Talk:Roger Federer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Create new article for 'Career in the ATP'

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

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

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

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

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

Radical reduction of detail in 'Career in the ATP'

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

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

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

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

Child

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

According to a recent Facebook post[1], Roger and his wife had twin girls, named Myla Rose and Charlene Riva, born 22 July 2009 in Switzerland. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.221.141 (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag of "too much detail" should go

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement about Career Grandslam

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

Federer as "the greatest" (ie, singular)

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

1) Pete Sampras

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

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

2) John Llyod

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

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

3) Andre Agassi

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

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

4) Andy Roddick

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

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

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

5) Rod Laver says - NOT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotes?

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

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

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

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

"Greatest Ever" Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Greatest Ever" Controversy, Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split career in the ATP into two sections

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

Anti-German bigotry or just annyoning vandals?

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

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

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

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

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

Rafael Nadal Rivalry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicknames

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

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

Nickname List

The Swiss Maestro[3]
Fed Express[4]
Federer Express, Fed'[5]
The Swiss Clock[6]
The Swiss Knife[7][8]
The King of Grass[9]
The King of Tennis[10]
The Lone Roger[11]
Rajah, Raj, Rog[12][13]
Lord of the Swings[14]
The Mighty Federer[15]

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

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

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

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

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

Importance of Article: Should be promoted to Top importance

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

Navboxes?

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

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

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

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

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

Great table

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

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

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

A note on the sources used for match results

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

This is just for fun to get a laugh!

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

Discrepancy in detail

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

External Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forbes?

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

Somebody Please Correct & Protect 1st Paragraph

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

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

Experts saying Federer is the greatest ever:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rod Laver, Jacques Rogge, Jim Courier, & Bruce Bucholtz Disagree

1. Rod Laver: "You can be the dominant performer of your time, but I don't think anyone has the title of best ever." http://blogs.reuters.com/sport/2009/06/08/what-the-players-say-about-roger-federer/

2. Jacques Rogge: "I believe that arguably he is the best-ever player in the world of all time." http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5g2ZKgd1vo0FS4I2kldkh4N3L0lJQ

3. Jim Courier: Roger now has the best record in the Open era but it’s simply impossible to compare his records to the amateur era players." http://blogs.reuters.com/sport/2009/06/08/what-the-players-say-about-roger-federer/

4. Butch Bucholtz: "Laver definitely would have won many more Slams...puts Federer 'in the category of greatest ever'" http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/tennis/story/1088221.html

So, here I can still point out some say not the greatest ever!TennisAuthority 19:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice that the people quoted above do not say, "Federer's not the greatest player ever." They say it's hard to judge or speculate that Laver would've won more slams had the open era been ushered in sooner, etc. Your quotes are misleading. TheTennisObserver (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

TheTennisObserver

Other experts who say Federer's the greatest ever

11. Tracy Austin: "Federer’s achievements make him the greatest player of all-time." http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/31153202/

12. Cliff Drysdale: "...the most exciting player I've ever watched, the guy I would watch and do watch every chance I get, is Roger Federer. He's the best player I've ever seen. He has a genius and a talent that is unmatched in the history of the game, in my opinion." http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=521930

13. Tim Henman: "He's the best player I've ever played against, full stop..." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

14. Andy Roddick: "He's the best player in the game. There's no question in my mind." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

TheTennisObserver (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

Have many said Federer's the greatest, or haven't they?

Sorry TennisAuthority, but the quotes you offer above do not tell us anything. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend, but I'll keep trying. Have "many" -- i.e., more than a few -- said Federer is "the greatest player ever," or haven't they? If they have, then the wording in the first paragraph should reflect that fact. TheTennisObserver (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

Bud Collins Says NO

He said that you have to break up eras for Amateur to Open because he believes Federer is the greatest in the Open Era! http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/french09/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=4237016 TennisAuthority 22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bud Collins Is In The Minority

You're right about Collins, but his is a minority view. Cliff Drysdale, longtime commentator and co-founder of the ATP, actually played against Laver, and he's on record saying Federer's the best he's ever seen. I see no reason to privilege Collins' view over that of over a dozen experts/authorities, some of whom played in both the closed and open eras. TheTennisObserver (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

Rod Laver agrees with Bud - see above.ROxBo (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Win / Loss record in Grand Slams

Is there a miscount somewhere in 2006 and 2007 - both years Federer reached the final of all 4 Grand Slams, winning all but the French, but one has a 26/1 record, the other 27/1 ?

Hass walkover in Wimbly 07 does not count as a win.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Grand Slams streak: win or defeats against future winners

I just added Federer's 3rd round defeat in the 2004 French Open. If I'm not mistaken, "This marked the last time until the 2009 French Open he lost a Grand Slam match to a non-future winner" up until this day. It's quite a remarkable achievement which I believe is worth mentioning. I didn't include it because I'm not sure about how to include the "up until today" part as this can change at any time. Can somebody help me with this issue? Fabricebaro (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Greatest player ever?

I don't have a reference but Bjorn Borg speaking on the BBC in this year's (2009) Wimbledon described Federer as the greatest player ever.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 23:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation of his name was given as /ˈrɒdʒə ˈfɛdərər/ with a seemingly authoritative reference to the "ask Roger" page. To the question "Is your name pronounced the English or French way?" he answered "As my mother comes from South Africa, my name has always been pronounced the English way". I'm pretty sure this refers to his first name only, i.e. /ˈɹɒdʒə/ instead of /ʁoˈʒe/. His father and surname are Swiss German and it would be odd if at home, where apparently (Swiss) German is spoken, they would pronounce their surname either in French or English. In German his surname would be pronounced something like /feːdəʀəʀ/. Who knows how they roll, flap, trill, or uvulate their Rs, so let's say /feːdərər/. To be sure, I just confirmed this by listening to some Swiss announcers and interviewers. Roger they mangle into /ˈʀotʃəʀ/, but that's their problem ;-) Afasmit (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Swiss commentators however would pronounce his surname a tad differently as well depending on their lingual origin. I believe his surname is phonetically pronounced as "Fed-er-uh" (in German meaning Featherer).TennisGrandSlam (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Update to Roddick - Federer Rivalry

at the end it says:

On February 2, 2004, Federer supplanted Roddick as World No. 1 to begin his record reign of 237 consecutive weeks at number 1. Federer and Roddick are the only players to have finished each tennis season in the ATP top 10 every year from 2002 to 2008.

it should be switched to

...to have finished each tennis season in the ATP top 10 every year from 2002 to 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.51.158 (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Darth Federer

Should Darth Federer be added to the nicknames? This has been a common reference to his all-black outfits worn during night matches, especially at the US Open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.37 (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

dont think it should be added....the name pretty much dropped after '07 with the black shirt and black shorts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someoneawesomlycool (talk • contribs) 22:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

22 Grand Slam semi-finals

"...and as of July 2009, has reached the semi-finals or better of the last 22 Grand Slam tournaments"

The correct month is September due to have reached the semi-final in the current 2009 US Open. --201.199.71.26 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

can someone change the pic?

This picture makes Federer look very short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.182.59 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

greatest

Many sports analysts, tennis critics, and former players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time.

What about fellow active players? Most of them agree as well. It's an open secret that losing against Federer is not considered a stain, and many still active players have said so at many points. 78.34.101.44 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done [16] With thanks, 78.34.101.44 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Biased Intro?

