Talk:Federer–Nadal rivalry

Neutrality

This topic of this article's neutrality has been raised many times before and my feeling is that the issue now needs to be taken to dispute resolution. Specifically, the part that seems to have caused endless disagreement is the "Significant Aspects" section. A huge chunk of this section is given over to an entirely one-sided attempt to provide "mitigating circumstances" (aka excuses) for the fact that Federer has lost most of the matches in the rivalry. The clear implication is that Nadal only leads because of matches played in circumstances that were somehow unfavourable to Federer, eg when he was injured or ill playing on a surface he didn't like. One part in particular, in which an attempt is made to diminish the importance of every single match played in 2008 and 2013 (thus eliminating Nadal's most successful years), is the most blatant example of cherrypicking I've seen in the whole of Wikipedia. It's almost beyond parody. What's demonstrably non-neutral about the section is that there is no attempt to balance the scales, eg by referring to Nadal's injuries, which if anything have been more numerous (and better documented).

The obvious solution is to cut all references that insinuate that results would have or could have been different if the matches had been played in other circumstances. As they say in Australia "if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle". However, when I proposed cutting those references a few years back, I met with a brick wall of intransigence. So as an interim solution, I've added some other (sourced) content to redress at least some of the imbalance. However, the section still focuses disproportionately on the reasons/excuses why Federer lost his matches. It also still contains blatantly non-neutral language such as the suggestion that Nadal's dominance on clay "masks" the rest of the H2H. Do I even need to explain why "masks" is not an appropriate word in the context of a Wikipedia article?

Perhaps there can still be a compromise. I certainly hope so. But assuming there can't be, I propose taking this to dispute resolution. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading the Significant aspects section, there are too many back and forth statements. First Federer is said to have been ill in 2008, then it is said he was healthy in March, and therefore during the four matches they played that year. If he wasn't ill, then there is no need to mention it in the first place. Then, However, given that there is no evidence that any of the matches in either 2008 or 2013 was affected by injury or illness, there is no obvious reason why either year should be discounted from the record. should either be removed if it is wrong for either year, or if it is true, then the whole illness discussion needs to be removed. We Wikipedians are not in the business of "discounting matches". For balanced coverage, if Nadal's injuries affected some of their matches, that needs to be specified in the same way as for Federer. Overall, however, I'd prefer to replace the whole illness/injury discussion with a one-paragraph statement (if that), something like There is debate as to how much of a role sickness and injury have played in the rivalry. Federer suffered from blahblah for a while in 2008 and 2013, while Nadal was injured blahblah in 2012 and 20xx. For these reasons they did not meet for x amount of time in years 20yy and 20zz, and they may not have been fully fit during some of their matches. Gap9551 (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I left most of it but some was not correct. The Emerson quote was not about Federer so was removed. I noted it was a blog in one source, and there is evidence given by Federer's trainer. Also, Nadal's losses to Federer while injured are perfectly acceptable but as pointed out by others it can't be when Nadal was not playing. It has to be sourced that Nadal was injured when he lost. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, there seems to be more willingness to compromise, which I'm pleasantly surprised by. Some points I'd note. Of course the Emerson quote was not about Federer, in fact Federer wasn't even born when it was made. However, it was used by the writer in connection with Federer. That is crystal clear. There is no prohibition on such usage. Eg the article on the Challenger disaster quotes Reagan's famous use of the phrase "slipped the surly bonds of earth", written decades before the shuttle programme began. What's more, the Emerson quote was about players who play and then say they were injured. As such it could scarcely be more relevant to the case under consideration. Anyway, the source applies the quote to Federer so that's all that matters. I'm happy to specify that the quote was not originally made about Federer but if there are any other reasons not to use it please say so asap. (My own preference is that we just cut the whole injury/illness discussion, whose only purpose is to cast doubt over the value of certain matches. If there's any other purpose to it, please advise.)

Other minor points - why change "a number of" writers to "a few" writers? Elsewhere it says that "many" have suggested that Federer was hampered by mono in his matches with Nadal, but only two sources are cited (neither of which explicitly mentions the Nadal matches, incidentally). I cited three. If two people are "many", why are three "a few"? Please be as specific as possible because that doesn't appear to make a whole lot of sense. Also, why the insistence on stating that the Kevin Mitchell column was a blog? KM is the longstanding tennis correspondent of the Guardian, the column was published on the Guardian's website. I wasn't aware that every time someone said something in a blog it had to be identified as such. If so, a lot of Wikipedia articles will need to be changed, including this one, which cites numerous blogs. Why single out this example? Again, please be as specific as possible because, again, this looks like selective policymaking.

