Talk:Roger Federer career statistics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GFDL[edit]

This article was created based on this version of the main Roger Federer article. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

Well, first of all, I've just finished the whole Grand Slam Performance. Please correct it if there's any mistake.

1) There should be a picture of Roger in this article.

2) The Carrer Finals (Singles and Doubles too) should be done again. I mean, the titles and the runner-ups are separated, and they should be all together discriminating the result of the final (like Nadal's article).

3) There should be a section with Roger's junior performance. He won Wimbledon junior and the Orange Bowl tournament.

4) I also starte the Doubles performance timeline, but it must be completed with the ATP Master 1000 tournaments.

5) In the Carrer Finals table, the dates should be written differently. Why? Because if you want to see the table chronologically, it appears wrong, because the months are first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanguito Wiki (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5) How come the ATP world tour in 2008 and 2009 ( I mean the table) seem wider than other years? Those 2008 and 2009 columns should be reduced to about 75 % of their current width. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liseklisek (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6) This article seems to be expanding out of control, and has many matches listed multiple times. Is there a way it can be streamlined to avoid so much redundant information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianeck (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7) In the introduction to the section on Masters Series Finals, I think a sentence should be added about how many different tournaments of the nine he's won (I think it's currently 6 or 7 of the 9?). Anyone had citations for that? Vercillo (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISG/500[edit]

There are some titles that are marked as as ATP World Tour 500 Series when they weren't International Series Gold before 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.51.158 (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the problem for the five Basel finals. Were you thinking of other titles ? --Don Lope (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates?[edit]

Shouldn't there be dates next to the career titles/finals? 173.24.65.31 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

So I expanded it to all events. Any alterations are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slash99 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Win-loss record problems[edit]

I noticed a few discrepancies in Federer's match records. When I add up the individual tournament records for ATP World Tour Masters 1000's as they are listed in the table, I arrive at 225-68 while the total in the table is 224-68. Perhaps a W/O is counted in some tournament's record? Similarly, for ATP World Tour 250 I find 166-43 while it says 167-43 in the table. Both differences would cancel out in the total record, but still when I add up the records for each tournament level (208-30 + 34-7 + ...) I find 744-173 while in the table it says 743-174, which is also given on the ATP website player profile and presumably correct. I can't find where the errors are, which is the reason I didn't correct anything yet. Someone who knows more about this than me may spot the errors. Gap9551 15:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rznr.g (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I not familiar with the discussion part, so sorry if it bothers you if i write in your section. So i found where is the mistake in the 173/174 lose thing. The is a missing loss from 2/21/2000 London, England QF from Marc Rosset. It is listed as the 248th in the match list section. If somebody will correct this in the table that would be great(i don't want to mess up the whole thing).[reply]

Ah, and there's also a mistake in the list of all matches: match no. 184: it's a davis cup match, not a junior match. http://www.daviscup.com/en/players/player/profile.aspx?playerid=10019424

Thank you! Yes, it is correct to reply in this section. The London indoor tournament QF result of 2000 (including matches 246-248 from the complete match list) has been added to Milan indoor in the table in the present article, because Milan replaced London, it's the same tournament. Regardless, all the issues I mentioned originally have been resolved. Someone must have made the required corrections. I just corrected match 184 in the full list as you suggested, well spotted! Gap9551 22:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gap9551 (talk • contribs)

Performance Timeline Table[edit]

There is no need to include a players results from the ATP World Tour 500 Series, 250 Series events etc as this information is already well documented within the player's own article. Including this information makes the table quite lengthy and it can be confusing for some people to understand. Results from the major events e.g. grand slams, masters etc should be the only ones included. Thank you. JayJ47 (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it doesn't make it any more confusing (besides it is a statistics page). Furthermore, if anything, the major titles/slams/1000s are the most well documented, whereas lesser tourneys are barely mentioned. Please restore to its original state. Thanks. RC (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page size problem[edit]

