Talk:Roger Federer

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChilIy (article contribs).

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017

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

Edit: I see change was made.

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

New Apparel Sponsor

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

Grammar error

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

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

Grammar (kind of)

How about changing;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what R Nadal himself said: "If somebody says I am better than Roger, I think this person don't know nothing about tennis. That's my answer." (source: [1])

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

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

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

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

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

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