The intro seems really biased somehow. Maybe it could use a little tweaking? TY Kausill (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone Please Revert & Protect 1st Paragraph of Federer Article

I noticed today (July 16) that the vandal "Zohair" has once again changed the wording of the first paragraph of the Roger Federer article. This guy has not contributed to the discussion page at all. Why he hasn't been banned from editing is beyond me. Thanks in advance. TheTennisObserver (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

New edits

It would be nice if someone could edit the final paragraph in the '2009' section and the comment for 'runnerups' since, to me, they read as being opinionated and in favor of Murray and, especially the second one, aren't really necessary (I think the runner up section was removed at some point anyway?). I was also thinking that if we have a paragraph like the one for the Rogers Cup for every tournament Fed partakes in for the rest of the year, while all the information is great and I like reading it, the whole thing's going to get very long - maybe it should be more concise? Idk, just some thoughts :) --86.157.53.253 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

exactly, i missed ur comment and posted something similar. oops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demondayzzz (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Typo

"continuing a fourteen match winning streak again him." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.69.66 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done PizzaofDoom ^Talk _Edits 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have found a second problem, though i dont know if it's considered a typo. In the article, it states under Rivalry with Rafael Nadal, "Nadal has not lost a French Open (4) or Australian Open (1) final, while Federer was undefeated in US Open until losing to del Potro (5)." This is incorrect. Federer wasnt undefeated overall, he was undefeted in US Open Finals

 Done Someoneawesomlycool ^Talk _Edits 16:46, 31 December 2009

Residence?

How come his residence is not listed as Bottmingen, which every broadcast on CBS or NBC uses for his residence!98.240.44.215 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

IPA removed?

Why was his IPA removed? Spiderone 15:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference for Roger's "best shot I ever hit"

The between-the-legs, inside-out forehand Roger did in the US Open 2009 is a rarely used shot that was used by the first time in an official game in Indianapolis, 1975 by Guillermo Vilas. Due to its origin, the shot is called "Gran Willy" (Great Willy) by Spanish talking people (Guillermo = William)

There is an article in es.wikipedia with the history of this shot: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_willy

Translation summary follows: Guillermo Vilas said that to create this stroke he was inspired by a polo shot done with the mallet between the legs of the horse. He used it for the first time in and exhibition game in Obras Sanitarias de Buenos Aires (1974), against French player Wanar N'Godrella. In an official match, the shot was used by Vilas for the first time at the Indianapolis tournament (1975), on clay, against the Spanish player Manuel Orantes. It is a defensive stroke, an exceptional response to a lob when the player has already been surpassed by the ball. The player must run to the ball, his back to the net, step over the ball when it is about to reboud a second time and, synchronously, hit the ball. Although it is a desperate stroke, the player may surprise the opponent. Typically, it goes just over the net, producing a remarkable passing shot. Eventually, the shot may be used to produce a lob, as Nicolas Lapentti did at Roland Garros (2003), Fabrice Santoro in Newport (2008), and Gaston Gaudio in Argentina (2008). Brindis15 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindis15 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use other wikis as a source if that's what you mean. Spiderone 17:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Some advice

I think it's a shame that this isn't a GA. Maybe I'll work on it one day.

Anyway here's some stuff:

• en dashes should be used for scores
• too much overlinking: players like Andy Roddick and Rafael Nadal are linked several times and should only be referred to by their surname other than in the first mention
• Is the Federer-Djokovic rivalry notable if it doesn't have an article any more?
• There are a few unsourced statements but this isn't the main problem.

Spiderone 17:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help. The article seems like it's close to GA-quality. Enigma^msg 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes a lot of the basic criteria for GA status are met in the article. It has a reasonably good lead, the coverage is probably as broad as a tennis bio can be and it seems to be quite stable. Perhaps a peer review would be necessary before GAN and I can see a lot of players with names linked twice in the same paragraph which is frowned upon. Also I did notice a "citation needed". Spiderone 07:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of the double links today. I'll try and fix the hyphen/en dash problem as well. Enigma^msg 13:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Double links -  Done
• en dashes - 2009 section  Done Enigma^msg 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to finish with the en dashes next week, and then maybe we can try another GAN. Enigma^msg 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, can you find a source for that "citation needed" as well? Spiderone 07:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a little tricky. On his ATP World Tour page, it states "Joined Laver as only players to win at least three Grand Slam titles in two different seasons (Laver won Grand Slam in 1962, ‘69)." Federer did win three in 2004, 2006, and 2007, which implies that they've erred in not recognizing that. Enigma^msg 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Shall we just remove the statement altogether? Any potential GAN would be ruined as clean-up tags result in a quick fail. Spiderone 17:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It'll have to be removed if it's not sourced before the GAN. I doubt anyone else will source it, but I'll do some more looking next week. Enigma^msg 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

En dashes  Done for entire article. Only thing I left was records like in the Federer/Nadal rivalry section. Enigma^msg 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Any further comments? When can we nominate this? Enigma^msg 06:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's probably still sourcing to do. I'll get a peer review. Spiderone 07:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can comment on the PR page since I'm not a volunteer there, but I have issues with how the "Childhood and personal life" section is written/organized. There is a lot written about the charities he participates in and random information about stuff he's a fan of. I don't think it's important to mention he's a fan of certain sports... but I highly suggest looking at Tiger Woods' article, and you will see there is a section called other ventures that goes into the charities he's involved in, and really, other major involvements. I suggest, since Woods' article is already GA class, that you take a look at how it is written and possibly emulate what would work into Federer's article, especially since I think once Federer's article is more neatly organized, it can be use as the template for other tennis players' articles. oncamera^(t) 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember trying to get this up to GA status some time ago, and banging my head against a wall because I didn't know what was wrong. Thought I'd pop in and offer help (*cough* WP:1FA *cough*) as well as noting that there's been excellent progress made. --tennisman 20:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Aren't we about ready to try for another GAN? By the way, tennisman, this wouldn't help towards the one FA per quarter. :P Enigma^msg 18:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

del potro loss score wrong way round

in the runners up section under Grand Slam performance timeline should be 3–6, 7–6(5), 4–6, 7–6(4), 6–2

not 6–3, 6–7(5), 6–4, 6–7(4), 2–6

 Done PizzaofDoom ^Talk _Edits 04:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Previous picture?

I know about the whole fair use policy of the pictures used, and how multiple pictures that qualify are all equally good. But I wonder why the picture has been changed now from the last one? I thought the last one was really great, but I guess my opinion on it doesn't matter here. Or was it changed just to do regular changing as time goes by? Just a fill-me-in would be nice. I still miss the old picture though lol ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Picture changes should always be discussed on the talk page beforehand. Spiderone 10:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Style of the Equipment, apparel, endorsements section

Based on oncamera's advice above, I made some changes to this section that seem like they'll make it look considerably cleaner. While the current version used on the page is full of jargon and excess verbiage, I condensed it into a list more resembling the similar section on Tiger Woods' page. The version I came up with can be seen here, and I'd appreciate any comments and criticism before I introduce this section into the actual article. --tennisman 20:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the organized manner of the list and how it makes it a lot easier to read. It no longer is unnecessarily wordly and now expresses the information in a precise and effective manner. I would support changing the current version to your version. I went ahead and edited the "Childhood and personal life" by condensing information and removing information that does not seem relevant to Federer's Wikipedia page. Comments on this move by my part are welcomed. Also, references should be added to the paragraph about the charities Federer ploppy is involved with. oncamera^(t) 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, though. Based on One of AndyZ's criteria, it would seem that having a list like that is a bad idea. I went ahead and wrote it in paragraph form but removed some of the material as well as trying to make it considerably easier to read - if you take another look at my sandbox page you can see the paragraph version below the list. Let me know which is better in your opinion and I'll go ahead and use that in the article. --tennisman 01:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

oh, and I didn't ignore your edits either. I think it looks considerably better; the section is condensed to a more reasonable level of what meets encyclopedic content. Nice job getting rid of extraneous details and still keeping the main idea of the paragraphs. I'll see what I can do about sourcing that information now. --tennisman 01:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done! Added sourcing for all information in the charities paragraph, awaiting confirmation on which format to use for the E,A,E section still. --tennisman 01:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing the charity paragraph.