This page is WAY over wiki limits of 100k. Now, people overlook things if they sit at 103k, or have 11 photos instead of the limit of 10 for tennis... but this page is up to 132k (it was 144k till I got rid of the minor tourney bloat) and it's till growing. This has to stop before wiki administrators do it for us. Find a way to get this page down to 100k. It's one thing if you have a 110k page on a past event that will never really gain anymore prose or charts, but this monstrosity is like the blob that keeps getting bigger and bigger. Lets streamline this a bit before it's out of our hands. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that I added to this 'size' problem by a 2299 byte addition today. However, I think it is important to somehow mark walkovers -- maybe not as much for this article as for smaller tennis-player articles, where people may not realize how the Association of Tennis Professionals counts walkovers. Free2brag (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Free2brag, I took down your obtrusive footnotes to Federer's Singles Performance Timeline because they ruin the visual layout of the table with unnecessary information. If you want to do it on Djokovic's page that is fine, but your activity constitutes vandalism much more than my preservation of Federer's timeline.
If somethings need to be deleted to preserve this page then, as a Federer fan this is a difficult choice, I would suggest getting rid of the challenger and exhibition tournament records then as they are minor, or even non, achievements. They don't count as career titles or even by the ATP do they so they don't really hold any significance. Also there are many form of head to head matches/wins etc against such and such ranked players, why not just keep the general info, so get rid of those match wins vs top 10 players per season, you can see how many wins he has against them in the other columns, and if you want to see when he beat them go to the separate articles for Federer's individual seasons. However it is a statistics page and there so amny it is hard to delete any, also he is still an active player, and still actively successful so you must expect this page to keep expanding at the same pace for last 3-4 years as Federer is still at the top. He is just an exceptional player and person and so maybe his pages should be exceptions as he has so done so many more things than anyone else in tennis history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not delete the winning streak information and in it's place include information on the more minor tourneys (ie 250 and 500)? Alternatively, remove the big list of all the tournaments entered (ATP World Tour) and introduce another table dedicated to 250 and 500 tournaments. The majors and masters are shown at least three times, having a dedicated table each, a performance timeline and the complete list of tournaments entered. The minor tounreys may be just that, but it would be nice to be able to easily see his performance in these categories (and surfaces). There uses to be a table that included frequently played 250 and 500 events, not sure why that was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erriene (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the winning streak is more important than the minor tournaments. Those minor tournaments are just that, minor. If he won them or finished second, they are listed under "ATP World Tour" section. If he lost in the second round of a 250 level event it's trivial. And minor level performance tables are not allowed per guidelines. Highlights can be talked about in a prose section though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean his performance when he lost in early rounds, only the ones where he made the final (much like the Masters 1000 table or ATP World Tour finals table and grand slam table). We could easily then do away with the massive ATP World Tour table that lists everything. I also don't see how the winning streak is more important than the minor tournaments since those streaks include the minor tournaments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erriene (talk • contribs) 16:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Federer's Grand Slam tournament singles matches[edit]

This section of the article was deleted at 3:03 on 28 February 2012 by Fyunck. I understand why it was removed from this article; however, this was useful information which is not readily available in such a distilled form elsewhere on the web. Obviously, we do not want this section restored to this article, but could we perhaps consider creating a new article in the family of articles on Roger that gives an overview of his performance at the Grand Slam events, and in which this particular data might be more appropriately located? Thanks. 108.56.245.21 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Record[edit]

Hasn't Roger actually lost 5 matches at the Olympics? He's participated four times, always going out on a loss, but in 2000, he actually lost twice, first in the semifinal and then in the Bronze medal match, so wouldn't that make his record 13-5? 108.56.245.21 (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Head–to–head statistics table problem[edit]

Before, the "Head–to–head vs. top-3 ranked players" table had a function where you could sort the table by different columns by clicking the desired column. Someone removed that, and you can't now. Can this be brought back? For example, to be able to sort by winning percentage, such as 33%, 34%, 50%, 60%, 76%/etc. Thanks for any comments! Naki (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sorting function will fail if there are some rows that span several columns, just like this table. you can try in your sandbox. Copy the code, change the "|" before every element of first line to "!", then the sorting icon will appear. But the sorting function won't work at all if you click the button. Then you can try deleting the lines that span several columns. Then it will work. But then the ranking info is gone, and you can't change back to the original status after clicking any sorting button. Ftj1357 (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not good! First the H2H table was made worse, now it has been removed completely! Who removed the head-to-head table, and why? It was informative and useful - can we have it back, please?? Naki (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ten Doubles problem[edit]

