the 'widely regarded' view. And such view should be in the lead. Also, don't forget that there are references to it!

Also, please note that both Michael Jordon and Pelé have such statements in their lead. Let's not make Tennis any different because you decide what is a subjective opinion and what isn't. Asad2723 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Asad2723. The issue here, strictly speaking, is one of sourcing: did the aforementioned experts, along with others not mentioned (e.g., Lleyton Hewitt, John Isner, Nick Kyrgios) say that Federer is "the greatest tennis player of all time," or did they not? They did, and proof is readily available online. Also, Rod Laver has said on more than one occasion that Federer is his pick as "greatest ever." These are documentable, verifiable facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.186.174 (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Federer and many others are on record as saying Laver is the greatest ever. Federer just a short time ago said it. The same with Nadal. Same with Tilden and Gonzales and Sampras and Borg. We have sources for all of them. McEnroe and Agassi have changed their minds so many times as to make one dizzy. Encyclopedia Britannica handles it very elegantly with they are all among the greatest of all-time and nothing more. And we have recent consensus as to the way we do things. Subjective water cooler boasting has no place in these articles, especially in the lead. In the Federer's legacy section we can add quotes of others, as we do in Laver and Nadal. And I'm not the only one trying to fix things and make them consistent as @Tvx1: has also helped a lot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so a subjective line playing safe and undermining a player without any references is better than a subjective line with verifiable sources and references. And Tennis is not a sport like Basketball or Football, so we should treat Tennis players differently. Hell with the Steve Tignor's March-April 2018 list of the greatest, and so be with the Tennis Channel's the 'greatest of all time' analysis. Also, hell with Laver, Sampras, and the fellow players and analysts of BBC, NYTimes, ESPN, etc. I learnt a lot today, but the most important thing I learnt is that an Encyclopedia is not supposed to speak the entire truth when it can speak half the truth without any references, because there will be burn in the rear end for those who find too much 'subjectivity' in the truth. Asad2723 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually no. Most times we need no sourcing at all in the lead section. Remember, the lead only contains a summary of what is already present and sourced in the main body of the article. It should be sourced in the body in the legacy section, and then summarized in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

So the summary of all the quotes and references saying Federer to be the 'greatest of all time' are summarized as him being 'one of the greatest'? I thought summary meant mere adumbration and not metamorphasis of the essential meaning itself.

Also, you are yet to answer on why Tennis players are treated differently than players of Basketball, Football, Golf, etc. Asad2723 (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean, why was the consensus decision in favor of not using subjective opinions in the lead? I'm not entirely sure but other encyclopedias do the same. My main argument was that whatever was chosen should be used for all and not just one person. I did feel that it should be "one of the greatest" instead of "greatest of all time" for all the great tennis players. Easier since words like "some" "many" "widely" get very weasely in an encyclopedia and are not easy to source at all. But if consensus was to keep those terms then it would be fair game for all players who have been called the greatest of all-time by their peers. In my opinion it shouldn't be used anywhere but compromise is always part of the equation. The discussion was on tennis players so it never came up any place else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think its best to keep whatever has been agreed as a consensus in this talk page or others (including Rod Lavers page). I don't have a huge problem with the page saying Federer is the greatest of all time although I do agree while it is verified, it is also slightly subjective in the lead because other former and current players do also have different views on the matter and do consider players like Laver, Nadal, Sampras or even Djokovic to be above Federer. Broman178 (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It is simply false to say that elite opinion is divided on who the greatest of all time is. Most legends of the game -- Kramer, Laver, Drysdale, Borg, Sampras -- are on record saying Federer is the "greatest tennis player of all time." Scores of top 20 players -- Lleyton Hewitt, David Ferrer, John Isner, Nick Kyrgios, to name a few -- have said Federer is the greatest. An honest encyclopedia article would acknowledge what these legends and experts have said, even if it rankles impassioned Laver and Nadal fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.186.174 (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are since this talk page is the only wikipedia article you have ever commented on or edited, but your statement is not totally true. We have the same people saying Nadal is the best, and if he wins Wimbledon watch out for more. And Kramer also said Laver is the best, and Federer has said Laver is the best. It is an extremely subjective term and always will be. Plus the game itself has changed so much even from the 70s, let alone the 30s. Equipment, rules, etc.