I can see the reasoning behind the no-list when it comes to his equipment; it works well in either form so if you think it'll come up as an issue in the GA NOM, feel free to use your paragraph version. With the list-into-paragraphs style in mind, the section "Records"... it seems really long in the tables format; this information is probably important, but perhaps it could be condensed somehow--into paragraph form itself with the most important statements and the rest put at List of career achievements by Roger Federer. I'm not knowledgeable with the history of how that section came to be the way it is today. Maybe it'll be better to put the more important records into the opening lead of the article since I think the lead is a little short in comparison to the size of the article: "This page is 102 kilobytes long."

Another issue, minor as it seems, is the annual paragraphs under the "Top 10 and Grand Slam success: 2003–present" ; each year separately makes the Table of Contents (TOC) box longer then it needs to be; perhaps a 2007-08 etc. system is necessary to cut the TOC list down a bit? oncamera^(t) 01:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I added in the no-list version per your comments. I've seen a sports GA with a similar section in list form, though, so if the good folk at GAN don't like that format, I still have the list version available for easy copy-pasting. I'm going to take the Records section and the Grand Slam section over to my sandbox and see if I can't get those fixed up as well; I think your idea is right - remove the tables from the achievements section since those are already available at the relevant page, replace with a couple of lines of strong text regarding his achievements; following that I'll see about combining the two sections. I really like the way the Tiger Woods page has it, so I'm going to base my work on that. If you want to help, pop over to my sandbox and feel free to play around with it.

As for the TOC problem, I'm not sure what to do with that. The years are already cluttered enough as is, so I can hardly see combining two years as being an effective problem solver. --tennisman 12:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

you need to fix the name soccer to football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.82.180 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many photos?

There are 13 pictures of Federer in the article, not including the one in the infobox and the one of Nadal. Isn't this a bit overkill, not adding much to the article, especially when they are fairly similar? 212.225.114.44 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I got rid of one that was unsightly Spiderone 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

i dont think there are too many, one picture per year though is enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someoneawesomlycool (talk • contribs) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

2010

I have added a 2010 section to his tennis career. Please add on to it! :) Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Records section has a dubious (and unclear) new "record"

Ja, Federer very Bagus at Wimbledon this year. Same same but different.

The latest record added after 2010 Australian Open is unclear and potentially misleading. Oh no.

"Simultaneously held Grand Slam titles on clay, grass and hard court two times."

What does that mean? It seems to say, on first reading, that Federer won Slams on three surfaces twice in his career, but that of course is impossible because he's only won the French once.

I think it means that in July 2009 he was simultaneously holding Slam titles on hard court (2008 USO), clay (2009 French) and grass (2009 Wimbledon). After he lost the 2009 USO he no longer held a title on hard court. But now with the 2010 Australian Open, he again holds a hard court title.

It's very hard to make sense of this new "record", and even the reason for including it is unclear (is this an attempt to differentiate him from Nadal, who also held titles on three surfaces?)

It's also a dubious record, because it's as much about his loss at the 2009 USO as anything else. If he had won there, ironically, he would no longer have this new "record." Krosero (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

military service

Like all Swiss males, Federer is subject to compulsory military service in the Swiss Armed Forces. Unfortunately, long-standing back trouble led him to be declared inapt in 2003 and he was unable to fulfill his obligations[22]. Nevertheless, he did not let it affect his tennis and bounced back to win Wimbledon that year.

I think this piece of information has not much to do with Federer's personal life (by the way his being photographed as King Arthur neither), and it carries heavy irony. It is permissible in a newspaper but not in an encyclopedia. I delete the paragraph. Pumukli (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very proper that you start a section on Talk to explain your deletion. Thank you. As the author of the piece, please allow me the right of reply; First of all, I am British so I tend to be genetically disposed to irony - what to me is mild tongue-in-cheek might seem heavy to others. Secondly, I learned recently about Federer's military service history and was so amazed by it, I came to Wikipedia specifically to check it. When I found no mention of the subject, I thought I'd better put something in.

Apart from the irony aspect, I'm not quite sure what's wrong with the piece. It is an important fact that has attracted some discussion in Switzerland and which costs Federer over 400,000 CHF a year (he has to pay an exemption tax). I hope you don't object that the piece reflects badly on Federer; we are not writing a hagiography of the man, are we? So, if you don't mind, I'll remove the irony and put something like this back in: Like all Swiss males, Federer is subject to compulsory military service in the Swiss Armed Forces. However, long-standing back trouble led him to be declared inapt in 2003 and he was not required to fulfill his obligations[22].--Oscar Bravo (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with it is that it should perhaps be noted that he was not fit enough to be part of the military, yet he was fit enough to win Wimbledon. I'm very tempted to do some research to see if there is anything about this on the internet, because it all seems very iffy to me. Anyway, at the moment I think it should stay in the piece, because someone might think "don't all swiss people have to do military service? I know, I'll check wikipedia to see if Roger has done some!" This, for me, is a good enough reason to keep it at the moment. Alan16 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Alan16. I live in Switzerland and can assure you that the story is true. I will check up some links.

It caused a great deal of debate at the time and the issue was re-ignited recently when his local cantonal authorities decided not to call him up for Civil Defence work (usually the alternative for people who cannot do military service). The general consensus was that Federer has already done rather a lot for his country by his tennis exploits and so most people were quite happy for him to be excused. However, it raised the question that shouldn't there be a systematic and official way of excusing elite sportsmen, performers, scientists etc. from their obligations, without resorting to rather fishy appeals to ill-health (I assume most people would agree that if someone is fit enough to win Wimbledon, he should be able to do a bit of square-bashing).--Oscar Bravo (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, neither version posted here is on the actual article. I think something along the lines of what was there without perhaps the "didn't let it affect his tennis" bit - that's a little POV. However I think it is worth stating that he was too ill to do his military service yet he won Wimbledon - that is NPOV and it suggests the "iffyness". Alan16 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

re Oscar Bravo: sorry for answering this late. I mainly objected to the irony and the placement of your paragraph. I actually rather enjoyed your remark in general (my nation also like humour and irony) : what made me think it was heavy is that it not only made me smile, but I immediately felt that in this context such a remark affects his image in a negative way, and the damage is not proportional to the mischief. Let me explain: in this article his character is not at all reflected on (and it may be right), but without a proper characterisation such hints get too much emphasis, and a random reader immediately catches their connotation. You and I know what a person Fed is, and we do enjoy such a history, but if somebody comes across this article without knowing him, he would think Fed is a liar. Also the placement of your paragraph underlines this effect: it is right in the personal section at the beginning of the article: too much in the centre of attention. Pumukli (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we seem to agree, I've put back in an irony-free version. The Personal Life section is the only part of the article that isn't about tennis so that's the only place I can think of to put it (please move it if you think of a better place). BTW, I don't actually know RF at all. I have never met him and what I know about him comes only through the media. I don't know why he didn't do his military service; may be he really did have a bad back (he's pulled out of competitions on this basis).--Oscar Bravo (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think, the sentence should read "all male Swiss" (or "all male Swiss citizens" or similar) and NOT, as it is now, "all Swiss male". Thank you for correcting this stylistic error. 92.107.46.56 (talk)

how many swiss athletes do military service anyway? philippe senderos? valon behrami? thabo sefalosha? stanislas wawrinka? don't make it sound like Federer was the only one. On a less serious point- Swiss military- oxymoron! i thought they were neutral in everything. what was federer going to do, learn how to use knives that could open a tin can in two weeks? i'm sorry, that's terrible of me. i love the swiss.

