Talk:Rafael Nadal/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Federer vs Nadal

TheLou75, about: "Nadal leads their head-to-head 18–10. Fourteen of their matches have been on clay, which is statistically Nadal's best surface and statistically Federer's worst surface"
I think mentioning that clay is Nadal's best/Fed's worst surface is a loaded statement. Now if we wanted to be fair about it we would also write that 11 of matches have been on hard court, which is Nadal's worst and probably Federer's best surface. Then again that would remind something like fanforum debate and be somewhat silly imo
Therefore I suggest being neutral and sticking to facts only, let readers make their own value judgement if h2h is "fair" or not... Thus my suggestion: "They have played 28 times, and Nadal leads their head-to-head series 18–10 overall and 8-2 in Grand Slam tournaments. They have met 14 times on clay court, 11 times on hard court and 3 times on grass". That's just relevant statistics without personal biases. Right? Mrmarble (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I see Lou replied to my other talk-posts but not this one... I assume my argument was satisfying then. I will remove the loaded part about best/worst surfaces and replace it with pure statistic that certainly can not be loaded and is also more informative listing their meetings on all 3 surfaces, not only clay:
"Fourteen of their matches have been on clay, which is statistically Nadal's best surface and statistically Federer's worst surface" => "They have met 14 times on clay court, 11 times on hard court and 3 times on grass." Thnaks. Mrmarble (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that your argument was satisfying to me. By the way, see the other talk page as I have refuted your hasty accusations. TheLou75 (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lou, what else am I supposed to think... you still haven't provided a single counter-argument here, or even a defense why only clay prowess should be included but no other surfaces. Yet you reverse my edit! The way it is stated now is loaded and argumentative. Now obviously the blurb about "clay prowess" is there to further explain their h2h which is the topic in that paragraph. There are couple glaring problems though:

- It is one sided: Only clay (14 matches) is mentioned and no other surfaces. 11 of the matches have been played on hard court which is factually Nadal's worst surface.

- It is factually incorrect: During 2004-2012, the time which their h2h happened, Federer has been better on clay than on hard court; Federer has won 90.4% on clay and 89.6% on hard, after ignoring their mutual matches.

http://s14.postimage.org/p2lqnhgo1/Fed_hard_clay_2004to2012.png

Furthermore Nadal's clay prowess is mentioned in article introduction and multiple times afterwards. My edit, which you keep reversing without providing any explanation, is informative and factual. Mrmarble (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you are the one who making a change without getting anyone to agree with you. It looks like Lou is adding it back in where it was originally, while you keep taking it out, not the other way around. 216.99.184.50 (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And how does changing it back to original makes the undo more correct? That line is still incorrect as I have demonstrated above. It is actually TheLou75 who has been undoing my edits without explanations. Is your opinion that nothing can be changed, even if it's incorrect? Is your opinion that everything can be changed back, even without partaking discussion about it? It sure seems that way since nobody has yet commented on any argument I have presented on this (neither has this been discussed previously), yet my edits have been reversed. You don't have to create a talk thread on everything you are going to change in Wikipedia, that's not how it works and of course couldn't work. Now, quit the accusations and try to stay on topic Mrmarble (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. It's not factually incorrect, it is very much correct. Nadal is better than Federer on clay, much better and the stats prove it. A 92% career win % versus a 76% win percentage which is the lowest of all surfaces for Federer. And that's the real figures unlike your fake math that you used by omitting mutual matches, what is the point of that?The fact that half their matches took place on clay brings reason to mention this. If you are going to do a head to head/rivalry section, important tidbits of information like this should be mentioned. Again, the reason it's mentioned is because 50% of their matches have been on clay. 216.99.184.50 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. First, the fact that Nadal is better than Federer on clay is irrelevant to claim that "clay is statistically Federer's worst surface". Maybe it is seen as Federer's worst surface because he loses to Nadal there a lot matches...he makes an awful lot of finals on clay, probably relatively more than on hard (I haven't checked). Thus Federer doesn't necessarily win less on clay because he is worse on clay than on hard court - he loses more on clay because *Nadal* is much better on clay than Nadal is on hard court.

So The point with omitting mutual matches is that you can not explain their h2h matches by including their h2h matches - that's circular reasoning. aka making following two claims both at the same time: 1) "Fed loses h2h to Nadal because he is poor on clay, 2) Fed is poor on clay because he loses to Nadal".

As a reply to your last sentence that amount of their clay matches is important tidbit - I agree! That's why I'm mentioning how many times they faced on clay, hard and grass. Mrmarble (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Is your opinion that everything can be changed back, even without partaking discussion about it?"

You tell me, you are the one who has made more than a dozen edits without partaking on any discussion about it. TheLou75 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Before you reversed my 3 edits there was hardly any discussion on Nadal talk, I've created "talk" about about all 3 of your initial reversals - and you still haven't discussed at all about the actual topic under this section (yet reversed my edit, again). How do you figure this article was improved previously with no talk? As if everybody should have first made a talk topic before making an edit. You have an axe to grind with me for some strange reason and I don't think I'm the one to blame. Mrmarble (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't respond and don't have to respond because your edits have been ridiculous to some degree as evidenced here. Almost as ridiculous as your accusations. TheLou75 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And just to make it clear since you didn't realize it already, I don't see any reason why this statement should be removed. TheLou75 (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Lou with regards to keeping the clay court statement. It is an important factor in Federer and Nadal's rivalry. I'll even address the two points Mrmarble made with regards to keeping this statement:

–"It is one sided: Only clay (14 matches) is mentioned and no other surfaces."

It's no surprise that clay gets a special mention. Exactly half (14/28) of Federer and Nadal's meetings have come on clay, even though it accounts for only 1/3 of the surfaces. The other two surfaces (grass and hard) account for the other half. Had this not been the case (i.e. exactly the same number of matches played on both clay and hard), then this would not be mentioned. The fact that the surface breakdown does appear lopsided demonstrates that it is indeed worth mentioning and certainly not a loaded statement.

–"It is factually incorrect: During 2004–2012, the time which their h2h happened, Federer has been better on clay than on hard court; Federer has won 90.4% on clay and 89.6% on hard, after ignoring their mutual matches."