Personally I would remove the win over top ten doubles chart, as I'm not even sure what it means. Is it top 10 wins over ranked doubles teams? If so it's wrong because I don't believe Simon Aspelin(9) & Thomas Johanson(116) were a top 10 team. If it's wins over any top 10 doubles player, then again it's wrong because Max Mirnyi(6) & Daniel Nestor(3) were two players Federer beat so it should count as two wins over Top 10 doubles players... not 1 win for win number 18. If it's simply any single player on a team that's ranked in the top 10, no matter if there are two player ranked in the top 10... that seems ridiculous and I need to see a source that puts it that way... not original research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its top 10 win over any player, will fix. --TIAYN (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a proper chart in using that criteria, and since it will confuse readers as is, leave the tag till it's clear. Show me where any website uses that type of criteria to rank doubles wins and I will digress. Otherwise it's original research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its no different from listing top 10 singles wins... --TIAYN (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a big difference. If you list top ten "doubles teams" Roger and a partner have defeated that's one thing... but individual players in a team event is strange. And it's only stranger still when sometimes one player is in the top ten and sometimes two players are in the top ten. That chart cannot stay as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Start a discussion at WP:TENNIS about it then. --TIAYN (talk) 19:52, 21 Octobe:r 2013 (UTC)
Still seems like a wacky chart but at least the totals for column one reflect all wins over all top 10 players. It may need an asterisk and note below to explain column one to new readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is messing with tables[edit]

There are certain flexibilities that are allowed in updating tables here and there are also some non-flexible issues. Please check out our Tennis Project Guidelines for correct color schemes and the fact we cannot rely on color as a means to convey information. This was discussed at length at tennis project recently. Yes, there are some things that were left on the table but there were other things we set in concrete after a month of discussions. Please follow them. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

250 and 500 tournaments[edit]

The performanc timeline table takes also without the 250 and 500 series more than one site. I don't think that it is more confusing with them. I miss the old one. Can someone change it. It's nice when you will make a little research and you can see it fast how Federer's result are in different tournements. I think its more confusing for someone to understand how Federer win one tournement in this year although ther is no green "W" in the timeline

What about additional table like this and a similar one for the ATP 250 tourneys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erriene (talk • contribs) 12:50, 1 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

ATP 500 finals[edit]

Singles: 22 (16 titles, 6 runners-up)[edit]

Outcome Year Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner–up 2001 Rotterdam Open Hard (i) United States Nicolas Escudé 5–7, 6–3, 6–7
Winner 2002 Vienna Open Hard (i) Czech Republic Jiří Novák 6–4, 6–1, 3–6, 6–4
Winner 2015 Dubai Tennis Championships Hard Serbia Novak Djokovic 6–3, 7–5
Winner 2015 Halle Open Grass Italy Andreas Seppi 7–6(7–1), 6–4
No need, all those events are already in Federer's ATP World Tour section. No need to double up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the same could be said for the Grand Slams and Masters? That huge World Tour table is a monstrosity and if all the tournaments are listed in the same fashion (ie as above) then it can be done away with all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erriene (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those events aren't worthy of it imho. They are like the Professor and MaryAnne from Gilligan's Island... simply "the rest." There had been talk at one time of getting rid of the list of all Federer's finals as being too trivial. To do what you ask is even more page bloat. IMHO this article is already way over the trivial and bloat protocol of Wikipedia... that Jr and exhibition stuff is pretty out there in frivolous-land. Those 7th and 8th longest win streaks... ridiculous. They are not records. You mentioned the Masters 1000 events being also in the list of all finals... well it really shouldn't be in both places... one or the other. I would make an exception for the Majors because of their relative importance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think it is page bloat to have those other tourney finals listed, they form a huge part of his career. I agree that the page is way too big, but there are less relevant bits that could be removed. For instance the ludicrous level of detail given to National Participation. Do we really need to know how Federer performed in each and every Davis Cup Rubbers match or Olympic match? Or the big Doubles performance timeline (and much of the other doubles information). Federer is primarily a singles player and most of that doubles table is empty. The same goes for exhibition matches - if ATP 500 and 250 tournaments are irrelevant then these are the definition of trivial. Additionally, the only attention that should go to his junior career is the finals he made. Finally, there is no need to have information on his performance in futures or challengers tournaments, these are stepping stones and only important to players who never make it. If we add the tables as I suggest then we can kill the ATP World Tour table and actually reduce page bloat by removing information that is, in some cases, repeated three times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erriene (talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 500/250 events are not irrelevant, but they certainly don't warrant listing twice. If the main table had a category of major/1000/500/250 that was sortable, we wouldn't need extra tables at all. That is true about adding individual tables and removing the World Tour table, however then we might get people complaining about Federer being the only player that doesn't have his finals in chronological order. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on that account, people would definitely complain. I really like the idea of the big table being sortable by tournament type (as you say it would eliminate any possible need for the others). Is it possible to implement such a thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erriene (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Open results[edit]