You are mistaken. Core element of our Military training is exercise in shooting precise holes in cheeses... --84.74.149.202 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Runner Up section bias

"As shown above, Federer has never lost a Grand Slam final to an opponent other than Nadal, which greatly contributes to their rivalry. With the rise of Andy Murray to World No. 2 (supplanting Nadal) and the 2009 U.S. Open just around the corner, this unique statistic may change. After all, Murray reached Federer in last year's final when he was only ranked World No. 6 before that tournament. Moreover, Murray walked away from Montreal with another Masters title, whereas Federer exited relatively early, after losing unexpectedly to seventh seed Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. This is significant, because that tournament marked the beginning of their participation in the hard court season."

Scrap everything after the first sentence, which is all speculation, and making a meal out of winning the Rogers Masters. Federer was horrible last season in the US open run-up, lost his #1 ranking, then ended up winning it. Anyway none of that has to do with the section it's in.

Someone should delete that part. It's complete out of place. It seems that a "Murray fan" put his hands in this section. Is all speculation like saying Andy Murray is going to win this next US Open because he's having a good US Open season. Please I recommend the owner to remove this section rigth away. Otherwise I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josema18 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

if not already deleted it should be....he lost to del potro in five at us open —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someoneawesomlycool (talk • contribs) 22:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is well known that Federer completed his carrer Grand Slam. Is it that Federer is the only person who can obtain championship and runner-up in every Grand Slam? Are there any player except Roger can obtain all runner-up in every Grand Slam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.242.233 (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lendl and Laver both also have been at least once runner-up in all Grand Slams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Playing style

Shouldn't there be a bit more in this article about Federer's playing style? A good deal of everything that is said about him during his matches revolves around the grace of his game. Federer has perhaps the best footwork and anticipation in the world, which is why he rarely looks hurried and always appears to be in position to hit the ball.

Perhaps there should also be mention of his fitness -- if Nadal receives so much attention on account of his fitness, why shouldn't Federer? After all, consistently playing 6 or 7 matches in Grand Slams for the last five years, Federer has never retired or even appeared to suffer the effects of fatigue, and he's certainly never lost a match due to lack of fitness. The most obvious and recent example of fitness deciding a Federer match was Wimbledon 2009, where Federer and Roddick were dead even until the latter began to tire visibly and produce unforced errors.

Also, nothing is really said about his general style, which is to say aggressive and attacking. Calling him an "all-court player" is too brief, in my opinion. It ought to be noted that, while Federer is capable of playing skillfully anywhere on the court, he is generally aggressive. Instead of relying on errors or fatigue to doom his opponents, he is renowned for constructing points (hence his artistry), maneuvering his opponent into a bad position, and then hitting a clean winner.

Anyway, these are just items for thought and, hopefully, further discussion. I just believe it would be appropriate to expand this section a bit. Federer didn't earn the nickname "Swiss Maestro" for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pntgrdtim (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

agreed about the fitness thing; his 800+ matches without retiring is a record and it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.224.124 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Should his second tweener at the U.S Open 1st round be mentioned after the one from last year's U.S Open?86.45.142.189 (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)BadgerPM

Images facing text

According to this images must, if possible, have their eyes facing the text. Could alternative images be used for the 2009 French Open and 2009 Wimbledon to fix this? Simply moving them to the other side would look awkward I feel. Spiderone 17:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This has to be a bad joke, on photo of Federer and one of Nadal in the FEDERER article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.150.47 (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Retiring from matches

I think it's an interesting bit of trivia (and says something about his dedication) that Federer has never retired from a match in his entire career, but I can't think exactly where it would fit in. Any ideas?

It would need to be sourced first. Perhaps it could go in the playing style section. Spiderone 19:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got a quote here, [17] it's the second paragraph down after the bullet point thing? :) --Roamed (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We can also add a new section on Roger Federer Trivia, with this and other facts. Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

almost career golden slam?

should it also be stated that federer is the only active player to come close to agassi's career golden slam? Fed has a singles career slam and a gold in doubles. Agassi has a career slam and an olympic gold both in singlesSomeoneawesomlycool (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea. Then we'd have to go and add "almost" to a lot of other tennis players articles for the things they almost did. Haha, oncamera^(t) 02:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

yes ... you're correct. Thanks :)Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Split

A major split of information was made from this article to Roger Federer career biography. If anyone has any comments on this please leave them here. Polargeo (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Go to WP:Tennis to discuss.BLUE_DOG^TN 08:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No one's discussing it there. Just thought I'd say the split was done very badly imo. Absolutely nothing about his actual career was kept in apart from the introduction, and the fact that he's won the career grand slam. As someone else stated, it gives undue weight to stuff like apparel and rivalries, and all the pictures were deleted too (apart from one of Nadal which was kept in?). Also, this just makes me laugh:

"Roger Federer is a world renowned tennis player, and his career is a storied one of many grand accomplishments."

Well done, whoever decided to butcher the career section. Feudonym (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

6 july 2009

As of the 28th of December 2009, he is ranked world number 1 by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP). Wrong--Lerman Kruger (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Enigma^msg 18:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it means that he is world no 1, but just in case, 28 december has been put there so the person cannot be blamed for wrong information. the 28 was when the info was added onSomeoneawesomlycool (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He was ranked #1 in December and still is ranked #1. I don't see what the article says that is wrong. Enigma^msg 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i think i miscommunicated. The article isn't wrong, it is correct. Correct me if im wrong, but i assumed you are asking, "why doesn't it say the date that Federer won Wimbledon 2009?" my answer to this question is that the December date has been used instead of the July date so that the user who made this change to the article, cannot be blamed if for example, federer would lose the top rank the following week, before the user was able to change it. For this reason, to protect himself or herself, the user has used the December date, likely the date at which the change was made. Please tell me if this is not your question, or i haven't answered it. Anyway, in the article, it has been changed to 25 January 2010. Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Time for another Good Article Nomination

The 2010 grand slams have started. Enigma^msg 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A and LQ in Grand Slams table

Could someone please add footnotes to the Grand Slam Tournaments table, explaining what A and LQ stand for? I found out by looking at some other articles, but I don't think their meaning is obvious. Thanks. Mbiyetifono (talk) 0:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro needs an omission.

"He is the only man to regain number 1 ranking after losing it"

How can this be true when in the article titled "List of career achievements by Roger Federer" under "# 4 Ranking and points" it states, "Federer is the second man to regain the year-end No. 1 ranking (2009) after Ivan Lendl (1989).[31]"

One of these must be wrong.

