Talk:Roger Federer

Federer-Hewitt Rivalry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update to Roddick - Federer Rivalry

at the end it says:

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

it should be switched to

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

 Done

Darth Federer

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

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

22 Grand Slam semi-finals

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

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

can someone change the pic?

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

greatest

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

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

 Done [1] With thanks, 78.34.101.44 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Biased Intro?

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

Opening sentence - greatest of all time?

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

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

Greatest of all time, indeed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding Rivalry with Roddick section

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

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

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

Someone Please Revert & Protect 1st Paragraph of Federer Article

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

military service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New edits

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

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

Runner Up section bias

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

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

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

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

Playing style

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

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

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

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

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

Typo

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

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

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

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

Residence?

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

IPA removed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some advice

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

Anyway here's some stuff:

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

Spiderone 17:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

del potro loss score wrong way round

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

not 6–3, 6–7(5), 6–4, 6–7(4), 2–6

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

Previous picture?

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

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

Images facing text

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

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

Retiring from matches

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

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

I've got a quote here, [2] it's the second paragraph down after the bullet point thing? :) --Roamed (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Style of the Equipment, apparel, endorsements section

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for sourcing the charity paragraph.

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

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

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

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

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

Too many photos?

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

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

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

almost career golden slam?

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

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

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

2010

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

Split

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

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

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

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

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

6 july 2009

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

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

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

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

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

Time for another Good Article Nomination

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

A and LQ in Grand Slams table

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

Intro needs an omission.

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

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

One of these must be wrong.

Thanks,

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

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

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

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

Federer-Nalbandian rivalry

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

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

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

Career biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would it not be better, perhaps, to indicate explicitly that the record of four wins applies to the open era?