Talk:Lists of tennis records and statistics/Archive 1

Single title

It's mean Single Title only right??

No, it's Grand Slam titles, all of them; it's just that nobody got around to adding the rest of the information. Aliter 13:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

French Closed?

We now have: "Lenglen won the French Open singles six times, but on four of these occasions, the tournament was open only to French players." If those tournments weren't open to outsiders, in what sense were they "open"? Aliter 13:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fred Perry

How come Fred Perry isn't on any of these lists? From what his page says, he won 7 singles Grand Slam events and 6 doubles, mixed and men's...--Ben davison 23:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Basically, because these lists are still under construction. If you notice an omission, feel free to correct it. Or if you are more ambitious: Feel free to extract the complete information from the winners lists for the Grand Slam tournaments. Aliter 16:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Larned

William Larned won 8 US Open, this is the record, not Sears's 7, but he is not even on the lists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Open_champions_%28Men%27s_Singles%29

Fleming

Fleming and Mcenore have 7 titles togther-i'll add that later, to the all time table OSmeone 11:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger of this article into the Tennis statistics article

Please comment about the proposed merger either here or at the tennis statistics talk page. I am proposing that the merger occur on or after December 20, 2006. Thanks. Tennis expert 17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Inadequate titles

"Tennis statistics" isn't an adequate title because there isn't anything about professional tennis in the pre-open years : knowing that from 1948 to 1967 the best player was always a professional player and not an amateur one it would be fair to list some pro records. For instance Roy Emerson has perhaps won 12 Grand Slam amateur titles but the best players of the "Emerson era", Rosewall and Laver, were forbidden from playing any traditional amateur event because they were pros. So just to make justice I am translating in English a small article called "Tennis, male players statistics" that I've written in the French version of Wikipedia Carlo Colussi 13:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. Where this article covers only the open era, the article specifically says so. Much of the article covers the entire history of tennis. Tennis expert 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat that this article completely forgets the professional circuit before 1968. Is there anything for example about Budge in 1939, his greatest year of his whole career, in this article ? Absolutely nothing though he has won the French Pro in Roland Garros over Vines, Wembley Pro over Nüsslein, his pro tour against Vines, his pro tour against Perry and also the pro tour in Europe against Vines, Stoefen and Tilden. In your article there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING RELATIVE TO THE PRO EXPLOITS BEFORE 1968. Where are the French Pro titles of Rosewall, the US Pro titles of Gonzales, the Pro tours won by Vines ? Nowhere. So before 1968 you just have taken into account the Slam AMATEUR tournaments but nothing about the pro circuit because as many persons you brush away all the pro exploits forgotten or even ignored by almost everyone. But I have much more respect for Budge's victory at Wembley in 1939 than for Riggs's victory at Wimbledon the same year; there is no comparison between the superb Rosewall's victory at Roland Garros Pro in 1958 and Rose's victory at the same site in the amateur ranks and Emerson has won so many tournaments because he had not to face Rosewall, Laver and Gonzales who were pros at the same time. So when we talk about tennis statistics it is unfair and inadequate not to take into account Kozeluh-Nüsslein-Tilden-Vines-Cochet-Perry-Budge-Riggs-Kovacs-Kramer-Segura-Gonzales-Sedgman-Trabert-Rosewall-Hoad-Laver pro exploits before 1968. Carlo Colussi 09:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but a lot of what you are saying is POV. And with all due respect, this is not "my" article. I have a lot of regard for professional players who toiled before the start of the open era. But what we put on Wikipedia has to have a neutral point of view (a corrollary of which is that Wikipedia is not the place for publishing your own thoughts or analyses), be verifiable, and not be original research. Tennis expert 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

What means POV ?

You're right : this is not "your" article.

Now with you merging propositions I agree the article title : I ALSO AGREE THE MERGING OF "Tennis world champions named by the International Tennis Federation" AND "Male tennis players with most singles major championship wins" INTO THE "Tennis Statistics" article. Carlo Colussi 08:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For more information about the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, see the information at WP:NPOV. Tennis expert 15:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rankings

Using statistics, likely any list of all-time greats would include (not in any ranking):

Men - Sampras,Laver,Emerson,Borg,Lendl,Agassi,Connors,Tilden,JMcEnroe,Perry,Edberg,Newcombe,Becker, and Rosewall.

Women - Graf,Court,Navratilova,Evert,Moody,King,Lenglen,Connelly,SWilliams,Goolagong

One ranking formula weights Grand Slam (GS) final appearances, GS titles, career duration, overall ATP/WTA singles titles, and a factor for how many different Grand Slams were won.

The above has not yet evaluated some older players(pre-WWI). I will provide the raw rating formula: K1*[GS finals+K2*GS singles titles]+ K3*ATP/WTA titles + K4*duration +K5*(GS doubles titles). I used K2=3,K3=0.1,K4=0.2,K5=0.1. K1=1.25 if won (4) different GS, 1.15 for 3, 1.10 for 2, 1.05 for 1 and 1.0 for none. The evaluation is gender-neutral and was derived without bias and apriori knowledge of the results. There would be some band (5%?) where numeric difference between players is insignificant. It allows one to do "what if" scenarios on active players like say Roger Federer.

Any rating system should reward success, breadth of play (considering both surface and singles/doubles formats), and impact/dominance on the game. "Duration" is a measure of career length, perhaps defined as the years between first and last qtr final appearances in a Major.

One can start from basic ratings and use other factors to arrive at their own individual order for all-time greats. Comparisons between players of different eras is not simple or straightforward to do. I would doubt any system that did not result in Graf and Navratilova ranked in the top women.

There is one extremely simple way

Career Prize Money Per Purchasing Power.

That would also be extremely misleading, as it ignores the massive changes in the value of prize funds relative to total economic output, which are not a reflection of the profile of sport, or the quality of the players, but rather of the competitiveness of the media, and the increasing sophistication of sports marketing. Also, purchasing power where and in which currency exactly? Tennis is a global sport, and inflation varies dramatically between countries, and exchange rates fluctuate a great deal.

Traits

Looking at the list of all-time greats, most will have:

-at least 50 singles titles or Olympic medals

-10 or more Grand_Slam_(tennis)singles finals appearances

-7 or more Grand Slam singles wins

-have a career duration (as defined) of 10 or more years [measured from 1st title to the last appearance in a Final].

-have won at least 3 of the 4 different Grand Slams

-dominated during their era

Outliers

The male players will usually be tall (Agassi is one exception). It is uncommon to find players performing well on both grass and clay (Borg is one exception).

Interruptions

Pure statistics cannot account for nuances like career interruptions (Hingis,Capriati) and injury/catastrophe (Seles). Many would not question that Seles would have been on the list without events.

