Talk:Rafael Nadal

---

Nadal's overall record

his # finals reached in 2008 needs to be updated. he should have 10 not 7. french, wimby, miami, monte carlo, hamburg, chennai, queens, olympics, barca 64.162.56.198 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

is record at 239-60. Anyone care to check this out? EDIT: Okay, I just saw the "includes Davis Cup statistics etc," so I assume that's where the discrepancy comes from? And if so, would it be helpful to list his records in the bitch same area as the other tournaments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.84.248 (Talk) (talk • contribs) 02:53, 12 August 2007

and he's won 3 clay masters= mc rome hamburg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.194.63 (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some times there are discrepancies within a bio as some editors update in an inconsistent manner. Ideally, there should only be updates after a tournament, but some keep raising win numbers for every win during a tournament in the infobox, in the performance timeline, both places, or randomly. This is done mostly in good faith, but is very annoying for editors who then have to make time-consuming consistency checks after tournaments. In the current case, Nadal was, according to the ATP 239-59 going into the 2007 Canada Masters. This is what I have reverted things to in the infobox, as his earnings will not be updated on the ATP site before Monday August 13 ("239-60" makes no sense). Hence, it makes no sense to update the infobox to 242-60 yet. In the singles performance timeline, however, it is stated correctly that it is updated up to and including Canada Masters, making his total record 242-60 (three wins and a loss added). So as of this instance the article is consistent given the information provided. But I sure would hope that people would leave the numbers alone during tournaments. --HJensen, talk 11:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.--GregCujo 07:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on some sad bastard sitting on the edit page waiting for Nadal to win wimbeldon and suddenly editing. What a loser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.191.29 (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

dude you did it as well, you silly billy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.242.16 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because Nadal won Wimbledon doesn't change his ranking to #1. Hahaha. Someone change it back.

Popular culture

My only wish is to get this link into the article somehow, even it is't just one of the external links below. I'm not sure how to introduce the satire link without runing the encyclopedic tone. Any thoughts? --Evilbred (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It is quite funny, but has no place in the article at all. As you have noticed, it is a satirical piece.--HJensen, talk 21

46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have the story about why he bites his trophies? Just think that it's an interesting tidbit that people, obviously myself included, might like to know. 98.193.75.7 (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why he picks his underwear everytime he is about to serve? Might make a more interesting story. (Bad case of wedgies?) KiNgFrOmHeLl (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cortex???

Cause in close up photos you can tell that his cortex is a just painted strip of yellow 64.162.56.198 (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that he use aero pro drive without Cortex????????????????????????????Kraufte 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias

This article has so much bias and opinions. Someone should really keep this article in check because week after week random viewers keep "adding their own thoughts" which are not encyclopediac, or ruining the article structure. For example, someone totally screwed up the "Playing Style" section; and the Wimbledon 2006 final about Nadal is very opinionated saying things such as "Nadal played well in the final after a sluggish start." There are many other areas with opinionated sections.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.145.113 (talk) 02:44, April 20, 2008

I agree. Anyway, I reverted the Playing Style section back to a previous version because the version being replaced was very POV. oncamera^(t) 20:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was noticing this statement in the playing style section "He uses an extreme western grip forehand, which allows him to hit heavy, powerful topspin forehands giving him a smaller margin of error because of the height in which he clears the net and the speed of which the ball drops because of the topspin that is employed on the ball." Doesn't that allow a LARGER, not SMALLER, margin of error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.88.4 (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't a clue, but if it's wrong then change it so it makes sense. oncamera^(t) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

there are errors in this article

The blurb about the movie ghost and el florero is obviously made up..it needs to be removed. Also, lleyton hewitt has never won the australian open, but this article states that he was the eventual winner in 2005

It says "He has a storied rivalry with Roger Federer, most notably for defeating the world number one at the French Open in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008" but he did not play Roger Federer in 2005 at the French Open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.2.181 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Of course Nadal played Federer at the French Open in 2005. Semifinal match 78.27.12.42 (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• How can that error of 2005 at the French Open still be there 2 days later. As previously said he won the semifinal against Federer in 2005. DavidAlonso (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• 2nd paragragh needs to be corrected from: "Nadal has a storied rivalry with Roger Federer, most notably for defeating the world number one at the French Open in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, so far denying Federer a Grand Slam.", to "Nadal has a storied rivalry with Roger Federer, most notably for defeating the world number one at the French Open in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, so far denying Federer this Grand Slam. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.81.221.42 (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"Grand Slam" in this sense means winning all four Grand Slam titles. The phrase can be used in a number of different ways, but as it can cause confusion I'll amend. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Links

Hi everyone,

I've tried to improve the links on the page and they are quite comprehensive, I hope this is OK but I have tried to ensure that only needed links have been placed in the text.

Kind regards

Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red jay85 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Best achievement in US Open

As I know, Nadal reached 2006 US Open QF but not in 2007 US open. In 2007, he lost to David Ferrer in 4th round. So the Grand Slam Result in the box should be: "US Open QF (2006)" not "US Open QF (2007)". i cannot edit it because it is semi-protected. tq :) blizzard_youkai (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Corrected. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nadal's best performance at the US Open now, of course, is the semifinals this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.181.73 (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Player Stastistics

I don't think Nadal's stats. should be on a seperate page since Federer's doesn't either and Federer has more titles than Nadals, and so does McEnroe, Sampras, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.110.216 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It was moved to a separate page for reasons of length, as there was a "may be too long" tag. Personally I think the problem is not with the statistics section but with the career section, which should be written in a summary style. At the moment virtually every tournament he's played over the last four years is described in chronological order – it's too much. Each year should be summarised, with the most significant events described first. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the statistics should not be on a separate page. - ARC Gritt^TALK 22:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, many other tennis player articles are quite long, and the statistics are not on a separate page. For example, Steffi Graf (100,945 bytes), Roger Federer (104,595 bytes) and Pete Sampras (83,692 bytes) compared to the 72,792 bytes of this page. - ARC Gritt^TALK 22:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rafael Nadal statistics and results should now be deleted or turned into a redirect to this article. 74.208.16.88 (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mercedes Cup 2008

Nadal will skip it because of a knee injury Please add He is the defending champion

Ref: http://tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=139480

Thanks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosef1987 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 DoneDone it myself after the lock was removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosef1987 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Playing Style Section

the playing style section seems like a lesson on topspin. It's over-long, in my opinion, and too much about topspin than about nadal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.160.107 (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

try to use this http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/instructionarticles/strategy/strategy.aspx?id=49566 for info, i'll look for more —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosef1987 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

¿¿¿WHAT???

At the 2008 French Open, Nadal won his first round match in straight sets by beating Brazilian Thomaz Bellucci 7–5, 6–3, 6–1. In his second round match, Nadal beat Frenchman Nicolas Devilder 6–4, 6–0, 6–1. In his fourth straight day on the court, he disposed of the Finn Jarkko Nieminen 6–1, 6–3, 6–1 in the third round. In the fourth round, Nadal beat Spaniard and 22nd seed, Fernando Verdasco 6–1, 6–0, 6–2. This was Nadal's 4th straight left hander in the French Open. In the quarterfinals, Nadal beat another Spaniard, the 19th seed Nicolas Almagro, 6–1, 6–1, 6–1. He had dropped just 25 games to this point (a record for fewest games lost through the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam event in the Open Era), an average of five per match. In his semifinal, Nadal overcame third seed Novak Djokovic, 6–4 6–2 7–6(3), to book a place in the final against Roger Federer. He is the third player in history (after Bjorn Borg and Ivan Lendl) to play four consecutive French Open finals. Nadal won the final match over Federer 6–1 6–3 6–0, tying Bjorn Borg's record of four consecutive Roland Garros singles titles. He won the tournament without dropping a set, thereby becoming only the 5th player to have completed this feat, after Bjorn Borg, Ken Rosewall, Ilie Nastase, and Roger Federer during the open era.[citation needed]

¿What? Roger Federer did not win any Roland Garros, which is the trophy from the "winning the trophy without losing a set" record belongs to... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.212.145 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't make much sense, and it's uncited too. I've removed it for now; it can go back in if someone can find a source (and work out what was actually meant).Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

it actually meant as a grand slam champion not particularly a roland garros winner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosef1987 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a bold claim (Sampras never managed it?). Certainly needs a reliable source. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sampras didn't actually Yosef1987 (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ATP Website article http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/rg_sunday3.asp. Sampras never managed it (although it doesn't explicitly say it, need another source for that).78.27.22.132 (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Same data is also shown elsewhere on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_statistics#Winning_a_Grand_Slam_singles_title_without_losing_a_set 78.27.22.132 (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As a nerd of all things Sampras, I can definitely tell you for a fact that he didn't do it. The closest he came was the 1994 Wimbledon, where the only set he lost was to Todd Martin. There are also a couple of others where he lost two sets, but he never went through a major completely unscathed, whereas a ton of women have done it. I suspect this is because it's easier to sweep a best of three tourney than it is to run through a best out of five match without losing a set. Obviously that doesn't help in terms of sources, but, well, I saw this comment and it brought out the inner Sampras nerd in me, 'tis all. Trip to Your Heart (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

so i'm watching this, editing wiki. i read a little and can't edit it due to prior vandalism..... "Miguel Ángel Nadal, is a retired professional football player" he plays futbol with an accent --jc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.208.127 (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nadal's total prize money

I just checked the article and it said that Nadal has a total of ~56 Million US Dollar. How could that be possible? Roger has 'only' won ~42 Million so far, considering the difference on total number of titles both player won, the figures are just incomprehensible for me... Can anyone fix this? whether the error is on Rafa or Roger's article, or if it's actually the correct figure, can anyone verify this fact, but seriously.. is that even possible, this is the first year that he's been more productive than R-Fed... I also remember the number was 30 something million dollars. 125.160.96.104 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone changed it to 56. —M.C. (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wew, 30 Mil... guess that's overestimation from my part... But has the prize money from his recent success been included in it... I supposed winning Wimbledon and most recently Rogers Cup would brought his tally over 20 mil already...125.160.96.104 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added olympic games entry

On the career table, there wasn't any olympic games entry, so I copied the Federer's page one there and modified it to fit in here. The problem is that the format on Federer's and Nadal's career table is different, one has statistics with a subtitle below and the other one not. So I thought the best part to put them on Nadal's career entry was under the Master Cup's place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.66.225 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Career statistics format

I've said the same on Roger Federer's discuss page:

This table and Roger Federer's table format is different under the Master Cup's part. One of them should be changed to make they have the same format, like every article-kind of wikipedia should do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.66.225 (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to the storied rivalry vs Federer taken out?