Who I am is irrelevant. The question is, Is what I am saying true? Have numerous legends, players, coaches, and other experts said Roger Federer is the "greatest tennis player of all time"? In fact, they have, and what they said should be quoted verbatim, not changed to appease anti-Federer trolls and Laver/Nadal enthusiasts.

I think it is also worth noting that the competition in Tennis has been far tougher than most other sports including Badminton, Basketball, Football etc (although I don't have as much knowledge on other sports) so there have been so many greats in tennis of different eras with each era being different from the other so we don't know who is really the greatest of all time. Federer himself stated in a few interviews he is not sure and doubtful whether he really is the greatest Tennis player of all time, stating Laver may be better than him and I do recall he even said once Serena Williams might be a greater player than him (source: Roger Federer: Serena Williams may well be best overall tennis player ever) as she won more Slams than he did (even though the mens competition is arguably tougher than the womens with the best of five matches). I think it is worth mentioning this matter with reliable sources in the Legacy section and mention that others might consider Laver and Nadal to be better than him and the fact that Federer has downplayed suggestions that he is the greatest tennis player ever in my opinion should be mentioned in the article (similar to Stan Wawrinka downplaying suggestions that he is part of a possible "Big Five"). Broman178 (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Would Roger Federer be so socially inept as to say, "Yes, I am the greatest"? Of course he wouldn't be. And praising Serena (who at the time was a fellow Nike endorser) is an act of graciousness, as surely he knows she would never win a single Grand Slam title if she had to play a 128-or-lower male player. Toni Nadal, Rafael Nadal's uncle and lifetime coach, said "Roger Federer is a better tennis player than his nephew and the best of all time" ([http://www.businessinsider.com/rafa-nadals-uncle-says-roger-federer-is-the-better-tennis-player-2018-2)

Here's what R Nadal himself said: "If somebody says I am better than Roger, I think this person don't know nothing about tennis. That's my answer." (source: [3])