Thanks,

YK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.152.173 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The statement in the introduction is completely untrue in every sense. It is almost true if you are talking about year-end rank, but the fact about Lendl given later is true. Also, nowhere in the citation given is it mentioned that Federer is the first to regain the number 1 ranking. Please delete this sentence. Chad (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also agreed. According to this list, he is at least the 15th. 220.245.167.225 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Junk added by a berry and quickly removed. Enigma^msg 16:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Federer-Nalbandian rivalry

Should we add a section for this rivalry, as the rivalry has been listed as No. 4 of the Rivalries of the Decade by ATP. It could be a major rivalry. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 18:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I say no. No one ever talks about a Federer/Nabandian 'rivalry'. The only real rivalry is with Nadal. Is every player he plays semi-often over the years now a 'rival' ? It seems stupid to make such a broad classification. Arleach (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I wonder if it is worthy to be mentioned. I can't find any overall head-to-head result of them. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 19:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

you can look up head to head stats here, where you can see that while Nalbandian has beaten him a few times in the last 3-4 years, most all of his wins came before Federer "took over" with many in quartefinal or earlier matches. I think the big matches could certainly be mentioned within the article itself but I don't think it's worthy of adding a whole new section. Arleach (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Career biography

I've restored this as it should not be missing entirely from this article as it is vital information. Rather a condensed version of it should be written here. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, it should definitely stay, imo like you say it should be condensed... for example, I know it's recent but details about the score in every single match he had in the AO this year don't need to be included, and that goes for other more recent slams as well, in the earlier years it just says he won the final against bla and the score was this, which I think is all we need to know really, especially for smaller tournaments outside of the slams. If people want to find out the fine details they can click on the link to the tournament. MIght be worth mentioning the tough matches where he just scrapes through but not the ones where it's just a walk in a park. Anyway that's just my opinion thanks for restoring it :):) --Roamed (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no need to cover every match in the main article. A summary of the most important matches/events is what is needed. Somebody please gradually cut this article down, leaving the most important points. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Scores for finals aren't even necessary for minor tournaments IMO. —Aaroncrick (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement about record number of Australian Open titles may be misleading.

"This win tied him for most Australian Open victories at four with Andre Agassi"

Apparently it is presumed that because the tournament is named "The Australian Open" the reader will realise that Federer's (And Agassi's) four victories is an open era rather than an all time record. The complete list of men's singles winners on the official Australian Open web site indicates that Roy Emerson won in 1961 and then consecutively from 1963 to 1967, a total of six victories.

Would it not be better, perhaps, to indicate explicitly that the record of four wins applies to the open era? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.243.118 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

nicknames

I reverted 2 POV edits talking of "marvelous" and "miraculous" shots and then remove the talk of nicknames altogether as it doesn't belong in the 'playing style' section. Start a new section, I guess, but keep ridiculously obvious POV out. Arleach (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not in playing style, but I definitely think the nicknames deserve to be included somewhere.. --Roamed (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reorganised career biography

Thumbs up to whoever has been working on it, I think it's a great layout now with the summaries and other articles for different years! :) --Roamed (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done this because I want to set-up a new standard for how tennis articles are suppose to be done for players of Federer's stature like Rafael Nadal, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, and Justine Henin! I want to see more get to be FA or at least GA.BLUE_DOG^TN 12:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you all can help out by expanding the Year Summary on the yearly articles!BLUE_DOG^TN 12:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How about adding...

ATP World Tour Masters 1000/Year End tables from Roger Federer's career statistics, since article has been edited down.

Is the Win–Loss for 2007 correct? Shouldn't it be 27-1 as 2006? Avanze (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not edited anything down, but expanded this page to other yearly pages to be more indepth, where I provided just the yealy stuff, which I allowed the career stats article to be a comprehensive on his career and the whole chart is still their. I have just touched the slams not the Year End/ATPWTM1000 tables at all!BLUE_DOG^TN 20:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the grand slam win-loss record for 2007 is correct. He won one match due to a walkover in 2007, which does not affect the win-loss record Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How can I be added to the list of users that can edit the Roger Federer article?

I wanted to update the first line from:

"Roger Federer (born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player. As of 15 February 2010, he is ranked world number 1"

"Roger Federer (born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player. As of 8 March 2010, he is ranked world number 1"

Since that was out of date :) He is number one in March! Anyways, I'm a big fan and I would like to contribute to his wiki page.

Noelandres17 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Have responded on user's talk page. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fed in '10 match table

In the page Roger Federer in 2010, i do not know how to add to the table listing all the matches he played...someone please do this for me Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wording and structure of lead section

I've recently noticed an edit war of sorts between B. Fairbairn and ScipioAfricans over the wording and structure of the lead section of this article. For example, the wording used to describe Federer's achievements is in dispute ("many sports analysts" vs. "some sports analysts). I've restored the article to the version as it stood before this conflict.

I personally believe that the wording "many", and the current structure of the lead, is fine. The statment "many" appears in is well sourced, and I don't believe B. Fairbairn's changes are quite justified in this regard. The 888th Avatar (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The original edits smacked of bias, with B. Fairbairn attempting to discredit the sourced statements with a POV fact, and I continued to revert the changes made. I don't necessarily think stating Federer is the greatest ever somewhere later on the page is a bad idea, it just seemed that B. Fairbairn was trying to undermine the article. Perhaps a bit of discussion on the opening paragraph is a good idea. ScipioAfricans (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed someone else has changed it to just 'The Greatest of all time' in the intro.. perhaps something like 'Commonly referred to as the greatest player of all time' would be more appropriate? --Roamed (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Rivalry with Nadal needs clarification

The article states that Nadal leads Federer 14-7 in their head to head. No mention is made that 12 of their 21 meetings have been played on clay, Nadal's best surface and Federer's weakest surface. Only 3 (14%) of their meetings have been on grass, Federer's best surface. Lastly, and most importantly, the section doesn't mention that off clay, Federer actually leads Nadal, 5-4. I think this additional information is relevant and important; it will help readers see that Nadal's dominance of Federer has occurred only on one surface rather than multiple surfaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTennisObserver (talk • contribs) 05:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Shut up please, that's no matter because Nadal has beaten Federer on all surfaces. Federer only beat Nadal in grass (2-1), tie in hard, and in clay Federer gets owned. Remember this words: "Oh god! It's killing me... ha-ha". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.89.250 (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You, the guy from Madrid, if you cannot discuss something intelligently, then don't discuss it. Whether you like it or not, the facts clearly show that Nadal has outperformed Federer on clay, but off clay, he trails in the head to head, 4-5. This should be mentioned in the article. TheTennisObserver (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition, surfaces are never mentioned when speaking of head-to-head. Do not be silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.89.250 (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In this particular instance, the surface tells the story of the Federer-Nadal rivalry. Nadal is one player on clay and another off it. It's quite striking that Federer is 2-10 against Nadal on clay and 5-4 off it. I think we it owe to the readers to provide this information. TheTennisObserver (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree that this information should be added to the article for balance. If Nadal was as consistent in getting to finals on his weaker surfaces (hardcourt and grass, also Federer's strongest) as Federer was in getting to clay finals in his prime, then the head-to-head would probably look quite different. (This last bit is just food for thought, I'm not advocating its inclusion in the article!). mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And if my grandmother had wheels, would a bicycle.

