Talk:Roger Federer

Template:0.7 set nom

New Federer Userbox

Enjoy everyone

Code	Result
|{{User:Jairuscobb/Userboxes/FedererFans}}	Federer is betterer.	Usage

Endorsements

What are your thoughts regarding putting a section regarding Federer's (lack of) endorsements? In contrast to other celebs / athletes like Tiger Woods or Peyton Manning, Federer has very, very few endorsements and does not lend his image indiscreetly, which I feel (and many others) is extremely admirable. It does make him stand out from other atheletes and I feel merits a mention.... thoughts? 128.147.196.118 (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Golden Bagel Awards

I have already written this to the Trivia? or personal life section, but it may have escaped your attention there:

I think Federer's Golden Bagel Awards have nothing to do with his personal life... they don't go together with the other things mentioned in that section, and this way these awards seem to be of an extraordinary importance. Why shouldn't they be mentioned only among the other awards? Pumukli 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the section. The awards are already mentioned in the Awards list, so no need to give them particular prominence, and not in that place. Also the text is quite close to the cited reference (which I have moved to the currently deadlink-sourced article on the Golden Bagel Award.--HJensen, talk 10:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Metrosexual???

It is a nonsense, Federer is not metrosexual. He has his own style, he loves fashionable clothes, that's all. I think we shouldn't deem him metrosexual (it is not our task anyway), especially as it has pejorative connotation. Have you opened the metrosexual page???

"Narcissism according to an authoritative Simpson, plays a crucial role in the metrosexual concept." "The metrosexual, in its original coinage, is a person who, under the spell of consumerism, is or desires to be what he sees in magazines and advertising. Simpson’s metrosexual would be a type A or type C narcissist, as he loves himself or an idealized image of what he would like to be."

Oh my God, if you read this page, is it Roger Federer who you relate to it??? Narcissist? Why don't you write about his amiable personality instead of labelling him metrosexual? Pumukli 09:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to our coverage of this person, unless Federer had made it a point to state publicly and for the record that he either is or is not metrosexual (or anything else), which, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't. This is non-notable and should be removed, baring the presentation of some kind of evidence that this has somehow become of any relevance in understanding the notable aspects of Roger Federer's biography. The key point is: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Redux 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is removed (along with the other unsourced stuff). --HJensen, talk 18:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :-) And sorry for my vehement reaction...:-) Pumukli 23:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Another time, just be bold and remove controversial unsourced statements right away. That would be in accordance with the biographies of living persons policies.--HJensen, talk 07:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK :-) Pumukli 17:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sortable tables?

These sortable tables, introduced on May 25, 2007, have they been discussed? I find them quite annoying. If one sorts for particular championships, and then go back sorting after year, then the sequence of the events no longer follows the calendar year. So, what is the rationale for introducing this feature? (Sorting on the score is completely beyond me!) --HJensen, talk 22:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments

Brilliant article. i think that the article has enough info to take it to FA (by either Wimbeldon - aggressive timelines or U.S. Open - more realistic). The major concern with the article is the lack of references and i am attaching fact tags to wherever i think citations are required.

In detail, the following is the feedback:

• ToC is long with 42 lines. i would suggest combining sections 7 to 10 into one section
  • Would you consider using the function TOClimit|limit=n and setting 'n' to 3, so that it is limited to a more manageable 24 lines.
• Lead sections talks of only records. I think that is unfair to the player. Non-tennis info on Roger should also make it there
• I think the personal section can be bifurcated into 2 sections - one dealing with personal information and another dealing with social commitments
• the following sentence is a misfit in the personal section: "Federer has won singles tournaments in 16 different countries:..." Moved to 2007 section (not by me). --tennisman 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• General comment: The paras are too stubby. I usually use a yardstick of no less than 4 sentences for a para.
• The following sentences needs references:
  • He also practiced football (soccer) until he decided to focus on tennis at age 13.
  • At 14, he became the national champion for all groups in Switzerland and was chosen to train at the Swiss National Tennis Center at Ecublens.
  • In July 1998, Federer joined the ATP tour at Gstaad
  • Professional career does not have references. I think you need to add ref to all victories at a min. In fact, i shall add a fact tag wherever i think there needs to be a reference.
• what is "AMS final"? Is it the tournament name? My apologies. missed it in the prev sentence. --Kalyan 09:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• "In 2004, Federer had one of the most dominating and successful years in the open era of modern men's tennis." - POV statement unless backed by fact
• "His forehand grip is somewhere between a modern eastern and mild semi-western." - as a non-tennis tech geek, i have no idea what the statement means. can you please add details
• Records section: Need atleast a para in here rather than just point to a different article