Lastly, I note that the reference to the 2008 Wimbledon final as being widely considered "the greatest match" has been changed to "one of the greatest matches". However, the sources explicitly and repeatedly state that it was "the greatest match", not "one of the greatest matches". Why the change? 80.111.18.25 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Emerson quote really has no place here. It does not add to the article imho. As for "some" or "many", some is better in both cases. It's listed as a blog and that is usually quite different than an article. Usually blogs aren't used as sources at all... but I left it in and mentioned it was a blog as a compromise. That greatest match baloney is extremely subjective. I can find dozens of examples of different greatest matches of all time. It is either one of the greatest matches or some consider it to be the greatest match of all-time. Finally your "willingness to compromise" statement is ridiculous and silly as I have been compromising over and over and over. The non-compromisers have been on the Nadal-side of things with overt blanking, edit-warring and sockpuppetry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I also don't think the Emerson quote has much value here. Gap9551 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A note to improve interaction: there is no need to ask other editors to "say so asap" or repeatedly ask to "be as specific as possible", or express surprise at what other editors are writing. Talk page guidelines already demand clarity, and Wikipedia is a volunteering project with nobody required to do anything "soon". Gap9551 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, point taken, there's no need to ask for specificity. But I'm not sure how best to deal with answers that are not specific. I suppose I'll just ask again. Here goes.

Since the sources clearly state that the 2008 final was "the greatest ever", why the insistence on distorting them to suggest they say it was merely "one of the greatest"? All four sources state categorically that it was the greatest ever, and one of them says it was the greatest ever "by a mile". How many sources do we need? Here's a suggestion: pick any match other than 2008 that has been described as the greatest ever and for every source to that effect I'll find two that say 08 was the greatest. Is that enough, or do we need to set the bar higher?

Since numerous blogs are used without needing to be identified as such all over Wikipedia, why the insistence on such identification in this instance? There are multiple blogs used as sources in this very article, and the Guardian piece is the only one identified as such. Why the sudden change of policy?

As to the Emerson quote, if that's the current consensus then so be it but if so then we need something else to balance this article, which, I note on re-reading, is extraordinarily non-neutral. It's been a while since I read it from start to finish but, having just done so, it's shocking. Almost every section has some attempt to devalue Nadal's wins. Either it's the surface or Federer's injury or the fact that Nadal didn't make US Open finals (conveniently sourced with an 8-yr-old article written before the three finals Nadal made that Federer missed). When Federer wins a set 6-0 it's a "bagel", when Nadal wins a set 6-0 it's ... oh, it's not mentioned. Etc etc. Also the mono claim is repeated without challenge elsewhere, where it's extended not just for the whole of 2008 but into 2009. Ludicrously, the same New York Times article that says Federer was over mono by March 2008 is used in support of this 2009 claim. I could go on but life's too short. Maybe we need dispute resolution after all. 80.111.18.25 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Since those 4 sources said it was the greatest ever we can certainly say "a few call it the greatest ever." We could go so far as to say that "some call it the greatest ever." As I said we can be flexible in how we go about it. With the blog, there is no hard and fast policy on it. For my money I'd remove the whole sentence and not use the term blog. I haven't read the whole article since I've been concentrating on keeping a balance on this particular section between Nadal-fan and Federer-fan editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Especially given the disputes surrounding this article, we need to be strict with sourcing. If someone is claimed to be ill in 2009 without source, by all means remove it. I adjusted that US Open finals statement, which was certainly outdated. Feel free to rephrase. As for missed opportunities; in two months, one may add that Federer skipped almost the entire European clay season without being injured, with clay being Nadal's best surface. Then again, I'm not a fan of including detailed excuses for either player. Gap9551 (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: blog - interesting idea of what constitutes compromise. Take out the reference to it being a blog by ... removing it altogether. If I might respectfully return to the question I actually asked. Since none of the other blogs in this article are referred to as such, why does this one have to be?