You're talking nosense. For example, you say the clay is the "Federer's Weakest surface"?... How many Roland Garros and Masters Series would have won Federer, if Nadal did'nt exist?. Nadal is the king of clay, and Federer the master of grass and hard, and probably the best tennis player of the history, the rest are guesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.88.173 (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I said "clay is Federer's weakest surface" because it is. That does not mean he's "weak" on clay; it means that as good as he is on clay, he's better on grass and hard courts. More importantly, almost 60% of Federer's and Nadal's matches have been played on Nadal's best surface. This is an important fact that readers of the article should be treated to. TheTennisObserver (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I repeat... when speaking of Head-to-head, never refers to the surfaces. If readers want to know what surfaces has lost more times, they can look the finals results (like you've done). It's no secret, everybody knows the thruth!. It seems unfair, because even he has won Grand Slams on grass and hard... and 12 to 21 is not so much, only 3 of difference!. But I respect your opinion. Greetings, and sorry for my bad English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.88.173 (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As contributors to Wikipedia articles, we don't want readers to go someplace else to look up information. We want them to get their facts right here! Even a simple statement like "on clay, Nadal leads 10-2; off clay, he trails 4-5" would give readers additional perspective about the rivalry. I think it is better to come down on the side of revealing facts than concealing them. TheTennisObserver (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. It is your opinion, I respect, but do not think the same. Instead of reporting, it appears that attempts to justify Federer or Nadal's victories detract ... Because I've never seen specify the surfaces when talking about head-to-head. This is tennis. Or more importantly a victory on clay than hard?. I have nothing more to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.88.173 (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have seen it talked about many times CBS Sports, USA Today, Tennis X, NBC Sports. What do they all mention SURFACES because it MATTERS!69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Confused regarding Roger's first title

The main article says Roger won his first title at the 2000 Milan Indoor, but the acticle of this tournament has Marc Rosset as the winner that year. Roger is shown as the winner, defeating Julien Boutter in the final of 2001. I assume it's correct that he didn't win in 2000, but is the win in 2001 still his first title? -Yes, according to the career statistics page, but the article of Roger's early career shows him as the winner in Brest 1999. I don't know if there is something about this tournament in Brest that makes it ineligible for the honor of hosting Roger's first win. Skroting (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Brest is a Challenger event his first full ATP tour title was Milan. The main article had a typo. KnowIG (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Endorsements: add Lindt?

Roger Federer is associated with chocolate manufacturer Lindt & Sprüngli of Switzerland as of October 2009. He is a "Lindt Ambassador" -- whatever that means. I've provided a link to the press release from the company: http://www.lindt.com/int/swf/eng/company/news/roger-federer-becomes-lindt-brand-ambassador/ I suppose this should be added to the endorsements. Thanks. Katarina YYZ (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Definatly add that, thought it had been added, I have just added that. KnowIG (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Word casing in navboxes

In the article's navboxes at the bottom of the article, shouldn't the "a" in achievement be in lowercase and not capitalised? There are two right now: "Roger Federer (Achievement precedessor & successor)", and "Roger Federer's Achievements". The "a"s there should not be in caps but should be in lowercase right? Do contact me at my talk page if you would like a reply soon. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 12:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.251.82.9, 17 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} change country to Switzerland to include the flag

83.251.82.9 (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

'Rivarlies' section intro

Someone has put that Federer's best-known rivarly is with Lleyton Hewitt, and mentions Andy Roddick as his other primary rival. That same person has identified Rafa Nadal as a perennial number 2 and clay-court specialist, and said he is no match for Federer on other surfaces. Whoever has authority to edit this article, can that nonsense please be removed? Perhaps it would have been appropriate in 2004, but we're on the doorstep of 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.158.1 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• You can go and change it the page is not currently protected.BLUE_DOG^TN 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Roger Federer and rivalries discussion

• If you are interested in this go and answer my question.BLUE_DOG^TN 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation

What is the original pronunciation of his name? Infel (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Federer-Hewitt Rivalry

Anyone thought of adding a Hewitt or Nalbandian rivalry section (link to own page)?

I would consider adding Hewitt first, since he has the longest rivalry with Federer (started at the World Youth Cup in 1996). Hewitt is also one of few active players that has a leading head to head against Federer during the beginning of his career. At the US open this year they met for the 23rd time.

It's more interesting since both players were both number ones around the same time and battled out for that position on few occasions (to which Federer always prevailed). Hewitt's time at number one was actually long enough to be considered an era (unlike Roddick, Ferrero, Safin or even Nadal); holding the ranking for more than 1 and a half years, and only one of five players in ATP history to rank number 1 for every week of the year.

There are a lot of classic matches eg. The semi-final of the TMC in 2002, Davis Cup semi-finals 2003, Cincinnati Semi-finals 2007, US Open finals 2004 etc.

What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenger777 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an idea but it would need some sourcing too Spiderone 17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay started working on the Hewitt rivalry. Please help to chip in anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenger777 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if you guys add the Roddick rivalry then you should definetly make reference to Federer's rivalry with Lleyton Hewitt. Federer has played Hewitt more times than he has played Roddick, and Hewitt has beaten Federer more times than Roddick has. --Excelsus (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenger777 (talk • contribs)

Definately need nalbandian....we got andy lleyton and rafa...definately need nalbandian.Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

agreed, a federer-nalbandian rivalry is essential due to their numerous grand-slam, masters series and masters cup meetings. also, the head-to-head is close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.224.124 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

personally, I think there is no reason to have anyone but Nadal listed a 'rivalry'. He's beaten Hewitt handily for like the last 7 years including 14 straight and while Roddick had the epic Wimbledon match, he's 19-2 against him as well. Nadal is the ONLY player with whom it can be said he's got a genuine rivalry. There's no way a whole new section on Nalbandian should be added. A 'rivalry' implies that the opposing player can actually beat him semi-regularly in semis or finals. Arleach (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, if you doubt that Federer has had a rivalry with these players, you need to look up what the word 'rivalry' means. "Competition for the same objective or for superiority over the same field". What does 'competition' mean? "The activity or condition of competing". What does 'compete' mean? "Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same". So in other words, Federer has a rivalry with anyone he's played consistently (hence they are 'competing for the same objective' i.e. to win tennis matches/advance further in tournaments), especially in finals (hence they are competing for 'superiority over the same field'), whether he loses the majority, wins the majority, or generally wins as much as he loses. Maybe a skewed head-to-head record could be seen to imply the lack of a 'competitive rivalry', but the word 'rivalry' itself is not loaded - it's a neutral term, as described above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.52.59 (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence - greatest of all time?

Rod Laver won 2 calendar year grand slams, has won more singles and doubles titles and was world number 1 for a much, much longer period of time. This sentence may be able to be sourced, but it is untrue. Federer is one of the most successful tennis players of all time. There is no best. Federer is undoubtedly the most successful tennis player of recent times, but he certainly isn't the most successful of all time, he's got a fair way to go yet. He himself also admits this and one of his biggest inspirations/idols is Rod Laver himself. Nick carson (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rod Laver's first though was when Ken Rosewall and Lew Hoad were playing professionally, and were better than him at the time. Federer's 15 Slams do make him the most successful, and he has reached all 4 finals twice in one year, winning 3 (and has a chance to repeat that in 2009), so he has been very close to doing a Laver. But you are right though, impossible to say who is the "best" of all time. Pancho Gonzalez was so good they changed the rules twice to try to stop him, for example! 86.177.171.46 (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Federer has won few titles in his career (67 at feb.2011) compared to Laver,Rosewall,Connors or Lendl (more than a hundred each), so he definitely cannot be considered "the greatest ever". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.123.187 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Greatest of all time, indeed!

On several counts you are mistaken, Nick. Federer holds the record for most CONSECUTIVE weeks at number one, 237. He holds the record for most majors won (15). He's the only man ever to have won 2 majors 5 years in a row. He holds the longest grass-court and hard-court winning streaks in history. He's the only male player ever to win 3 majors in 3 different years, and the only player in the open era to have won 5 Wimbledons and 5 U.S. Opens in a row! Rod Laver played 3 of his 4 majors on grass; Federer has won all 4 majors on 4 different surfaces (clay, grass, and two different kinds of hard court).