Please leave a note on my talk page once you address these comments. --Kalyan 09:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

revisited the comments based on changes made. --Kalyan 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

references (follow-up to GA review comments)

with respect to the references added: 1. I am not in favour of having all victories referenced thru Federer's official website. I would prefer if we use references from ATPtennis.com or whichever website can be considered as benchmark for tennis news and analysis. This is akin to referencing cricinfo.com or cricketarchive.com for most of the data for a cricketer than his official website. If there is no other source of info but the official website, i am game for it; but otherwise i would like the reference to be changed to some tennis website 2. When using the same reference, can you avoid repeat of the reference by unique number and use the common reference name so that there are no duplicate weblinks

wrt to resolution of other comments, i shall respond above. --Kalyan 15:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I had similar concerns. If this article gets GA status, it could set precedence for other tennis bios. Hence, we should be careful not to let the referencing go "over the top". I really admire the great job done recently, but it cannot be reasonable to make a footnote reference to every match result mentioned in a paragraph. It must be sufficient to include reference to a given year's results, and wait citing the reference until the end of the description of the year. This will read much more natural both from a visual point of view (as of now the article is virtually plastered with footnotes making the reader NOT wanting to consult them), and from a pure referencing perspective (as of now several results point to the same URL, which really does not makes much sense). --HJensen, talk 18:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would strongly prefer that the ATP web page is used for citing results. It is in all likelihood the most stable URL, and it will in all other cases be the authoritative reference over players' own pages.--HJensen, talk 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I didn't agree on this kind of references, now I think it would be a pity if you agreed on starting again the whole thing... It couldn't have been easy to add references to all his results! I have deleted my previous contribution in the morning, because it seemed to be of no use any more, but who knows... If you still insist on changing the references, you could think about it, so I replace it:

I have written an article about Roger on the Hungarian Wikipedia, and I have put after each paragraph (eg. 2004) an external link to the particular year's playing activity page on atptennis.com. Check my article, and if you like my solution, it could be used here as well. Pumukli 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I think it should be left the way it is, now that it's ready. Pumukli 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I indeed do admire the job that has been done, but we should be careful not to let amount of efforts excerted blind our judgements (also, a fair amount of cpoy-pasting has been involved ;-) ). I think we should follow your approach, and use ATP results as cites. It is a very natural benchmark for Open-area results. Moreover, I don't think the article reads well with the "overreferencing" (if there is such a word). Think of any other bio (say, George W. Bush where every sentence would be followed by a footnote to the same website - it would be ugly and unnecessary). In sum, I don't think it should be left as is. I hope others will join in on this debate--HJensen, talk 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both point made. I think it is acceptable to have one reference at the end of the para for the year's results (though i am not certain it will be OK during FAC). Secondly, ATPtennis website should be used as much as possible instead of personal websites. Please implement the same and we can have the GA nom closed at the earliest and target FA nom. --Kalyan 07:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I was the one who went through and added every single reference for , I think they should be left as I added them ;-). Though it may now look the best, and his website was used a lot, it is better than not having any references at all. --tennisman 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think something should be done... We couldn't get the matter to a head, I see. I list my arguments why I used in my article (see above) external links at the end of each paragraph.
I think there's no sense in referring to the same page several times, even if we use a common reference name to avoid duplicate links, because it would be terrible to have the same number after each sentence in a whole paragraph.
It is not good either to have only one reference after the last sentence of the para, as sombody who don't now our agreement would think that it only refers to the content of the last sentence.
So there are two possibilities: having an external link at the beginning of the paragraph (eg. next to its title), or at the end. It would be logical to have it next to the title, but it's not aesthetic, and it would confuse the table of content. So that's why I think the best solution is the end of the paragraph, and it's not embarassing if we use small letters. I will demonstrate this idea on the paragraph of 2001, if you don't like it, delete it :-) Pumukli 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good enough I suppose. Better than having them all from the same website, anyway. Yeah. Go ahead. --tennisman 02:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the best idea (at least as far as possible), only I couldn't find any better. There is at least one problem with it: I think external links are rarely used in the middle of the articles. Please try to find other solutions as well, I think we shouldn't change anything unless everybody agrees. Pumukli 08:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This may or may not be a helpful comment, but WikiProject Formula One has got three driver articles to FA using a single reference at the bottom of the list of articles to the effect that "All Formula One world champsionship results are taken from www.formula1.com", with a link to the page. www.formula1.com is the closest thing to an official archive of results online. It hasn't excited much comment from reviewers and avoids having huge numbers of footnotes. See Damon Hill, Alain Prost and Tom Pryce. Cheers. 4u1e 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be also OK, though it would again have the appearance of not having any references at all... as it would be similar to the initial situation when there was nothing but an external link to atptennis.com at the end of the article. I don't mind what solution you find but I think something should be done to achieve the GA level (and the nomination will expire...) as it is clear that the present situation is not satisfactory. Pumukli 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As a semi-late aside, I made the references look a bit cleaner by using the format that I saw at the Madeleine McCann-related pages (not to make a point, but that's where I saw them), which uses:

<div class="reflist4" style="height: 220px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px" >
<references/>
</div>

It looks cleaner and is easier to scroll through. <selfdoubt>Though you may not be able to view each ref as easily. I must go check.<selfdoubt> --tennisman 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Why is a Swedish source not o.k.? I'm talking about the fact that one of history's most prominent players, Björn Borg, says that Federer will be the greatest - if he doesn't get injured and is still motivated for a couple of years to come. /Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.56.60 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 1 July 2007) (UTC)

Since this is the English Wikipedia, people without knowledge about Swedish will have a difficult time assesing the reliability of the source. And since the statement in the article has five sources, there is not a desperate need for a source. That is why I guess the language problem becomes sufficiently severe. --HJensen, talk 11:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. But after all the strange stuff you find on Wikipedia this actually amazes me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.56.60 (talk • contribs) 1 July 2007) (UTC)

The fact that there exists strange stuff in other articles is not a valid argument for putting strange stuff in an article (though avoiding non-english sources when english sources are available in an english encyclopedia is not actually 'strange' imo). BTW, remember to sign your posts.--HJensen, talk 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

The references comment has not been addressed and hence i think the article doesn't meet GA standards, primarily for referencing:

• Use of player personal website should be limited to cases when no public information is available
• Please use standard websites dedicated to the sports (like cricinfo.com for Cricket; formula1.com for F1, pgatour.com for Golf)
• Please avoid populating references with the same data. Instead, use common reference name so that the editor is clear on the number of times a reference is used in the article

The 2 areas that i would like references to be focused - wins/play across years and awards (section doesn't have a single reference). Please address this and re-nominate for GA. As i earlier indicated, this page has enough data for taking to FA as well. --Kalyan 14:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Great feedback. I agree the material here is worth FA as well. I will track these changes and get solid references -- RC 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawkeye

Could that Hawkeye 'contradiction'(disruption, argument whatever) in the WIMBLEDON 2007 Final be added somewhere in the article. Controversies, maybe?

Yes. It should be stated that Federer does not like the computerized line calling system, as he sees no need to it. His frustration with the system can definately be seen in Wimbledon 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.142.167 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace?

From the infobox: Place of birth - Binningen, Switzerland
From the first sentence of the 'Personal life' section: "Federer was born in the town of Münchenstein (near Basel, Switzerland)"

The Binningen article confirms it as his birthplace, while the Münchenstein article says nothing.