Active Players

Among active players, Federer, Hingis, Henin, and Davenport have the best statistics to move onto the list (as of 2006).

Next Tier

Remaining players who would be in the next group of great players might include Hingis,Trabert,Seles,Wilander, Federer, Davenport among others. Billymac00 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of chrono order discussion

Surely the most rational approach on listing Majors is to list them all, including the Pros. A composite of Open and Amateur Majors is ridiculous. It is also misleading and inaccurate. I would suggest separate Amateur, Professional and Open leader boards. It doesn't add a lot of extra text, but it does add meaning and depth. As an Aussie, I remain mystified by Emerson's lofty rating when this guy was never ranked in the top two or three best players in any year and never won a Major against top competition. I have been working on a book on this topic for years Geist and McCauley tell part of the story. The best player and the toughest competition 1930 -1967 was a Pro playing professional tennis. Get the data right and all other debates - including the best player of all time - are solveable. PS Would you like to know BPOAT's name? He's not active on the tour, but he is alive.;) Doug HartleyDouglas Hartley 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I almost agree your comments.

Sure Emerson is overrated but it is hard to compare him with Rosewall, Laver, Gonzales because his apogee was between 1963 and 1967 where the pros were banished from the traditional amateur circuit. The only possible comparison of this period is indirect : Stolle in 1966 (as an amateur)-1967 (as a pro). We can supposedly claim that Stolle and Emerson were quite equal in 1966 (perhaps Stolle was slightly superior that year) but it is sure that Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno (and Gonzales ?) were better than Stolle in 1967. So we can PERHAPS conclude that Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno were ahead of Emerson in the 1966-1967 era. Emerson's peak is supposed to be his 1967 Australian victory and then he steadily declined (nevertheless later he beat Roche in Roland Garros final and Santana in the Challenge Round) so it is unfair to judge him by only considering his open career. But it is clear that from 1968 Laver and Rosewall had much better records than Emerson (though in head-to-head matches he was almost equal to Rosewall but Kenny won the important one in the quarters of the 1971 Aussie open) and that Gonzales largely dominated Emerson in direct confrontations (something like 12-3).

But I don't fully agree with your assertion saying that the toughest competition was the pro one between 1930 and 1967 :

- in 1931 it isn't sure that Tilden (pro) was better than Vines (amateur) (Myers ranked Cochet as #1 amateur in 1931 but Vines had a better record).

- in 1932 and 1933 respectively Vines (amateur) and Crawford (amateur) were probably better than respectively Tilden (pro) and Nüsslein (pro)

- it is very hard not to say impossible to choose the best player between Vines (pro) and Perry (amateur) when they ruled their own circuit from 1934 through 1936.

- Budge (amateur) was probably at least equal to Vines, Nüsslein and Perry in 1937-1938 if not better (according to Ray Bowers, Budge and Vines only met once during these two years : early 1937 in Florida where Budge won their single set, 14-12; then they officially played each other at the beginning of 1939 when Budge slightly overcame Vines 22 matches to 17 : so it isn't wrong to say that Budge was possibly the best player in the world in 1937-1938 or at least a co-No.1)

- in 1939 pros Budge, Vines, Nüsslein and Perry were probably better than amateurs Riggs, Bromwich, Quist, Parker or von Cramm

- in 1940 pros Budge and Perry were possibly better than McNeill, Riggs, Kovacs

- in 1941 it is possible that Riggs (amateur) and Kovacs (amateur) were ahead of pros Perry, Skeen and Budge : both Riggs and Kovacs led Perry and Budge at the start of the 1942 pro tour. In fact after having reached his peak in 1939 Budge slowly declined : a) his motivation decreased given that no new great player turned pro and that Vines had retired (in 1941 Don toured against a 48-year-old Tilden), b) then he lost his great physical condition (hospitalized in October 1940 and in May 1941) and still looked overweight and out of condition in January 1942. Moreover in 1941 the U.S. amateur circuit included much more competition than its pro counterpart : all this explains why the 1941 pro vintage was a bad one.

- in mid-1942 Budge reached the second, chronologically, peak of his whole career (the first one being in 1939 and not in 1938) and it is probable that he, Sabin, Riggs, Kovacs and perhaps Skeen and Perry were superior to all the amateurs.

- in 1943-1944-1945 there was so few tennis events that it is almost impossible to establish a hierarchy (in 1945 Riggs overcame Budge 3-2 (pro) and Parker (amateur and both holder and future titlist of the US Nationals) in the Armed Forces meetings.

- Kramer thought that in 1946, as an amateur, he wasn't mature enough to beat pro Budge who was then second to Riggs (pro too).

- in 1947 Riggs (pro) and Kramer (amateur) were possibly equal. Nevertheless Riggs defeated Kramer 3 matches to 1 in 1947 (later Riggs led 8-5 in their pro tour then Kramer, knowing that if he lost the tour he could never be chosen for another future one, made the biggest and riskiest move of his whole tennis career and completely adopted the serve-and-volley game (Kramer, "The Game" page 160 : "Because it was the only way I could beat Bobby Riggs"). This bet succeeded beyond any hope because the results were wholly reversed at the end of the five-month tour in May 1948 : 69-20 for Kramer).

Finally from 1948 through 1967 the best player was surely a pro one except perhaps in 1952 : no one can compare Sedgman (best amateur) with Gonzales (best pro) for that year. Gonzales had dominated Sedgman in 1949 in the amateur ranks, then the two players didn't play the same circuit for 3 years (1950-1952) but in 1953 Sedgman beat Gonzales three times out of 3 without losing a set so it isn't clear who was the best in 1952 (I agree that from 1954 through the end of their career Gonzales used to lead the Australian except in 1958 when their win-loss tally was 4-4 (4-2 for Sedgman in "at-least-8-man" tournaments)).

Conclusion : the best player was alternatively an amateur player or a pro player between 1931 and 1947 and pro players really became the best ones since 1948 (with the possible exception of 1952).

Carlo Colussi 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

re: the SET rankings, the link appears defunct. Any such ranking's use is diminished without knowing the formulation for the ranking ...if the user knows it, I'd like to see it-- Billymac00 03:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I CORRECTED WHAT MENTIONED ABOUT JUSTINE HENIN, AS SHE WON HER FIRST GRAND SLAM TITLE AT 2001, AND THAT MAKES THE SPAN 7 YEARS, BUT IN FACT, JUSTINE HENIN WON HER FIRST GRAND SLAM IN 2003, AND THAT MAKES THE SPAN 5 YEARS.