There was a link on the first pharagraph to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer_versus_Nadal like Federer also has, now it isn't there.

I don't get the point why there are being all those changes lately, maybe it is a good time to semiprotect the article? I think that deleting such data could be considered as vandalism.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.66.225 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it to the revised version of the intro I wrote yesterday. My version links to the page you listed under the "arch-rival" link.

With all the excitement and enthusiasm surrounding Nadal these days it's no surprise there have been dozens of edits per day. It'll settle down in the coming weeks, but may be good idea to semiprotect it to avoid all these annoying edits.

--Armchair info guy (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to get it semi-protected here, many that will see its abatement. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if its the moment to add the #1 category

Well, I'm seeing under the photo on the article that it says maxium rank = 1, so then there should be also the "World No. 1s in Men's tennis" category bar in the bottom on the page, like on Federer's article. I put it there, the problem is that I don't know how to edit that category to add Nadal there... any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.66.225 (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, we need to wait for the latest ATP Rankings are released to change the ranking on Nadal's (and also Fed's) wiki article(s). It's a bit ridiculous to change his ranking before any reliable sources have done so. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

---

kudos to "Trip to Your Heart" for shortening the Career section

This is something I was thinking of doing myself. S/he beat me to it and I'm grateful for it. Now it's much shorter (from 70kB to 54kB) without so many needless tournament details.

For referenc, this is what user s/he wrote in the history subject line: "I don't mean to ruffle feathers here, but really....this page is getting way out of hand. every little detail does not need to be analyzed. feel free to revert if you'd like, but I stand by this."

--Armchair info guy (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The edits are very encouraging and hopefully signal an end to haphazard updates and poorly structured sections ("At...", "At..."). I feel it has been trimmed pretty well. I think now the main issues are grammar (Vilas), stock phrases ("handing Roger Federer his first defeat", "ultimately fell short"), and a lack of references. Should the Battle of the Surfaces match be included in what is essentially a section documenting his career on the tour? I probably should have put my efforts in to fixing this rather than typing this but I don't have time right now. When this is done, we get Federer's 2008 section righted, maybe? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only way you can prevent superfluous info bloat is by protecting this page, but that'd be too stringent except at highly eventful, exciting times like Rafa becoming #1. I'm new around here but my observation is that there are a group of dedicated editors who occasionally have to do some major edit work when articles bloat, like Rafa's career section. Just the way wikipedia is. --Armchair info guy (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the current pared-down 2006 and 2007 sections are too brief while at the same time there's still too much info for a single paragraph. I prefer the way 2005 reads (obviously I'm quite biased since I rewrote it), because it concisely highlights the big events and major accomplishments in several brief paragraphs. Short paragraphs are easier to quickly read than long ones. My goal is a nutshell of how the season progressed that's informative to those who know little or nothing about Rafa and quickly want to learn his career history.

So I suppose the main idea is to pack a good amount of imporant facts in each section without so many superfluous details. And thanks again for the straw man version without the superfluous stuff.

I'm only a few days old here at wikipedia but I must say this kind of collaboration is fun. Vamos to you all! --Armchair info guy (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

About the new "Career" section.

I will be clear: I don't like it at all.

This article was very good because you could notice the entire participation in all the tournaments explained all over the years. Now it is like a small line for each tournament plus some statistics mixed that does not fit at all. When someone is reading the career doesn't want to read each 2 lines "he is the 2nd bla bla after Borg", he just wants to read that, the CAREER.

Since the change, this is not anymore a good article in my opinion, moreover cause some of us worked hard before to put each detail for each tournament for each year. It was a good career section, now *forgive me for the word, but nothing else fits here* it sucks. 62.57.238.91 (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a way to include all the details you want - create subtopic articles for each year of his career: like "Nadal_2007" or his entire career: like "Nadal_Career_Details". The link I posted cites the cricket article which does a good job of this.

We don't want all those details in this article because it's quite long as it is. --Armchair info guy (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea sure, I can understand that all, but then why Nadal has been the only victim of this? Because I'm seeing other articles like Federer and, his career section is like the double than Nadal's old one, and it's entirely there still. I once asked to semiprotect the article, but I see I was wrong.. In my opinion, you can unsemiprotect it... You didn't add the --Performance timeline legend-- to the career statistics yet but had time to answer me 4 times, good job.

where is the "legend table" for the statistics table?

I mean the table that has on it the explanations of what is an A, xR, SF, F, QF, W, etc.

Lately, too many things have changed and some like this dissapeared. I was the one that asked to semiprotect this, but it seems that even being semiprotected, it suffers vandalism. I'm very deceived. 62.57.238.91 (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Put back the #2 ranking

under the highest career rank category in the infobox - until it is official on the 18th. WP:Crystal ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But it is official since Nadal is guranteed to be #1 on the 18th no matter what. I say keep it as is. Armchair info guy (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, stick with policy. So change it back until the 18th.--HJensen, talk 06:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, wait until the rankings show him at the top. Franmars (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it: There is NO DOUBT. Nadal WILL BE #1 on 18 August. It's a sure event. 62.57.239.44 (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Did anybody here question that? No, so there is no need to scream at people. We "get it". There is just a policy here, which is to be followed. --HJensen, talk 12:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, we know he will be number 1 on the 18th, why not just wait until it happens? Franmars (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Added "Rivalry with Federer" sub-section

I followed the precedent in the Pete Sampras article by adding this sub-section under the Career section. There's not much written because it's mostly to direct readers to the Federer-Nadal rivalry page. I also added the same sub-section in Roger Federer's page too. --Armchair info guy (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To "Tennis expert" (and anyone else too)

First off, thanks for all your contributions to wikipedia over the years. I can see you've done a lot of work. I'm less than 2 weeks old as a registered editor so I'm still learning the ropes, though I've come up to speed quickly and have already contributed a good chunk of work.

Since we've both made several edits to this page in the last few days and have even undid then redid a few changes (thankfully nothing major), I feel the need to briefly address a few items:

1) your use of corporate names for a couple of 2008 tourneys like "Sony Ericcson Open" and "Rogers Cup" instead of "Miami Masters" and "Canada Masters". Frankly, I disagree with it because it's almost universal in the many articles I've read here to use the "X Masters" name. Plus the rest of the article including all the match listings and tables use it too. So I'm changing it back once again.

2) you add a space between citations when more than one is present. I've been using wikipedia for years and have never seen that, so I'm getting rid of those spaces too.

3) good call on removing Barcelona from the intro. I'll change it to winning 2 Masters on clay each of the last 4 years so all of his top-level clay titles are accounted for.

4) In the intro I'm removing reference to 6 GS finals being the most in open era since a bit too wordy to pack it all in. plus the reference tells you that. I originally added this paragraph last week sometime to highlight his rivalry with Federer.

5) which reminds me - if they're not archrivals then who is? Sure there's little or no personal animosity but everything else fits the bill.

6) good call on the overly-dramatic words in reference to the 2008 Wimby final. Hard not to, though, after experiencing that match!

--Armchair info guy (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) Most tennis articles, including biographies of men and women, use the official sponsored names of tournaments. Have a look around and you'll soon see this. (2) Putting spaces between citations also is common and enhances readability. (5) "Archrivals" is overly dramatic and, in any event, is unencyclopedic and unsourced. Tennis expert (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

you're probably right about #5 for encyclopedia purposes. I still disagree about the first 2 but since you went and changed almost the entire article I'll let it go. Consistency is definitely more important than my preference. --Armchair info guy (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Very disapointed about this, my last words here.

Hello, maybe you are not interesed on what im going to say, but I'm someone that has being (anonymously) updating this article for a long time.

It was good until the last week when someone changed the half on it, then people changes things, adds things, take out things.

As a result, the actual article sucks. An article that was PRETTY GOOD before now IS NEEDING CLEANUP cause the edits you have made on this week. The article just sucks now. There was a lot of good info there, now its only victories and fucking records which I don't care.

As a READER of the article, I would say: reset it to how it was the last week. You DESTROYED an article.

It's not just that i'm not going to cooperate here any more (not only on this article, but on anything, when some other people can fuck up in 1 day the work of months), but I'm not also going to get any info for wikipedia anymore. Good luck on keeping destroying this site. Farewell.

00:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I paste here how the article should be, like it was: the way is Federer's one: a little paste:

2003

Federer challenged for the top ranking in men's tennis during 2003, finishing the year at World No. 2 just behind Andy Roddick and just ahead of Juan Carlos Ferrero.

In the first Grand Slam tournament of the year, Federer lost in the fourth round of the Australian Open to David Nalbandian. He then won two hard court tournaments in Marseille and Dubai before being upset in early round matches at the Tennis Masters Series (TMS) tournaments in Indian Wells, California and Key Biscayne, Florida.

On clay, Federer won the tournament in Munich, was the runner-up at the TMS tournament in Rome, and lost in the third round of the TMS tournament in Hamburg. Although Federer was seeded fifth at the French Open, he lost to Luis Horna in the first round.

Federer won both of the grass court tournaments he played. He defeated Nicolas Kiefer in the final of the tournament in Halle before winning his first Grand Slam singles title at Wimbledon. He defeated Roddick in the semifinals and Mark Philippoussis in the final and lost only one set during the tournament, to Mardy Fish in the third round.