I'm a little confused here. Roger entered the Miami Open. He received his bye (another player would not have received a bye). Between the bye and his 2nd round match he pulled out sick. Another player replaced him. Are you telling me that Roger Federer is now registered as to never having been in the Miami Open? Sounds crazy to me since his bye was recorded. Do they erase his name from all the paperwork? It seems to me that once you accept and you get credited with your bye, that you are in the tournament and get credited with having made it to the 2nd round. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance[edit]

I made the ATP chart compliant with our Tennis Guidelines. Certainly the guidelines can change but this was per our discussions and as I mentioned at guidelines talk page. It now has sortable categories (as had been requested by @Erriene: and is colorblind accessible per request from @Trust Is All You Need: and has no trivial number column. No Tennis Guidelines were changed for this compliance... just implementation. I'm not sure why this took so long to fix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was reverted to a non-consensus chart again with extra columns... oh well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency[edit]

  • In Singles stats:
    • Hardcourt wins = 674–138, but in main article's Other selected records is 1999–2017 = 675 hard court match victories (+1).
    • Tournaments = 323, but Overall W-L = 89 / 324 (+1).
--Kacir 01:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC) / --Kacir 01:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many charts do we need?[edit]

Federer has a Record against top-20 players chart, a Top 10 wins chart, and recently an added Record against top-5 players chart. How many of these things are really appropriate here? Also, how do we confirm that these are the only top-5 players Federer has played against? I looked at the ATP site where I was directed to by an editor and I didn't see a list. I certainly could have missed it. Or perhaps another website has it? I just simply wanted to confirm that these are the correct players and that the list was complete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Praline97: Another thing about that chart. The players in it were not ranked No. 5 when they played Federer. Take Medvedev for instance. Was he ever ranked No. 4... yes... 6 years prior to their only meeting. In this solo meeting he was ranked No. 25, and that's not notable. I really don't see a need for this type of chart which still has no source list of players that were ever ranked in the top 5. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): All top players, Serena, Djokovic, Nadal have this chart. It is not fair to continually remove content from Federer's page that is common on all other top players career stats. Also the chart shows to caliber of the players in their careers not at a single moment. But MOST IMPORTANTLY it has a breakdown of the H2H on differing surfaces which is unique and appears nowhere else on the page. For example it deconstructs that Nadal leads 13-2 on clay but that they are even on all other courts 10-10.
It's not a question of fairness. It's a question of sourcing. If those other players have charts that can't be sourced they must be removed. If they can be sourced that's fine. We need a list somewhere of Federer's matches against players that have at some point in time been in the top 5. Otherwise there is no way to know whether your supplied list is complete or bogus. That's all I'm asking for, and it's required. The Federer Nadal rivalry article tells all about the 13–2 on clay and 10–10 everywhere else. Personally I think it's a useless table. Half the players could have been ranked No. 52 when they actually played Federer. What use is that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Roger Federer career statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Runner-ups[edit]

Sorry to be pedantic, but shouldn't it be "runners-up", not "runner-ups"? Fluppeteer (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When talking about multiple runners-up in an event or over multiple events, you would be correct. That's how it's used 99% of the time and runners-up is proper. But when tallying the total of runner-up finishes a player has, it's runner-ups. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful to follow our Tennis Project Guidelines[edit]