Merger of articles into this one

I've suggested that various tennis statistical articles be merged into this article, especially where the articles are repetitious. I do not feel strongly about this, but it is a pain to keep up with several articles that cover the same ground. I propose that the merger be delayed until at least December 20, 2006, to give editors a meaningful opportunity to comment. Thank you. Tennis expert 17:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

a) I've seen that you have rightly integrated the "World champions named by the International Tennis Federation" article in the "Tennis statistics" article but the "World champions named by the International Tennis Federation" article is still existing. Will it be automatically deleted or do you have to do it ?

b) Will you do the same for the "Tennis, male players statistics" article ? I think it would be adequate, don't you ? Carlo Colussi 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tennis world champions named by the International Tennis Federation will be deleted soon. I do not have any plans to merge the Tennis, male players statistics article with the Tennis statistics article. The former still needs some editing and, in any event, the subject matter is different enough to warrant continuance of a separate article in my opinion. Tennis expert 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed merger. Since the world champion is named by the ITF and not the winner per se of a world championship tournament, this is not acctually statistics but more like a relatively important form of trivia. It should therefor have its own artice, but there should of course be links between the articles. John Anderson 08:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose. This article seems bloated already for one page. Plus "Tennis male players statistics" deals with tournaments that this article pretty much forgoes. They don't seem to be a good fit to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments from this page creator

Hi, I created this page and have read some of the comments regarding the unfairness of having such a page due to comparison with pre-open-era statistics. I see my original introduction has been greatly edited but my intention was to merely provide the 'as-is' statistics and mention that these are merely an indication of greatness and many factors have skewed the statistics. I don't think it is ever anyone's intention to compare open-era players with the inadequacies of the past. At the same time it would be pointless to ignore the feats of the open era players who amassed statistics against all the pro's of their time. The argument one has for Rod Laver for example, was that he would have probably won many more Grand Slams and been at the top of the list, and few would deny that, but remember he notched up a few losses at the same time. Hence 'winning ratio' would be a better comparison, not? I am tempted to create a table of winning ratio for players who have won 6 or more slams. Also, regarding the 'Tennis, male players statistics' article, this is not an ideal comparison either as it ignores the years missed due to war by someone like Budge. The same for Rosewall who should not be granted 23 virtual slams, he was a victim of unfortunate circumstances like Budge. By the way I still think Laver was the greatest ever. Budge a close third. When (not if) Federer wins the French, he will be the greatest. Sandman30s 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Hello. Answer from the 'Tennis, male players statistics' article creator.

'Winning ratio' is not the best indicator : it is just one of them. If you use that sort of ratio you could say that Riggs and Schroeder are the best Wimbledon champions because they were undefeated in the "Temple" (Riggs is even undefeated in doubles and in mixed doubles). Borg is often cited as the best "winning ratio" player but his career has lasted about a decade so it is easier in this case to have better ratio statistics than for a player as Tilden who has played about 40 years (1912 to 1952) in singles or Rosewall who has played 30 years (1950 to 1980).

You could also say that Agassi was unbeaten in the Australian Open from 2000 to 2003 and has won 21 matches out of 21 so a 100% ratio but he missed the 2002 edition because he was injured and then unable to win a match so it would be fairer to say that he has won 21 matches out of 22 but because he didn't enter the 2002 tournament official statistics are 21/21.

I entirely agree that the 'Tennis, male players statistics' article is not an ideal comparison. I've written it because almost all the players of the pre-open era are forgotten while they have made so much for modern pro tennis. So I've tried to give some examples of their feats. On one hand one of the great politics of Wikipedia is that one has to be neutral (I recognize I haven't always strictly been in the 'Ken Rosewall' article for instance : someone has erased two segments and I haven't reversed it because the NPOV argument was right even though I haven't appreciated the manner because no detailed explanations have been given) but on the other hand it is very frustrating because you can't point out the real tennis feats and you have to show "neutral" statistics accepted by the modern public. If I want to put Norman Brookes ahead I can't because he has won only 3 Grand Slam tournaments which are the only modern accepted statistics. Do you know that at the beginning of the century the most important tournament in Australasia was the Victoria State tournament and not the Australasian Championships ? Brookes played and won many Victorian tournaments while he just played (and won) one Australasian before World War I. He didn't play Wimbledon from 1908 through 1913 because an overseas trip cost much time and much money but when he came back in 1914 he just showed how great he was by winning once again the tournament that he had won in his previous trip in 1907. Norman Brookes was one of the best players in the world from 1908 through 1913 but he hasn't played any Grand Slam tournament (except the 1911 Australasian that he won) so if I had to be neutral I can just say that he has won 1 Grand Slam tournament in those 6 years but I can't say that he has won many (I don't remember how much) Victorian tournaments which were greatest at the time that some Grand Slam tournaments (moreover the Grand Slam concept didn't exist at the time). Idem for Anthony Wilding : in 1913 he won 3 World Championships (Wimbledon on grass (at the time this tournament was labelled as the World Grass Championship though the Americans rightly denied it)), the World Hard Court Championships at Saint-Cloud on clay and the World Indoor Championships on wood). The problem is that these World Championships (from 1912-13 to 1923) are almost forgotten today so it is hard to make some statistics about them because almost everybody doesn't care about them. For forty years (from 1920 through 1959) the greatest amateur event by very far was the Davis Cup Challenge Round so it should be put ahead every Slam statistics of the era but given that nowadays the Davis Cup has (almost) no importance compared to the Slam tournaments I can't "erase" Slam statistics in favor of Davis Cup Challenge Round statistics but I can guarantee you that greatest Tilden's feat was his 12 singles victories in a row from 1920 to 1925 in those Challenge Rounds and not his Slam victories. And so on.

The problem is that in 2007 only the Slam statistics really interest and then one considers that in the past it was the same and therefore all the other statistics are forgotten. In the 'Tennis, male players statistics' article I have just tried to recall some pre-open pro performances to make justice to some players of this era : in 1959 Gonzales, probably the best pro at the time trounced Cooper, who had made a little amateur Slam the previous year, in the World pro tour. Idem for Rosewall with Laver in 1963. I am fed up to read everywhere that Cooper had won 3 Slam tournaments in 1958 or that Laver has done the Slam in 1962 because those performances worth nothing compared to the pro performances of the time : Cooper or Fraser weren’t in Gonzales’s class nevertheless so few cite the great Pancho’s performances : in most of articles you can see that he has reached the semis at Roland Garros in 1968 but nothing about his Forest Hills pro wins in 1957 or 1958. Given that Forest Hills Pro tournaments of the 50’s doesn’t mean anything today if I write in a in 2007 Wikipedia article that those were major tournaments, people would answer that those are not major events because they were not Slam tournaments.