That's not entirely correct and accurate. Federer holds the all-time record for winning percentage on both grass (87.18%) and hard courts (83.20%), while Nadal holds it for clay (92.77%). Fed does not appear in the top 10 for W% on clay (10th on the list is Wilander with 76.74%). This shows that Fed won barely 3/4 of his matches on clay, showing that this is indeed his weakest surface. Want more proof? Fed also holds the records for most titles on grass (11) and hard (51). Yet on clay (which is only a bit shorter than the hard court season), he only has 9 titles (in addition to 12 finals he's lost). That means he has more titles for grass (only a 5-week season) than clay. Furthermore, Fed appears in the top 10 for match wins on grass (10th) and hard (2nd), yet he again nowhere to be seen in the top 10 for clay. Lastly, in terms of Grand Slams, Federer has won 6 Wimbledon, 5 US Open and 4 Australian Open titles (the latter two being tied all-time records), all played on either grass or hard. Yet, he has only 1 French Open title (not to mention the fact that he didn't have to face Nadal in the final). On the other hand, Nadal has 6 French Open titles (record tied with Borg). Yet, he only has 2 Wimbledon, 1 US Open and 1 Australian Open title. This proves that clay actually is Fed's weakest surface and Nadal's strongest. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that all perspectives need to be mentioned. Look at Chris Evert vs Martina Navratilova rivalry. Martina leads the Major finals tally 10-4 but 8 of those finals were on grass where she leads 7-1. Chris kept getting to finals on grass, her worst surface other than carpet, but kept losing to the best grass court player ever. Martina often didn't make it to clay court finals. They faced each other 80x in all events. On grass/carpet Martina leads 29-11 (40x) but on clay Chris leads 11-3 (only 14x). That would work out to 32-8 if they played 40x on clay. On a more neutral surface Chris leads 15-11 on hard courts. Today two of the Majors are on hard courts where it was only one during their confrontations. Another thing about Federer and Nadal is that since the end of the Sampras era and beginning of Federer era, the surfaces or balls have been slowed down to the disadvantage of the serve volley style. It's harder for Fed to win now. The point of all this is that we should not mention to our readers only that aspect that shows an advantage to one player... we need to give balance so our readers are well informed. We should show how each did on each surface but leave out the prose that might show bias. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloom6132,
"It's no surprise that clay gets a special mention. Exactly half (14/28) of Federer and Nadal's meetings have come on clay, even though it accounts for only 1/3 of the surfaces."
-And the other half has come on fast surfaces. Your point? Why is amount of their meetings on hard irrelevant when the surface alone accounts for 39% of their meetings?
"The fact that the surface breakdown does appear lopsided demonstrates that it is indeed worth mentioning and certainly not a loaded statement"
-But you just proved it's a loaded statement: Your claim is that surface breakdown is lopsided, "skewed" in favour of Nadal's best surface. You're claiming that their h2h is "unfair" while not actually saying it out loud. Whether it's unfair or not is worthy a discussion in tennis forums for sure but I don't think that's something to hint on encyclopedia, it's only one side of the argument. One can argue against "lopsidedness" with several counter arguments, for example that if they had met half of their meetings on hard Nadal would still lead their h2h.
"Federer holds the all-time record for winning percentage on both grass (87.18%) and hard courts (83.20%)"
-I don't understand how his CAREER win% on hard is relevant, because that includes his matches before Federer and Nadal had even met.
"Fed does not appear in the top 10 for W% on clay (10th on the list is Wilander with 76.74%)"
-And why do you think that is... Have you considered that Federer losing to Nadal on clay finals drops his percentage? Isn't it reasonable to assume that if Nadal would be poor on clay and was beaten on clay by Fed you wouldn't claim clay as Fed's worst surface. So it's not about clay being Fed's worst surface, it's rather that Nadal is very good on red earth. Also, Fed's career win% on clay includes years PRE Nadal-Federer matches... so Federer may have been worse on clay early in his career, which brings the percentage down while being irrelevant to Fed's level on clay during their rivalry which is the focal point here.
"Yet on clay (which is only a bit shorter than the hard court season), he only has 9 titles"
- Have you considered that Fed having 9 titles is because he plays only roughly 4 clay tournaments per year, in which he often loses to Nadal? Have you considered Federer has lost to Nadal 5 times in RG and might have 6 RG titles if Nadal wasn't that good on clay? Can you claim his losses to Nadal are because "clay is Fed's worst surface"...or is it actually because clay is Nadal's best surface, on which we all agree. Now we see that there are all kinds of arguments to be made from one short sentence... so indeed it appears that this sentence is quite "loaded".
Fyunck,
Hi, nice to have you joining the discussion. I generally agree with your Navratilova-Evert comparison. What makes their h2h even more skewed, is that Navratilova often skipped clay during several years Evert's prime... some may even claim that to be deliberate manipulation of their h2h. And probably also denying Evert mental advantage which might have carried from clay to grass.
You mention that "Another thing about Federer and Nadal is that since the end of the Sampras era and beginning of Federer era, the surfaces or balls have been slowed down to the disadvantage of the serve volley style. It's harder for Fed to win now."
-I don't understand claim above since Federer is not a serve&volleyer, but rather a baseliner who has had all his success through his current playing style.
"we need to give balance so our readers are well informed. We should show how each did on each surface but leave out the prose that might show bias."
- Wholeheartedly agree on that. I think some posters here are forgetting WP:NPOV. Mrmarble (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

–"And the other half has come on fast surfaces. Your point? Why is amount of their meetings on hard irrelevant when the surface alone accounts for 39% of their meetings?"

39% of meetings is closer to 1/3 than 50%. If each surface was played approximately 33% of the time, that would mean equal representation in H2H. Furthermore, Wimbledon's grass is universally recognized as being no longer fast, even though the organizers try to say otherwise. That's why baseliners such as Fed, Nadal and Djokovic have been able to win it in recent years, when back in the 90s, only serve-and-volleyers such as Sampras, Krajicek and Ivanisevic were able to dominate and win.

–"You're claiming that their h2h is "unfair" while not actually saying it out loud. Whether it's unfair or not is worthy a discussion in tennis forums for sure but I don't think that's something to hint on encyclopedia, it's only one side of the argument."

By keeping the statement "Fourteen of their matches have been on clay, which is statistically Nadal's best surface and statistically Federer's worst surface," no one is claiming that Fed and Nadal's H2H is unfair, whether out loud or implied. It never says that this matchup is unfair. This statement only presents the facts, which is that clay is Nadal's best surface and Fed's worst surface. By stating nothing else, this enables the reader to make a judgement for themselves whether this H2H is fair or not.

–"Have you considered that Fed having 9 titles is because he plays only roughly 4 clay tournaments per year, in which he often loses to Nadal?"

Again, facts are being distorted here. Federer doesn't just lose to Nadal on a regular basis on clay. Fed lost to Volandri (Rome '07 3R, wildcard), Stepanek (Rome '08 QF, unseeded), Wawrinka (Monte Carlo '09 3R, seeded 13), Gulbis (Rome '10 2R, unseeded) and Melzer (Monte Carlo '11 QF, seeded 7). Every year, he has been bundled out of a top prestigious clay court tournament at the hands of players who he would otherwise have no problem with beating on any other surface, thus proving that this is his weakest surface. One loss is a coincidence, two losses do not make a pattern, five losses show a disturbing trend indeed.

After presenting you with such glaring facts and losses to such low-ranking players on clay, please prove to me that clay really isn't statistically Fed's worst surface (not just because of Nadal). I'll be the first to congratulate you. Cheers. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to throw my vote in as keeping this statement in. As mentioned, if you are going to do a head to head section, information such as this provides great insight into head to head statistics. Removing it only deprives this.GreenTree998 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you GreenTree. Finally, someone is able see the value of keeping factual information that (contrary to popular belief) does not contain any opinion, rather than deleting it and claiming that we're "forgetting WP:NPOV." —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloom6132, Nobody is deleting information here, my edit includes amount of matches played on all surfaces while biased and arguable statement about "worst surface" being removed. So in fact the amount of information is increased.
You argue that Federer has lost to Gulbis etc...well, Gulbis took a set off Nadal on clay in same tournament, only one of two players to do so in whole 2010 clay season. Other players you mention are neither half bad on clay. Why not mention for example Fed's losses in Indian Wells to Canas, Baghdatis or at the time 98th ranked Mardy Fish. Or how Federer since beginning of Nadal's clay domination has lost only to Nadal himself and once against Soderling at RG, Soderling who incidentally is the only player ever to beat Nadal on clay of RG.
You want more proof that clay is not Federer's worst surface...actually the onus is not to disprove but to prove that it is. Anyway, as they say, here goes nothing: Federer has reached 50% on M1000 finals on clay, while the figure on hard is 45%. If we include slams, the figures are 54% and 51% on clay and hard, respectively.
Federer at M1000 on clay vs hard
Cheers, Mrmarble (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

–"Why not mention for example Fed's losses in Indian Wells to Canas"

Let's not smokescreen the topic at hand. For your information, Fed lost exactly one week later in Miami, again to Canas. That doesn't appear to be a coincidence, does it? Starting to be a trend...

–"Other players you mention are neither half bad on clay"

Volandri and Stepanek have never made it past the 4R at RG; and Gulbis and Melzer made it to the QF and SF once (2008 and 2010, respectively), before each were bundled out of the 2R the very next year. So no, these players aren't exceptional at clay, yet they still managed to beat Federer on clay.

From these points, proofs and evidence, Fed's worst surface is by far clay (and it's not even close). So stating that it is his worst surface (a proven fact) is not a "biased and arguable statement."