During the North American summer hard court season, Federer lost to Roddick in the semifinals of the TMS tournament in Montreal and to Nalbandian in the second round of the TMS tournament in Cincinnati. At the US Open, Nalbandian again defeated Federer, this time in the fourth round.

During the autumn, Federer played four consecutive indoor tournaments in Europe. He won the tournament in Vienna but failed to reach the finals of the tournament in Basel and the TMS tournaments in Madrid and Paris.

To end the year, Federer won the Tennis Masters Cup in Houston. As the third-seeded player, he defeated Andre Agassi, Nalbandian, and Ferrero during the round robin phase before beating top-seeded Roddick in the semifinals and Agassi in the final.

(All results in 2003)[25]

[edit] 2004 Federer at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Federer at the 2004 Summer Olympics.

Federer had one of the most dominating and successful years in the open era of modern men's tennis.[26] He won three of the four Grand Slam singles tournaments, did not lose a match to anyone ranked in the top ten, won every final he reached, and was named the ITF Tennis World Champion.[27] His win–loss record for the year was 74–6 with 11 titles.

Federer won his first Australian Open singles title by defeating Marat Safin in the final in straight sets. This win helped him succeed Andy Roddick as the World No. 1, a ranking that he has kept ever since. He successfully defended his Wimbledon singles title by defeating Roddick in the final and won his first US Open singles title by defeating Lleyton Hewitt in the final. Federer was the top-seeded player at the Athens Olympics but lost in the second round to Tomáš Berdych 4–6, 7–5, 7–5. Federer finished the year by taking the Tennis Masters Cup in Houston for the second consecutive year, defeating Hewitt in the final. Federer's only loss at a Grand Slam tournament was at the French Open, where he lost to former World No. 1 and 3-time French Open champion Gustavo Kuerten in straight sets.

Federer did not have a coach during 2004, relying instead on his fitness trainer Pierre Paganini, physiotherapist Pavel Kovac, and a management team composed of his parents, his girlfriend and manager Mirka Vavrinec, and a few friends.[28]

(All results in 2004)[29]

[edit] 2005 Federer in Cincinnati during the 2005 US Open Series. Federer in Cincinnati during the 2005 US Open Series.

To begin the year, Federer hired former Australian tennis player Tony Roche to coach him on a limited basis.[30] He then reached the Australian Open semifinals before falling to eventual winner Marat Safin in a five-set night match that lasted more than four hours, 5–7, 6–4, 5–7, 7–6(6), 9–7.[31] He rebounded to win the year's first two ATP Masters Series (AMS) titles: Indian Wells (by defeating Lleyton Hewitt of Australia in straight sets) and Miami (by defeating Rafael Nadal of Spain in five sets after being down two sets to love). He won his third Hamburg clay court title in May by defeating Richard Gasquet, to whom he had earlier lost in Monte Carlo. He then entered the French Open as one of the favorites, but lost in the semifinals in four sets to eventual winner Nadal.

Federer successfully defended his Wimbledon title, winning for the third consecutive year by defeating Andy Roddick in a rematch of the previous year's final. Federer also defeated Roddick in Cincinnati to take his fourth AMS title of the year (and sweep all the American AMS events) and become the first player in AMS history to win four titles in one season.[32] He then dropped only two sets en route to his second consecutive US Open title, defeating Andre Agassi in four sets in the final. He became the first man in the open era to win Wimbledon and the US Open back-to-back in consecutive years (2004 and 2005). He failed to defend his Tennis Masters Cup title, however, losing to David Nalbandian of Argentina in a four-and-a-half hour, five-set match (He was playing with an injury to his ankle).[33] Had he won the match, he would have finished the year 82–3, tying John McEnroe's 1984 record for the highest yearly winning percentage in the open era. (All results in 2005)[34]

[edit] 2006 Federer playing in Basel at the Swiss Indoors, 2006. Federer playing in Basel at the Swiss Indoors, 2006.

Federer won three of the four Grand Slam singles tournaments and ended the year ranked number one, with his points ranking several thousand points greater than that of his nearest competitor, Rafael Nadal.[35] Federer won the year's first Grand Slam tournament, the Australian Open, by defeating Cypriot Marcos Baghdatis. In March, Federer successfully defended his titles at the Indian Wells and Miami Masters, and became the first player ever to win the Indian Wells-Miami double in consecutive years. Federer then started the clay-court season by reaching the final of the ATP Masters Series (AMS) event at Monte Carlo losing in four sets to Rafael Nadal. He then reached a consecutive AMS final, along with Nadal, at the Rome Masters where it seemed as though Federer would finally defeat his rival on clay; however, Nadal won the epic five-set match, which lasted five hours, in the decisive tiebreak after saving two match points.[36] Federer chose not to defend his title at the Hamburg Masters, where he had won in the previous two years. At the French Open, Federer lost in the final to defending champion Nadal in four sets. Had he won the French Open, he would have completed a career Grand Slam and become the first man since Rod Laver to hold all four Grand Slam singles titles at the same time. Although the clay Grand Slam title eluded him, he became one of only two then-active players who had reached the finals of all four Grand Slam singles tournaments, the other being Andre Agassi.[37]

Federer entered Wimbledon as the top seed and reached the final without dropping a set. There, Federer beat Nadal in four sets to win the championship. This was Federer's fourth consecutive Wimbledon title. Federer then started his North American tour and won the 2006 Rogers Cup in Toronto, defeating Richard Gasquet of France in the final. In the year's last Grand Slam tournament, the US Open, he defeated American Andy Roddick in four sets for his third consecutive title at the Flushing Meadows. During the open era, 2006 is the only year in which same man (Federer) and woman (Justin Henin) reached the finals of all four Grand Slams. At the year-ending Tennis Masters Cup at Shanghai, Federer defeated defending champion David Nalbandian in one of his three round robin matches and Nadal in a semifinal. Federer then defeated American James Blake 6–0, 6–3, 6–4 in the final to win his third Masters Cup title. In 2006, Federer lost to only two players: Nadal in the French Open, Rome, Monte Carlo, and Dubai finals; and Andy Murray in the second round of the Cincinnati Masters. The Cincinnati loss to Murray was Federer's only straight-sets loss of the year and the only tournament out of 17 (Davis Cup excluded) in which he did not reach the final. (All results in 2006)[38]

[edit] 2007 Roger Federer at the 2007 Cincinnati Masters. Roger Federer at the 2007 Cincinnati Masters.

Federer won his third Australian Open and tenth Grand Slam singles title when he, as defending champion, won the tournament without dropping a set, defeating Fernando González of Chile in the final. He was the first man since Bjorn Borg in 1980 to win a Grand Slam singles tournament without losing a set.[39] His winning streak of 41 consecutive matches ended when he lost to Guillermo Cañas in the second round of the Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, California, after winning this tournament three consecutive years. At the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, Florida, Federer again lost to Cañas, this time in the fourth round in three sets. He was awarded four ATP Awards during a ceremony at the tournament, making him the first player to receive four awards during the same year.[40] [41]

Federer started his clay-court season by reaching his second consecutive final of the Monte Carlo Masters. As in 2006, he lost to second seeded Rafael Nadal. Federer lost in the third round of the Internazionali d'Italia in Rome to Filippo Volandri.[42] This defeat meant he had gone four tournaments without a title, his longest stretch since becoming World No. 1.[42] On May 20, 2007, however, Federer defeated Nadal on clay for the first time, winning the Hamburg Masters tournament, and ending Nadal's record of 81 consecutive match wins on clay.[43] At the French Open, Federer reached the final for the second consecutive year but lost to Nadal for the third consecutive time. The day after the final, Federer announced that he was withdrawing from the Gerry Weber Open in Halle, which he had won the last four years. He cited fatigue and fear of getting an injury.[44] He therefore entered Wimbledon for the first time without having played a warm-up grass-court tournament. Despite this, Federer once again defeated Nadal in the final, however Nadal was able to push Federer into a fifth set, with his last five-set match at Wimbledon coming from 2001 where he beat Pete Sampras. With the win over Nadal, Federer tied Björn Borg's record of five Wimbledons in a row.

Federer won the Cincinnati Masters title for the second time, beating James Blake in the final, to collect his 50th career singles title, his 14th ATP Masters Series title, and the 2007 US Open Series points race.

In the US Open final, Federer beat third seed Novak Djokovic. It was Federer's 12th Grand Slam title, tying Roy Emerson. As champion of the US Open Series points race, Federer received a bonus of $1 million, in addition to the $1.4 million prize for winning the US Open singles title.[45]

Federer entered the year-ending Tennis Masters Cup where he lost his first round robin match to the 2007 Australian Open runner-up, Fernando González, 3–6 7–6(1) 7–5 . This marked the first time a player had defeated Federer in the round robin of the Tennis Masters Cup and González's first win against Federer. Federer went on to defeat Rafael Nadal 6–4, 6–1 in the semifinals and David Ferrer in the finals 6–2, 6–3, 6–2.

On November 19, 2007, in an exhibition match in Seoul between players recognized as among the greatest ever, Federer defeated former World No. 1 Pete Sampras 6–4, 6–3. This was the first of three exhibitions the two played in Asia. "I feel pretty good," Sampras told Korean television after the match. "I made it competitive, which was my goal. Obviously Roger is the best player in the world and I retired five years ago. I am grateful that he invited me." Federer was equally happy with the workout: "Pete was one of my idols growing up and it's great to play him. It wasn't easy for me, it wasn't easy for him as he's been retired five years. I am number one and everyone expects me to win."[46] Two days later, Sampras again lost to Federer 7–6, 7–6. However, Sampras won the last match of the series 7–6(6), 6–4, though his stated goal was to just win a set. (All results in 2007)[47]

[edit] 2008

2008 would prove to be the most disappointing year on record so far for Federer, as, one by one, he lost his Australian Open title, Wimbledon title and finally, his No. 1 position which he had held for a record 238 weeks. At the Australian Open, Federer failed to defend his title, losing in the semifinals to eventual champion Novak Djokovic 7–5, 6–3, 7–6(5). This ended his record string of Grand Slam final appearances at ten, though his streak of 15 Grand Slam semifinals was maintained. It was the first time that Federer had lost in straight sets in a Grand Slam singles match since he lost 6–4, 6–4, 6–4 to Gustavo Kuerten in the third round of the 2004 French Open. His last straight-sets loss at a hard court Grand Slam tournament was even further back, when he lost in the fourth round of the 2002 US Open to Max Mirnyi, 6–3, 7–6(5), 6–4.