Re: final in 08, again, if I might courteously request an answer to my question. How many references to it being the greatest ever do we need? Will ten do? It's not just that there are so many sources that say 08 was the greatest, it's the extent to which it dwarfs all other matches in this respect. Re: the "dozens" of other matches supposedly in the same league, if anyone can find even one - not dozens but one - that has half as many references as "the greatest of all time" as 2008, I will be more than happy to concede this point. But no other match comes close. Yes there are others (mainly Borg-McEnroe) with their advocates but none of them has been cited half as often as Nadal-Federer 08. Even Borg and McEnroe themselves agree 08 was greater. Books have been written about 08. Every ball broadcast by both the American and the British TV channels (and probably others) that covered it has been released on multi-disc DVDs. One sportswriter described it as not merely the greatest tennis match ever but the greatest sporting event ever. It strikes me as utterly bizarre to suggest that any other match comes close but, like I say, if anyone wants to come up with a challenger I'd be more than happy to consider the evidence.

Re: the article in its entirety, I assume we can at least agree that we don't need more than one discussion of mono, injuries etc. As discussed above it's debatable whether mono or injuries affected even one of the matches in the rivalry, so given that we already have a massive discussion of these issues in the Significant Aspects section, I assume we don't need further discussion elsewhere. At the moment, they are cropping up all over the place. Eg in the 2013 section, there are three references to Federer's back injury within the space of five paragraphs! If we do need to have these injury/illness discussions multiple times, then they need to be balanced each time. Given how long the article is already, I'm going to go ahead and assume we don't want even more bloat. So I'll adjust the other bits accordingly, and leave the Significant Aspects section as is for now (other than changing the "a few writers" to "some", as previously agreed). I'm also going to take out some of the more obvious and risible bits of bias, such as the reference to the "dazzling, crisply hit groundstrokes" played by Federer in a match he lost "despite having had openings on Nadal's service games". That is a prime example of what I've been talking about all along, namely that this entire article, from top to bottom, is riddled with laugh-out-loud bias. Anyone who can read purple prose like that and still not understand my frustrations with this article is, I would respectfully submit, not trying hard enough. If that sentence is neutral then the word has lost its meaning. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem for me with most of the new edits by Brooklyn Eagle, though I did re-add two sources. I would have kept "a few" since i think it's more accurate in this case, but "some" can also work. As for the number of sources needed for "greatest ever", it's not just a question of number. It's also a question of other matches being considered the greatest. If there are 100 sources that say it's the greatest, but there are 50 or 100 other sources that say something else is the greatest, then none of those are widely held as the greatest. We would use "some." Some is also much easier to source, since editors can throw out 3–5 sources and say "some." We also have to take context into it. There is much more press coverage today then 40 years ago. It's easy to look up 50 sports sections and see the same thing many times, where we don't have as much of that from the 70s. We have to pay for newspaper or magazine archive retrieval. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm evidently not going to get an answer to my question about blogs so, as life's too short, I'm simply going to give up, albeit with some frustration. Re: "a few" being "more accurate", that is bizarre. As discussed above, the mono discussion refers to "some" (and originally referred to "many") yet only two sources are provided. Yet the counterargument, with three sources, should be "a few"? I appreciate that "some" stands but the continued suggestion that "a few" is more accurate is startling.

Re: Wimbledon 08, I have already addressed precisely that argument. It's not just that there are so many sources describing 08 as "the greatest", it's that that number is so much higher than for any other match. I repeat, if anyone can name a single match that has been cited half as often, I'm happy to concede this point. Re: newspapers from the 70s etc, that argument seems back to front. An earlier match is likely to have MORE citations as "the greatest", not fewer, since it has had longer to collect such accolades. In any case, an article from, say, 1980 saying that the Borg-McEnroe final was "the greatest" would, of course, be utterly irrelevant to this discussion. It would be like attempting to rebut the argument that Federer is the greatest player by referring to an article from 2002 saying that Sampras is the greatest.