–"Nobody is deleting information here"

As for Nadal's record boxes appearing on his main page rather than his career achievements page, it is the Golden Standard to have them appear on the player's actual page. Should there be any discrepancy, the player's page always takes precedent. As I had already cited in the edit summaries (which appear to have been ignored by you), this arrangement has already been agreed upon. Navops47 stated, "yes its mainly for the big ones." This means that Nadal's record boxes (which are extremely big), need these collapsable boxes. They serve their purpose of compacting info, even though you claim they are "ugly." This is evident as the use of collapsable boxes and their placement on the player's main page is already used in Fed's GA, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, McEnroe, Agassi, Laver and Vilas' articles. This standard has been in line for quite some time now. Nadal's page was originally in line with this arrangement, until you unilaterally decided to change it and aggressively undid the edits of others who attempted to restore this correct formatting, which is in line with all articles regarding tennis players. I was even willing to compromise with you as shown in the edit summary, where I said "I'll leave only the important ATP Masters records here." I only offered this olive branch to you after seeing how aggressively other edits by TheLou75 (among many other users) were undone by you. Yet, you refused to negotiate or discuss this compromise I am still willing to offer. Clearly, I am not the one changing this setup, it is you who is. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR, you guys, so discuss whatever is the matter rather than explode the actual article. If more editors are needed for this to be settled and the changes of standard are being argued, then I suggest discussing this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis! oncamera^(t) 17:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a response from the other party with regards to the issue of placing collapsable record boxes on the main page of a player's article, rather than their career achievement page. The other issue being discussed (i.e. whether to keep the statement "Fourteen of their matches have been on clay, which is statistically Nadal's best surface and statistically Federer's worst surface") can be discussed later on after the first issue is resolved. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Oncamera, thanks for your comment.
Bloom, Is your best argument seriously that Federer lost to John Doe who YOU think is not a good player? That's rather childish and endless argument... totally irrelevant as well since I just proved that Fed has reached finals on clay with better percentage than on hard - your John Does are included in those stats.
You further claim: "Fed lost exactly one week later in Miami, again to Canas. That doesn't appear to be a coincidence, does it? Starting to be a trend..." - Apparently you don't even understand your argument yourself: Miami is a hard court tournament and yes losing twice is beginning to be a trend - which means that Canas did not fluke his first win against Fed... a trend about a not that great player beating Fed on hard.
I return to another of your previous arguments... You claimed that clay is 1/3 of surfaces, thus 50% of matches played there is too much and should be mentioned. Funny is that on other hand grass is 1/3 as well, while 3 matches on grass makes only 11% of total matches - yet you don't see anything wrong with amount of grass matches NOT being mentioned, despite grass being even further from magical 33%. So there were supposed to be "best" arguments you have came up with...and still I don't think you're going to change your mind or admit that my position is correct here. What does that tell us about how well the system works here, if discussion can actually change anything; you draw your conclusion, I draw mine. Mrmarble (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Canas did not fluke his first win against Fed... a trend about a not that great player beating Fed on hard."

• Canas isn't actually that bad. He was ranked No. 8 in the World in 2005. And for a player to be only one of 2 people to beat Fed in consecutive tournaments since 2003 (the other being Nadal) means that he must be pretty good to pull off such a stunt (also hats off to him for ending Fed's 41 match win streak). I'd have to say Canas is much better than those random players who beat Fed at those clay court tournaments. And that's not only my opinion. Go and ask anyone if they've heard of Volandri, Stepanek, Wawrinka, Gulbis and Melzer beating Federer. The best answer would be "Oh, Wawrinka. Federer's Davis Cup buddy." Ask about Canas, and anyone who remembers tennis in 2007 would label him "the punk that ended Fed's glorious winning streak, then beat him again 2 weeks later to compound his misery."

"3 matches on grass makes only 11% of total matches - yet you don't see anything wrong with amount of grass matches NOT being mentioned"

• No I don't see anything wrong with grass not being mentioned. Grass is only 5 weeks long each year. Clay and hard are similar amount. If you take grass away, it only removes three matches (2 wins for Fed, 1 for Nadal). This is negligible. It only makes Fed's position in the H2H appear even more disadvantaged (i.e. playing so many times on Nadal's clay and so few times on Fed's favourite grass).

"I don't think you're going to change your mind or admit that my position is correct here"

• Why should I admit your position is correct when it is only your opinion and nothing else. Just because you believe something is correct doesn't mean it is to other people.

Your previous concern was "I don't understand how his CAREER win% on hard is relevant, because that includes his matches before Federer and Nadal had even met" and based this off your claim that from 2004–2012, "Federer has won 90.4% on clay and 89.6% on hard, after ignoring their mutual matches."

• That stat is completely negligible. The difference is a miniscule 0.77%. Does that make a difference? Hardly if any. And why should Nadal's record on clay against Federer not be included? Is their anything to hide? At the end of the day, Fed's going to have to live with the fact that he is in the same era as the greatest clay court player of all time. That includes his W% record on clay, which would inevitably suffer (but so does everyone else's). Same thing with Nadal. He's living with the fact that he has to play the Greatest of All Time. Yet, he's been the only person to "figure" Federer out on both grass and hard, while Fed hasn't figured Nadal out on clay. As of today, Nadal is the only player to beat Federer in both a grass and hard court Grand Slam final (Wimbledon '08 and AO '09). Are we going to ignore Nadal's record against Fed on grass and hard (which is 6–8) in order to inflate his record and not make these his statistically worst surface? of course not! Then here's my question. Why are you doing this to Fed's clay record? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Canas isn't actually that bad."

• Pardon me... your initial argument was that Canas IS bad. Make up your mind already.
  

"He was ranked No. 8 in the World in 2005"

• And Wawrinka was ranked 9 in 2008
  

"Why should I admit your position is correct when it is only your opinion and nothing else."

• Because I backed it up with actual stats. Can't blame you for not following the logic though, after all you have trouble following your own logic with Canas etc. The "clay is fed's worst surface" should be removed since it obviously has not been so during the rivalry. Or maybe you can explain me why Federer has reached clay finals more regularly than hard court finals during their rivalry? Mrmarble (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Pardon me... your initial argument was that Canas IS bad. Make up your mind already."

• Nope. My argument as always is that Canas isn't that bad, which is why he was able to beat Fed in consecutive tournaments. You attempted to deviate the subject of subpar players beating Fed on clay to that of hard. I'm demonstrating how his losses on hard were to good players, while his losses on clay were to subpar players.

"Wawrinka was ranked 9 in 2008"

• Yet he never beat Federer twice, not even non-consecutively. And Baghdatis (who you also mentioned) made it to the 2006 AO final. Not bad after all.

"Because I backed it up with actual stats" and "explain me why Federer has reached clay finals more regularly than hard court finals during their rivalry"

• More like backed it up with falsified stats. During their rivalry, Federer has reached 51 hard finals and 17 clay finals, thus disproving your claim. Obviously this shows Fed's hard > clay. Have you actually resorted to falsifying stats with the sole intention of winning this argument? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"During their rivalry, Federer has reached 51 hard finals and 17 clay finals, thus disproving your claim. Obviously this shows Fed's hard > clay."
Wow. You're not very mathematically oriented. Of course the comparison has to be in percentages because Fed plays different amount of tournaments on different surfaces. By your logic one could claim that grass is Fed's worst surface because he has played only a handful of finals there. See? I ask you again, why has Fed reached clay finals more regularly than hard finals if clay is his worst surface? Mrmarble (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If there's one thing we learn from these discussions, it's the fact that you constantly resort to personal attacks whenever I bring up valid points. You've called my arguments/edits "immoral" (in the Records section) and "childish" (in this section). And even after kindly reminded you not to do this, you've culminated in calling me "not very mathematically oriented." I have to say it's pretty peculiar why (on one hand) you say "the comparison has to be in percentages," while on the other hand, you don't provide me with the percentages of total hard and clay court tournaments he played since the start of their rivalry. You previously stated that you "backed...up" your points "with actual stats." Why don't you do the same for this one? Is their something to hide? If not, I would be very interested to see those percentages. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You accuse me of personal attacks, while on the other hand accusing me of falsifying stats. You get offended for being called not very mathematically oriented, while at the same time your mathematical reasoning leads to conclusion that grass is Federer's worst surface. You want to know how many tournaments Fed played on hard vs. clay, as if that would be relevant to the claim that clay is Fed's worst surface.
I'm still awaiting your answer to the question: Why has Fed reached clay finals more regularly than hard finals if clay is his worst surface? Mrmarble (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"You accuse me of personal attacks, while on the other hand accusing me of falsifying stats"

• I never accused you of any falsifying stats. All I said was the points you made seemed to be "backed...up with" statistics that appeared "falsified." My statement was not a personal attack, whereas you calling me "not very mathematically oriented" is, since you utilized the word "You're."