We are slowly (probably very slowly) updating some of our charts to conform with consensus Tennis Project Guidelines. It's a tedious process but it would be great if everyone can help a little bit. Yeah, the Federer article took a bazillion hours to do, but many non-name players only take 10-30 minutes. Any little bit helps even if you only add a Tier column, or change winner/runner-up to Win/Loss, or fix the Career Finals chart dating to month/year, that means someone else won't have to do it. Thanks all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Roger Federer career statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, walkovers are neither a loss nor a win[edit]

Walkovers are matches that were not played and per the ATP/WTA they are neither losses nor wins... they are simply walkovers. That is why the 2104 ATP Final is listed as a walkover... no match was played so there was no winner or loser. These are rare so in this case it could say "runnerup" instead of walkover, so I tried that instead. I'm not sure what was wrong with walkover (since that is the official label). So not a win or loss, but a runnerup finish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibitions[edit]

Why do we have an extensive exhibitions section in this article? They are completely irrelevant? Especially the list of exhibition matches. There really is no need for any of this information. The only exhibition tournament that matters is the the Hopman Cup. If someone could tell me why all these useless tables are here please do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneM18 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. 1) I agree that the article has gotten carried away with exhibition coverage. I would simply have a list of Exhibition matches played... we don't need the fact he has 4 wins and 4 losses in finals... they are for fun exhibitions. 2) the Hopman Cup is 100% NOT and exhibition event. The ITF counts it as an official win or loss in Federer's records for the season just like Davis Cup or the Olympics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopman Cup doesn’t count in the atp or wta records, or any head to heads but that’s not my issue as I would class the Hopman Cup as a normal event. But I really don’t understand why all these matches are listed. Matches for Africa for example. There really is no need for any of these exhibitions to be here. Same with fast 4 or even the newly devoloped tie break 10s. Are we going to add these to all the articles? What’s the point? On a side note, I’ve also noticed his junior results are here as well. Junior slams I understand but every junior tournament final is that really necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneM18 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopman Cup counts in all ITF records, and ITF head to heads. Readers would probably want to know all Federer's exhibitions. The scores are completely irrelevant, so we don't need those, but the fact that he played so-and-so in an exhibition/charity event is notable. Junior finals have been part of many player's articles since I began editing here, so I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot cattle-prod. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think anyone really cares for any exhibition event once the event is played and no one is going to look back and think I wonder who won that match back in 2006 considering they are just meant to be a bit of fun and it doesn’t even count in head to heads etc. I would have thought only results from actual professional tournaments would be important on the pages of professional tennis players but it seems I am wrong. As if there isn’t enough on this page already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneM18 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Exhibition section[edit]

After I deleted the exhibition section there was 300,863 bytes. I have pasted the table below in case any one wants to just put in the notable exhibitions or if someone wants to put in a paragraph briefly describing the exhibitions. I think there was way too much details in that section before I deleted it.

Link to archived page with Exhibitions. Mobile mundo (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before every single one of the exhibitions is removed it would need some heavy consensus. And there was no need to clutter the talk page with the list as it is archived from the previous edit. Reflists on talk pages really get in the way of future posts. I included the archived page with the exhibitions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The size is now back up to 314,899 bytes. I thought that if an editor saw the table it might help them decide which matches to delete. (Mobile mundo (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
But by clicking on the link I provided they can also see the table. I didn't think we needed to repeat it here when it was readily available elsewhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2018 (size
The 3 examples used in career statistics don't have an exhibition section. Is there a player career statistics page that has an exhibition section that is not too big in size?(Mobile mundo (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not sure. But you could say the same thing about Federer's ATP career finals section. It's way bigger than almost every other player's career finals section. Well... it is because he's played way more career finals. He has also been asked to play way more exhibitions than everyone else, because he brings in the huge cash outlays. One part of the charts that is strange is keeping track of wins and losses in the exhibitions. They are exhibitions so who cares whether you win or lose? The players play at a medium level and often fun is a main highlight rather than shot making. What I did was remove the win/loss header statistics since they are useless for an exhibition. It seems like a minor tweak but maybe someone won't think so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was definitely a minor tweak. I am guessing that if you deleted the scores of the exhibitions it would have been reverted. There have been many occasions when the player has let a fan replace him/her in an exhibition. The Rafael Nadal career statistics page just has a "Notable exhibitions" section (although I haven't seen a definition as to what constitutes a "Notable exhibitions" on the page). The ATP career finals section is massive. Do the masters need their own section? (Mobile mundo (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Players with winning records against Fed[edit]