Please note, too, that the sentence in the first paragraph merely quotes the legends and experts of the game. Wikipedia is not taking a stand on "greatest of all time"; it is quoting many who believe Federer is the greatest. Thank you. TheTennisObserver (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

Greatest male player perhaps. Greatest player? Not so sure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.213.116 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like every time I come here someone's questioning, challenging, denying, or altering the latest version of this sentence. I can hear the opposition now: "And I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids and your dog." In all seriousness, it's nice that there's been such careful consideration and civility displayed by both sides. -- James26 (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, James. I've always maintained that there is a clear and important distinction between Wikipedia coming out and proclaiming Federer "the greatest of all time," and Wikipedia citing the opinion of tennis legends and other serious commentators who believe that. Frankly, I don't know why some people object to the wording of that sentence. It is both accurate and neutral. TheTennisObserver (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

In order to maintain factual accuracy, I'd suggest Many sports analysts, tennis critics, former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time. be replaced with Many sports analysts, tennis critics, former and current players consider Federer to be the greatest male tennis player of all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.62.147 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Nadal clearly better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.164.99 (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The word "male" is superfluous, since the best male tennis players of all time are undeniably better than the best female tennis players. Besides, the people Wikipedia is quoting usually say about Federer that he's "the greatest of all time" (no qualifiers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Federer is the greatest player of all time. His career is unbelievable, and he is playing in modern tennis unlike Rod Laver. We all know Laver played amateur tennis half of his career.vdcvtv (talk)

I think it should be clearly stated that Nadal is quick to refer to Federer as the greatest even though they are rivals. Someoneawesomlycool (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Like who cares, you can't compare different eras, it's an absolute absurd and pointless topic. Surfaces were alot different before the 2000's and you seldom saw people doing what Federer does because it was naturally a lot harder, if Sampras played on the current French courts, I would see him doing slightly better, and same for clay courters like Kuertan among others at Wimbledon. It's a null topic and should just be "regarded as ONE of the GOATs". - Jack Moult 28th January —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Moult (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the current wording where it makes reference to the opinions of others is fine, previously it was a much more judgemental statement. It is wholly a matter of opinion and hardly cut and dried - Federer obviously holds many records on paper but that does not necessarily, factually, make anyone the GOAT. There are several empirical factors that the claim can be disputed on - the arguable weakness of the era, Nadal's utter dominance of their rivalry, his inability to win the Grand Slam, etc. 203.33.163.120 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"...Nadal's utter dominance of their rivalry...": 16-8 over 'the greatest'... 84.221.100.243 (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Federer was damn good in previous years but he has been losing too much lately and making some ridiculously crap shots. I know the article's statement "greatest player of all time" in this article is meant to reference claims by a number of authoritative sources, but most of these claims were made years ago when Federer was in his prime. Now I'm not so sure they would say the same thing, so if he continues down the path of losing and making piss poor shots, an update may be in order.... Pick it up Fed! --82.31.164.172 (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding Rivalry with Roddick section

It is rare for Roger Federer to play a single player many times, since he has faced so many different opponents in the GS final until recently. As everyone knows the Federer/Nadal Rivalry, Federer also had a rivalry with Roddick going back to 2004 and 2005 Wimbledon. He also played him in an US open GS Final a few years back and the Wimbledon this year. Even though Roddick has never beaten Federer in a Grand Spam, I think its a noted rivalry to add to this page. Does anyone else agree?--Harish89 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC). This page needs to be archived again.ROxBo (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A few years back - I think it was after the Wimbledon final in 2005 - Andy Roddick said, only half kiddingly, that until he starts beating Federer there really isn't a rivalry between the two. This, I think, is one of the questions people could raise: can you have a rivalry when one guy has won 19 of 21 encounters? Maybe we can use a different word than "rivalry"? I agree, though, that some reference of the Federer-Roddick matches is in order. Many of their matches have been close, and an equal number have been entertaining. Thanks. TheTennisObserver (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)TheTennisObserver

Well if you guys add the Roddick rivalry then you should definetly make reference to Federer's rivalry with Lleyton Hewitt. Federer has played Hewitt more times than he has played Roddick, and Hewitt has beaten Federer more times than Roddick has. --Excelsus (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)````

Guys, if you doubt that Federer has had a rivalry with these players, you need to look up what the word 'rivalry' means. "Competition for the same objective or for superiority over the same field". What does 'competition' mean? "The activity or condition of competing". What does 'compete' mean? "Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same". So in other words, Federer has a rivalry with anyone he's played consistently (hence they are 'competing for the same objective' i.e. to win tennis matches/advance further in tournaments), especially in finals (hence they are competing for 'superiority over the same field'), whether he loses the majority, wins the majority, or generally wins as much as he loses. Maybe a skewed head-to-head record could be seen to imply the lack of a 'competitive rivalry', but the word 'rivalry' itself is not loaded - it's a neutral term, as described above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.252.41 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

New picture

It's nice and everything, but I think up the page people decided it should hopefully be discussed on the talk page before changes are made? I kind of liked the old one :P Although with this being from the AO it's more up to date I guess.. --Roamed (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The new one is more relevant to his current success, but the old one with him serving at Wimbledon much more sums up his already historical and legendary status, while also showing him in his entirety and not just a close up shot of him hitting. I don't hate the new picture, but I feel the old one was a much better representation to what Federer has brought to tennis and how fans and other tennis players view him, and no less at the tournament that undoubtedly means the most to him. I feel it should be changed back. Wanabedamned (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree I want to 2009 Wimbledon photo back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.150.3 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can get it back for you!BLUE_DOG^TN 03:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Roger Federer (26 June 2009, Wimbledon) 2 new.jpg

No one seemed to be arguing to keep the new picture. I changed it back. Wanabedamned (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just been changed back again.. I vote change back (again) to the Wimby one, I think it's a nicer picture than the current one even though the current one is also nice. It would probably be easier if we discussed photo changes on here first? :) --Roamed (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sad it was changed back. I like the old one, but the one from AO was impressive and current. It would be nice for a tennis player's page on wiki to have a really professional looking photo. If any tennis player's page deserves that, it would Roger Federer's. Heck, Jimmy Connors deserves a better front photo. (kvdoglover (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

AO 2010 or World Tour Finals 2010 are the two tournaments which have shown the most recent glimpses of 'on form' Federer, they should be used, Wimbledon 2009 way too outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.113.223 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Greatest" Line in First Paragraph

Somebody has inserted the word "male" after the word "greatest" in the first paragraph. "Male" is unacceptable for two reasons. First, the experts cited in the article say simply that "Federer is the greatest of all time" without qualification. Second, the best male tennis players are better than the best female tennis players; this is beyond dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

carreer grand slam, three different grounds

"He is one of seven male players to capture the career Grand Slam and one of three (with Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal) to do so on three different surfaces (clay, grass and hard courts)."

There are only four grand slams and they cover the three different surfaces. As I noticed, the US open changed from grass to clay to hard court and the the austrilian open also changed from grass to hard court, although a different type. The australian open actually changed its type of hard court again in 2007, thus in this sense there are even more different surfaces. It is not as if it is the players had any influence on the surfaces, while the remark (about the 3 different surfaces) implies that this is some special performance. Thus I honestly do not see the added value of this remark about surfaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythicism (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• (I have taken the liberty of making a minor formatting change to the above for readability.) I was puzzled by this sentence in the article. At first I didn't know what it meant at all. Then I guessed it must imply that the surfaces on which the events are played have changed over time, so that some older grand slam winners played on fewer surfaces even though they won all four tournaments. I think if the comment is to be retained then this ought to be clarified in the article. I don't think it is obvious to people who do not follow the game closely; it is natural to assume that the format of the tournaments has always been the same. 86.176.208.187 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"every single week"

The article says:

"...holding at least one Grand Slam title every single week from Wimbledon 2003 until Wimbledon 2010."