"your mathematical reasoning leads to conclusion that grass is Federer's worst surface"

• I never stated that grass is Fed's worst surface. Given the fact that he's won 6 Wimbledon titles and a record 11 grass titles, I have to say it's one of his best surfaces.

"I'm still awaiting your answer to the question: Why has Fed reached clay finals more regularly than hard finals if clay is his worst surface?"

• I'm the one waiting for you to give me the percentages of finals reached over tournaments played, since you're the one claiming that "Fed reached clay finals more regularly than hard finals" and "the comparison has to be in percentages." You make the claim that he reaches more clay finals than hard finals since 2004, so please substantiate your argument. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"I never stated that grass is Fed's worst surface"
But you concluded that since Fed has less TOTAL of final appearances on clay than he has on hard - so clay must be his worst surface. Now of course he has even less finals on grass so same logic must apply.
I've already given 2 figures, including all his matches on clay vs hard and finals on M1000 + Grand Slam level. Now if you want to count his success rates on 250 and 500 tournaments, go ahead...but the problem there is that he hardly has played those on clay. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for your answer on M1000+GS level. Mrmarble (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As I had previously stated, the grass court season is only 5 weeks long. The only reason why I can compare clay and hard finals is because the seasons for both surfaces are relatively the same length. Grass is a complete anomaly compared to clay and hard. And if you really wanted to get technical, the same thing applied to carpet (before it was disbanded in 2009). One can compare hard and clay or grass and carpet. However, to compare the frequency of finals between both groups would be nonsensical and unbalanced, as the grass and carpet court seasons are significantly shorter than hard or clay. Therefore, comparing Fed's 51 hard finals and 17 clay finals is valid, but you adding his 13 grass finals to the subject is like comparing apples with oranges. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Clay and hard seasons are nowhere near of equal length...and even if they were, Federer/Nadal play on the surface only for 2 months/year or less. That means that Federer plays much more tournaments on hard than he does on clay. You don't know even basics of Federer's schedule and still you argue here with me. Go to a tennis forum for your nonsensical arguments and quit wasting our time. Mrmarble (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, you've resorted to personal attacks and called my points "nonsensical arguments" and claiming that I'm "wasting our time." Yet, it is you who is attempting to push forward a proposal that has garnered no support. As of now, I can count at least two other users who have expressed support keeping the designating of clay as "statistically Nadal's best surface and statistically Federer's worst surface." In spite of this, you've attempted to refute and rebut our arguments with all the stats, which you claim prove that clay is not Fed's worst surface when it is universally recognized as being his weakness. And finally, you wonder "why has Fed reached clay finals more regularly than hard finals if clay is his worst surface?" Have you ever considered the easy draws he has faced on clay, given the fact that there are not that many clay court specialists around to beat him. On clay, the only significant threats Fed has had are from Nadal and maybe Montañés (who defeated Fed in straight sets in Estoril '10). On the other hand, Fed has to face formidable challenges from hard court specialists such as Tsonga, Del Potro, Berdych, Nalbandian and Simon, in addition to Djokovic and Murray (who thrive on hard). This increases his chances of being bundled in the semis and quarterfinals of hard court tournaments (with rarely any early round exits to subpar players). On clay, his path to the finals have been relatively straightforward, yet Fed has somehow managed to exit early in many of these tournaments. In parting words to you: until you have managed to garner even the slightest amount of support amongst any users regarding the changes you want implemented, give up this futile fight and stop wasting my precious time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There you go again with your nonsensical arguments, arguing about Fed losing to John Doe who YOU think is not worthy opponent. Added with claims that there are no good players on clay at all except Nadal (and Montanes, lol)...which is ridiculous claim and very convenient since then you don't have to care at all about opposing arguments. Why not just admit that you're making these weak arguments only because you're young and fanatic Federer supporter and you need your excuses for his losses to Nadal - forget about facts and statistics. Mrmarble (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Answer the question: Who's supporting your proposal for these reforms? Judging from this entire talk page...no one. Figures why you resort to personal attacks yet again for the third time, labeling me as "young and fanatic." It's your arguments that are weak, evident as no one wants to support your position. Garner some support first, then we'll talk again regarding this issue. Until then. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Many editors working on this article are more interested on pushing their propaganda, instead of creating an unbiased document. I have noticed that this is a common problem regarding tennis articles in general. I don't know, probably a problem with Wikipedia as a whole. Mrmarble (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'll reiterate my full support for the inclusion of this statistic. Only you are opposed to this so it's only fair to say that this case is closed. TheLou75 (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And just when I was talking about biased propaganda, Lou finally decided to join the discussion despite claiming he doesn't need to discuss while reversing my edits. Lou also says in Federer forum that Laver has won only (sic) 1 calendar slam in Open Era and that he's too short to be considered greatest of all time...talk about bias there! But I guess that's his MO in Wikipedia, as seen from his actions in pages about Roman Polanski, Rafael Nadal and "Micropenis" (no kidding). I suggest focusing on last subject only since you obviously are most familiar with it. Mrmarble (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to judge Lou based on the WP pages he chooses to edit, no matter how peculiar they may happen to be, as this is a universal right and freedom that everyone is entitled to. And assuming without substantiation that he's the "most familiar with" the last subject is wrong. When gathering the consensus of all who participated in this discussion/heated debate over the line, "Fourteen of their matches have been on clay, which is statistically Nadal's best surface and statistically Federer's worst surface," 4 users (Bloom6132, TheLou75, GreenTree998, as well as 216.99.184.50) support the keeping of this statement, 1 user (Mrmarble) wants to delete this statement and it appears that Fyunck(click) is neutral. This is not a vote and not a democratic majority rule. This is a consensus and it appears we have finally reached a consensus. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Bloom, like you said, this is a consensus, and this matter is closed as far as I am concerned. There is only one person who wants to keep this open, despite universal rejection. TheLou75 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there appears to be only 2 persons who want to maintain WP:NPOV - and three Fedfans who'd like to forget that principle in order to make factually incorrect excuses for Fed's losing h2h. Why doesn't that surprise me... Mrmarble (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, 5 users are against you, and another one is indifferent. You are the only one pushing this change. TheLou75 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

20 days have past since we first discuss the subject and 20 days have resulted in only one user supporting the deletion of that statement. That user claims he "want[s] to maintain WP:NPOV" in order to mask a potential hidden agenda of an anti-Federer/pro-Nadal stance. I'm pro-tennis, not a pro-Federer, pro-Nadal, pro-Sampras or pro-Agassi. The fact that 4 users oppose your changes show that 4 people can actually see past your smokescreen. The fact that Mrmarble continues to argue even after his proposal has been clearly defeated shows that he is arguing for the sake of arguing. Nothing else. The 3 other users and I are actually being generous in tolerating and putting up with your soapbox rant. Any other protestations from Mrmarble will demonstrate his inability to lose gracefully; these can and should be ignored, as a consensus has already been reached and this matter declared closed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it you lost the argument long time ago, after I provided statistics. It has been only us two arguing about this for quite some time. If I'm "overvoted" then so be it. Doesn't make it right though. Mrmarble (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You weren't "overvoted." Consensus throughout this discussion has flushed your argument out. The fact that you can only muster "Doesn't make it right though" further reinforces the fact that you can't accept the fact that your argument has been clearly and vehemently rejected by other users you were trying convince. And providing a whole smorgasbord of statistics isn't going to sway the tide of opposition toward your proposal. As Aaron Levenstein once stated, "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." The 4 users who want to keep the statement aren't smokescreened by your litany of stats. Your stats hopelessly attempt to conceal what has been the truth all along: that Federer's weakest surface is clay. The 4 users who want to keep the statement actually see this big picture, as we have brains that see past your potential hidden agenda. On the other hand, you are bogged down by nitty gritty statistics that have failed to convince anyone in supporting your proposal. Your proposal has indeed failed, so return back to your Ivory Tower and quit wasting my time, along with everyone else's. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 ClosedAfter more than a month since the last comment, it can be safe to say that this discussion is now closed. Any reopening of the subject should take place in a new section and quite a significant time from now, since consensus has been solidly made regarding this subject. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why use Grand slam instead of Major?