Welche ist welche? -- jibegod 04:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources used (rogefederer.com and atp site), both state "Basel". I've put that in.--HJensen, talk 17:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Winning percentage

Does anyone think that it should be included with the player's career record? I can see using the win-loss percentage would make comparisons and contrasts between players easier, but then again, don't most tennis players have a percent between 70-80?--GregCujo 07:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be there. The infobox is updated continuously, and computing that is just another complication. Also, as you indicate, it is not that interesting a statistic (there is a problem of self selection: the players having full bios on Wiki are typically those with percentages around 75 or more). Some players mature "late" and will have many losses early in their career, and others will peak early and go down. So the overall number, if it says something, may only be interesting for a whole career, i.e., for retired players. For active plaers it should definitely not be there. The win-loss record is fine as it is. I think if people are interested in comparisons based on winning percentages, they can do the math themselves, or alternatively one could make a list comparing retired players' perentages.--HJensen, talk 09:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation of his name

...must be wrong. Or am I missing sth from the WP guidelines here? I mean, surely you can twist any name to its 'English pronunciation' (to use the term from the referenced website), but isn't the IPA pronunciation in the beginning supposed to guide the reader to its (for lack of a better word) native pronunciation? So obviously the g in Roger should be as in 'get', not as in 'geez'. --NeofelisNebulosa (моє обговорення) 06:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not according to himself. His mother is South African and he states himself that his name has always been pronounced the English way. See footnote 11. --HJensen, talk 09:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, though the question "English or French way" was peculiar because his mother tongue is German as we all know. Anyhow, intresting Q&A... --NeofelisNebulosa (моє обговорення) 07:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofelis Nebulosa (talk • contribs)

German might be his mother tongue, but I've read he's fluent in French and English as well, so maybe that's why someone asked. Whatever, oncamera^(t) 14:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing "German" to "Swiss German." The source itself says "Swiss-German," and the Swiss-German dialect is different from regular German dialects. -- Yano 00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether Germans from Germany might pronounce "Roger" with a g as in "get"; no Swiss would do this, anyway. The Swiss (also the German-speaking ones) usually pronounce the name "Roger" the French way (something like "Roshe"). That Roger Federer's first name is pronounced the English way, however (neither the French nor the hypothetical German way), is well-known in Switzerland. Gestumblindi 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do know some German, and can assure you that the "g" in Roger is definitely "hard" (as in "get"). Swiss-German differs from German-German in some phrasal expression and is generally milder in pronunciation, but there will not be any exception on the hardness of the "g". The sound "g" as in "geez" does not exist in German (either Swiss- or German-). unregistered user 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm Swiss myself and I can assure you: The "Swiss way" to pronounce "Roger" is the French way. This applies to all German-speaking Swiss persons. Roger with a hard "g" as in "get" makes us Swiss just laugh. No Swiss would seriously pronounce "Roger" this way. Roger Federer's first name, however, is by most German-speaking Swiss pronounced the English way (similar to "Rodscher" if you would try to write it phonetically in German) because they know that's the pronunciation he's using due to his South African mother. Gestumblindi 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Records in the lead

Due to Federer's continuing dominance, the article's lead is getting longer and longer. Especially his Grand Slam acheivements imply several records that is being mentioned (either in terms of each tournament over the years, and Grand Slams within years). This makes the lead a bit cumbersome to read (a lot of combinations of tournaments added in different ways are mentioned; difficult to grasp for a non-tennis fan). I mean if the day arrived where he holds 15 Slams, that would probably be the only thing to mention. So as of now, I think we could perhaps trim down the stuff, where he is not the sole record holder. E.g., his 5-year Wimbledon record could be dropped, as that is shared with Borg. But then again, it is such a remarkable feat that not mentioning this is a bit odd. So anyone have some suggestions here on this (for Federer himself, luxury) problem?--HJensen, talk 14:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should and could be trimmed down. It doesn't need to be so wordy; combining sentences into shorter ones would work. I don't know, Tiger Woods' page doesn't have a difficult-to-read-slighty-lengthy introduction, but golf isn't tennis either. Hmm, there are too many "only player to do this feat" sentences, especially towards the end of the intro that could be shortened or moved down into the Record section (without it becoming massive itself). I mean, there's a whole page for his records, haha, oncamera^(t) 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Will this article ever be a featured one?