Is there any reason for this odd "every single week" wording? I am minded to change it to "continuously", but I'm not sure if I may be missing some point. 86.160.215.119 (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mind-numbing text

The following "paragraph" is quite impossible to read. This mass of detail needs to be shunted off into a table somewhere, if it is to be kept at all:

• At the start of the 2011 season, Federer defeated Nikolay Davydenko, 6–3, 6–4, to win the 2011 Qatar Open without dropping a set, winning his third title at the event following wins in 2005 and 2006. Federer was defeated in straight sets during the semifinals of the 2011 Australian Open by Novak Djokovic, marking the first time since July 2003 that he did not win any four of the Grand Slams he appeared in consecutively. In his next tournament in Dubai, Federer lost the final, 3–6, 3–6, to Djokovic. Federer then entered the first Masters 1000 event of the year, the 2011 BNP Paribas Open, and flew through to the semifinals by defeating Igor Andreev, Juan Ignacio Chela, Ryan Harrison, and Stanislas Wawrinka in straight sets. He then fell to Djokovic in three sets, 6–3, 3–6, 6–2, and relinquished the no. 2 ranking to him. Federer also reached the doubles final alongside compatriot Wawrinka, beating rival Rafael Nadal along the way, but they lost to Alexandr Dolgopolov and Xavier Malisse, 4–6, 7–6, 7–10 in the doubles final. Federer then entered the 2011 Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, defeating Radek Štěpánek, Juan Mónaco, and Olivier Rochus in straight sets.. He then defeated Gilles Simon, when he retired at 3–0 due to a neck injury, setting up a 23rd match-up with arch-rival Rafael Nadal. Nadal dominated the match and beat Federer, 3–6, 2–6, bringing their hard-court head-to-head even at 4–4. Federer then moved on to the 2011 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters and played an impressive match against Philipp Kohlschreiber, defeating him, 6–2, 6–1, in the second round. Federer then moved on to the third round of the tournament and defeated world no. 22 Marin Čilić in similar fashion, 6–4, 6–3. Federer was defeated by world no. 9 Jürgen Melzer in the quarterfinals in a surprising straight-sets loss, 4–6, 4–6, which gave Melzer his first victory against Federer in four meetings. Federer's next appearance was at the Madrid Masters. He struggled through his opening match and barely came out with a win against Feliciano López after three tiebreak games, finishing with a score of 7–6, 6–7, 7–6. He then flew through the next two rounds, defeating Xavier Malisse and Robin Söderling with tallies of 6–4, 6–3, and 7–6, 6–4, respectively. He met Rafael Nadal in the semifinals and fought to advance to the final, winning the first set, but Nadal took control of the rest of the game and defeated Federer, 5–7, 6–1, 6–3. Federer then moved on to compete in the Rome Masters, where he opened with a victory over Frenchman Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, 6–4, 6–2. He faced Frenchman Richard Gasquet in the third round, but lost a very close match in the third-set tiebreak, 6–4, 6–7, 6–7. Federer then competed in the 2011 French Open, expressing relief that some pressure was off him and that more had come onto Novak Djokovic, who was still undefeated.[61] He won his first round rematch with Feliciano López in straight sets, 6–3, 6–4, 7–6. He faced French wildcard Maxime Teixeira in the second round and achieved a straight-set victory, 6–3, 6–0, 6–2. He defeated Janko Tipsarević of Serbia, 6–1, 6–4, 6–3, in the third round to reach the round of 16. He then defeated Wawrinka in their third meeting of the year in straight sets, 6–3, 6–2, 7–5, to reach his 28th consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal. He defeated Gaël Monfils, the last Frenchman in the draw, 6–4, 6–3, 7–6, to setup a semifinal with Novak Djokovic. In the semifinal, Federer ended Djokovic's undefeated streak of 43 consecutive wins and kept him from gaining the world no. 1 status with a phenomenal win, brushing past him with a score of 7–6, 6–3, 3–6, 7–6. This set up a final with Rafael Nadal, to whom he lost, 5–7, 6–7, 7–5, 1–6. At Wimbledon, Federer survived an early tiebreak against Mikhail Kukushkin and won, 7–6, 6–4, 6–2. He then went on to defeat Adrian Mannarino and David Nalbandian with straight-set wins of 6–2, 6–3, 6–2 and 6–4, 6–2, 6–4. He rolled past Mikhail Youzhny, after dropping a close tiebreak to him, winning the match 6–7, 6–3, 6–3, 6–3. He advanced to his 29th Grand Slam quarterfinal, but lost to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in a shocking five-set loss, 6–3, 7–6, 4–6, 4–6, 4–6. It marked the first time in his career that he had lost a Grand Slam match after winning the first two sets. After Wimbledon, Federer played the Davis Cup match-up between Switzerland and Portugal. Federer won a singles rubber against Rui Machado and a doubles rubber with Stanislas Wawrinka, helping the Swiss team move on to the World Group Play-offs with a sweep of Portugal, 5–0. After receiving a bye in the first round of the 2011 Rogers Cup, Federer beat Canadian wildcard Vasek Pospisil, 7–5, 6–3, in the second round. In a second meeting with Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, he suffered a disheartening 6–7, 6–4, 1–6 loss, his second straight defeat at the hands of the Frenchman. He began his run at the 2011 Western & Southern Open as the two-time defending champion with a 6–3, 7–5 win, by snapping a two-match losing streak to Juan Martín del Potro. He then flew by James Blake in straight sets, 6–4, 6–1, but failed to defeat Tomáš Berdych, who had defeated him in the 2010 Wimbledon quarterfinals, and lost in straight sets, 2–6, 6–7. At the 2011 US Open, Federer began with two straight-set wins over Santiago Giraldo and Dudi Sela, winning with 6–4, 6–3, 6–2 and 6–3, 6–2, 6–2 tallies, respectively. He then faced Marin Čilić in the third round, who had surged in the US Open, but defeated him soundly in four sets, 6–3, 4–6, 6–4, 6–2. He then flew past Juan Mónaco with a 6–1, 6–2, 6–0 score, avoiding the impending rain, and repeated his feat with a quick win over Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the quarterfinals, reversing a two match loss streak against him with a win in straight sets, 6–4, 6–3, 6–3. The win set up a much-anticipated match with Novak Djokovic, touted as a rematch of the previous year's semifinal match. Federer lost an arguably closer match to Djokovic in five sets, 7–6, 6–4, 3–6, 2–6, 5–7, ironically repeating his previous year's result against Djokovic and adding a second loss from two sets up to his record. The loss at Flushing Meadows meant that Federer did not win any of the four Majors in 2011, the first time this has happened since 2002. After the 2011 US Open, Federer competed in the Davis Cup in Australia. Citing nagging injuries, he pulled out of the 2011 Shanghai Masters, which Andy Murray successfully defended, hence Federer without defending his ranking points from the 2010 Shanghai Masters final dropped out of the top 3 for the first time since June 2003.[62] Federer made it to the finals of the 2011 Swiss Indoors Basel for the sixth time in a row, after defeating his friend Stanislas Wawrinka in an all-Swiss semifinal, 7-6(5), 6-2. In the final Federer defeated Kei Nishikori, 6-1, 6-3. This was his sixty-eighth career title, the fifth at this tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.113.18 (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Big agree. The 2007-2009 bits are fine, 2010 gets a little long and 2011 is ridiculous. Especially because there are separate articles that cover the years fully. It's also another reason why scores should be kept to a minimum in prose. This will need a massive prune-job. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)