Knowing I have to be the most neutral possible I can’t cite Gonzales’s Forest Hills Pro wins as major ones but at last I’ve listed his major pro tours. Idem for Tilden I have recalled his Slam performances and I have added some of his pro victories but if I have wanted to make "ideal" comparisons I would have cited his 20's victories in Davis Cup and some other pro wins but it would have been a great "melting pot" considered as non-neutral. Same reasoning for Rosewall : the 23 major singles titles listed in the 'Tennis, male players statistics' article are "neutral" but as I have written in an old version in December 2006, considered as non-neutral and then corrected by others in January 2007, of the "Ken Rosewall" article I think that the Australian has won something like 21 tournaments equivalent to the modern Slam tournaments and this non-neutral list appreciably differs from the "neutral" list. So globally the 'Tennis, male players statistics' article is not an ideal source of comparison between different eras justly because of its neutralality but at least it gives some pre-open pro players statistics that are absent from almost all tennis articles. Of course many Budge's feats are missing from the 'Tennis, male players statistics' article but at last his major pro tours wins are cited (two of them during World War II) but I can't integrate some of his greatest wins : for example in 1939 he won the Southport tournament which was at least equal or even superior to the US Pro that year but I can't include it as a Budge's major win because the supposed major pro tournaments of the pre-open era were Wembley, the French Pro and the US Pro. How can I write something about his great 1940 season where he won 4 tournaments (the U.S. Pro, the Southeastern Pro at Miami, the North and South pro tournament in Pinehurst and the US Open at White Sulphur) out of the 6 he entered : I can just integrate his US Pro win as a supposed major one but I can't include the Miami tournament in Budge's major wins if I have to respect the NPOV though this tournament win should deserve to be included in any Budge's major wins list. In 1945 Riggs and Budge were considered by the majority of their colleagues as the two best players in the world. What they have done in 1945 ? Riggs has defeated Budge 3-2 in an US Army Air Corps versus US Navy series and Riggs has beaten Budge in the final of the greatest pro tournament of the year, The US Pro harcourt Championships" held at the Los Angeles Tennis Club. Both couldn’t do more because the war wasn’t over. Do you think that I can take into account these two Riggs's feats in Wikipedia statistics ? Of course not because no Wikipedia writer would accept that I put the 1945 Los Angeles tournament at the same level as a modern Grand Slam tournament though that tournament deserved it at the time.

So the 'Tennis, male players statistics' article has the merit to propose certain forgotten statistics and then to remind modern people that there were great pro players before 1968 as Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, Kramer or Vines who made the majority of their career in the pro ranks : these players have then been forbidden to enter the Slam tournaments for many years (Gonzales 20 years, Rosewall 11 years, ...) so it is very easy now to say that Agassi or Federer are superior to Gonzales or Rosewall because the former have won more Slam tournaments than the latter : I don't agree at all with those silly arguments because I think that Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall and perhaps Laver could have won something like 20 Slam tournaments if open tennis had always existed. So to make justice to these players I have listed some "neutral" statistics but if I had been "allowed" to make a non-neutral article but closer to reality I would have incorporated Brookes's victories in the Victorian tournaments or in Davis Cup, Doherty's feats in Davis Cup or Riviera tournaments, McLoughlin's wins in the Pacific Coast, Nüsslein's wins in the Southport tournaments, Vines's pro wins in 1934 in America or in Paris on indoor clay, Budge's wins in the 40s, Gonzales's wins at Forest Hills Pro or Los Angeles Pro, Rosewall's pro wins at MSG or in Australia, Laver's wins at the US Pro indoor in 1965 and 1966 and so on ... But I can't (I can but my article would be quickly tagged as non-neutral). Vines is nowadays completely forgotten but Tilden, Cochet, Austin, Budge, Perry, Nüsslein had all underwent at a moment or another the devastating power of his groundstrokes and knew what a good player he could be. The only statistics I could give were his major pro tours wins : I cannot list "The Eastern Pro Championships" in New York or the Germantown Cricket Club tournament (outside Philadelphia) as major tournaments in a Wikipedia article though they are truly great Vines'wins.

The 'Tennis, male players statistics' article is then a "stub" but if someone can grow it with new pro statistics of the pre-open era that'll be good. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think that whatever article you write in Wikipedia good comparisons between tennis players of different eras are impossible if we have to stay neutral. So the best we can do is showing statistics of all the eras and in particular of the pro players of the pre-open era which are usually forgotten and then not shown. I haven't seen anywhere before Michel Sutter did it in 1991 any almost exhaustive list of professional victories between 1946 and 1968. I haven't seen anywhere a complete list of the Rosewall-Laver meetings : you just have open era statistics though their rivalry climaxed in the pro ranks before 1968. Robert Geist had proposed a 85-100 head-to-head record in his Rosewall's book in 1999 then in 2006 after new researches he had new statistics more precise : 66-75 (Geist will again update these statistics with new discoveries) but he hadn't published them. So I've decided to list all the meetings I could find (in February 2007 I am at 61-72) in different sources (McCauley, John Barrett, World Tennis and so on) to show them in the "Ken Rosewall" article : who knows that Laver defeated Rosewall in January 1964 in on at last you can see that Laver played one of his best match of his entire career at Perth in January 1964 to defeat Rosewall or that Rosewall played magnificent tennis to beat Laver in Paris in 1963 : very few persons because if we believe "modern experts" tennis was born in 1968 and not in the XIX century.

My aim is then just to recall pro performances before 1968 because they are unfairly forgotten almost everywhere except in some obscure publications by Sutter or McCauley or Bowers or Geist.

As I’ve written elsewhere Grand Slam tournaments have been truly the greatest events, from a sporting point of view, since 1983 but it wasn’t the case before and in particular before 1968. Pro tournaments and some amateur events as the Davis Cup were superior to Slam amateur tournaments. Another example : the Pacific Southwest Championship in Los Angeles from its very beginning in 1927 to 1972 attracted much better fields than Roland Garros or the Australian. Vines, Budge, Kramer, Segdman, Rosewall or Hoad had regularly played at the Pacific Southwest but I know that Vines as an amateur has played just once in Australia and never in Roland Garros amateur, that Budge has only played one Australian amateur and one Roland Garros amateur, that Kramer has never entered the two tournaments (but he has played one Roland Garros Pro in 1958), that Hoad has not played Roland Garros in 1955 and above all that Rosewall has missed Roland Garros 1955 and 1956 when he was the best amateur on clay (his best surface) in order to prepare Wimbledon. In 1953 almost all the best amateur players entered the Pacific Southwest (Trabert, Seixas, Rosewall, Hoad, ...) while almost no foreign player came to play the Australian Championships nevertheless in modern statistics only the Australian tournament is remembered. In 1953 the true best players in the world were Kramer, Segura, Sedgman and Gonzales who couldn’t play neither the Australian nor the Pacific nor Wimbledon nor Forest Hills : three of them played in a pro tournament in Lyon (France) but no one consider it as a major tournament though there were 3 of the 4 best players in the world but (almost) everybody considers that Forest Hills amateur was a major one although none of the 4 best players were present. Then if I have to be neutral and to write something in Wikipedia I would pick Forest Hills amateur 1953 as a major event but if I want to give a true account of the 1953 season I would pick Lyon pro and would forget Forest Hills amateur and consequently I’d write it elsewhere than in Wikipedia.