The section listing players with winning records against Federer keeps being removed by a couple of users, @Ft68bml: and @Praline97:

Why is this happening, specially considering Rafael Nadal career statistics and Novak Djokovic career statistics contain similar sections Rubyaxles (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. It's a bit trivial but not totally out of line. But they could claim the same could also be said of your edits. It looks like an anon IP added it on March 24 and it was reverted on March 26. So no problem. Then another anon IP vandalized the article on October 15th. 20 minutes later you reverted his vandalism, which was great, but you also added back the winning record section from March 24 in the same revert. That was very odd. On Oct 21 your addition was noticed and reverted (but with no edit summary as to why). At that point you should have brought the issue to this talk page to convince others that it was a needed addition. Instead you simply added it back again. I'm not sure which way I'd fall on the issue, but I do feel that what you did was wrong, and since it is obviously a contentious addition, you should revert yourself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with it being removed, as long as consistency is maintained and the same sections are removed from Djokovic and Nadal's articles. But if they are on the other pages, there is no reason to remove them from here Rubyaxles (talk)
Just because two other articles out of thousands have it doesn't make it a requirement. Pete Sampras doesn't have it, nor does Serena Williams. It should be removed until people are convinced here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then these sections should be removed from the Nadal and Djokovic articles as well Rubyaxles (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the editors there want the info. You would have to remove it as being trivial and see if it sticks. Wikipedia articles are not churned out like a cookie cutter. Each article, while often very similar, will have different approaches. I have no idea if the info on Nadal's and Djokovic's articles was added recently by the same anon IP as Federer's article, or whether it has been there for 5 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Team Tennis Leagues and Exhibitions (tournaments, matches, team competitions, tours)[edit]

Why the Exhibitions and Team Tennis Leagues have deleted? I can't understand this. In my opinion the Roger Federer career statistics in Wikipedia is the only reliable source that you can find all the details about Roger Federer's career, easily and all together. So, we must put as much information we can about his career. Even the Exhibitions and the Team Tennis Leagues. With wins/ losses, scores and everything. For example, in 10 years time, if someone wants to search about this legend's career and wants to learn everything about him and his tennis history (even the exhibitions), he will not be able to find everything easily, unless we have these in wikipedia. I was that guy that created that huge section of Exhibitions and Team Tennis Leagues, for that reason. Because I searched a lot in the web and I collected various informarion from different sources, i put all these information together and I created that section. Exhibitions are part of tennis player's career and we must have all these information. I speak only for these legends (Roger, Rafa, Novak, Andy). Because these players are on another level and if I want to see someone's exhibitions, i'll look for these players and no for players like Monfils, Berdych, Tsonga etc... But for these legends we must have the extra information. CharisTra (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was vandalism and it has been restored. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laver Cup, ATP Cup and Hopman Cup in Performance Timelines.[edit]

Hello everyone! I suggest to set new standards for the Performance Timelines in general, and not only for Federer's page. The days have changed and new tournaments start taking place on the tour. So I would say to put in every player's Performance Timelines the Laver Cup (that is officialy recognised by ATP, and is also the only International Team Event), the ATP Cup (that is the second most prestigious National Team Event after Davis Cup, and is created by ATP). And maybe the Hopman Cup (that is organised by ITF and is ceased for the 2020. But will continue taking place from 2021. The wins/ losses don't count as official from the ATP, but is still official by ITF and is another prestigious National Team Event, and the only mixed gender National Event. Also if you remember the Grand Slam Cup by ITF, they put it in the 90's players' Performance Timelines). So we can rename the section as "National and international representation" and we can put 1) Olympic Games, 2) Davis Cup, 3) Laver Cup, 4) ATP Cup, 5) Hopman Cup.