I was (and remain) prepared to let the Emerson quote go, even though it's directly relevant and sourced, and I'm also prepared to leave in the selective insistence on referring to one of the sources as a blog (despite the clear implication that it's just the private ramblings of some random amateur on blogspot rather than what it actually is, namely the opinion of an experienced tennis journalist on the website of one of the world's most respected media outlets). But I'm less willing to concede this point. Without at least some evidence that there are any other tennis matches that have been referred to as "the greatest" remotely as often as 08, I think we should just revert to referring to 08 in the way that it's described by all four sources, namely, as the greatest. If we need more sources, fine. As I said previously, I'll get the number up to ten, which clearly constitutes "many" in most areas of Wikipedia, very definitely including articles about tennis. And as I also said, if someone comes up with another match that compares, I'll consider that too. I think that's a reasonable suggestion for a situation that, while not quite akin to having to prove the sky is blue, is heading in that direction. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but for me this gets tiring after awhile. When something derogatory gets written about a player in a blog, I would say that the fact it IS a blog should be mentioned (if for any reason the line isn't thrown out completely). The fact that the 2008 match gets mentioned more than any other single match is 100% irrelevant to the term "widely." It would need to be mentioned mush more than all other matches combined to be coined as "widely considered the greatest." I saw sources for the Nadal/Djokovic Australian final, the Gonzales/Pasarell Wimbledon match, the Borg/McEnroe match, the '36 Budge/van Cramm match, the Graf/Seles French match, Lenglen/Wills thriller, Laver/Rosewall WTC Dallas event (which was amazing). With something this subjective "some" almost always works best. If everyone else here wants to use "many" it's not like I'm going to faint or something. But "widely considered" is way over the top. And earlier matches get forgotten quickly since so many young writers go by the mantra that current era is always best. When there's 10-15 years between a player retiring and a press article, things tend to settle down about how great they were. It's just natural. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, we're both tired of this. At least we agree on that. So let's proceed to some sort of concrete criterion so that we can settle this once and for all. You say that "it would need to be mentioned more than all other matches combined to be considered 'widely'". Is that something you have just made up or is it official Wikipedia policy? Apart from anything else, it is, to put it politely, somewhat unrealistic. (Assuming it's even possible.) How would anyone ever be able to meet that standard? Are you seriously suggesting we track down every single reference ever made and then find out whether one match outnumbers all the others combined? Seriously?

In any case, I'm more than happy with "many". Many is used time and time again throughout tennis articles on Wikipedia, including this one. Eg Federer is described, in this article, as being considered by "many" to be the greatest ever. Three sources are provided, one less than we currently have for the 08 final. But I have no problem with three, because I don't doubt we could get ten more references to Federer as the GOAT, or a hundred more. It's only three because life is too short to get more examples of what every fair minded person knows to be true, namely that many regard him as the greatest. In the next line, Nadal is referred to as being regarded by "many" as the greatest clay courter. Again, three sources are provided. Again, I have no problem whatsoever with that. Again, it seems to me to be clearly the case that "many" regard him as such, and so three for me is plenty. In both cases, three sources serve for the many hundreds of others we could find if we had the time. I see no reason why the 08 final should be treated differently.

In short, neither the dictionary definition of "many" (nor of "widely" for that matter) nor Wikipedia policy, nor precedent, nor custom, nor anything else that I'm aware of prohibit the use of "many" in this instance. But I'm not asking for policy or custom or anything else. I'm asking fellow editors for their concrete suggestions as to what constitutes "many", so that we can reach consensus and not edit-war on this. So can we please agree on an objective and realistic standard for the use of "many" and get this over and done with. I've already made my suggestion, namely that the four we already have are more than enough to justify "many", as with the other uses of "many" in this article. But if four aren't enough, I'm happy to get more. Let's agree on a number and then call it a day. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be the definition of the word "widely." If The Froglegs are widely considered to be the best curling team in history, readers would read that as they are considered the best by easily more than 50% of sources... probably more like 75%. Widely has HUGE connotations and is completely unfit for this article. Federer's sentence should also say "some" instead of "many." I'll go with your use of "many" if it stops all the other nitpicking, but it will wind up changing other great players and rivalry articles to "many" instead of their current use of "some." Others, including myself, will wind up using this article as a template when they start adding "many" to a lot of bios....as what's fair for one is fair for all with this slippery slope. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Nitpicking" is a cheap shot. If you think that drawing attention to laugh-out-loud absurdity such "dazzling groundstrokes", or to shamefully non-neutral nonsense like "masked", or to decade-old sources for arguments that have been turned upside down by history, or to plain old-fashioned childishness like "bagel", etc etc etc, constitutes "nitpicking" then you evidently think neutrality is a trivial matter. If so, we disagree. As to the rest, I've conceded two of the three points we've spent most time discussing, and my main concern - namely whether it's remotely appropriate for a supposedly neutral article to spend so much time dwelling on issues whose only purpose is to cast doubt on the results of the H2H - hasn't even been acknowledged, let alone discussed.