I wish we could work on the quality of this article so that it might be ready to be a FA, the day Federer hopefully gets 15 GS. There's just too much clutter as it is right now with too much fanboyism for a wp article :( RC 15:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Greatest Ever"

The statement that everyone agrees he is the greatest player ever is a lie. What the citations support is almost all qualified phrase. Just for the record, here is what the quotes actually say:

• ^ "Roddick: Federer might be greatest ever", The Associated Press, 2005-07-03. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.

"He's the most physically gifted I've played against," said Roddick, who walked around the net to hug and congratulate Federer after the match. "But he's become a mental force, too."

• ^ "Federer inspires comparisons to all-time greats", The Associated Press, 2004-09-12. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.

McEnroe: “This guy could be the greatest of all-time.”

Jack Kramer: "Personally, I would have loved to have seen Don Budge or Ellsworth Vines play with this equipment. I don't care who's on the other side, whether it's Roger, Agassi, no matter. I think they would have figured out a way to win. They had the power and control."

• ^ "4-In-A-Row For Federer", The Associated Press, 2006-07-09. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.

No supporting statements at all.

• ^ Sarkar, Pritha. "Greatness beckons Federer", Reuters, 2005-07-04. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.

"Roger Federer is already being hailed as one of the greatest players ever to have picked up a tennis racket."

• ^ Collins, Bud. "Federer Simply In a League of His Own", MSNBC Website, MSNBC.COM, 2005-07-03. Retrieved on 2007-04-09.

“I’m not quite ready to call Federer the greatest player of all time, but make no mistake about it he’s probably headed towards that distinction.”

“he certainly could become the greatest to ever play the game.”

• ^ "Jack Kramer: Federer is the best I have ever seen", The Observer, 2007-06-24. Retrieved on 2007-07-15.

"'I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good,' he says. 'And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points (although "lie" is a very strong word here)

I have toned down the praise to match the references. But perhaps the problem is that the more "reluctant" references are 6 slams old? So we could probably dig up sources that backs up what was said before.--HJensen, talk 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if it can be supported with citations then there is no probably. But it isn't right now. As it stands now, the only person who is on record as changing his mind is Jack Kramer. Sylvain1972 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs)

"an increasing number of them concluding he is the best ever". Who are those increasing voters? I am a big fan of Federer, but, that statement gotta go. This is WP not a teenager blog. I propose even removing the whole greatest ever debate or something to that effect. I will edit to tone it down a little. - RC 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the "best ever" statement is to be continuously voided out - and it should be remembered that it references an on-going debate, not my pov - then comparable statements on other pages (see, for instance, the entry for Bjorn Borg) similarly have no place. Schpinbo 04:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement is not being "voided out," it is being changed to reflect accurately the sources cited. I've outline the sources above in painstaking detail to illustrate what they actually say. If you find a reputable source that supports your claims, then we can change the paragraph. That is the standard for all of wikpeida. Sylvain1972 16:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may have the temerity to contradict you - yes, it is being voided out. Here are some of the requested reputable sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2005/09/13/sthodg13.xml

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/7005666

This second source begins thusly: "Roger Federer is the best tennis player ever ... or is he? That is the *debate that rages* after Federer, 25, won Wimbledon Sunday for the fifth time in a row." (emphasis added).

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20070918_All_hail_King_Roger_the_Great.html

This third source, an article in the Philadelphia Daily News, goes further, suggesting Federer "be acknowledged as the most dominant professional athlete in the world" -- never mind tennis player.