Carlo Colussi 14:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You know I've read these comments a few times and have not had the strength to reply. There is such a wealth of information here, and you are obviously such an expert on the subject matter, that nothing I can say in argument will do any justice to your thinking on the matter. I agree with most of what you have to say anyway. At the end of the day everyone will have an opinion on the injustices of the past. The same can be said for most sports. In the "pre-media" era, things were a lot different. "Marketing" and endorsements were unheard of. Sports were played by amateurs, with prize money paltry to inadequate. Sports-enhancement drugs were non-existent. Cheating was not considered as sports were played by gentlemen. Look at today's commercial world... quite different. There should almost be pre-media and post-media lists and comparisons. As the world of sports progresses, I think the thinking around these comparisons will become more mature and certainly more scientific. Something like the ELO rating of chess, with who-played-who statistics, with weightings for stronger tournaments. However the grand slams continue to be the hallmark for tennis at least. Sandman30s 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Category: GS won on last attempt

This is a quite undistinguished category, with only Sampras here cited. There were many players in the pre open era, who won a major on their last attempt, meaning the last time the played a major, beginning with Fred Perry, who won Forest Hills, before turning pro, or Don Budge, Jack Kramer, Tony Trabert and others. So better leave it out (german friend 14.3.2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.60.149.64 (talk • contribs) 08:26, March 15, 2007 (UTC).

Add to the category, don't leave out the information. Tennis expert 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Category should be deleted as 'nonsense'. Most players prefer to go out after they're sure they can't win anymore. Sampras retiring early doesn't make him a better player.Ryoung122 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Won-Loss records

I think it is ridiculous to order the 'Grand Slam champions' by won-loss record in finals. Ok, so winning 8 of 10 finals is impressive. On the other side of the coin, I think Lendl getting to 19 finals is more impressive than someone getting to 10 finals. So, should making a good effort at runner-up be seen as a negative?Ryoung122 20:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Won/loss in a final catagory sems like a waste of space.

AGREE, ALSO THE RUNNER-UP PLAYER, IS A PLAYER WHO MET THE WINNER IN THE FINAL, I MEAN, HE COULD LOSE TO HIM IN SEMIS OR QS, ETC.

I think you should merge it.

Reverting Information

We have a a bit of a problem here. Most articles on wiki, encyclopedias, almanacs and sports guides do NOT count the pre-1925 French championships as a major i.e slam title. Only one French club was allowed to participate. This of course changed in 1925. Even in this article I see all the tables "exclude" French totals before 1925... all tables but one: Most Grand Slam Singles Titles (all time). I keep trying to correct this error to conform to most publications but this one guy, Tennis expert, keeps reverting it. Of course someone like Borotra won the title but not when the tournamant was recognized as a major. So on a French Open site he/she would be listed as a champion. On a "majors" only site he/she would not. As an example it's possible that today's China Open could one day be given the status of a 5th slam because it would add Asia to the mix. So in 2025 we have a newly designated slam. At that time they certainly wouldn't consider someone who won the China Open this year (it happens to be Fernando Gonzalez) as a past slam winner of the event. Either the title of the table needs to reflect this by removing the slam reference or Borotra needs to be moved down a notch, as I have done. I'll keep trying to make the correction but I'm not sure it will ever stick. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of this article into the Tennis statistics article

Please comment about the proposed merger either here or at the tennis statistics talk page. I am proposing that the merger occur on or after December 20, 2006. Thanks. Tennis expert 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

NP and 0-0

What's the difference? Yohan euan o4 15:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"NP" = never played the tournament. "0-0" = never reached the final of the tournament. Tennis expert 04:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Records

I was just going to remove it but maybe someone here has a great reason to keep it. The lines under records: (Maria Sharapova in 2005 became the first Russian woman to reach the number one spot in the rankings, holding it for seven non-consecutive weeks) and (Maria Sharapova in 2004, became the first Russian woman to capture the Wimbledon title defeating then-favourite Serena Williams) seem strange to be in this article. If we include a first for every nationality this article will become more bloated than it already is. Someone is going to come along and add everyone under the sun and we won't have a leg to stand on because Sharipova is already there. I say remove it now before problems arise. Fyunck(click) ([[User talk:Fyunck click)|talk]]) 10:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Open era statistics

I think it should be made clear that all the male statistics are taken from the ATP web site. A source I don't regard as definitive or particularly reliable. The site is only as good as the researches they employ. For instance Vilas' winning steak is 50 matches in 1977 if one includes the Rye tournament in New york. he also won 17 titles in the year. Rod laver won 18 titles in 1969 and had 31 match winning streak that year. Lendl's 44 winning streak and his 66 indoor streak was stopped much earlier by Connors at the Chicago tournament of Champions in Jan 1982. wtre The ATP site is pretty useless for statistics before 1971. A look at the ITF web site will produce substanially different coverage for 1968-70. The world no1 statistics are the ATP computer not necessarily a good guide to the no1 ranked player in the 1970's and irrelevant for the 1968-72 period. jeffreyneave 25 feb 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.208.23 (talk) 15:05, February 25, 2008

POV & OR

No matter what this articles states, the World Hard Court Championships and the pre-1925 French Championships are not considered grand slam titles by outside sources. This needs to be fixed before this wiki article can be looked at as factual by children, teachers, researchers and casual readers. FreepRipper (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you fix it? Alex Middleton (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it go since the consensus here is that it doesn't belong. FreepRipper (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

update; Alex, I think I got it all but it took longer than I thought to correct it. FreepRipper (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not the consensus. Tennis expert (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think you may be the only who wants to keep these errors in this encyclopedia. FreepRipper (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not "errors." Tennis expert (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any sources to verify the information, either way? Otherwise the entire section should probably be removed. See WP:V. --Elonka 21:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Female Married Name Convention

What is the convention with female married names? I ask because it seems strange that she is listed here as Maureen Connolly Brinker when she didn't get married until AFTER she retired from tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

She was heavily involved in tennis after she retired from playing and went by either Maureen Connolly Brinker or simply Maureen Brinker. Also, including both maiden and married names reduces confusion for people who do not follow tennis closely. Tennis expert (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say heavily involved... but she coached and worked for newspapers as many ex-players do. Shouldn't we also write Steffi Graf Agassi or Althea Gibson Darben? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Connolly Brinker also had (or has) a tennis foundation and was the name of a prominent tennis tournament in Dallas. Steffi has not adopted her husband's last name. I don't know whether Althea ever did. Tennis expert (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ladies Slams Without Loss Of A Set

I would say this catagory is not worthy of being a statistic. In some slams there may be more years with no sets lost than there are years WITH sets lost. It's almost as though if you can't win without losing a set, it was a poor performance. The men are a different beast entirely but the ladies would be a long list even if you kept it down to those who had done it multiple times. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And the french wiki pages ?