As to "widely", what "definition" of the word are you referring to? Because it's certainly not the one in the dictionary. Re: your suggestion that the Federer sentence should say that "some" think he's the greatest, have you edited the main Federer article to that effect? I'm going to take a wild guess that you haven't. In fact for a long time I seem to recall that it said "widely", and last I checked it said "many". What it definitely didn't say was "some". And nor should it. He is considered by many - very, very many - to be the greatest ever, in fact I would say he is "widely" so considered. Whether he actually is the greatest is unknowable but that he is widely so considered is, in my view, pretty much a statement of common sense. Ditto Nadal on clay.

Anyway, as I said previously, I'm not pushing for "widely", so, since we seem to be agreed on "many" I'll make the change to that effect.

Update, I note you've already done that. Much appreciated. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Bzzztt... you'd be wrong since I have changed Federer to "some." I do not find him to be widely considered the goat, but I have no problem with many. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I've acknowledged and agreed with your sentiments about excuses near the start of this section. I'd prefer cutting those discussions back significantly by leaving out many details, like I proposed in the green line above, which merely summarizes the fact that various excuses have been made. All these mentions throughout the article can be grouped into one brief section "Circumstances possibly affecting head to head record" (or something more eloquent). Gap9551 (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You'd have to post here just how you would change the section so we could take a looksee. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a section may be too much and a paragraph may be enough, at the end of Significant Aspects. For example: There is debate as to how much of a role sickness and injury have played in the rivalry. Federer suffered from mononucleosis in early 2008, a back injury in 2013, and a knee injury in the second half of 2016. Nadal has had several injuries throughout his career that among others caused him miss eight Grand Slam tournaments including Wimbledon 2009 and the US Open 2014, where he was the defending champion. This has reduced the number of opportunities for both players to meet at various stages of their respective careers, and when they did meet, one or both players may not have been fully fit. These factors have potentially affected their head-to-head record. (The first sentence is already in the article and what follows could be replaced). With references (that are already in the article) in the proper places for all injury dates, as well as references saying that this may have affected the H2H. Gap9551 (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Fyunck(click) - really? You changed Federer to "some"? The actual Federer article, as opposed to just this one? If so I take my hat off to you, and withdraw my suggestion to the contrary. I still think "many" is more appropriate but if you've changed it to some then I salute your consistency.

@ Gap9551 I second that suggestion. And yes, I appreciate that you did previously suggest that less time be spent on the whole mono / injury discussion. In the Talk pages we're corresponding with multiple people at once, and in this case over a span of a few years (this first cropped up back in 2015), so I'll be more careful in future to be specific. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I've done it several times through the years, the last being January 31, 2017. I still think in an encyclopedia "some" works best for all these players and circumstances. "Many" opens up all the other circumstances for the same usage. I disagree with Gaps wording since we have multiple sources on Federer's 2008 sickness and fitness lasting through 2008 not just early 2008. I would also include his Nadal record during that time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you agree if "early 2008" is replaced with "2008" in my suggestion, and the 4-0 for 2008 is mentioned? Ideally we need sources that directly mention a causal relationship between Federer's 2008 illness to the 4-0 H2H with Nadal, otherwise there is a WP:SYNTHESIS risk. Also, are there matches where Nadal wasn't 100% and lost to Federer with reliable sources? If such matches exist, I think they should be mentioned along with any 4-0 for balance. Gap9551 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries, and I only mentioned it once. Gap9551 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I think those changes would work Gap9551. I have never been a fan of the block quoting and only added some after others did so. I would leave all the sourcing links though so people could read the articles for themselves. There is a mistake in one item you wrote that should be changed. In listing Federer's knee you said "and a knee injury in the second half of 2016." That is wrong. I'm not sure the exact date he injured it but his surgery was on Feb 3, 2016. He took time off after surgery, came back, and finally took off the second half of the year but it was pretty much injured all season (since the Australian Open). So that line should say "and a knee injury throughout 2016." I would agree with the Nadal match balance if such matches could be found. I had checked before and it seemed Nadal either lost in a round before they met or was not in the event at all when he was injured. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I made those changes. I added a source with a list of Nadal's injuries. For now I left out the last paragraph criticizing Federer for making excuses, including those three sources (two of which were from Bleacher Report), but I'm open to reconsidering that. I believe the moral aspect of making excuses isn't relevant in a discussion about the effect of injuries on the H2H record. It was also unbalanced; I believe Nadal has mentioned injuries too after losses. Gap9551 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to say "2008" rather than "early 2008", and then follow it up with "he lost all four of his matches with Nadal that year", there's a very clear implication that the Nadal matches were affected. That is highly contentious, and actually is a claim that not even Federer himself has ever made. Apart from anything else, it flies in the face of the evidence (the further he got from mono, the worse his results vs Nadal - the first two matches of the year were relatively close, followed by his heaviest ever defeat and his first ever loss to Nadal on grass). So for balance we need to include the references (from Federer himself!) that say he was over it by March. No one knows, or will ever know, how many of his matches were affected by mono. So I suggest we leave both sets of sources and let the readers decide. This can be done relatively briefly and still leaves us with a far shorter article than before.