Federer then returned to the Dubai Tennis Championships, where he was seeded first and was the defending champion. However, Federer lost to Andy Murray in the first round. Of the previous five Dubai tournaments, Federer had won four and reached the final of the other. In March, he claimed that he had recently been diagnosed with mononucleosis, and that he may have suffered from it since December 2007. Federer also had an illness related to food poisoning prior to the start of the Australian Open. He noted, however, that he was now "medically cleared to compete."[48]

Federer won his third exhibition match out of four against former World No. 1 and fourteen-time Grand Slam singles titlist Pete Sampras in Madison Square Garden in New York City. Federer won 6–3, 6–7, 7–6.[49]

At the Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, California, the first Tennis Masters Series event of the year, Federer lost in the semifinals to American Mardy Fish for the first time, 6–3, 6–2, thus ending his 41-match winning streak against American players dating back to August 2003.[50] Federer's next tournament was the Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida, where he lost in the quarterfinals to American Andy Roddick 7–6, 4–6, 6–3. Roddick's last win against him on the ATP tour came in 2003.

Federer began the clay court season at the Estoril Open in Portugal, which was his first optional clay-court tournament since Gstaad in 2004[citation needed] and his first tournament with coach Jose Higueras.[51] Federer won his first tournament of the year when Nikolay Davydenko retired from the final while trailing 7–6, 1–2 with a leg ligament strain. With 54 titles, Federer is No. 9 on the open era career singles titles list.[52]

As of April 2008, Federer and James Blake are the only members of the top ten never to have retired during a match.[53]

At the Monte Carlo Masters, Federer lost to three-time defending champion Rafael Nadal 7–5, 7–5. Federer made 44 unforced errors, lost a 4–0 lead in the second set, and fell to 1–7 against Nadal on clay courts.[54]

At the Tennis Masters Series Internazionali d'Italia in Rome, Federer lost in the quarterfinals to Radek Stepanek 7–6(4), 7–6(7).

Federer was the defending champion at the Masters Series Hamburg and won his first four matches in straight sets to set up a repeat of the previous year's final against Nadal. In the first set of the final, Federer built a 5–1 lead in the first set and served for the set twice. However, Nadal won six consecutive games to win the set 7–5. Nadal again broke Federer's serve in the opening game of the second set, but Federer broke back and won the second set 7–6(3). Nadal then won the third set 6–3 and the tournament.

At the French Open, Federer was beaten by Nadal in the final 6–1, 6–3, 6–0. The last time Federer had lost a set 6-0 was the first round match in 1999 against Byron Black at the Queen's Club Championships in London.[55] This was also the fourth consecutive year that Federer and Nadal met at the French Open, with Federer losing his third consecutive final to Nadal as well as their semifinal match in 2005.

Federer bounced back from this defeat by winning the Gerry Weber Open in Halle, Germany without dropping a set or a service game. This was Federer's second title of the year, 55th overall career title, and the fifth time he has won this event. With this result, he tied Pete Sampras's record for most titles on grass in the open era with 10.[56]

At Wimbledon, Federer reached his 17th consecutive Grand Slam singles semifinal and his 16th Grand Slam final, tying him with Bjorn Borg for fourth most in history. In the final, he once again played World No. 2 Rafael Nadal. A victory for Federer would have been his sixth consecutive Wimbledon singles title, breaking Borg's modern era record, and equalling the all-time record held since 1886 by Willie Renshaw. Federer saved two championship points in the fourth set tiebreak but eventually lost the match 6–4, 6–4, 6–7(5), 6–7(8), 9–7. The rain-delayed match ended in near darkness after 4 hours, 48 minutes of play, making it the longest (in terms of elapsed time) men's final in Wimbledon recorded history, and 7 hours, 15 minutes after its scheduled start. The defeat also brought to an end Federer's 65 match winning streak on grass. John McEnroe described the match as "The greatest match I've ever seen."[57] [58] Despite the loss, Federer retained his world number one ranking.

Federer's problems did not alleviate in the short-term. At the Rogers Cup in Toronto, Canada, Federer received a first round bye and then lost in the second round to Gilles Simon, before losing at the Cincinnati Masters (where he was defending champion) to Ivo Karlovic for the first time in seven matches.[59] Federer will lose his number one singles ranking for the first time in four and half years to Rafael Nadal on August 18, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.239.247 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Equipment

Nadal uses a Babolat AeroPro Drive racquet without the newly added cortex system. The cortex you see on his racquet is painted on and can clearly be seen as such in high resolution photographs. This model's handle is (L2 grip= 4 1/4)) with no replacement grip, instead Nadal wraps 3 VS over grips, and the racquet strung between 53 and 55 pounds with Babolat Duralast in 15L gauge. Although he is said to use Pro Hurricane Tour, this is not true. His string is marked as Pro Hurricane Nadal and looks to all the world like Babolat Duralast. His clothing sponsor is Nike and he was known for his unconventional wear, turning up in sleeveless tops and Capri pants in a variety of colours. However in Summer of 2008, he started wearing extended shorts with his sleeveless tops. In 2009 he will start wearing sleeves. He also wears the Nike Air Max Breathe Cage II shoes which have been customized for him with the famous "Vamos Rafa" slogan written on the back of them. Currently, his shoes display his nickname "Rafa" on one shoe and a logo specifically designed by Nike featuring a stylistic bull head on the other.

KerryJamesBalden (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)KerryJamesBalden

Sorry, I don't want to shorten what I've written. I didn't know what this would do. I added more detail and updated the equipment section. Hope this helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KerryJamesBalden (talk • contribs) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is this how you want to change that section? If you're going to write about his fashion in 2009, you'll probably need a reliable source for that so people won't constantly fight over that. And the "shorts" he has been wearing this summer seem a little tight to just be called "extended shorts." That makes it seems like he was just wearing baggy shorts like NBA basketball players do. And where is all this racquet information coming from? It might be obvious and commonly known among Rafa fans, but it should be documented and cited from a site. I mean, if there's no references for sentences like "Although he is said to use Pro Hurricane Tour, this is not true. His string is marked as Pro Hurricane Nadal and looks to all the world like Babolat Duralast," I would rather not include that "information" and keep the paragraph short to avoid spreading opinions or unverified information. That sentences sounds like a "crazy Babolat conspiracy of month" or something. Cheers, oncamera^(t) 00:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is all about 2006?

"2006

After missing the Australian Open due to his foot injury, Nadal won his first title of the year by handing Roger Federer his first defeat of the season in Dubai. He then completed an undefeated clay-court season by defending all of his titles, including winning the French Open for the second consecutive year and once again keeping a Career Slam away from Federer. His first-round victory at the French Open allowed him to break Guillermo Vilas's record of consecutive victories on the clay surface.[22] Nadal also made a surprise run to the Wimbledon final, falling to Federer in four sets. Nadal was not expected to make the transition from clay to grass so successfully for at least a few more years at the time.[23] [24] The second half of Nadal's year wasn't as successful as the previous year had been, something that Nadal attributed to mental and physical exhaustion"

Dudes, do you really hate Nadal? It seems so.. This is becoming one of the worst articles on the entire wikipedia, when it was a very good one. If I want anything about nadal no 2006.. THERE'S NO FUCKING INFO THERE, Not a single result, not a single position at a tournament, this article become really bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.39.98 (talk • contribs)

CHANGING THE ATP MASTERS NAMES NOW?

EDIT: I see that you've added a new column now "tournament name" and the other tournament city. Well this would be good if also "Canada", "Monte Carlo", etc, were links to the torunaments, not only "Rogers Cup", etc.

To people that doesn't understand so much of Tennis they would HARDLY understand it how it is right now..

BTW: Im saying the "~~+~~" (less the +) at the end of the comment and it doesnt appear my signature... 62.57.197.234 (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

CHANGE 2 things please

on the "Tournament Locations"

Montreal -> Montreal, Canada

Toronto -> Toronto, Canada

62.57.197.234 (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Please change another thing:

"Sony Ericsson Open Key Biscayne, Florida"

Even I, Having followed the tennis last 4 years, I don't know that masters are we talking about. Indian Wells? Cincinnati? No Idea, really... please change it and put it like it should be (like Paris TMS, Madrid TMS, Cincinnati TMS, Canada TMS)

That would be the info people wants, I don't want to know if its sony ericsson open or what, for me its a CITY TMS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.197.234 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why there's now a column entitled "Tournament location." You can find a tournament by either it's official name or its location. Sounds very simple to me. Tennis expert (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not complete. On "key Biscarne", it should also say MIAMI, since its the location. Complete it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.71.124 (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

AGAIN: where is the statistics table legend?

where is the "legend table" for the statistics table?

I mean the table that has on it the explanations of what is an A, xR, SF, F, QF, W, etc.

I posted this on discussion like 2 weeks ago and still no modification.

PLEASE, UN-SEMIPROTEC IT. I've asked to semiprotect it but since it is semiprotected you are not helping to improve it but deleting legends like this, changing info that was good and now its very bad explained and unclean, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.71.124 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

just to make you notice this UPDATE IT!

"

"

"

" 81.184.38.28 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Paris 2007 was played on hard

So the finals section is wrong in him reaching a final on carpet. Link: http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=0&player=N409&selTournament=352&prevtrnnum=0 12:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)82.168.188.69 (talk)

UNSEMIPROTECT THE ARTICLE.