Why don't translate this article on the French Wikipedia ? Please Mr Colussi...Thank you beaucoup.

Fred30_13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred30 13 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Slams/Majors?

I can live without it but it seems really strange not to include it. All my life the individual slam titles have been called "Majors", heck they've been called "Majors" longer than they've been called "Slams." So in the opening description why wouldn't we want to include this fact in a way such as: "These tournaments, often referred to collectively as "Majors" or "Grand Slam tournaments?" I added it and it was reverted. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia and this is "Tennis Statistics." It seems like a good place to acknowledge this fact. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the term "Grand Slam tournament" is used in lieu of "Major" in this article. The same reason you wouldn't define a term for purposes of an article when you never use the term in that article. Besides, "major" is so ambiguous as to be confusing. For example, lots of people call the Tennis Masters Series tournaments "major." Tennis expert (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

But why can't we use both in the introduction? It would be more encompassing. I agree that only one should be used throughout the article and "slams" would be the unit of choice, but in tennis (as well as golf) the big 4 tournaments have mostly been known as "Majors" until very recently. If an item in an article has multiple names wiki usually lists them and then uses one throughout the article for conformity sake. But to purposely ignore that it exists seems an injustice to those seeking information on the subject of Tennis. I can see that the best place will be to fit it in the wiki article wiki/Tennis but it really should be in this one also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that "until very recently" the Grand Slam tournaments "have mostly been known as Majors"? Tennis expert (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a handy source which is why I wouldn't word it that way in an article unless I dug it up. In the 70's when I played in high school and college they were simply "the majors." Sometime in the 80's the press started calling them "slams." In the 90's the press, using very poor English, started calling them "grand slams." All terms are appropriate today though I usually call them slams and sometimes majors... never grand slams. I can't bring myself to using such a poor term as "grand slam" unless we are truly talking about winning all 4 majors, the "Grand Slam." I've read articles from the 50s and 60s that use the term "major" but before that I have no idea if they used other terms. So recently, to me at least, would be the 80's. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have always thought "majors" were golf tournaments. Never mind my thoughts, the following tournaments currently describe themselves as "Grand Slam" tournaments:

Australian Open

French Open

Wimbledon

US Open

So let us stick to what is the current and common usage (I also remember as a boy late 60s that a GRAND Slam meant winning all four in a year - but that terminology has been washed out during time). If some can provide citation that the tournaments were widely acknowledged as "majors" earlier, then it is of interest. I didn't know it. --HJensen, talk 07:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I wrote is when I first heard the term "Majors." It is still widely used to this day. Here is an article from CBS and Sports network.

"Three-time Major Tennis Champion Lindsay Davenport Is Pregnant. Congratulations to Lindsay Davenport and husband, Jonathan Leach who are expecting a baby in the summer. Lindsay Davenport has accomplished a lot in women’s tennis. She finished the 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2005 seasons as the number 1 ranked woman singles player in the world. She won the following majors: U.S. Open womens singles – 1998, Wimbledon womens singles – 1999, Australian Open womens singles – 2000."

I certainly don't want to replace the term slam or grand slam but this is an encyclopedia and it should tell the reader all the terms in use, not just some of them. The use of the word slam to indicate one of the 4 Majors is really quite new. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the term is not new, and you have not cited anything to support the assertion that "Grand Slam tournament" is a new term. And an encyclopedia clearly does not have to mention everything under the Sun. Tennis expert (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The term "Grand Slam Tournament" is relatively new. Why should I cite it??? I didn't edit anything that said the term was new, I only mention it here. Calling them grand slams was something invented in the mid-late 80s by people misusing the term slam. The press then started making the same errors and we have the stew today...not knowing what someone means when they say grand slam. Now that's the way language works and I don't deny it, slang becomes non-slang. All I'm saying is the term Major is still widely used in print today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see that there is an edit war going on at the article. As a reminder, as soon as there is a revert, please engage in discussion on the talkpage. Don't just battle it out in edit summaries, thanks. Elonka 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is under the "POV & OR" heading above. FreepRipper (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that, I had missed it since it was in an older thread. However, the fact remains that there's been no discussion for days, but the edit war is current. Please be aware that edit-warring to try and get one's preferred version into an article, is a completely ineffective way of getting changes to stick. Better is to provide reliable sources to verify the information. --Elonka 21:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the World Hard Court Championships (WHCC) (the subject of FreepRipper's edits), this article was stable for 19 months (since November 17, 2006) in accordance with longstanding consensus until FreepRipper unilaterally started making his or her radical and controversial changes without advance notice and without obtaining consensus for them. That is the insurmountable problem here. This article's treatment of the WHCC is consistent with innumerable tennis player biographies on English-language Wikipedia, which also have been stable for many months in accordance with longstanding consensus. FreepRipper's changes would make this article completely and utterly inconsistent with those biographies. The purpose of all my edits in response to FreepRipper has been to maintain the hard-won consensus that has existed for 19 months, for which he or she evidently has no regard. Tennis expert (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See also my post on FreepRipper's discussion page. Tennis expert (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A consensus, which as you said before, was made by you editing and no one saying anything. They didn't agree with you they just wouldn't stand up to you. Now people are questioning it and asked me to change it to verifiable facts found in encyclopedias, newspapers and almanacs. I was asked in the talk section, and I corrected it. Many of those players biographies which include these errors are maintained by you so of course you cite those examples. But notice they are wikipedia sources not encyclopedic sources. If those other biographies on wikipedia use that event as a slam they are wrong. Correct them if you have the time. FreepRipper (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) WP:CONSENSUS says this, "Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent...." (2) You have no evidence whatsoever that "they just wouldn't stand up" to me. Therefore, that's a terribly bad faith statement to make about me and I request that you strike it. (3) No "corrections" are needed. Tennis expert (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now this article is in greater need of sources than pointers to past consensus. Consensus cannot override basic Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability. My recommendation at this point is to focus on the article, not editors. As an example, try to write posts without using the words "you" and "your". Keeping comments in the third-person, can help de-escalate the dispute, and will probably lead towards a better article. thanks, --Elonka 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Longest tennis match records

Help is requested on the article Longest tennis match records. Francium12 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Title Count