Otherwise we seem to be agreed. I'm happy to lose all the stuff about Federer's excuses - the only reason they were there was because these excuses were recycled at such length here. But now that they've been edited to what seems a more appropriate size, the reference to his excuses is no longer needed. Re: "morality", I don't suppose we need to get into a debate about it since we've now reached consensus but, purely for the record, the point of the references was that it is generally considered bad form in tennis (at every level) to cite injury/illness after a loss, just as it's considered bad form to argue with umpires (discussed at length in the McEnroe article) and to "tank" (Kyrgios article). It's relevant to the H2H because if one player breaks this protocol, and in so doing casts doubt on the record, while the other observes the protocol, it penalises the latter (by suggesting that his wins were less valuable). I think a clear distinction can be made between Federer and Nadal in this regard. Federer has fallen out with a number of players over his excuses, most notably Berdych but also Murray (who was furious about the mono excuse) and Djokovic (who according to Federer only won by hitting "a lucky shot"). As to Nadal citing injuries, he very rarely blames specific losses on them, and has often been praised for not doing so. Eg he was widely praised for his refusal to say he was injured vs Rosol in 2012, despite clearly being sub par and then missing seven months (including carrying the flag at the Olympics). Ditto vs Soderling in RG 09 (again despite widespread suspicion he wasn't 100pc, and again despite this being his last match before a significant lay-off, including not being able to defend his first Wimbledon title).

Like I say, that's just for the record. Every player has his strengths and weaknesses, personality-wise as well as tennis-wise. And just as Nadal is clearly the worst offender when it comes to time violations, and has rightly been criticised for this, Federer is clearly more prone to making excuses for losses.

Lastly, I've slightly changed the wording about Nadal's lead in the H2H being "built" on the clay dominance. I don't think "built" is the right word for a neutral article but since we seem to be agreed on the rest I'll leave it, albeit slightly re-worded to clarify that it's not just about clay. If he were hopeless on other surfaces he would be behind in the H2H. I also think there's an issue with dividing the H2H into clay and non-clay, as if clay-court tennis were a different sport. One could equally say that grass court tennis is a different sport (indeed it would arguably be more true to say so, given that so few people have ever played on grass, and that so few tournaments are played on it), but I doubt anyone would accept the grass court record being ghettoised in that way. By way of illustration, I wonder if anyone would accept the Grand Slam Comparison section being changed to say the following: "Federer's lead in grand slams won is built on his dominance on grass. On all other surfaces, Nadal leads by 12 grand slams to 11". I'm guessing that wouldn't be a popular thing to say. And yet the logic is identical.

Anyway, I'm leaving it in, just re-worded for absolute clarity. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want the actual sources re-added, I'm ok with that. But the object of Gap edit was to make it short and sweet. If you add what Federer said then we also have to add what Courier said and what Pierre Paganini said. We can do that, and make it a bit longer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I like the rephrased "clay dominance" paragraph. It is worth pointing out the deeper origin of his H2H lead but obviously without somehow discrediting clay. I believe that paragraph originates from the days that over 50% of their matches had been played on clay, and it was argued that this surface was overrepresented in their meetings. That issue has been largely "solved" with them meeting mostly on hard courts in recent years.