Sufficient evidence, I would suggest, that my prior dispassionate entry that "many observers now consider him the best male tennis player ever" (or words to that effect) should stay. I agree that simply stating "He is the best player ever" would be patently partisan. And it would obviously be disingenuous (at best) to include myself among the "many observers." But relating the fact that such a view is gaining currency in sports reporting is a perfectly objective statement to make. Schpinbo 00:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Telegraph article has a misleading headline. Agassi does not say in the article itself that Federer was the "best ever," only that he was the best that he (Agassi) ever played against. The Fox article supports your claim somewhat, but only Cliff Drysdale comes out saying he thinks Federer is the best--everyone else says wait and see. The Philadelphia Daily News says only that he is "arguably the best ever." Being the dominant professional athlete in the world at the moment is not the same as being the great tennis player of all time. At this point, I think the sources justify "some observers now consider him the best male tennis player ever."Sylvain1972 15:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your solution strikes me as quite in line with my original phraseology. Thank you. Schpinbo 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The existing statement, as is, is accurate as per the sources cited. Not one respectable tennis historian or former great has came out out right and told that Federer is the greatest ever. The major theme is that he's one of the greats and is accurately reflected. Please be constructive and let the article flourish rather than putting obstacles on hindering its growth. The statement "some observers now consider him the best male tennis player ever." is absolutely not supported by the references. I am huge, huge Federer fan and I run a very popular blog on him and been following Roger very closely for number of years. It will be an absolute pleasure for me to claim Federer to be the GOAT. Give him a few years and please let this article grow! Please forget about that statement. There are plenty of work around this article that needs updating and please refer to GA and FA comments. Thank you! We would do much favor to Federer by getting this article on front page of wikipedia :) - RC 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the articles you quote e.g. Larry Atkins teaches journalism at Temple and Arcadia universities is not quite considered "authorative" on tennis or its greatness. Nor is Dan Weil. Reputed Mark Hodgkinson of Telegraph, in the article you quoted has made up that headline. Here's the exact quote from Agassi, as per that same article. ""Roger is the best I've ever played against," Agassi said. There's nowhere to go. Roger makes you play on the edge. You need to play the craziest tennis you've ever played." "Pete Sampras was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you did it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger," Agassi said." No where in there Agassi talks about all time etc. He just talks about the players he played again. I am not going to keep commenting on this issue. Thanks! - RC 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your plea to let the article flourish is taken very well. In fact, that's what I'm trying to do. There is no question but that a debate is growing as to whether Federer is the greatest ever -- apparently one which you follow avidly, by your own confession. Admittedly, it takes the form of a question in nearly all cases. You'll find many more articles titled "Is Federer the best ever?" than "Federer is the best ever." I grant you that. But surely we can take cognizance of what is a growing debate by -- to some degree -- touching on the fact that there is a debate on this question.

Is it really "hindering its growth" or putting an "obstacle" on the ability of the Federer entry to flourish, to note that this is a debate which is the subject of many, many articles written by third parties? Permit me to suggest that in the name of letting the article grow, you are denying someone their right to grow the article. I would suggest, in fact, that to keep the spirit you suggest for the Federer entry, it is exactly the right thing to do to allow the audience to know what is currently being said about Federer, or asked about Federer's stature.

Audiences are tantalized by questions that cannot yet be answered, of course. A good novel, after all, gripping to read in its plot twists and turns, is a novel you hate to have end. You don't want to put it down. And I can see how you might interpret my suggestion as a way of ending this plot prematurely. But if journalists and other informed citizens (surely a professor is someone who can be trusted to elevate him- or herself- above the level of "teenager enthusiasm") find themselves entering a growing (and serious) coversation as to whether Federer is "the best ever," and if not what it will take for him to be pronounced as such, under what pretexts do the gatekeepers of this entry get to keep that debate from being known? Schpinbo 15:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Refer to archived dicussions for plenty of debates on this "greatest ever" position. I am not trying to subdue discussion. I just would like to see more discussion on several different aspects of Federer rather than just this "best ever" issue. WP not a novel. We just stick to know proven facts. I highly suggest reading more about Wikipedia and its pillars. Feel free to link to any meaningful debates from tennis authorities. Plenty of them are already source in this article as well on the Tennis article. Thanks! - RC 15:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, archived discussions which never make it on to the main Federer page. You now profess to be supressing my contribution because "we just stick to known proven facts." This is demonstrably false. "[H]e is considered among the elite group of all-time great male tennis players" is not a "proven fact", it's a point of view. One that apparently you agree with - so it gets to stay. By what rationale do you countenance some POVs and not others?