After looking at the men's GS statistics, I saw that Fred Stolle of Australia was listed with 18 total titles, but each were individually listed as 2, 10, and 4, which equals 16. I checked his page on wikipedia and elsewhere and counted 17 titles, so I adjusted the list. Kryptonic (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne Lenglen & inclusion of pre-1923 titles

Suzanne Lenglen is listed on this page as having won 21 titles in total, but the article on her says she has 31 grand slam titles (which includes some French Open titles from an era where they were only open to French nationals. I think 21 is the more accurate description for this page, but does this anomaly perhaps apply to other players on these lists? Spamburgler (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the numbers here are all correct but you have to remember that there are lots of tennis related pages and it's impossible to stay on top of all of them. Our watchlists would be humongous! If you see something that doesn't look right do exactly what you did here.... talk about it (especially on the page of concern) and after that change the item. You may want to back it up with a footnote that has a link to an article that agrees with your point of view, like this article does with Suzanne. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Statistics

I would disapprove of this merger; mostly because Tennis Statistics is already too large...
Mjquin_id (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Chronological list of Grand Slam singles titles leaders

Should this really list Federer as the all-time leader in Grand Slam singles titles? He needs 15 for the outright lead. For everyone else, the "Number of titles for lead" lists the previous record + 1. Is someone just getting ahead of themselves and assuming Roger will win Wimbledon next week? 134.134.139.72 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.72 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

agreed...someone jumped the gun. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

split

Is there is concensus on spliting the article into something more manageable.

I've made the nav box

to show how it could be done. Francium12 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about this one. It takes getting used to when you've seen it one way for so long. It sure looks neater Francium's way though it does make it less an article and more a repository of links. It is nice to have everything one click away and it might be easier to control/notice vandalism. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I did think that when I tried splitting it. The article becomes nothing! I think all the player related stats could be one article? I suppose the problem stems from such a vague article title as tennis statistics. The scope. There are a indefinate number of statistics you could state about the career of Roger Federer. Francium12 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing I did note is that List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions and Chronological list of men's Grand Slam tennis champions are almost repitition. The Olympic stuff here is also better represented at List of Olympic medalists in tennis Francium12 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought for a long time that the chrono list could be dumped. I guess what it offers is player name with instant number and type of slam. You would actually have to count and tally to get that from the Grand Slam List. Of course they could be merged but the tables are both pretty long as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no consensus for the split. I am personally opposed to it. The article is fine and is the result of combining various independent articles in the past. There's no need to reverse that decision. Chidel (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be hasty and say no consensus yet. Maybe a vast majority do like Francium's edits. He only put up the query today so lets give it a couple weeks to see what others think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

His question was "Is there ... consensus?". As of today and answering his question directly, there is no consensus for the split. But as with anything else on Wikipedia, consensus can change in the future. Chidel (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for Wikilawyering but the article is 102 kilobytes long!. According to Wikipedia:Splitting it should "Almost certainly should be divided" Francium12 (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the definition of readable prose. Tables are not included. Consequently, this article is fine as it is. Chidel (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to read the article as is, it definitely needs to be split to more structured sections, the above nav bar is a fine start. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion? Francium12 (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Page too long

I'm suggesting rather than having an extremely long and tedious page of all the tennis statistics perhaps having 3 seperate pages of them.

Mens singles

Women's singles

Doubles

and a little bit more refined would make it easier to access the information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbrewer (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC) -moved to bottom Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Layout

Team, I am looking at making certain lists "Wiki-tables"; like "Winning a Grand Slam singles title without losing a set"(See the women's list)...Any issues, otherwise I will probably start this weekend... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Flag for Mabel Cahill

The flag used for Mabel Cahill should probably not be the Republic of Ireland flag. When she won her titles in the 19th Century, Ireland was not yet a republic. Perhaps this flag should be used. Pma jones (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nadal Number 2

I thought I read somewhere that Nadal is the longest player to hold the number 2 ranking. Is that true. If so, it may be a good fact to put under his profile. I can't seem to find out where I read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenger777 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Career Grand Slam runner-ups???

You gotta be kidding. I know this is a statistics article so by nature it contains charts that can be synthisized from several other charts but "Career Grand Slam runner-ups" seems super overkill to me. Do we really want this chart in the article? I 100% don't but I'd like to hear other views. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it, if you think finals matter this is basically that!69.137.120.81 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We probably agree 75% of the time but this is one of those issues that you and I don't see eye to eye. I'm more an exclusionist where you are more an inclusionist. To me this article is getting a bit long and as a statistics page that is bound to happen, but I really find this chart silly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

split

Is there is concensus on spliting the article into something more manageable.

I've made the nav box

to show how it could be done. Francium12 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about this one. It takes getting used to when you've seen it one way for so long. It sure looks neater Francium's way though it does make it less an article and more a repository of links. It is nice to have everything one click away and it might be easier to control/notice vandalism. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I did think that when I tried splitting it. The article becomes nothing! I think all the player related stats could be one article? I suppose the problem stems from such a vague article title as tennis statistics. The scope. There are a indefinate number of statistics you could state about the career of Roger Federer. Francium12 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing I did note is that List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions and Chronological list of men's Grand Slam tennis champions are almost repitition. The Olympic stuff here is also better represented at List of Olympic medalists in tennis Francium12 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought for a long time that the chrono list could be dumped. I guess what it offers is player name with instant number and type of slam. You would actually have to count and tally to get that from the Grand Slam List. Of course they could be merged but the tables are both pretty long as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no consensus for the split. I am personally opposed to it. The article is fine and is the result of combining various independent articles in the past. There's no need to reverse that decision. Chidel (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be hasty and say no consensus yet. Maybe a vast majority do like Francium's edits. He only put up the query today so lets give it a couple weeks to see what others think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

His question was "Is there ... consensus?". As of today and answering his question directly, there is no consensus for the split. But as with anything else on Wikipedia, consensus can change in the future. Chidel (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for Wikilawyering but the article is 102 kilobytes long!. According to Wikipedia:Splitting it should "Almost certainly should be divided" Francium12 (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the definition of readable prose. Tables are not included. Consequently, this article is fine as it is. Chidel (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to read the article as is, it definitely needs to be split to more structured sections, the above nav bar is a fine start. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion? Francium12 (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Page too long

I'm suggesting rather than having an extremely long and tedious page of all the tennis statistics perhaps having 3 seperate pages of them.

Mens singles

Women's singles

Doubles

and a little bit more refined would make it easier to access the information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbrewer (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

In favour of splitting: Francium12, Spaceman7Spiff, Djbrewer Neutral: Fyunck(click) Opposed: Chidel

Responding to {{Split}} request, and agreeing that the article should be split

SilkTork.