As for excuses, you only list excuses for losses by Federer to other players. For the purposes of this article, excuses Federer made for losses to Nadal would be better. (Although admittedly this article does already discuss more general aspects of their careers, like slam count, which do not immediately relate to their meetings). I think the more general excuse issue is more appropriate for the Federer article. For the record, Nadal and his coach aren't afraid to state Nadal was injured during losses, including Rosol, but usually not right after the match. But we're moving to forum stuff now. Gap9551 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm baffled now. It was me who put Courier and Paganini back in! (They were the "some" who said Federer had mono all year long.) And now you've taken them out again. If your objection is to having the words "Federer said he was over it" in the body of the article itself, fair enough, I'll take them out. Alternatively we could balance that by saying "Courier and Paganini said X, Federer and his doctors said Y", though that would obviously be longer. But there's no way we can suggest that he had mono throughout 2008, or that it affected any (let alone all) of his matches with Nadal, as if those were statements of facts. That is contentious and plainly not neutral, and also not what the two sources currently being used say. The bottom line is that some think it lasted all year, some think it didn't, so we leave both sets of sources and let the readers decide. If the objection is to the length of the article, again, I'm not sure why the previous version, where the mono discussion was 5x longer, was allowed to stand for so long. If we really want a shorter article, the whole paragraph could be removed. Failing that, the logical compromise is to have one extra sentence that states that there are two opinions on this. Result: neutrality, and a much shorter article than the one we were discussing last week. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You say it but you back it up with the sources. If you say "Federer says this..." then we will also say "Tennis analyst and former No. 1 Jim Courier and Federer's personal trainer Paganini says that..." I would say we go with Gap's shorter version but you can't have one without the other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't removing the whole paragraph but many editors prefer to have some discussion of this topic, and the single paragraph may be a reasonable compromise. A concise alternative for the 2008 situation is Federer suffered from mononucleosis in part of, or possibly all, 2008. Or something similar, with all sources. Gap9551 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition on the "record" or "significant achievements" section

Since it is semi-protected, and I don't have the credentials, I suggest the following addition in the "record" section: - In Men's singles, played the Grand Slam final with the most majors combined between the two opponents (31) at the 2017 Australian Open

Neutrality not achieved on "Significant Aspects" section despite "compromise"!

What is wrong with my contribution? It is only fair, for the sake of balance, that the reader know that Nadal's knee injury may have been a factor in his loss to Federer in 2015. After all, it is you who wrote "Also, Nadal's losses to Federer while injured are perfectly acceptable but as pointed out by others it can't be when Nadal was not playing. It has to be sourced that Nadal was injured when he lost". That was you! You wrote that at 05:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC). Moreover, I have removed the line "Federer suffered from mononucleosis in 2008, when he lost all four of his matches with Nadal" because, as Brooklyn Eagle pointed out, "...there's no way we can suggest that he had mono throughout 2008, or that it affected any (let alone all) of his matches with Nadal, as if those were statements of facts. That is contentious and plainly not neutral, and also not what the two sources currently being used say. The bottom line is that some think it lasted all year, some think it didn't, so we leave both sets of sources and let the readers decide." That line ("Federer suffered from mononucleosis in 2008, when he lost all four of his matches with Nadal") is overtly trying to suggest to the reader that mono was a factor in those matches wherein Nadal and Federer faced each other in 2008, despite word from Federer HIMSELF to the contrary! 132.185.160.131 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It isn't the knee. There was much compromise on cutting down the size of the section. The 2008 mono is fine as it is with the sourcing it has. I can reword the knee issue after I fully read the sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I read the sourcing. The minute by minute source was odd but I left it in. I simply said Nadal was injured in the 2015 final and let the sources do the rest of the work. We didn't need the rest of the flower. That injury was a good find by the way. The rest of the mono stuff was already talked about here and worked well as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Re "The 2008 mono is fine as it is with the sourcing it has". I beg to differ, as the way it is drafted heavily insinuates that mono was a factor in Federer's matches against Nadal in '08. Re "I can reword the knee issue after I fully read the sourcing. ", fee free to do so, but know that I will edit your edit if I think it is unfair and/or unsatisfactory. 132.185.160.130 (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Re "I simply said Nadal was injured in the 2015 final and let the sources do the rest of the work. We didn't need the rest of the flower". I disagree with this. You said at 05:39 on 6 April that "It has to be sourced that Nadal was injured when he lost". Unlike the mono excuse, it is sourced that Rafa was injured when he lost that match in 2015 to Federer. Therefore, my original wording should stay. Re "The rest of the mono stuff was already talked about here and worked well as is.", I respectfully disagree. The rest of the mono stuff is clearly designed to make the reader think mono was a factor in those matches against Nadal in 2008. There is no evidence for that. Now, we should include the mono stuff, but it is not for us to make the argument that it may or may not have influenced their matches. We simply state it and let the reader decide. Your wording does not do that. Your wording is actively trying to push a narrative. That violates the NPOV.132.185.160.130 (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Re the line "Federer suffered from mononucleosis in 2008, when he lost all four of his matches with Nadal"; this line is profoundly problematic. At best, it is ambiguous. At worst it is leading (as in "leading question"). Correlation does not imply causation: events which coincide with each other are not necessarily caused by each other. So, the coincidence of Federer's four losses to Nadal in 2008 was not necessarily caused by his short bout with mono in the same year. The wording of the line "Federer suffered from mononucleosis in 2008, when he lost all four of his matches with Nadal", however, seems to be intent on doing just that - i.e. imply causation from correlation.132.185.161.130 (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Then convinse us before re-adding. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Who's "us" that I need to convince? 132.185.160.127 (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mind you, I am not averse to Gap9551's suggested draft: "There is debate as to how much of a role sickness and injury have played in the rivalry. Federer suffered from mononucleosis in early 2008, a back injury in 2013, and a knee injury in the second half of 2016. Nadal has had several injuries throughout his career that among others caused him miss eight Grand Slam tournaments including Wimbledon 2009 and the US Open 2014, where he was the defending champion. This has reduced the number of opportunities for both players to meet at various stages of their respective careers, and when they did meet, one or both players may not have been fully fit. These factors have potentially affected their head-to-head record." I have also reviewed the exchange between yourself, Gap9551 and Brooklyn Eagle, and it doesn't seem to me like a compromise was reached,; or at least, the compromise that was reached, which is Gap9551's draft (reproduced above), is not what is reflected on the page as it is. 132.185.161.126 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I am unable to verify your Paganini source. The your link (http://gototennis.com/2009/10/27/pierre-paganini-on-roger-federer-as-long-as-he-plays-he-will-be-strong/) appears to be a link some sort of a search engine. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I can't find your source to verify its content and I'd like to be able to verify its content. So, could you please provide a working link to the Pierre Paganini statement? Thanks. In the means, I will remove it.132.185.161.126 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a new editor, the same editor with a different IP, or a blocked editor trying to step in. No way to know. We can go back to the pre-draft and work on things, but we are not just putting in your version of the situation without discussion and agreement. That is not the way wikipedia works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with my version? And please, I will not take lectures on the "the way Wikipedia works" from you. I have said that we should take this to dispute resolution as it appears that we are at an impasse, but you seem to be averse to that. I contend that you are trying to skew that section in Federer's favour. Every edit you have made to that sections teems with bias in Federer's favour. I am simply trying to avoid that and present a paragraph that isn't biased in either player's favour. You seem to be against this. In that case, let us bring this to dispute resolution or this will just keep going on. 132.185.160.125 (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure which person I'm talking to right now, but hey, if everyone else loves what you changed I'm not going to worry about it. As far as the "every edit" comment, that's just baloney and fabrication on your part. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"By age" timeline