When Federer or Djokovic won their medals, it took 0,001s to have it updated here. Nadal won it like an hour ago and no update. Let anonnymous people like me update it because registered users the only that they did is to fuck up the article and mantain in outdated like just now. 62.57.9.173 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service.--HJensen, talk 11:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but this article sucks since its semiprotected and the registered people modifying it are destroying it (maybe you are one of those). I've told 3 times on this discussion topic to PUT THE STATISTICS RESULTS TABLE LEGEND (the one that shows whats RR,SF,F,W,A,etc.) and you ignore me. if this is an encyclopedia please start by completing it like im telling you. Wikitestor (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL. Don't bite at other people, or throw around accusations and orders. Thanks.--HJensen, talk 23:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

number 2 mention

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafael_Nadal&diff=232706639&oldid=232691339 was taken off by one of the ips. It should be undone or put somewhere else - for this is also notable - record weeks at number 2 I don't even see it in the article - at least not in the 2008 section, or the intro paragraph ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

nickname "Gladiator"

I've added it because here, on Spain, everyone calls him like that. 81.184.39.184 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did u put the comments back?

They were my comments and all of them were solved, its a long spam there total unnecesay, please explain me why. Wikitestor (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Because on Wikipedia, everything is archived, not deleted. The reason being that others can learn from previous discussions and comments. Noone would learn anything if we deleted everything that is resolved. Alternatively, one can (only if it is one's own text), use the "strike" option on one's text when issues have been resolved. Then one is signalling that things are done, but the interested can still see what a certain discussion was all about. Others can just skip it. Cheers.--HJensen, talk 09:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand it now. But the point is that by error I paste here on the discussion a very long article of federer (all history from 2003 to 2008...) and its like the half of the discussion page right now... Wikitestor (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with Wikitestor that it should be deleted. It is in its proper place now on the Federer article. So it does not belong here. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikitestor may delete his own comments but not those of myself or other third parties. Aside from that, it's far better to archive things on this page than delete them. Tennis expert (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point Tennis Expert. Notice the italicized own Expert included. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well i'm not deleting them, but if someone wants to you can do it, I agree on that. I don't want to enter on any discussion for such a thing...81.184.39.120 (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"the spaniard" nickname

Since its not representative (it could be Fernando Alonso, Pau Gasol, etc.) i've taken it out. Wikitestor (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

background of the W on singles olympics

I think it should be color gold instead of green, sinces its a different kind of tournament, and Djokovic has the bronze colour on it. I've changed it for now, tell me what you think about it. 81.184.70.242 (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the bronze colouring to the Djokovic article to differentiate it from the other tournaments - although Djokovic was beaten in the semis, his tournament continued and he won something, a situation that's unique in tennis tournaments. Although the gold draws attention to the fact that he won a medal, I don't think that it's necessary. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop changing the name to the ATP Masters Miami & Cincinnatti

They are called sony ericsson and such ok, link to them, but they are the "ATP Master Series Miami" and "ATP Master Series Cincinnatti", not "ATP Master Series Key Biscarne, Florida". Stop changing the tournaments names, this is a encyclopedia not some kind of site to promote sony, ericsson or key biscarne at all. Wikitestor (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not named that, and you have cited no source for your position. They are the "Sony Ericsson Open" (in Key Biscayne, Florida) and the "Western & Southern Financial Group Masters" (in Cincinnati, Ohio). Whether you personally like those names is irrelevant, precisely because this is an encyclopedia. Tennis expert (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. See ATP's Masters Page. --HJensen, talk 11:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

They're also called "Miami Masters", etc. If you don't like it, go Federer article and change it there also, stop putting those names here and letting the normal "Miami, Cincinnati, Madrid, Paris, etc." names there. I don't know why this article can be as simple as that one..81.184.39.120 (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking the "el toro (the bull)" nickname off again

He is not called EL TORO on Spain, so this does not belong here. If he's called The Bull somewhere, put "The Bull", but not el toro cause this nickname is not related to Spain, like you do with "The King of Clay", because here hes not named "El rey de la tierra". 81.184.39.120 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I am spanish, I am a fan of Nadal, and I've never heard the "bull" or "toro" reference anywhere--Jaimevelasco (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've said that im spanish and HES NOT CALLED EL TORO here. I don't know why are ya saying the opposite I said o.O 81.184.38.192 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

what does "纳豆" mean?

I tried 2 translation pages into english and both return "Natto". --Armchair info guy (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah please delete it or put the english translation at side. 81.184.39.128 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We need a lock

I guess a lock is needed for this article ASAP...Some people just don't get itYosef1987 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Check Federer and see how now the both articles look a lot more equal. If you want the strange names on the trophys, please go Federer article and put them here like u want them, and THEN, u put Nadal's ones like that. Nadal has not to have the "key Biscarne" and such things while Federer article has just "miami" in most places, put that in ALL tennist or dont put it on anyone. Otherwise, shut up.81.184.39.128 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is a misunderstanding going on, Honestly I have no clue what you are talking about. And please be civil WP:CIV, I didn't offend anyone

It is just the article was getting really bad and I dunno how the lock things work and the kinds so I just suggested choosing the right one till the article clean-up is done. Hope I am clear now.

I just realized your are not logged in...anyway as a small example if you ever read this...one of the things I meant was something like this one: what does "纳豆" mean? Yosef1987 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if 1 or 2 people answerered over me so I've no idea who said anything. 62.57.236.208 (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Only one signature, that's me... Yosef1987 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ye I guessed that but sometimes the dude does not sign and still someone didnt sign for him so it makes confusion, since u used 3 paragraphs... Im with you with the "纳豆". This doesnt belong here, but im gonna tell you something which you may already known (not sure for how long you've been on this article).

This article was much better before. It was clear, well-explained and the "miami" and so names even on years career description. now they locked it and they changed everything, like names to pacific live open, etc. Since then, the cleanup mark is there because you just have to read the career to see one of the worst wikipedia redacted articles. This article was good but has been destroyed silently on the last month. 62.57.236.208 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Project

Is it part of the tennis project to make a standardized player article style?

If not I'd participate in helping to if that would help the tennis articles Yosef1987 (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes some kind of style would be good cause if you look Federer's article he has a well explained career for each year, simple names like "miami", and everything clear. Then you look Nadal's one and you find a bad-explained career, only the minium details for each year, no results and the f***ing records each 2 lineas, and everything with publicity names like "pacific live open" "key biscarne" instead of miami, etc. If you want it, put that on every tennist article, not let Federer's one simple and Nadal's one like that. 62.57.236.208 (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want names like "Pacific Live Open", what I am saying is to make a standard style, and no need to keep mentioning Federer vs Nadal article :S:S The rivalry is not here on Wikipedia, I am not taking sides and I want a NPOV good articles that's all. Nikolay Davydenko has a good year by year format, anyone agrees? Yosef1987 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Davydenko stile doesnt explain so much, and remember this is an encyclopedia.. not a resume article :P. 62.57.236.208 (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point, but my thought it would be easier to track a player's career history Yosef1987 (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Check Andre Agassi, Steffi Graf, Pete Sampras, Navratilova, etc... articles. Theyre WELL redacted and all info explained. That is how this should be. 62.57.212.101 (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC) edit:typo

Tennisexpert, discuss here about the problem.

There are 2 problems here:

-1st) You want to use names like "pacific open, rogers cup" instead of "master series miami, master series indian wells"... -2nd) You want to put "Key Biscarne, Florida" on the MASTER SERIES MIAMI.

Those are the 2 problems. You suddently (from like 2 weeks ago) changed the normal names to those, because it seems you wanted to. if anyone is coming to the article to learn something, if he doesn't know what sony ericsson open, etc. names mean, he wont understand anything. Otherwise, if he finds "Miami master series", he will understand it at first.

About the second problem, as far I am aware, the OFFICIAL "Master Series Miami" is called "Sony Ericsson Open". I don't know why are you using the key biscarne thing instead of Miami, cause if someone read this:

13 may - Sony Ericsson Open - Key Biscarne - federer, etc.

If he doesn't know the name of the Miami Master Series, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO IT. I'm not accepting a wikipedia without the official master series types, and I am sure 99% of the people either). The Key Biscarne thing is unnaceptable and unrelated. (if you like that then go to Barcelona tournaments and put Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, UE; please, its the equivalent of key biscarne, florida, u.s.

What I mean is that if a Miami Master Series win must be show in a table, it may appear "pacific life open", okay, but not ONLY that, the Miami M.S reference MUST appear also. 62.57.212.101 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiable facts. One may have an opinion about what a proper name for these tournaments are. But on ATP's Masters Page (a source that can be used to verify the names), one sees that the names of the tournaments indeed are, e.g, Sony Ericsson Open, MIAMI (nothing about Key Biscane there) etc. Maybe we could use this as a source?--HJensen, talk 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've said I know its called Sony Ericsson Open and yes, I accept that to be on the table, of course. NOW, the key biscarne thing doesnt belong there at all, and there MUST APPEAR the "Miami" name since, after all, its the "Master Series Miami" (as sourced on the page.). Maybe some format like this on an entry:

.#DATE - Sony Ericsson Open (MS Miami) - #SURFACE - etc.