There are countless wikipedia entries which describe POVs, naturally without endorsing any particular one. Countless pages refer to debates, historical or contemporary, about personalities or events. And none of them apparently abide by this apparent "just the facts" clause. I want to see discussion of other aspects of Federer as well. But your plea to broaden the discussion cannot be an excuse to prohibit another discussion -- one which the average reader will find much more salient than the fact that he's the first living Swiss to appear on a postage stamp.

I have linked meaningful debates already. What you are doing here is moving the goalposts. You now claim to raise the bar by admitting only the writings of "tennis authorities". Would you kindly define who a "tennis authority" is? How does one get professionally credentialed as a "tennis authority"? Someone's blog obviously doesn't count. But what about a sports columnist who gets to write about the topic for an established newspaper or news outlet?

I repeat my request that reference to this debate be included on the main Federer page. The wording I suggest is: "Federer's acheivements have given rise to a debate as to whether he might be the best male tennis player of all time." The citations I offered can then be used -- and if you want to, I can find others to firm it up further. Any third party would find such wording entirely dispassionate and unprejudicial. Schpinbo 13:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for minor update from a WP newbie, regarding section "Equipment & Apparel"

Hi, in the section "Equipment & Apparel" we can add the Indian cricketer Rahul Dravid also; he too appears in the Gillette ad along with Roger. Reference [1] Sena why 09:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page.. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He is added now.--HJensen, talk 22:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Orange Bowl?

In the Career section, it states Roger Federer won the Orange Bowl in 1998, but accoriding to this page, he did not win that tournament. However, Federer winning the Orange Bowl has been in the Wiki article for so long, I figured I might just be missing something. Someone care to look into this a little more?--GregCujo 03:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello GregCujo! I am not quite sure about the validity of the page you linked. Infact, I am not quite sure if that website is remotely legit. Here's the link to the official ITF results for Orange Bowl 1998. - RC 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo

The Red-Nike-Sweater-Photo should be immediately replaced. It fills no purpose and feels out of context. Is this picture the best free Photo availible -- no there are other on the wikipage that are better. It could be mentioned in the text that Nike is a Federer sponsor, however Wikipedia should not actively help Nike with its work. The important "headline"-photo should show Federer in his most natural environment, the tennis court, NOT standing still where nothing shows except a Nike sweater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.198.85 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC) and edited by — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacco77 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

— I agree. I dont think this picture fills any purpose than giving Nike free publicity. Can you even get a sweater with that big Nike symbol on it =) ? If anyone has a better picture, for example Federer on a court that should be uploadedBaso80 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Baso80

This has been discussed (and closed) before: Talk:Roger_Federer/Archive2#Federer_photo.--HJensen, talk 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening Overview

The overview is too long I think for a good article in my opinion. Only his most important acheivements and information should be given in a concise nature.

The sentence "Widely regarded as the best player of his generation, he is considered among the elite group of all-time great male tennis players.[3][4][5][6][7][8]" could be changed to "Widely regarded as the best player of his generation, he is considered as having the potential to be the greatest male tennis player ever.(quote link...etc.)", or "Widely regarded as the best player of his generation and one of the all-time great players, he is considered as having the potential to be the greatest male tennis player ever.(quote link...etc.)".

- I think this is worth mentioning as his career currently has many great retired professionals, commentators and fans following his progress to become the best ever rather than 'just' an all time great, a factor readers should know.

Unnecessary statements that can be used only in the article:

"Federer is the first living Swiss to be pictured on a postage stamp, issued in April 2007 depicting Federer with the Wimbledon trophy.[9]"

- Is the swiss stamp sentence really necessary for the overview I think it would be better placed in a trivia section or atleast elsewhere.

"In 2007, by winning his third Australian Open title, he is the only male player to have won three separate Grand Slam tournaments at least three times.[10]"

- We already mentioned he has won 3 GS in a calendar year 3 times in the overview...this is better left in records.

"By winning the 2007 U.S. Open, Federer became the first player in the Open era to win four consecutive U.S. Open titles and the only player ever to win back-to-back Wimbledon and U.S. Open titles for four consecutive years (from 2004). He is also the first male player in the Open era to win at least ten singles tournaments in three consecutive years (from 2004 to 2006).[11]"

- Though spectacular acheivements this is also non-essential information unless a reader is looking for such detail and then they pursue the article further anyway.