There is an error in the "by age" comparison timeline. Some results have already been filled in in the age 36 fields for Roger Federer even though he only turns 36 next month.Tvx1 18:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It says "Age at end of season". Gap9551 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Indoor/outdoor event

Per the ATP, Shanghai was an outdoor event. It lists Roger Federer as having won no indoor finals in 2017 and it also lists him as having played no indoor tournaments at all. Unless it can be shown by the ATP/ITF that his record is different, the Shanghai final with a closed roof should follow their official results. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I was wrong, the ATP officially list that match as outdoor:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-rafael-nadal/F324/N409

However, I included an asterysk to specify that the Shanghai final was played on indoor HC due to rain. The reader will not know that data if we do not specify it. It's my last change today with good faith. I won't make any more editions in the next 24 hours. I hope I will not be blocked but I assume maybe you decide to to do it due to my 4th edition in one day. James343e(click) (talk)

You could be blocked for edit warring on this topic 9x in a week with multiple editors. 4 reverts in one day is only one of the factors for getting blocked. You revert one time ONLY, and then bring it to talk to convince others or come to a compromise. You do not keep reverting! An asterisk is not a bad idea however we do not know the definition of "indoor hard court" as defined by the ATP or ITF. It may not actually be an indoor hard court per their rules just because a retractable roof closes. It is still a long way from something like Madison Square Garden which is always indoors. The only source we really have is the ATP telling us the event final was played outdoor hard court per their listing. That's all we officially have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If you prefer "roof closed" for me is OK. I'm happy to see we came to an agreement. James343e(click) (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not up to just me... others reverted you many many times before I came along. They may not agree with any of that asterisk addition, but it seemed ok with me and it got you to stop the disruptive editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)