In the introduction(starting, I haven't read the full article) section there is a section which states that Nadal has won ten grand slam titles. Now my question is, each of the four individual tournament is known as a major. Grand slam is when a player wins all four majors in a calender year. It is done only 14 times and in Men's Singles only Don Budge and Rod Laver did it. So please someone explain.--Vyom25 (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The introduction specifically adds "singles titles" at the end of Grand Slam. This is what differentiates it from winning a Grand Slam. "Majors" is a more informal name that is only used when wanting to shorten "Grand Slam tournaments" (see Nadal's Records section for more info). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Winning all four majors in the same calendar year is called: The grand slam. But over the years "a grand slam" has become synonymous to "a major". They are now used interchangeably. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with bloom on one point. Major is not the informal version... it is the correct version. Grand Slam tournament is really the informal version that has slipped into the English vernacular in recent years. I try to use Major wherever possible in articles to differentiate from a grand slam, but the fact is, wrong or right, calling them grand slam tournaments or grand slam events is used a lot in the press (as is the Majors) and the terms are fairly interchangeable in flowing prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So what I understood is as of right now there is no standard practice as when to use 'a major' and when 'grand slam'. And "Grand Slam" is informal 'major' is not.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast standard practice however never substitute "a major" with "grand slam"... that would be absolutely incorrect as they are not the same thing. You could substitute "a major" for "a grand slam tournament." So Federer won three Majors in 2007 is the most proper terminology. But it could also be worded that Federer won three grand slam tournaments in 2007. I personally overwhelmingly use major but I do occasionally use grand slam tournament. It sort of depends on the article or situation. The term "major" has been around a long time in tennis 1940s or 50's while grand slam tournaments I believe didn't really start becoming used much till the 80's or later. At first I started hearing the term slam since it was really one of 4 parts of a grand slam. Then some folks started misusing the term Grand Slam (and some still misuse it) to mean a single event. Like golf there are 4 majors in tennis, and if you are great enough to win all four majors in the same year you have won a Grand Slam. I hope that helps a little. cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know all this stuff what I was asking was standard practice on wikipedia. Now I understand that there is no standard practice. But I think I get your point on grand slam tournament. It is a common misconception to use grand slam (i.e. Djokovic won three grand slams in 2011). Many reliable sources makes the same mistake. As an encyclopedia there must be some clarity on this issue.--Vyom25 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The usage of the term 'Grand Slam' to refer to each of the four Grand Slam / Major tournaments is now so widespread and from my perspective much more common than the term 'Major' that I prefer to use it. The term 'Major' has always sounded like an Americanism to me although I'm sure it can be found in British media as well. This usage of the term 'Grand Slam' is not a 'misconception' or 'mistake' but a case of a word that over time has gotten a new / additional meaning. But I do agree that to avoid confusion it should in these cases be used in combination with the word 'tournament', 'championship' or 'title'. (i.e. "Djokovic won three grand slams tournaments/championships/titles in 2011"). --Wolbo (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well here we disagree. I hear Major used very often in interviews and in newspapers. And I find it something like the word "ain't" or "you know"... terms widely used that are incorrect usage. Because they are widespread they must be noted as we do with all terms and names here, but that doesn't make them correct. It was talked about by tennis editors awhile ago that "major" is the preferred term. It has paralleled golf for over 50 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this one is a British source and what it has got to do with the country anyway? and people all around the world use it. Have a look at this thread it is a blog or something I don't know but the discussion is same.--Vyom25 (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Lendl/Grand Slam surfaces

"Rafael Nadal has at least two Grand Slams in each surface, only the second player to achieve this feat after Ivan Lendl."" How can this be right when Lendl never won Wimbledon but "only" hardcourt and clay Grand Slam Tournaments? Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.107.196 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wilander.. you are right.. thats wrong.. Nadal is the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.178.204 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 season

Why is there a special article on his 2012 season. Someone should at least summarize his season, what he has done up to now and not let a blank section. I mean some people think it's annoying to have to see another page to get the information they're looking for...

Also, Nadal is the most successful MALE tennis player of the French Open. Chris Evert has 7 French Open titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.145.175 (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Records

I will now make a compromise, which should be very fair imo. After which we can discuss for further improvement. The changes I will make are:
1a Merge "Grand Slam Tournament Records" to one box...as it was before Bloom touched it - and even before I touched it.
1b Make that one large box hidden (that's what Bloom wanted in first place)
2. Do the same to "ATP Masters records" for consistency (that's perhaps more than Bloom hoped for)
3. Making tiny box "All-time tournament records" visible, as it always was.
4. While making above edits, fixing all 3 above mentioned boxes to similar fixed width, and all three boxes having four columns, as was the case before Bloom or I touched them.
5. Leave "Other selected records" intact (edit: corrected width to match other boxes).
This operation will leave "Records" section very much cleaned up, having exactly same boxes that are on page List_of_career_achievements_by_Rafael_Nadal, except Slams and Masters boxes will be collapsed. Now the section will look clean and formatting of collapsed boxes will be same as original.

Now to discussion about what I would like to change. First, Bloom, I found your edits to be rather immoral since you changed formats of those boxes a lot after we had discussed several days on ANOTHER matter.
Here's my original, 24th March version of Nadal's records section; which you brutally butchered over couple weeks later, without discussion:
[1]
As one can see, it leaves only the essential, most important records on main page. This is the way it should be in my opinion... That is what reader is interested in seeing when reading the article...and NOT Nadal's 100 best records! (that is after making extra clicks to expand the collapsed boxes). He/she can find those full-boxes in List_of_career_achievements_by_Rafael_Nadal, link to which is handily located in Nadal's main page just above his record boxes. In another words, the version on Nadal's page should be a summary - not the whole collection of statistics from main page of "Career Achievements".
Bloom, you legitimized your changes by commenting that it is "gold standard" that big boxes are on main page but hidden/collapsed - nonsense. It can not be even a standard to begin with since ONLY Nadal and Federer have main page for career achievements - they do not need all records to be on main page! Furthermore, you provided a link where you agreed on ONE editor's talk page that "hey let's use collapsible boxes - cool" ...Hardly a "Golden Standard".
Now of course your idea comes from Federer, whose Records-section consists of 4 collapsed boxes - and once you open them you're facing around 100 different unimportant statistics with cringe inducing formatting (which you did copy here), and hiding somewhere between those stats one MIGHT find those few meaningful records the reader would actually like to see. Ridiculous. What's the point having all collapsed anyway, just give the reader a link to all couple hundred plus awkward stats. Or try to find the relevant ones and leave only them under Records-section, as would be (and was) my way with Nadal (should that be called "Platinum Standard"?). If you need help someone telling what are Fed's most important records I'll be glad to offer my more or less educated opinion. Thank you,Mrmarble (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I agree with Bloom's change towards collapsible boxes. This page is already long enough as it is and this is a very effective way to mitigate this issue. And no, I don't see it as being ugly, in fact, I see it pleasing to the eye. TheLou75 (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Mrmarble: Before we discuss again, I'd like to point out how you called my arguments/edits "childish" (in the Federer vs Nadal section) and "immoral" (in this section). As a word of kindly advice, may I suggest you not use such choice of words in the future. Other users could interpret this as a personal attack, even if you had no such intention to do so. As for me, I did not interpret it as a personal attack, because I assume good faith in you, just like you do with me. If we both can stick to the Golden Rule (rather than the "Golden Standard" hehe), I think we can get this issue resolved in a civil and amicable manner.

Furthermore, I'd like to assure you that I did not suddenly go and change your edits to the records section because of the heated discussion we were having on the Federer vs. Nadal rivalry. I have always treated those two issues as completely separate, so please don't assume I was "going after"/"butchering" you because of the earlier discussion. Even if you and I were not engaging in the debate regarding Fed and Nadal, I would have still changed the records section, because I am trying to keep this in line with all other articles of tennis players. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Back to discussing about the topic itself, the compromise I was extending was for the actual changes themselves, not for the status quo right now. My plan is to keep Nadal's "Selected Grand Slam tournament records" separate from "Records at each Grand Slam tournament" (again to match Fed's GA, Lendl, Connors, Agassi, etc.). These Grand Slam records are essential, thus they should not be kept in the career achievements page. Right now, Fed's article keeps only his most important Grand Slam records. His career achievements page is used for trivia and trivial records (such as being the "only player to win at least 1 bagel set in 3 different Grand Slam finals" or the only male player to win the AO "on both Rebound Ace and Plexicushion Prestige surfaces"). Furthermore, the record boxes on Fed's page list only the most important Masters 1000 records. This is where the compromise kicks in.