I don't know but I think the s.e.open and the miami things MUST appear, and the "Key Biscarne, Florida, U.S" things not because I told you, if you want to put that, you would have to put 6 names to the Barcelona one (I live 10mins away of the court actually)... 62.57.212.101 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way: I'm talking about the entire career table. Because for the Grand Slam tables, only "French Open, Wimbledon, etc." should appear (LIKE NOW), and for the Master Series Finals Table, it should appear only "Miami, Indian Wells, etc." the pacific live open and such should appear on career there is no point on putting 'em on the ATP MASTERS WIN/LOSES TABLE. 62.57.212.101 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) The fact is that the Sony Ericsson Open is contested at a tennis complex located in Key Biscayne, Florida, which is not a part of Miami, Florida. So, regardless of how the Sony Ericsson Open is marketed, the tournament is not held in Miami. See the relevant Wikipedia articles for Sony Ericsson Open; Key Biscayne, Florida; and Miami Florida and this website. This is an encyclopedia; therefore, we should be concerned about facts, and your analogy to "Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain" is inapplicable. (2) The ATP Masters Series table should include the official names of the tournaments along with their locations in separate columns, for the same reason that the Career table should include both of those columns. There is no logical reason to distinguish the two tables. If you have a problem with knowing that the Pacific Life Open is held in Indian Wells, California, all you have to do is sort the table by location. Couldn't be simpler, really. Tennis expert (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't one argue that one should use the name that is most recognizable? I understand the editor's concern about the Miami tournament. This is known as such (as has been for a long time), so I am wondering whether one can actully ignore how it is marketed? (The now defunct ATP topurnament "Copenhagen Open" was not held in Copenhagen, but in the city of Frederiksberg, yet marketed as being held in Copenhagen.)--HJensen, talk 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum In terms of verifiable facts one also get the inconsistency as one reads that Nadal lost the Sony Ericsson Open Final in 2005. That is factually wrong. He lost the Nasdaq 100 finals. How is that to be resolved? Also, Do we go back every time a new sponsor takes over an rename earlier year's tournaments? That would seem as a strange route to follow (and inconsistent with WP:V). --HJensen, talk 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do. This is why we have separate columns for tournament names and tournament locations, why we make tables sortable, and why we put small numbers next to the tournament names to indicate how many times the player won or was runner-up. See, e.g., Lindsay Davenport and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario. Tennis expert (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, check this out, there is a COMMERCIAL name and a Tournament name, we should go with the Tournament name, like Madrid Masters NOT Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid...I guess commercial names are used because a lazy person finds it easier to link it to the tournament page Yosef1987 (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lazy? Link to tournament page? I am not and do not. Where can we find these tournament names? (Wikipedia links are not acceptable sources.) Tennis expert (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say two things. (1) AMS Miami is colloquially known as Key Biscane. It was a name that many tennis commentators and tennis players in the past used as reference to the 5th Slam. I'm too lazy to look up some blogs where it is still used like that. However, my opinion is that colloquial names should not be used. (2) Don't use commercial names, because in order to be accurate we need to track back all the commercial names of the past. Also, the ATP website doesn't list the commercial names in a players match record and I see no need to do so here. However, the proponents of Masters Series Miami should realise that next year the Masters Series won't be called Masters Series anymore, but 1000s or something vague like that. What is your plan to resolve that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IlyazNasrullah (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Sony Ericsson Open is held in Key Biscayne, Florida. It is not a colloquialism. Tennis expert (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We need this to be settled down, how does it work here??? An administrator? Or what? The rational mind says we should go with normal names (NOT sponsors) Yosef1987 (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To make IlyazNasrullah's point stand out: here Yosef1987 (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ALSO as another small example: ...The event was initially known as the Lipton International Players Championships. In 2000 there was a change of title sponsor and the event was renamed the Ericsson Open. In 2002, the event became known as the NASDAQ-100 Open. In 2007, the tournament was renamed the Sony Ericsson Open in a deal where the company will pay $20 million over the next four years. ... IT IS SETTLED I guess, no more sponsors' names Yosef1987 (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_Guidelines Yosef1987 (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not take an administrator to solve these things. Editors should calmly try to reach a consensus. As I have tried to explain, on wikipedia we rely on verifiability. Not what an editor feels is right. So a) you are not making a good argument, referring to the "rational mind". Two rational minds may have different opinions. b) You cannot use other wikipedia articles as sources. Definitely not to "settle" anything. Let this be discussed calmly (bolding text is btw considered shouting and is discouraged in discussions). I would think that the tennis project page would be the natural place. The link you provide was drafted over a year ago. As of this writing I don't know when the naming convemtions were last discussed. Let's find out together. --HJensen, talk 13:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm seeing ev1 but tennisexpert thinks like me, but anyways, he went to Nadal's and Federer's articles hours ago and put the key biscane thing again there, I'm reverting it for the 10th~ time. I would use "Miami masters" only, because as people say here, sony ericsson open is called in 2007, not others years... and please, talk on consenssus before turning it back again cause you're alone on that position. And btw, excuse me ev1, but while this is not solved im taking war by my hand and undoing it everytime hes changing it again. I hope we all meet a consensus.62.57.212.101 (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't deduce like this, as this is a discussion held in a confined space (there could be people disagreeing with you that do not watch the Nadal page). This should be definitely be a discussion held at another place. Another thing, it took me a while to figure out what ev1 meant. Not to sound like an old fart, but it is encouraged on Wikipedia to write words in full; also to avoid boldface. The whole discussion here looks like some teenagers screaming. :-) In any case, I definitely think this page is the wrong place to discuss these matters, as it is an issue pertaining to all tennis bios. --HJensen, talk 13:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, 62.57.212.101, I don't think like you. And I have no idea what "ev1" means. Tennis expert (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

reply to HJensen: sorry didn't know about the bold thing, anyway I agree to take this someplace else, but for what's it worth, here is a good reference: http://masters-series.com/ sponsors change, names do not, each tournament's name is there under each box Yosef1987 (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No problems at all. Here is where the discussion can continue.--HJensen, talk 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion2: the changes from MS -> 1000 series & 500 series

This has nothing to do with the upper discussion so I open another thread. The point is that on 2009 like the entire system is going to change, and there will be 2 new categories replacing the master series and the internationald gold series: the 1000 series (mostly all MS) and the 500s series (mostly all gold ints. + hamburgo).

My point is: to have a break here. We can't mix old Master Series with new 1000s, cause for example Hamburgo was a MS when Federer and Nadal won it, and it will be a 500s the 2009 season... So I would break this on 2: 2 different singles performance tables, 2 diferents titles/finals lists. It's such a big change and we can't change the past... 62.57.212.101 (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As above: I definitely think this page is the wrong place to discuss these matters, as it is an issue pertaining to all tennis bios. --HJensen, talk 13:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

2008

It says "He began the year by reaching the semifinals of the Australian Open for the first time..." No, he began the year by reaching the final of 2008 Chennai Open - Singles and in the semi-final playing his second best match of the year (after Wimbledon), references can be also found for this claim Yosef1987 (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism lately

the last 2 edits are vandalism:

the first one put again the results which tennisexpert took away cause so true, he didnt lose yet. the second one deleted the gladiator nickname, which is the one WE USE ON SPAIN, and added another with no proof.

Undo the last edits, please. 62.57.197.82 (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to be blocked from editing for a week? Tennis expert (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, better stay off, or you risk being blocked for longer.--HJensen, talk 23:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at Wikiproject tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag

The Spanish flag in the infobox should be removed per WP:FlagThatsGrand (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Doubles in Singles Performance Timeline

Why is it there? It also causes inconsitencies with the overall W-L record. IlyazNasrullah (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nadal the first player to reach the SFs or better of all major tournaments

By reaching the SF at US Open this year, Nadal has become the first player to have reached the SFs at all Grand Slams, Masters Series, TMC and Olympics. I don't have a source for this because this has not been published anywhere as of yet.

What to do? I think it's a very interesting fact that should be added somewhere in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IlyazNasrullah (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

EDIT. Okay, I understood you bad before. So you mean all-time not this year. I didn't see any kind of record like that of ATP Records (or at least I don't remember it), but it may be impotant. 62.57.196.206 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good statistic - definitely encyclopedic. Maybe a news media or person will pick it up and write about it so it can be sourced here and included. Here is what you can do for now. Type it in the appropriate section, either in a record page, if one exists, or achievement section, or just the 2008 section - and then type: {{fact|date=September 2008}} and then eventually someone should be able to source it with a relevant article. Since this seems like an important note, it is better to give it this "citation needed" tag than to not include it at all. I hope you did your research well! ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice GoldenGoose. Sorry for not signing my previous comment by the way, I was in a rush IlyazNasrullah (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While this may be an interesting statistic, without mention from a reliable source, this addition is original research. It should be included once a third-party source has verified its accuracy. GlassCobra 07:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GlassCobra. Tennis expert (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't respect consensus we don't care anymore about your words. 62.57.213.3 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2007 statistics wrong? 71-15 instead of 70-15?

I keep checking the tournaments on the apt webpage for Nadal on 2007 and they're appear 71 wins and 15 losses but still says the 323-74 statistics matches, so I think theres or anything wrong or anything that I don't understand.

The atp webpage for Nadal's 2007: http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?prevtrnnum=0&year=2006&query=Singles&selTournament=0&player=N409&x=7&y=8

It may be the 3R match on Master Series Miami (2007) , which was a WALKOVER against Olivier Rochus and maybe isn't counted as a win?

62.57.196.206 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you blocked from editing for a month? Tennis expert (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked into the details of Nadal, but walk-overs doesn't count as wins.--HJensen, talk 16:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much. 62.57.197.114 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ERROR on singles finals runner-ups

3. July 9, 2006 Wimbledon, London, United Kingdom Grass Flag of Switzerland Roger Federer 6–0, 7–6(5), 6–7(2), 6–3

this is wrong, since we are seeing nadal, this should be 0-6, 6-7, 7-6, 3-6. Otherwise he should have won. 81.184.38.28 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not wrong. This is the style we use for tennis scores. Tennis expert (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? the style is "player which we are talking about-rival" right? Then I've reason in what Im saying, that score gives Federer the win...

