Talk:Tennis performance timeline comparison (men)

Tennis High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tennis To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing
Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures
Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles.
Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles
Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards.
Other : *Sign up as a member of the project.
Tag more articles with our standard project template.
Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.

Untitled

Best wishes on this project! I would have started it myself but wasn't aware of a reliable database for 1960s and before draws. Let me know if I can be of any help. Tennis expert 18:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! For the pre-ATP period, you can use Collins's Total Tennis. If you don't have it, I'm willing to help. Jonathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.214.158.221 (talk • contribs)

Style change from Women's timeline

The women's timeline is a lot more complete. However there are two major differences in the style that has been adopted for the men's timeline.

The men's timeline only shows the last name and does not show the country flag.
The men's tables are sorted alphabetically instead of being sorted by number of wins as the women's tables are.

Shouldn't we adopt the same style for both articles? Anurag Garg 12:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking at WP:TENNIS. —MC 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy it there. —MC 16:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

This is my first time coming across this page (just looking up someone who's name I had forgotten), but I like it a lot.

I originally turned off the bold names until realizing what they meant. I went back and extended them to current athletes. It may make it a bit more of a pain to keep current, but it's going to be that way every 6 years anyways!

I like this table a lot better than the women's table. I think alphabetical fits better than wins... though if a few summation columns could be added at the left or right side of each list... then it could be sortable that way as well.

But the real benefit of this page is that it doesn't run off the right side of the page, isn't overly cumbersome. As much as I'd like first names to be included, the conciseness I think is more important. Flags might be something worth having if could be done without overly extending the page, but that's a point for discussion when the rest of this cleaned up.

A 1-line across quicklink bar at the top (and even each table) might help navigation.

The 6 season periods are pretty arbitrary and make direct comparison a little harder. I wish there were some wiki-kosher way to have dynamic tables which can the choice of either years going across (ie the current format, except that the reader can choose to extend/change the period to whatever they wish and the table fills in) or relative years in career (such that all players can be compared "directly" by career. Perhaps something I'll put on a personal website at somepoint, which can then be linked from here. Somewhere done the line. Perhaps alternatively each column could be carefully limited to one character (Q and S instead of QF and SF, 1 and 2 instead of 1R and 2R)... maybe the text size diminished... and thus quite a few years could be listed across, put more information in one place... and then also have a separate page with career comparisons by years into career. Maybe, maybe not.

But I like the concept a lot, and can envision where all the sports (at least individual), standardized and maybe linked together.

Point being I like the page a lot and hope to put in effort here and there to keep this page growing and others forming! JeopardyTempest 00:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May also want to have a non-result list of noteworthy tennis players not to have made a final. Maybe maybe not. I'm thinking of Tim Henman, Anna Kournakova. But then again, how in the world do you make that subjective at all!?! Hmm. Also, silly me I see there is a table of contents at the top... don't know how I missed that the first time! But a sideways link bar which could be placed in multiple locations through the page might be a worth-exploring idea. JeopardyTempest 00:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(in response to the previous remark) Maybe players having played a minimum of 2/3 slam SF could be also included in the list ?

By the way, if olympic medals are taken into consideration, I think the year-end masters (former Masters Cup, now "WTF") results should be included too.Wikiwanito (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwanito (talk • contribs) 14:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list would be more effective with just the players who WON a Grand Slam. Kick out the finalists. Then it would be about 1/3 the size. And it would still tell an interesting story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.210.195 (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why start it at 1967, the Open era began in 1968 and many other tennis documents only really look at the Open era or tennis history as a whole. Therefore for consistency amongst wiki tennis pages I think 1967 should be cut out and move all the years back 1, keeping the intervals the same. However I would keep multiple slam finalists, but not those who only reached 1 or 2 slam finals (Marcos Bagdatis for example), so that the list is cut down in size a little bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.118 (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick items. 1) The open era began with the French open in 1968 so the Australian of 1968 would not be included. 2) No worries because I am working on the entire history being up there... it's just not completed yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I knew about the open era stuff, I just generalised. To make it so the intervals reflect before the open era and during the open era wouldn't it be better to class the intervals as the following: 2010-15, 2004-09, 1998-2003, 1992-97, 1986-91, 1980-1985, 1974-79, 1968-73, 1962-67, 1956-61, 1950-55, 1944-49, 1938-43, 1932-37, 1925-31. I understand it's planned to begin from 1925 when the ITF recognised the 4 slams existence. Also don't you think there are too many players listed, too many one slam wonders or just 1 slam finalists. Even those with max 2 Slam wins bulk it up more. I think if you reduced it to minimum 3 slam wins you could get the intervals to only hold between 10 and 16 (for the intervals shown so far) instead of 25+ players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it will begin in the beginning... 1877. Take a look at the ladies chart and you'll see that it doesn't take into consideration the Open Era either... probably because it would be difficult to show it beginning in April of 1968. Since the ladies have single Major winners I'm guessing the men's just followed the same format. Plus readers would wonder why there was no green W box for certain years if we exclude one slam wonders. The ladies had been left 90% done until late last year when I finished it. Now I'm doing the very slow tedious process of finishing the mens of which maybe a third was done. I only needed 2 charts to cover through 1906, but then every 6 years will bring us the the end of 1966 which will be perfect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you do a lot of work on these pages, respect. But for the sake of consistency could it not be done so that the main page shows intervals from 1968 (open era) and the additional page shows from 1877 to 1967, its just that all other wiki tennis articles are either the whole history, the open era or both but with a clear definition between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Stanislas Wawrinka now need to be brought into this after winning the 2014 Australian Open? I'm guessing you'll will then retrace his career grand slam achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:23E:150:0:0:1:97 (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic medal

Should be Nicolas Massu won the Olympic medal double in 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mundialitto (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These charts are only for singles players who reached the finals of at least one of the four Majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few finalists that aren't mentioned such as the 1968 australian open finalist

Organization of years

Why are there such arbitrary cutoff points when it comes to the years? 2003 to 2008, then 2009 to 2014? then 2015 to 2020? 2021 to 2026? Why not just organize it by decades instead of skewing the data by players prime winning years (e.g. Federer was the most dominant from 2003 to 2008). It should be done as 2000 to 2009, then 2010 to 2019, etc. That way it's evenly spread out increments that are consistent. The way this article is skewed is just bad data visualization. SpotifyGreaterThanAppleMusic (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not arbitrary, it's six year chunks. Screen width I assume is a big deciding factor. Ten years is way too wide. Why it wasn't five years I have no idea, and why it didn't start in 1968 I have no idea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]