The compromise here is that only the most important Masters 1000 are to be listed on Nadal's page (following the format of Fed's page and part of your original plan). Other than that, all his Grand Slam records (both overall and at individual GS tournaments) should be kept. I'll be willing to further compromise by letting you move most of the records that state "Simultaneous holder of Olympic singles gold medal and..." to his career achievements page, as these are also mostly trivia (except for "Simultaneous holder of Olympic singles gold medal and Majors on clay, grass, and hard court"). Other than that, everything else should stay, as Grand Slam records are what defines a player's greatness (and please don't get into another debate with me over this claim).

Now, with regards to collapsible boxes, you ask "what's the point having all collapsed anyway." Alas, this is to compact all the records so that they don't take up so much space, yet still give the full and entire picture of records held. Just to let you know, Fed does not have "around 100 different unimportant statistics" when you open his selected Grand Slam records. There are only 33 (yes, I actually counted). His "Records at each Grand Slam tournament" has only 20 and his "Other selected records" has only 28. In total, that adds up 81 (far less than the 100 that you claimed). Therefore, by adding these collapsible boxes, this enables the records to not take up so much space, yet give all the necessary and meaningful records. Nadal's has only 12, 10, 4 and 3 respectively (total of only 29). So there is actually be no reason why any of these records should be moved to the career achievements page, but again, I'm still willing to offer the further compromise from above.

Your last concern is that "hiding somewhere between those stats one MIGHT find those few meaningful records the reader would actually like to see." The only problem is that all the GS records being listed on Nadal's page are important and meaningful. Placing them in collapsable boxes does not hinder their viewing at all. If the reader actually wanted to access the records, they would uncollapse the box and read it for themselves. So yes, collapsable boxes are extremely effective in this case. They reduce the amount of clutter in the article while enabling us to provide all the necessary records that may be a bit long. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

1) I'd like to comment on unfairness of this situation and how it doesn't follow Wikipedia:BRD cycle: Current version is not correct starting point for discussion. I made bold edit around 24th March, it stayed there 2 weeks until Bloom began making his own bold edits - he should have reverted my bold edit and then we would be discussing whether my changes should be applied or not. Now however he did not reverse my edit, he changed the records section all together different - different from my initial bold edit and different from version that stood before it. So it is incorrect to claim that current version should be the one in place while this discussion takes place. Correct version would be the one BEFORE Bloom's COMPLETE RE-WRITE of "records" section (my version)...Or the one before my bold edits in 24th March (CONSENSUS version).
2) I'd like to hear from Bloom and others what they think about my "compromise-version"???(the version before Oncamera reversed it). What is good and what is bad? (and why)
3 Note that you can compare CONSENSUS version and Bloom's edits by looking boxes at List of career achievements by Rafael Nadal
My comments on problems with Bloom's "compromise version" follows:
a) It has nothing to do with compromise, the only thing that is left (almost) intact from my initial BOLD edit is cut Masters-section.
b) It is inconsistent and illogical to have uncut and hidden "Slams", while "Masters" is cut and not hidden. Those two boxes are around similar length.
c) Why is "All-time tournament records" hidden? Certainly it can not be too long.
d) Slams are divided into 2 subcategories(why? Where was this split discussed?) - consisting of 2 hidden boxes of different widths and different amount of columns. That is ugly and there is no need for 2 boxes since they both can be included in one box of 4 columns, as displayed in my "compromise-version", pre 24th March versions and in List of career achievements by Rafael Nadal. Also there are another width-problems with boxes, which I fixed in my compromise-version
e) Formatting inside "Selected Grand Slam tournament records" is very ugly - this is because those were changed from original 4 columns to 3. The 4th column was there for a purpose!
f) "Masters" section is changed from 4 columns to 3 - this also results to ugly formatting, as seen in "Clay Slam" row.
g) I can live with "Other selected records" being hidden, despite the box being small.
Obviously Bloom's mission is to implement Federer's records section formatting here, which has all above flaws and then some. Imo it's the worst possible example to start modifying other pages. Also Bloom, you like to cite that SOME other pages have similar format - well, of course they do since you and the other editor have changed them that way recently-ish... backed by your bilateral "Golden Standard" never discussed beyond one user page.
I think my compromise-version is pretty good, it keeps the original formatting and hides last 3 boxes while making all similar width. Give it a try...
Bit off-topicky, but another flawed standard is trying to keep all records Open Era only. Bloom you said that (Open era) Slam records are the most important - no they are not. Most important are records that stretch through whole history of tennis and not only last 40 years. Laver for example doesn't have a single all-time record listed atm, that is just wrong. Mrmarble (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"you and the other editor have changed them that way recently-ish"

• Actually, Navops47 and I changed it back in January, two and a half months ago. Nobody had a problem with that formatting until you decided to protest (surprisingly, you're still the only one opposed to this formatting, while your changes have been met with vehement opposition by other users, not just myself).

"you like to cite that SOME other pages have similar format"

• Actually, I have for the most part cited All the pages that have the Same format. They are Agassi, Borg, Lendl and Connors and Djokovic.

b) We can amalgamate the "Masters" section with the "Other Selected Records" section. This is what Lendl's article does and it appears to be the perfect fit.

c) Feel free to uncollapse the "All-time tournament records". You're right, it does appear rather short and so there won't be any clutter that the collapsable boxes need to reduce.

d) & e) "That is ugly" and "Formatting...is very ugly"

• As I have previously stated, this is only your opinion and nothing else. Just because you believe something is correct doesn't mean it is to other people. Besides, Wikipedia's goal is not aesthetics, it's about practicality.

d) The reason why Slams are divided into 2 subcategories is because there is a need to differentiate overall Grand Slam records and records at individual Grand Slam tournaments. It creates two distinct categories, as individual GS tournament records are completely different from overall GS records.

e) "those were changed from original 4 columns to 3. The 4th column was there for a purpose"

• There is no purpose for the 4th column when a timespan, that includes both the tournament and the year, takes care of both in just one column. Utilizing the timespan option is a much more efficient format. It gives the full picture without having to be bogged down by categorizing years and tournaments separately when it can be amalgamated into one.

f) ""Masters" section is changed from 4 columns to 3"

• Do you realize that if you had 4 columns, the table would have "ATP Masters" for the first three records. This tells us nothing about the record itself, leaving this designation completely unnecessary and redundant. Adding "ATP Masters" in front of the record of "19 Masters 1000 titles overall" makes absolutely no difference, other than adding unnecessary information that is already conveyed by the record itself. That's why it's been reduced to 3 columns. And no, the "Clay Slam" row does not have "ugly formatting;" again, that's only your opinion.

g) I too can live with the "Other selected records" box either collapsed or uncollapsed.

"backed by your bilateral "Golden Standard" never discussed beyond one user page."

• Far from bilateral. More like multilateral. The fact that no one opposed this formatting when it was implemented and for the 2 and a half months it's been in operation shows that it's been more or less accepted. You're the first and only user opposing this formatting. On the other hand, your changes have been met with opposition, shown in both the talk page and edit summaries.