Anyways I found another mistake: (singles wins)

16. May 14, 2006 Masters Series Rome, Italy Clay Flag of Switzerland Roger Federer 6–7(0), 7–6(5), 6–4, 2–6, 7–6(5)

The first tie break was a 6(7)-7, not a 6(0)-7. Source: http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?prevtrnnum=0&year=2006&query=Singles&selTournament=0&player=N409&x=20&y=6 . Btw yes, strange you didn't say it this time, im blocked for a month lol. 81.184.38.28 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Heritage

Is common fact that Nadal is the best Latino tennis player in history and freedom fighter for his people, no? Why must such statements be erased? Nadal is the Latino gladiator fighting for all the oppressed people of Latin America, I must insist that such statements be made. Only other option is censership, no?

If it's such a "common fact", then it shouldn't be difficult for you to source that "fact". Tennis expert (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is common sense. Who is more better of Latino race? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.179.50 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia about verifiable facts. Not about coomon sense.--HJensen, talk 10:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when has wikipedia been a reliable resource that people reference? No one asks to reference the fact that the earth orbits the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.179.50 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT a fact, nor is it common sense that Nadal is "the best Latino tennis player in history and freedom fighter for his people." First off, Nadal isn't even Latino. He is Spanish, yes, so Nadal is a Hispanic, but that does not make him a Latino—he is European. There is a distinction between being Hispanic and Latino:

"Though often used interchangeably in American English, Hispanic and Latino are not identical terms, and in certain contexts the choice between them can be significant. Hispanic, from the Latin word for "Spain," has the broader reference, potentially encompassing all Spanish-speaking peoples in both hemispheres and emphasizing the common denominator of language among communities that sometimes have little else in common. Latino—which in Spanish means "Latin" but which as an English word is probably a shortening of the Spanish word latinoamericano—refers more exclusively to persons or communities of Latin American origin. Of the two, only Hispanic can be used in referring to Spain and its history and culture; a native of Spain residing in the United States is a Hispanic, not a Latino, and one cannot substitute Latino in the phrase the Hispanic influence on native Mexican cultures without garbling the meaning. In practice, however, this distinction is of little significance when referring to residents of the United States, most of whom are of Latin American origin and can theoretically be called by either word."

Plus, citing Nadal as "a freedom fighter for his people" would denote some direct involvement in politics and socioeconomic issues. Nadal has not performed any overt political or social actions that can be easily referenced from outside sources. (Alger82 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Rafael ''Link title''

He is a really good tennis player trust me I know He is my friends friend or so she says

How about a new and way more cleared statistics table?

Since Nadal has a different statistics table than usual, like Federer, Djokovic and Murray, I've been testing and I think this table would be lot easier to understand and states thing way more clean, say your opinion:

(Basicly, I've mixed empty columns to take out as max as possible N/A spaces, ive made a different section for the statistics of the matches AFTER the tournaments statistics, now it looks more cleared, and for last I tried putting colors to each one of the 4 surfaces, at first I thought it would look really bad but it ended looking really good in my opinion, for that I'm asking you your opinion about this minimal change style.):

Tournament	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Career SR	Career W-L
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open	A	A	3R	4R	A	QF	SF	0 / 4	14–4
French Open	A	A	A	W	W	W	W	4 / 4	28–0
Wimbledon	A	3R	A	2R	F	F	W	1 / 5	22–4
US Open	A	2R	2R	3R	QF	4R	SF	0 / 6	16–6
SR	0 / 0	0 / 2	0 / 2	1 / 4	1 / 3	1 / 4	2 / 4	5 / 19	N/A
Win-Loss	0–0	3–2	3–2	13–3	17–2	20–3	24–2	N/A	80–14
Year-End Championship
Tennis Masters Cup	A	A	A	A	SF	SF		0 / 2	4–4
Olympic Games
Summer Olympics	Not Held		A	Not Held			W	1 / 1	6–0
ATP Masters Series
Indian Wells	A	A	3R	A	SF	W	SF	1 / 4	16–3
Miami	A	A	4R	F	2R	QF	F	0 / 5	14–5
Monte Carlo	A	3R	A	W	W	W	W	4 / 5	24–1
Rome	A	A	A	W	W	W	2R	3 / 4	17–1
Hamburg	A	3R	A	A	A	F	W	1 / 3	11–2
Toronto / Montreal	A	A	1R	W	3R	SF	W	2 / 5	16–3
Cincinnati	A	A	1R	1R	QF	2R	SF	0 / 5	6–5
Madrid	A	1R	2R	W	QF	QF	SF	1 / 6	13–5
Paris	A	LQ	A	A	A	F		0 / 1	4–1
ATP Tournaments Played	1	11	18	21	16	18	18	103
ATP Finals Reached	0	0	2	12	6	9	10	39
ATP Tournaments Won	0	0	1	11	5	6	8	31
Statistics by surfaces
Hard Win-Loss	0–0	1–2	14–10	28–6	25–10	31–12	44–9	N/A	143–49
Clay Win-Loss	1–1	11–6	14–3	50–2	26–0	31–1	24–1	N/A	157–14
Grass Win-Loss	0–0	2–1	0–0	1–2	8–2	8–2	12–0	N/A	31–7
Carpet Win-Loss	0–0	0–2	2–4	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	N/A	2–6
Overall Win-Loss	1–1	14–11	30–17	79–10	59–12	70–15	80–10	N/A	333–76
Win (%)	50%	56%	64%	89%	83%	82%	89%	81%
Year End Ranking	200	49	51	2	2	2	1	N/A

.Korlzor (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything that reduces the statistical overload this page has (and most other tennis bio pages have) would be welcomed. The tennis project is in disarray right now, no direct tennis-related featured content and a single tennis-related good article? Disaster. However, with your more streamlined tables, please consider the use of standard English capitalisation of nouns, i.e. "Year End Ranking" should just be "Year end ranking" (etc), but otherwise it looks better. Good luck getting a consensus with which the "experts" in this project will agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? it's fun because last wednesday I was reading all the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Future_.282009.29_changes_on_tennist_players_articles. and it seems (just check the first lines of the discussion) the same people (Tennisexpert) keeps doing the same than before. There is no future trying to get anything here, so i'm just reverting continuously his changes and reporting him if he goes outlaw. It's too bad a page with such high number of visitors has such a poor quality, just because a few people (that should be perm banned here) keeps doing "legal vandalizing". Korlzor (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That is alright, but the current one is bad. Too many colours clashing; it's like looking at the page on acid (not that I'd know...). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What is going on? colours are horrible! Can't we have a consensus about some basic stuff in the articles, like infoboxes, tournaments, a performance timetable? If all others perfor.timetables look the same, why is this one different that must be unique? --Göran S (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The tennis articles are currently in a state of chaos. Let us wait and see if things settle down. I believe it is impossible to get anything fuitful out of discussions at the Tennis Project. We have tried, and failed, on a couple of occasions recently. I don not want to waste time on it as some user has an outstanding idea about consensus. I wish you luck! --HJensen, talk 20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting issues

There is a pending request for page protection but I hope you can sort out the questions of spaces between cites and wikilinks here on the talk page. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He won the doubles in Monte Carlo

Nadal won the doubles competition in Monte Carlo, which is pretty important, because he won singles there as well. It's very hard to win the singles and doubles at an event, particularly a masters series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.191.68 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Information on this here (sourced): 2008 Monte Carlo Masters. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive results info in article

I have recetly removed the independent table of Grand Slam results from the article. The reason is that he results are already presented in the main text and formally in the singles result table. Moreover, Grand Slam performances get extra focus in the performance timeline. I have everytime explained my edits but have been reverted now a few times by an anon IP (the one starting with 62.57), that recently states

62.57.197.15 (Talk) (74,172 bytes) (Undid revision 251863825 by HJensen (talk) Hjensen stop vandalizing, you're the ONLY ONE that don't want them. I will report you.)

I don't think my edits are even close to vandalism. I have not in any reversion been met with one argument for having information repeated in the article. I doubt that such repetitions will help that article at some point becoming a GA. But I am all ears: Is repetition of information a good idea in this article? What are the compelling arguments? --HJensen, talk 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Grand Slam finals should be given greater precedence, and made more easily accessable, because they are often people's yardsticks for judging the very best players. Many people use Wikipedia as a fact-checking resource, and often ignore the prose and infobox in favour of results (which are usually lower down), on sports articles. The Masters Series' table can go, they are too much—there are so many more of them, they're assigned a lower worth, and people who don't know much about the sport won't care. Retain the status quo until there is some wider input—neither of you are vandalizing but digging your heels in will not help matters. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Yohan euan o4. Tennis expert (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that GS results are already given extra emphasis in the performance timeline. And there, even more clearly, as one can visualize a player's entire GS career accomplishments immediately. The tables with only finals offer a very limited view, and is repeated. Why then not take them out of the longer table, and call it "other finals"? I think the current presentation is just making the articles longer than needed. I really can't see that repetition of GS finals results serves the purpose that you rightly seek Yohan euan o4 (i.e., to provide a yardstick).--HJensen, talk 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not many seems interested in this issue? Except the Nadal fan who carried on above (and the masters series are back, as well as a separate Olympic section). Well, I guess repeating info is better than not presenting info, but still, it will probably never survive a GA or FA nomination, when experienced editors get to look at it.--HJensen, talk 23:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that I don't care if its GA/FA or whatever. I preffer it being like now: helpfull. Korlzor (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but many editors want to improve articles. And aiming a little higher is often a good path towards improvements. Why is it helpful to have the same information twice? Because our readers are dumb?--HJensen, talk 18:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency on singles performance timeline's table W-L section

On the ATP website, Nadal current W-L is 335 - 77.

But making the sum of what's currently on the "Overall Win-Loss row", we get 335 - 78

Moreover, on 2004, Nadal loses 11 matches on court, 3 on clay, and 4 on carpet. Total 18, but it was marked 17.

If we mark 18 instead of 17 there, we get a global of 335-79 now..

Moreover, on 2008, the W sum makes 83, but it was marked 82. If it's 83, then the global would come now to 336-79...

Too many errors on this table. Any good source to solve them?.