2005 Tennis Masters Cup surface

Ok, I kept on pointing this out way back then, and even to some editors now: the surface used for that event was Indoor Carpet, not Indoor Hard. If you don't believe me, try accessing the info from the ATP website. Probably, the very evidence that speak for itself is the fact that despite that loss in the final, his record hardcourt winning streak then was still alive (i.e. it got snapped only in 2006 Dubai tournament). In any case, I edited this fact then, but editors kept on reverting, insisting that it was played on Hardcourt. This might affect the hardcourt and carpet win-loss record not just of Federer, but of other participants, for the year. The same goes for the 2007 WTA Tour Championships, when almost all player wikipedia articles pointed out that the surface was Indoor Hard, when as per the WTA website, it was Indoor Carpet. Of course, I wouldn't mind editing this, but since I had a bad experience with the 2005 Tennis Masters Cup, I'll just inform other editors till we reach a consensus. Joey80 (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Record vs Nadal

I'm not sure if it is THAT significant but check these statistics out now as they quite interesting to point out-

With the win over Nadal @ TMC 2007 SF and with the year having ended

-Federer now has a winning record over Nadal on hardcourts/indoor carpet with 3 wins (Miami 2005, TMC 2006, TMC 2007) and 2 losses (Miami 2004, Dubai 2006).

-Federer has amassed a winning record over Nadal for the 2007 season with 3 wins (Hamburg 2007, Wimbledon 2007, TMC 2007) and 2 losses (Monte Carlo 2007, French Open 2007) which is the first time he has had a winning season record over Nadal (however in 2005, they had win/loss tie of 1:1).

-Federer has a 2 win (Wimbledon 2006, Wimbledon 2007) and 0 loss record against Nadal on grass.

-From having 1 win and 6 losses to Nadal in 2006 prior to Wimbledon 2006, Federer has won 5 of the 7 matches they have played from Wimbledon 2006-present and is only 2 wins away from tying the win/loss ratio (currently 6 wins and 8 losses to Nadal).

-Nadal only has a winning record against Federer on clay with 6 wins and 1 loss.

Enjoy.

Interesting statistics, but I don't think this might contribute further to the Roger Federer article in itself. That is, the statistics deals more with the Federer-Nadal rivalry. So it's either there is a new section for the rivalry in the Roger Federer article, or we just create a new article entitled "Tennis Rivalries" or something similar, and then include a Federer-Nadal section, in addition to Navratilova-Evert, Sampras-Agassi, etc. Joey80 (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I was thinking that some of the infomation could be placed after stating the TMC SF win over Nadal in the "2007" section. For example "With the win over Nadal, Federer now has ...." Just a thought.

Enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.135.3 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The "rivalry" belongs on a tennis site or a forum. It's not encyclopedic. It's something created by the media and fans. We don't want to speculate on Wikipedia. It is very interesting, but Federer has a couple different rivals that can be seen from different view points, such as David Nalbandian in this 2007. Remember, Wikipedia is more formal, for lack of a better word. Has to be neutral and all. The facts are important, but even so, talking about this rivalry would be unnecessary to the article about Roger Federer. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Davis Cup matches

I know they count as official matches, but do they count as tournaments or not? In 2007, his tournament tally is at 16, which does not include his appearance in the Davis Cup. However, his 2006 total says "18," even though he only played 17, so that total must include the Davis Cup. So, which is it?12.218.84.248 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not convinced that any Davis Cup participation counts as a tournament, per se, even if they are official matches, so I will update all the tournaments he participated in by removing the Davis Cup from the tally.--12.218.84.248 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Section Length

I've noticed that as the years go on, the sections grow larger and larger. This is a bit of a problem, as they are either poorly referenced, overly referenced, or just contain too much minor information. I managed to pare the 2007 section down a bit but we really need to work on deciding what is crucial information and what are simply fun facts. As we all know, trivia sections are discouraged, and lists of who beat whom at what tournament for what meaning (such as those about Nalbandian having an 8-8 record against Federer) mean nothing in encyclopedic context. --tennisman 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)