As I had previously stated, placing them in collapsable boxes does not hinder their viewing at all. If the reader actually wanted to access the records, they would uncollapse the box and read it for themselves. So yes, collapsable boxes are extremely effective in this case. They reduce the amount of clutter in the article while enabling us to provide all the necessary records that may be a bit long. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"b) We can amalgamate the "Masters" section with the "Other Selected Records" section. This is what Lendl's article does and it appears to be the perfect fit."
You want to split "slams" but to merge "masters" with other records. Clearly you lack vision what it is that you want from the page. I don't think we should merge "Masters" with other records. Are you talking about only those 4 masters records listed currently or all of them? Will "Masters" be hidden or not and in which form? Why Masters is short but slams long?
"c) Feel free to uncollapse the "All-time tournament records". You're right, it does appear rather short and so there won't be any clutter that the collapsable boxes need to reduce"
- Fine, this is probably the first thing we agree upon. Why did you hide it in the first place but leave "Masters" unhidden? Maybe because Masters mentioned Federer? It's really hard to understand your logic since there seems to be none.
"Besides, Wikipedia's goal is not aesthetics, it's about practicality."
Why not have both? Clever looking table is also easier to read - Tables are MORE CLEAR and EASIER TO COMPREHEND for the reader if they all have same format. That includes having a separate column for "years", instead of merging it with "tournament" on some tables while on other tables not.
Also, wouldn't it be better to have same width for all tables, regardless of amount of columns?
You still haven't commented on my compromise, please do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafael_Nadal&diff=487220562&oldid=487219942
Thanks, Mrmarble (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate my support for the changes that Bloom6132 originally brought to this article. However, as for the compromise of showing the Master's records, I do not agree with the inconsistent format of showing this and collapsing the rest. It's not necessary to satisfy the minority opinion (one person) as the majority opinion should be the deciding factor. For consistency, the entire section should be collapsible. Again, Bloom's edits are both practicable and aesthetically pleasing. TheLou75 (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Lou's "opinions" can be safely ignored, his only interest here from the get go has been reverting my edits and nothing more, that's his agenda...edit warring while refusing to talk or dropping one-liners. Furthermore, majority opinion is the previous consensus version. Mrmarble (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Who are we to determine whether someone's opinions can be ignored. Even if they had the most outlandish claims ever (and Lou's points are quite valid and far from outlandish), we would still have to hear them out. And who are we to judge a person's interest and agenda when we don't even know the full scope. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

–"I don't think we should merge "Masters" with other records. Are you talking about only those 4 masters records listed currently or all of them? Will "Masters" be hidden or not and in which form? Why Masters is short but slams long?"

• I'm talking about only those 4 Masters records and nothing else. Masters records are short but GS records are long because GS are more important and prestigious compared to Masters. Also, keeping only these 4 records is part of the compromise I offered you above and see that I am sticking to my word: only those 4 records on Nadal's main page, the rest can go in his career achievements page. Masters should be merged with "Other selected records" given the fact that they are so short and consist of only 4 records, but since you really wanted not to merge Masters with other records, I'll again compromise and let the Masters have their own standalone box (uncollapsed, of course, as they are so short).

–"Why did you hide it in the first place but leave "Masters" unhidden? Maybe because Masters mentioned Federer? It's really hard to understand your logic since there seems to be none."

• I decided to hide it in the first place to match all other boxes. The only reason why "Masters" remained hidden was because of it's undetermined status (until now). And will you stop pressing the Federer button. Just because my user page believes he is the GOAT, it does not mean I am a "young and fanatic" fan of his as you had previously mentioned. You seem to jump to conclusions way to early. I've actually seen Borg and Sampras play and I'm fans of them too (along with Laver and Lendl). And your logic about the Masters box mentioning Federer is completely off, as the overall GS and individual GS tournament record boxes also have Fed's name there.

–"Clever looking table is also easier to read - Tables are MORE CLEAR and EASIER TO COMPREHEND for the reader if they all have same format. That includes having a separate column for "years", instead of merging it with "tournament" on some tables while on other tables not."

• The reason why the years have been merged with tournament is to compact information conveniently for the sake of practicality. The reason why some tables have this and some not is because overall GS records span more than one tournament throughout a long timespan. Therefore, it is more convenient to place the start and end date, rather than all the extra details in between that readers may not care about. On the other hand, individual GS tournament records obviously need the tournament designation.

–"Also, wouldn't it be better to have same width for all tables, regardless of amount of columns?"

• Not really. I actually saw the version with all the same widths and all I could see were humungous boxes occupying the entire width of the page. Many of them had a lot of blank spaces since the text did not extend so wide. I think the maximum length of text should determine the size of the record box, not constant parameters that will result in a lot of empty spaces.

–"You still haven't commented on my compromise, please do"

• As I had stated above, I feel very skeptical about putting length parameters, as they leave a lot of empty space where there is no text. That would constitute "not aesthetically pleasing" (as you would like both practicality and aestheticism). Thanks! —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The form (aka width + columns + merge) of Slams and Masters records should equal the main page for records, which is List of career achievements by Rafael Nadal. You claim that there's empty space when having same width - no there's not, looks very good on career achievements page.

You also claim that you want to leave only 4 Masters records as a compromise - that is not a compromise since I never agreed with slams and masters tables having different form, or being inconsistent in relation to records listed which they are now. (former lists everything while latter only the most important records).

Furthermore you claim that slams records are most important - Fedfan, that is incorrect; an irrelevant stat about slams, such as "winning 6/7 RG titles" (while the record is having 6 titles) or "Three consecutive runner-up finishes" (while Nadal's record is 4 consecutive finals, and Open Era record is 10 finals in a row) are clearly inferior statistics compared to various Masters records not listed currently in Nadal's main page "summary".

So all in all, your version is inconsistent in relation to itself(slams vs masters) and also inconsistent with career achievements page. Furthermore you're missing the whole point of using tables: They are used to make reading more clear and to divide data in different columns - not to push everything in same column as you want to do with years+tournament columns on some tables. I have so far suggested a compromise which leaves formatting equal within itself and career achievements page, while hiding latter 3 boxes - and a version (my bold edit) that is a TRUE SUMMARY of his most important records. Now the part in Nadal's main page is supposed to be a summary after all, is it not?. Mrmarble (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely disagree with you Mrmarble and your personal attacks on other editors are not helping your cause at all. As stated, Bloom6132's change adds much needed consistency and is effective at providing the information while your changes have no logic behind them at all except to make it larger than it needs to be on the page. TheLou75 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Great lack of logic and failure trying to reason as usual Lou. I know you're aggravated now from me outing your disruptive methods in Wikipedia...such as removing differing opinions on talk pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMicropenis&diff=323122136&oldid=321642211

Pretty much tells us all we need to know about you. Mrmarble (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on your lack of rebuttal, I'm assuming this case is also closed now. Thanks for showing me removing trolling on a wikipedia talk page 3 years ago, yes 3 years ago. I'm guessing you are angry that you aren't getting your way. Well, Wikipedia is based on consensus, not the views of one person. Once you accept and learn that, maybe you won't find yourself in this position as frequently. By the way, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_career_achievements_by_Rafael_Nadal

Now you are also denying hard facts and despite overwhelming proof.

You have also failed to respond to my refutation of your ridiculous claims. 19:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already posted my rebuttal to Bloom above, which he hasn't asnswered yet. You on the other hand just "vote" against me without bringing anything to the discussion. Typical trolling. Mrmarble (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If that's the way you feel as if everyone is out to get you then you aren't going to get very far in this. By the way, I have stated repeatedly why I support Bloom's edits. TheLou75 (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

–"The form (aka width + columns + merge) of Slams and Masters records should equal the main page for records, which is List of career achievements by Rafael Nadal" and "Now the part in Nadal's main page is supposed to be a summary after all, is it not?"

• The main page for records was and has never been the career achievements page, or any other page for that matter. It's suppose to be on the player's main page. A classic and recent example of this is when John McEnroe's records were transferred to his career statistics page (along with all his other tournament statistics). I transferred his records back to McEnroe's main page, to the opposition of no one. This shows that this formatting of placing all a player's records on his main page has been accepted. Therefore, these records on Nadal's main page should not be a summary.

–"You claim that there's empty space when having same width - no there's not, looks very good on career achievements page."

• Yes, there is empty space in the "Players tied" section, even though the amount of text does not call for such a width. On the other hand, the record boxes on Nadal's main page have no unnecessary empty spaces in all the sections. The fact that you claimed there was no empty space (when it is evident to the average viewer that there is) demonstrates that you don't look at this matter in an objective manner (which is what I am doing).

–"You also claim that you want to leave only 4 Masters records as a compromise - that is not a compromise since I never agreed with slams and masters tables having different form, or being inconsistent in relation to records listed which they are now."

• Again, this shows that you appear unwilling to compromise or negotiate, which I am willing to do. What you have done has been purely unilateral. That is certainly not constructive. There needs to be compromise between conflicting sides for the sake of this article's progress and development. I'm compromising. Are you? If not, you're only stymieing the advancement.