62.57.199.239 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's great, Hjensen, instead of replying or something, just posts that I'm ipsock on the ip pages (just forgot to login). You are a great helper for this community! 62.57.199.239 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and you come up with this on the day where an article on which I am main contributor was Today's featured article on Wikipedia! --HJensen, talk 06:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

His record for helping this community is far more favorable than yours (including Wikitestor, Korlzor, and all your IP sockpuppets put together). Tennis expert (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TE. The feeling is mutual. Nice to see that despite our huge disagreements over other matters can be in agreement over such basic matters.--HJensen, talk 06:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency on the W-L section on the singles timeline performance table (2)

(The same post that above, just without the troll comments of those 2 retards.)
On the ATP website, Nadal current W-L is 335 - 77.

But making the sum of what's currently on the "Overall Win-Loss row", we get 335 - 78

Moreover, on 2004, Nadal loses 11 matches on court, 3 on clay, and 4 on carpet. Total 18, but it was marked 17.

If we mark 18 instead of 17 there, we get a global of 335-79 now..

Moreover, on 2008, the W sum makes 83, but it was marked 82. If it's 83, then the global would come now to 336-79...

Too many errors on this table. Any good source to solve them?.

62.57.239.212 (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the new timeline performance table erroneous?

Tournament	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Career SR	Career W-L
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open	A	A	3R	4R	A	QF	SF		0 / 4	14–4
French Open	A	A	A	W	W	W	W		4 / 4	28–0
Wimbledon	A	3R	A	2R	F	F	W		1 / 5	22–4
US Open	A	2R	2R	3R	QF	4R	SF		0 / 6	16–6
SR	0 / 0	0 / 2	0 / 2	1 / 4	1 / 3	1 / 4	2 / 4	0 / 0	5 / 19	N/A
Win-Loss	0 – 0	3–2	3–2	13–3	17–2	20–3	24–2	0 – 0	N/A	80–14
Year-End Championship
Tennis Masters Cup	A	A	A	A	SF	SF	A		0 / 2	4–4
Olympic Games
Summer Olympics	Not Held		A	Not Held			W	NH	1 / 1	6–0
ATP Masters Series 1000
Indian Wells	A	A	3R	A	SF	W	SF		1 / 4	16–3
Miami	A	A	4R	F	2R	QF	F		0 / 5	14–5
Monte Carlo	A	3R	A	W	W	W	W		4 / 5	24–1
Rome	A	A	A	W	W	W	2R		3 / 4	17–1
Madrid	A	1R	2R	W	QF	QF	SF		1 / 6	13–5
Toronto / Montreal	A	A	1R	W	3R	SF	W		2 / 5	16–3
Cincinnati	A	A	1R	1R	QF	2R	SF		0 / 5	6–5
Shanghai	NMS	Not Held		Not Masters Series					0 / 0	0 – 0
Paris	A	LQ	A	A	A	F	QF		0 / 2	6–2
Hamburg	A	3R	A	A	A	F	W	NMS	1 / 3	11–2

-

As we see here, Nadal hasn't won any Shangai. Which is false, he has won one (Since he won Madrid before). He also will have 1 Madrid now (the Hamburg one). They actually are SUBSTITUTIVE! It should be like this:

Tournament	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Career SR	Career W-L
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open	A	A	3R	4R	A	QF	SF		0 / 4	14–4
French Open	A	A	A	W	W	W	W		4 / 4	28–0
Wimbledon	A	3R	A	2R	F	F	W		1 / 5	22–4
US Open	A	2R	2R	3R	QF	4R	SF		0 / 6	16–6
SR	0 / 0	0 / 2	0 / 2	1 / 4	1 / 3	1 / 4	2 / 4	0 / 0	5 / 19	N/A
Win-Loss	0 – 0	3–2	3–2	13–3	17–2	20–3	24–2	0 – 0	N/A	80–14
Year-End Championship
Tennis Masters Cup	A	A	A	A	SF	SF	A		0 / 2	4–4
Olympic Games
Summer Olympics	Not Held		A	Not Held			W	NH	1 / 1	6–0
ATP Masters Series 1000
Indian Wells	A	A	3R	A	SF	W	SF		1 / 4	16–3
Miami	A	A	4R	F	2R	QF	F		0 / 5	14–5
Monte Carlo	A	3R	A	W	W	W	W		4 / 5	24–1
Rome	A	A	A	W	W	W	2R		3 / 4	17–1
Madrid	A	3R	A	A	A	F	W		1 / 3	11–2
Toronto / Montreal	A	A	1R	W	3R	SF	W		2 / 5	16–3
Cincinnati	A	A	1R	1R	QF	2R	SF		0 / 5	6–5
Shangai	A	1R	2R	W	QF	QF	SF		1 / 6	13–5
Paris	A	LQ	A	A	A	F	QF		0 / 2	6–2

IMPORTANT: Notice that for example, on the Shangai line, the links until 2008 have links to MADRID still! on 2009 they will start linking to Shangai.

This should be commented before changing all the players timelines... 62.57.197.191 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong on the singles performance timeline table? on the W-L matches sections

There it says the current record for Nadal is 335-77, but if I had sum all the total W-L of the 4 surfaces, the total was 335-78. I went into the ATP website and found that there was an error, that the total hard W-L record of nadal is 145-50 instead of 145-51 (source: http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/matchrecord.asp?playernumber=N409). Now the sums of the global W-Ls for each surface does 335-77 so the totals are OK.

The problem becomes now, making the sum of all the W-Ls on hard surface on each year, it sums 145-51 instead of the correct 145-50, and I can't find any source with the correct data. Keita24 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I got it, nadal played 12 tournaments on 2007, he won 1 of them (Indian wells masters), so he lost a match on the other 11. So it sums 11 loses on hard on 2007 instead of 12. May be this?. Keita24 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, it was 12 because he lost 2 matches on the Tennis Master Cup (a RR-match and the SF). I've found that the error was on 2004, he lost 10 matches on hard, not 11. Keita24 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There was also a typo on 2007 total ATP tournaments playeds, he played 20, not 18 (souce: http://www.atpworldtour.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?prevtrnnum=0&year=2007&query=Singles&selTournament=0&player=N409&x=17&y=11). Keita24 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Playing style

Can this article be used as a reference to make the Playing Style section better? Yosef1987 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Working on it... I noticed that Brad Gilbert article too and I liked it. (Alger82 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The entire Playing Style section is deplorable, and the last sentence is outlandishly manipulative and biased, beginning with fawning praise and ending with a vicious attack. In any case, it is certainly nothing that one would find in a real encyclopedia. Even the sentence about his "tendency" to bite trophies makes it sound like a dog gnawing on the couch leg. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.120.26 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, pointing out that "some" have criticized Nadal's playing style and longevity is a fact, and it's even cited. Nowhere in the statement does it say that those critics are correct in their assessment, it just says that the criticism is out there. Plus, criticisms levied against public figures are commonly found in Wikipedia entries, and a lot of them have ENTIRE ARTICLES devoted to documenting said criticisms, not just a single line. So yeah, that sentence on criticisms of Nadal's playing style is a vicious attack... If you live in Pansytown.—Alger82 (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

From this site, a very good reference I suppose, it says in part of the page "Perhaps the fastest man on tour and certainly the tour’s most feared defensive player. He owns a heavy, hooking left-handed forehand, a consistent and forceful two-handed backhand and some of the most hair-raising passing shots ever seen. He never feels like he’s out of the match and he’s been placing his first serves very well. Simply, the No. 1 is a super heavyweight fighter.", can this also be used? Yosef1987 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. Good find.—Alger82 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

new look

hes wearing shorts and half sleeve tshirts this year. i'm not sure if that should be put in the article - Madmaxxx (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The "playing style" section needs rewriting as I have inquired couple of days ago here, plus this is not his first time in shorts, he did in Madrid in 2005, and he also won that tournament that year. Yosef1987 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've revised the Equipment section to mention both Rafa's signature "pirata" look and the recent change to his attire. (Alger82 (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

2009 Australian Open Record

Errr... He hasn't beaten Fenando yet. Fenando won first set in tie break, 7-6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.61.222 (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus in that game it wasnt the longest in the history of the tournoment. Its was only the longest Semi-Final in Australian Open history 124.182.100.242 (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Nadal/Verdasco semifinal was the longest match in Australian Open history, period. Check the referencing citation.—Alger82 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Winners of Slams on 3 Surfaces

A sentence in this link confuses me: [1]

He [Nadal] joined an elite group of just 12 men who have managed to win three Grand Slam titles on three different surfaces since the Open Era began.

Is this assertion incorrect? I combed the info we had on men's singles players and can only single out Connors, Wilander, and Agassi as the other in the "three surface" club with Nadal. Halp??—Alger82 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After the help of Google, this page says "Nadal becomes the 14th man in the Open Era to win three or more of the four Grand Slam titles and just the fourth man in history to win Grand Slam titles on three different surfaces." Yosef1987 (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Worth mentioning, could be added if found suitable, from here, Nadal is the 2nd fastest (After Borg) to win 6 Grand Slams. Yosef1987 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

These are all great finds. Will try to incorporate within the week.—Alger82 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

With all these stats, should there be a separate section for Rafa's misc. Tennis records/accomplishments?—Alger82 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so, other players has it, also I don't like in the intro "On October 18, 2008, Nadal clinched the year-end World No. 1 ranking for 2008.[13] The same year, he was given the prestigious Prince of Asturias Award for his achievements in sports.[14]" because this is a double mention for the date he reached no. 1, that award should go somewhere else or right after the 1st time the date is mentioned, agree? Yosef1987 (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 100%. I hate that section you pointed out.—Alger82 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Factual error about previous Spaniard Wimbledon winners

This page on Rafael Nadal says he is the "second Spaniard" to win at Wimbledon. Actually he is the second male player from Spain to do so (the other being Manuel Santana in 1966) but Nadal is the third person since Conchita Martinez,a female player, also won the Championships in 1994. 83.173.160.38 (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fixed now.—Alger82 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)