There appears to have been long standing concern that this article is not manageable, and that much of the material would be better served organised differently. Investigating the split request I noticed that a partial split had been undertaken, and much of the material on this page was duplicated elsewhere, making this page both awkward to navigate and redundant. I carried out the split in the spirit of the consensus on this page, Wikipedia:Splitting, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and Wikipedia:Article size. I made it into a disamb page, and shortly after R'n'B made it a list page, an edit that endorsed the split. That makes five users in favour of the split, and one user against. Two months after the split a newly created IP account reverted the split with the comment "There never was a consensus for this disastrous split". I restored the edit, assuming it was a quiet piece of vandalism. The same IP reverted again. I have restored the split again, and semi-protected the article. There appears to be no proper rationale for the action of the IP account; however, it would be appropriate to review the split to see if there is still consensus that the current situation is the appropriate one. If people would prefer the article to be restored to how it was, then the {{Split}} request tag would need to be removed. SilkTork *^YES! 12:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I was ever happy this page was turned into a simple check list but it's better than the lengthy thing it was before. However I think I envisioned an actual split... maybe open vs no-open, or slam vs non-slam records... not a list. When you converted it where did the easy heading to the following go..."most titles at a particular tourney", "most year end tourny wins", "longest match winning streaks", etc. It seems that many tables didn't make it into the split and maybe that's what has bothered the anon editor. It was something like 112k long before so split into two groupings was all that was needed, and anything totally redundant like "grand slam records" being just a listing. My quick thoughts on a Sunday while watching the Fish/Federer match. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the choice is totally either one state or the other. I think there is the option of working to make things better. I think the problem with this page was that problems with organisation had not been addressed. I would 100% support anyone rolling up their sleeves and improving the page. If you feel it would be helpful to have certain links, then go for it, create those links. The information exists somewhere in one of the other lists - this page could serve as either a disamb page or list of lists (though if it is to be a list of lists then it might be appropriate to name it as such - List of lists of tennis statistics) - either way, it seems it would be quite useful as a navigation guide to what is available, and it can be built on and improved. SilkTork *^YES! 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this the sort of thing you are looking for? - "most titles at a particular tourney", "longest match winning streaks" - that is linked in the nav box at the bottom of the page, but can be moved up into the page proper if you feel that would be helpful. SilkTork *^YES! 21:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is this article duplicated elsewhere, SilkTork? 75.63.3.179 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In the articles listed. SilkTork *^YES! 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you make sure that everything in this article before you blanked it actually exist elsewhere? 75.63.3.179 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Here is an example of an error you made during the split. You deleted Roger Federer from the "Most Combined Grand Slam titles (all time)" table. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This article was actively edited and keenly watched until the split. Now, the however-many articles that have been created are going to become orphans or quickly out-of-date. The last activity on the split discussion was over a year ago. But without any advance notice, you split the article based on an old discussion that was never concluded. And what you didn't consider is the fact that since the discussion ended, many people have edited the non-split version of this article, which indicates consensus to keep it as it was. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a mix - one article was created (and is being actively edited), some material was merged into existing articles, and most were simply redirects as the material already existed (the edit histories of the articles can be checked to verify this). Could you give some reasons for why you feel the previous version was more useful than the current version. It's worth looking at the articles listed, and comparing their content with the page as it was. If you could also explain what you feel was the rationale behind the selection of the data - given that some data was reproduced here while other data was not. If it is felt that there might be some use for a full page of tennis statistics, it would be useful to sketch out a plan for how the page would be organised, and the rationale for what information to include, and what to exclude. SilkTork *^YES! 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You should ask Francium12 why, on June 27, 2009, he unilaterally duplicated much of this article by creating the List of Grand Slam related tennis records. He was a participant in the discussion of whether to split this article. But instead of waiting for the discussion to be concluded, he acted. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC) You created List of open era tennis records when you blanked this page. To my knowledge, the Tennis statistics article did not duplicate any of the information you placed in your new article before you created it. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC) It appears that this article reached its pre-blanking form in December 2007 after a discussion to merge separate tennis statistics articles into this one. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's proper for an administrator to protect an article for the purpose of preserving the administrator's content edits? I think not. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to have a discussion about the matter, which is what we are doing. I have protected the article against what appeared to be inappropriate edits. Would you agree to not revert the page if I unprotect it? SilkTork *^YES! 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not agree to preserve your faulty edits. Perhaps you should ask an uninvolved administrator to determine whether this page needs protection. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the page was too large before turning into a list so it could not stay the way it was. The question is how to go about cutting it down and making it presentable. Francium12 breaking off grand slam records was hasty and also misnamed. It should be "Grand Slam Tournament related tennis statistics" and this one could have been Non-slam tournament tennis statistics. That would have been a nice split with a prominent sublink on this page to the Slam page. And I have no problem with silktorq administering and protecting when needed. He seems fairminded so far and I would assume good intentions. What I don't like is someone new and anonymous complaining about an administrator or anyone for that matter. Get a proper id and you'll have no trouble editing this page. Or is that a problem? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think my edits were inappropriate? Why do you think your edits were appropriate? Why do you believe that you did not engage in edit warring in this article? It's clear that you protected this page to preserve your own edits. I'm sure you know how "inappropriate" that is. Could you tell me where I can file a complaint about your actions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.159.244 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

IP editors can't participate on Wikipedia, huh? Or is it just your peculiar rule? Do tables count when determining whether an article is too large?

Of course they can and they are welcomed. But if you're going to get into shouting match with an administrator go get yourself an actual account. The ip addresses can change and we don't know if we are talking to the same person from day to day... so making an edit on occasion is fine and dandy but an ongoing argument is much easier for all to follow if you have an account. As far as article size wikipedia likes them to be smaller than 32k but the rule of thumb is -

> 100 K Almost certainly should be divided

> 60 K Probably should be divided

> 40 K May need to be divided

This article was bigger than 100k. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You conveniently ignored my question. Do tables in an article count when determining whether the article is too large? Could you refer me to the Wikipedia rule that says a person must get a named account before participating in a talk page discussion or before disagreeing with an administrator? Or are you just trying to intimidate IP editors that disagree with you? Sounds like the latter to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.159.244 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the tables don't count, but kb does. As for getting an actual account that's up to you, it's just a suggestion on my part and absolutely not a requirement. We've had a couple of real kooky anonymous banned nutball editors around lately that have kept us on our toes so it simply helps all of us separate you from those wackos. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the current version is an improvement - it is certainly a lot easier to navigate to a desired statistic by looking through this short list, finding the correct article, and then looking through the shorter article. The old version was massively impractical in comparison; WP:SIZE was introduced to avoid articles where the amount of content overwhelms the limited navigation ability, and was well applied here even though the content was in tabular format. Knepflerle (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)