I say only for these National and International tournaments because these are the Major ones in this category. I don't say to put the Minor National Team Events in the Performance Timeline, for example: the Commonwealth Games, the Mediterranean Games, the Francophone Games, the Pan American Games, the Asian Games, the African Games, the Pacific Games, the Youth Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Youth Games. CharisTra (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. There are plenty of tournaments we don't include in the timeline, such as mens 500 and 250 level events. This stops the bloat of lesser event clutter in the performance tables that are already pretty darned big. We have no idea how long the Laver Cup will be around... it could fade away after Federer's retirement. It's just too new. The ATP CUP could be a bust as it hasn't even been played yet. The ATP CUP has ZERO prestige. That is something that is earned through time. Also please sign all your posts with four tildas "~~~~". Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but we put only the significant/ important tournaments in the Performance Timelines. 500 and 250 series are not Significant or prestigious tournaments.

In my opinion the Big/ Important tournaments are (with the right order of importance for me): 1) Grand Slams, 2) Olympic Games, 3) Davis Cup, 4) Tour Finals, 5) Laver Cup, 6) Masters 1000, 7) ATP Cup, 8) Hopman Cup, 9) Next Gen Finals. And after all these in terms of importance and prestige go the ATP 500, ATP 250, ATP Challenger Tour Finals.... I disagree that the ATP Cup has zero prestige. It has zero history yes, absolutely, 100%. But it has prestige because ATP gives 750 ranking points that means is more than an ATP 500, a little less than a Masters 1000 and it has the same points as Olympic Games had before. And apart form that, most of the top players are playing (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Thiem, Zverev etc...) and also Federer was about to play, as well. Plus they represent their country that is a very important thing, and also the prize money is huge. I believe the same things for Hopman Cup, too. And is also the only mixed national team event. Plus that has some history. Now, for the Laver Cup, I think it's huge. Top players are playing with extreme passion for the win, they play for their continent (let's say), the play for one of the greatest tennis players of all time Rod Laver. It is the Ryder Cup of tennis and the format is clever, too. So for these reasons this tournament has prestige as well. No history but prestige like ATP Cup. And I don't think that is gonna be abolished in the next years. I think it'll only get bigger. And for me the Next Gen Finals is important, too. It is an exhibition, but is an exhibition by the ATP. Is the most innovative sport event in the world. It is a Tour Finals. It's the ATP Finals for players under 21. This doesn't mean that is Juniors or in an ATP Challenger level. For the young stars this tournament is very important and they play their best tennis there. I believe for an under 21 player this is the ultimate goal of the season, to qualify or win this tournament. I believe that is more important for them to win this tournament rather that an ATP 250 or 500. We saw it from Chung in 2017, Tsitsipas last year and this year from Sinner and De Minaur. De Minaur seemed that he wanted badly to win this event, and he is a Top 20 player, like Tsitsipas last year. Anyway in my eyes is like the WTA Elite Trophy in women's circuit. And something else. Also the Grand Slam Cup last only for 10 years (1990-1999). Not long. And they put it on the career statistics page in the Significant/ Important finals and in the Performance Timeline below from Tour Finals, as well. They put it also in the player's main/ front page in the information cartel in the "Other tournaments" category below to Tour Finals, too. So I would suggest to make it like that (in the future) the Performance Timelines:

"Grand Slam tournaments"

  • Australian Open
  • French Open
  • Wimbledon
  • US Open

"Year-end Championships"

  • ATP Finals
  • Next Gen ATP Finals

"National and international representation"

  • Olympic Games
  • Davis Cup
  • Laver Cup
  • ATP Cup
  • Hopman Cup

"ATP Masters 1000"

  • Indian Wells
  • Miami
  • Monte-Carlo
  • Madrid
  • Rome
  • Canada
  • Cincinnati
  • Shanghai
  • Paris

I am just saying my opinion and my ideas, and my goal is only to improve the pages. CharisTra (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our opinions mean pretty much nothing, but if i were to rank importance in the year 2019 it would be 1) Grand Slam tournaments (majors), 2) Olympic Games, 3) Tour Finals, 4) Masters 1000, 5) 500 series, 6) 250 series, 7) Davis Cup, 8) Hopman Cup, 9) Laver Cup (still in its infancy)... and that's it. ATP Cup hasn't even been played yet and may fall apart. And Next Gen Finals are pretty much considered half exhibitions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything had been build on someone's opinion. Everything in life started from ideas and small conversations like this one. CharisTra (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Federer_career_statistics&oldid=1207197668"