Novak Djokovic, in an ESPN interview on July 11, 2018, said "Roger Federer is the greatest ever, especially on grass." Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkycrTUIQjg But let's keep pretending, by all means, that elite opinion is divided on who the greatest tennis player of all time is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.186.174 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Folks, please stop listing sources and references to people here who have a strong observer bias. No number of sources for the 'greatest' will cut ice with the editors here who seem hell-bent on speaking half the truth and not the entire truth. And half the truth is worse than no truth at all. So, I have removed the reference to the 'greatest' from the lead, because subjective opinions have no place in the lead. Let's just list the facts and records like an Encyclopedia is supposed to. Let readers judge by those facts. Asad2723 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, encyclopedias such as Britannica DO say he is among the greatest of all-time. And that statement should only be removed from the lead if all the other tennis players among the greatest also have it removed from the lead, such as Nadal and Laver. None of these players should be singled out and ganged up on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. I agree that no player should have any description about his greatness in the lead, because, like you said, there's no place for subjective opinions in the lead. I'm sure some editor will eventually work on Nadal's and Laver's pages as well. More importantly, I hope some editor reworks Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, etc. also. I also hope that Wikipedia changes its standards now and does not mark any article with a 'subjective opinion' in the lead as a 'good article'. They did a mistake with Federer's article when they marked it so despite a blatant 'subjective opinion' saying he's widely regarded as the greatest. There's a lot of change in the world I'm hoping for, but I'm not inclined to start a revolution for it. I'm sure someone else will. Asad2723 (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no end to this, what we can do to resolve this issue is state in the lead and maybe legacy section "He is widely considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time, with many considering him the greatest tennis player ever" or something similar (just like in Rafael Nadal's page there is one sentence in the lead saying he is considered the greatest Clay Court Player ever and the next one saying he has evolved into one of the greatest Tennis players ever) as that to me satisfies both fields without showing too much bias as it would be foolish to deny that there are some others who are doubtful of Federer being the greatest ever but still consider him one of the greatest ever. And, to the comment above saying would Roger be socially inept to say he is the greatest player ever, I do agree he wouldn't be as inept to say that but it still doesn't change the fact that he has publically downplayed those suggestions just like Wawrinka downplayed suggestions of him being considered part of a possible Big Five. If I get time sometime later, I will mention these facts within the Legacy section with reliable sources as I believe this is important. Broman178 (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. Per consensus we are not to include the very subjective greatest of all-time in the lead. The clay court info on Nadal should not be in the lead. You have to remember this did not just start here. nadal, lavers, Borgs, etc.. articles all had that they are considered by many the greatest player of all-time in the lead. They were removed as Federer's should be. That tyoe of subjectivity is best placed in a legacy section, as they were done for Nadal and Laver. Even in the legacy section it should not say "many" or "some." It should say things like, "in 2011 John McEnroe said Federer is the greatest player of all-time." Date specific. I didn't make the consensus decision, but I follow it. Otherwise if you include that stuff in Federer's article then you must also put it in all the others, and defend all of them. As long as things are consistent across the board I won't have any problems, though I do believe that, like with other encyclopedias, saying someone is the goat id incredibly subjective and has no place here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Broman178. If there are two dominant views about the greatness, let's make both appear in the lead instead of choosing the lesser one. Asad2723 (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well it was just a suggestion on my part, if you believe it shouldn't be added and if a consensus has been agreed upon it then I won't bother adding that to the lead as I do agree any decided consensus should be followed. However, something will probably have to be done with Nadal's page (both lead and legacy) later so that it matches with the consensus agreed with this article and any other Tennis articles. I do still think the objections (or some of them) of Federer's greatness along with Federer downplaying them could be added to the Legacy section (though I won't add it if you say otherwise). Anyway, since I've given my opinions and suggestions, I have no wish to discuss this matter any further so I think I'll leave it here as this conversation otherwise will never end. Many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be some mention of experts' opinions about Federer's career within the lead section, if only to be consistent with the other tennis players' lead sections. Fdssdf (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fdssdf: As long as we keep the subjectivity to a minimum, no argument from me on that. Consistency one way or the other across all the tennis articles would be appropriate, especially in the lead section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The only point I would like to make again is that when you quote numerous legends and experts, you yourself are not making the judgment, and hence are not really being "subjective." I agree that any decision what to quote involves an individual judgment, but in Federer's case, the consensus is nearly universal among legends and experts that he is "the greatest ever." Kramer, Laver, Drysdale, Borg, Sampras, Toni Nadal, and numerous players -- including Novak Djokovic, by the way -- say of Federer not that he is "one of the best or greatest" but that "he is THE best or greatest." I concur with Broman about the likelihood of this conversation never ending, so I'll take leave here and hope the civil exchange among you guys continues. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.186.174 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You are certainly making a judgement when you say many or most. If you say "Borg said in 2013 that Federer is the greatest of all time" that would be factual, but a poor choice for the lead section rather than a legacy section. And the consensus is hardly universal among legends and experts since those same experts and tennis historians have also said Laver and Nadal and Sampras and Gonzalez are the greatest. Certainly we could have articles on 10 different players calling them the greatest of all-time, but no other encyclopedia does that. They simply say they are among the greatest of all-time and let the readers make up their own mind on goat. All I'm saying is be consistent. At most it should say "some players and historians have called Federer the greatest tennis player of all-time"... but if that gets changed, then at the same time it must also take place on other player bios such as Nadal, Sampras, Laver, and Gonzales... perhaps Tilden. We need to be consistent and fair to all our articles. My opinion is all that stuff belongs in a legacy section across the board. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of Tinden or Gonzalez, so I will be dubious that someone called them the greatest.--Biografer (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If you've never heard of them then I don't know what to say. When looking at greatest of all-time which is 140+ years of tennis, historians look at all tennis history. Tennis didn't just start when Federer became a pro. Tilden won Wimbledon when he was 37. He won 8 majors in a row and 14 overall and never even played the Australian Championships. He won 6 straight US Championships. He had a 95 match win streak, one season he lost zero matches and another season he was 78-1. He was season-end No. 1 six years in a row. Gonzales was ranked No. 1 for eight years (seven straight) and won 14 major titles. Bud Collins said he was as good or better than any player who ever played the game. Several legends such as Pancho Segura and Lew Hoad called Gonzales the greatest of all-time. Our female players are in the same boat with no player today even coming close to Lenglen and Wills stats. All I'm saying is when talking about the greatest player in history there is a lot of tennis history. Historians know this, today's press not so much. And you seemingly not at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)