–"[Y]ou claim that slams records are most important - Fedfan, that is incorrect; an irrelevant stat about slams, such as "winning 6/7 RG titles" (while the record is having 6 titles) or "Three consecutive runner-up finishes" (while Nadal's record is 4 consecutive finals, and Open Era record is 10 finals in a row) are clearly inferior statistics compared to various Masters records not listed currently in Nadal's main page "summary"."

• Who are you to lecture me (or anyone else) on which records are important and which records aren't. Common sense dictates that Grand Slams (which are the oldest tournaments, are the most prestigious and offer the most ranking points). Furthermore, Nadal's record of "winning 6 RG titles titles in 7 years" mirrors the one on Fed's AO record of "winning 3 titles in 4 years." These records differentiate them from Borg (who had 6 RG titles that were spaced out over 8 years) and Agassi (who had 4 titles over the span of 7 years. And his "Three consecutive runner-up finishes" is a legit record, as no other player achieved such. Not even Lendl achieved this and he lost the most slam finals out of anyone in the field. There are many players who would so want to finish runner-up at just 1 Grand Slam, let alone 3 consecutive. So no, these are not inferior stats.

–"inconsistent with career achievements page"

• Not suppose to be consistent with career achievements page. As previously mentioned, the main page is where all stats should be listed. The only reason why I'm leaving out the Masters records is for the sake of compromise.

–"you're missing the whole point of using tables: They are used to make reading more clear and to divide data in different columns - not to push everything in same column as you want to do with years+tournament columns on some tables."

• Completely false. Tables are used to compact information. And your idea to divide data into different columns complicates the entire situation, rendering this impractical and not aesthetically pleasing. Putting only the years and tournaments in the same column (not "everything" as you claim) and not placing width parameters achieves both practicality (what I want) and aesthetics (what you want).

–"my bold edit...is a TRUE SUMMARY of his most important records."

• As previously mentioned, the player's main page is used to list all of his/her records. This is what is done on Federer's page. I don't see why you have such an issue with his article, as it has been listed as a Good Article for more than a year now. There's a reason why it is listed as a GA and Nadal's article is not (hint: maybe the formatting's superior?). And your bold edit has made the formatting in this section more complex, more confusing and not aesthetically pleasing. As seen by my transfer of McEnroe's records from his career statistics page to his main article, no one ever protested against it, demonstrating that it is indeed the correct and universally accepted formatting. If it wasn't, other users such as Fyunck or Navops47 would have protested and said no. This shows that records should be placed on a player's main page, not on their career statistics page or career achievements page.

Final note: as previously mentioned by Lou, your use of personal attacks have been completely counterproductive and not constructive. It only stirs animosity with other users. Cease and desist from labeling me and any other users "Fedfans" (among many other derogative names) for speaking the truth. It's no surprise why you have not been able to convince other users of accepting and/or supporting your proposals. If your arguments actually had substance (they don't), you wouldn't have to resort to such below the belt tactics of intimidation. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how winning 6 RG titles in 7 years is a better compared to winning 6 in eight years? Both (Nadal+Borg) share the record of 6 titles and that's it. Or please explain how reaching 3 finals and losing them (Nadal) is more of a record than reaching 4 finals (Nadal)?
Now I can understand different opinions on which records should be included and which not. I maintain that records listed should only be a summary of most important records, while all the records can be found in main article in list of career achievements, if need be. Now let's imagine a journalist, or a random reader, looking up on Wikipedia what are Nadal's most important records... he/she should be able to see that in a quick glance, not by seeing a long list of statistics that are rather irrelevant in big picture. If he'd want to dig in to statistical heaven, so to speak, then there's that other page for that...
But, we are getting nowhere here. I have so far made a suggestion which I see as a huge compromise, leaving long list of records for slams and masters and collapsing them. I can also understand your willingness to separate overall slam records from records for specific slams... although my opinion is that they should be more in line with career achievements page, which would keep maintenance between these two pages more coherent a task.
However, I do not agree with your changing and merging of columns: in some tables you merge "time" with "tournament", in some you merge "tournament" with "record" and in some you leave all four original columns intact (aka tournament, time, record, tied with). My opinion is different columns should not be merged, that beats the purpose of using tables altogether...could as well use dashes to list the records instead of tables. So this is a change I find hard to agree with.
Also I do not agree at all with your claim that fixed width "leaves empty space". I don't see how horizontal empty space makes the table less readable, on the contrary it makes the table more clear and page to look better. It is poor coding to leave width of table being dependent on such "tricks" as using line breaks or replacing dash with two dashes as you have done. If the table width is fixed an editor can add the new data without having to concern themselves with length of their record descriptions. Using your suggested coding the width can change between tables and the width of a table can change when an edit is made. Look for example tables on Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics or same tables located on this page - all are fixed width to remove above mentioned problems arising.
Having said this, and after you have dismissed my original compromise - I'm now waiting for you to voice a compromise you think I could agree with. The compromise you earlier suggested I can not agree with, it's illogical and inconsistent imo with poor coding, no offence. If the agreement with us is not forthcoming, we should move this to a mediation by an unbiased 3rd party etc...but I still have hope we can settle something as trivial as this by ourselves. Thanks, Mrmarble (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This argument is clearly getting nowhere. So let me propose having a completely new compromise. In order not to prolong any more bickering, I'll offer you the biggest concession I'm about to give. I'll let you place all of Nadal's record boxes on his career achievements page, since you noted that "stats heaven" should not be on his main page. I'm perfectly fine with that and I know this is the main reason why you're against the previous arrangement. In essence, I'm letting you have your bold edit that you made originally earlier back in late March/early April. And, only if you wanted, in order to streamline the maintenance between these two pages and not bicker over "different opinions on which records should be included and which not," I'll give you my next offer. We could completely eliminate the record boxes from Nadal's main article and place links instead that would bring readers to the individual sections in his career achievements page, but only if you want. That way, there would be no debate over which records to keep and which ones to eliminate. Plus, only one page (his career achievements page) would have to be maintained. Much simpler and straightforward, right? However, if you don't like this proposal, I would be completely fine as well. It's just that we'll be having another debate over which records to keep, which I would like to avoid.

However, since I'm offering this most generous compromise to date, I'd like some assurances in return. Firstly, I'd like to ensure that this formatting is not applied to Federer's page as well. His career achievements page is already long to begin with (and much longer than Nadal's in terms of length), so placing everything from his main page would just clog up his career achievements page even more. Nadal's career achievements page is different, as it is much shorter, so transferring his records from his main page to his career achievements page would be much easier. Basically, what I'm saying is, leave Fed's page alone as status quo and all's fine on my end. Is this arrangement possible?

Furthermore, I'd like to maintain the exact formatting that is currently used on Nadal's main page and utilize this on his career achievements page. Specifically, this means collapsible boxes and separating overall slam records from records for specific slams. I see from your above comments that you are willing to offer this compromise on his main page. I'd like to know whether you could extend this compromise for his career achievements page as well. I would also like it if you could keep all the sources I gathered on Nadal's main page should you accept the 2nd part of the new compromise above and move his record boxes to his career achievements page and leave only links on his main page.

So far, I think this compromise is pretty reasonable, wouldn't you think?

Let's leave this last part (i.e. merging of columns and column widths) out of the above compromise, so as not to derail the deal we are trying to hammer out, shall we? We could discuss this later if and after you've accepted the above proposals. Basically, I still think that putting no width parameters on the boxes is the better solution. It really isn't aesthetically pleasing to be staring at a humongous box spanning the entire width of the page with all that empty space that is completely unnecessary. Even though you say it doesn't make it "less readable," it is unnecessary. To address your concern of the "width of a table can change when an edit is made": it will be extremely rare for Nadal to attain a record that could completely shift the table width. It would have to be a pretty long and detailed record, not the short descriptions that are currently used.

And I'm still sticking to my argument for a timespan. It provides only the necessary start and end dates, which is all that is needed. Providing the line break is aesthetically pleasing, since it makes the record box cell a little bit longer, and thus less cluttered with the other text in the record boxes.

Final note, I appreciate your change of tone and willingness to compromise. I really hope we can settle this matter amongst ourselves. Thanks and cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your response Mrmarble. In the meantime, to address the first part of your previous comment

–"[H]ow [is] winning 6 RG titles in 7 years is a better compared to winning 6 in eight years"

• Shows how Nadal the same number of titles in a shorter time period. As I had previously stated, if you check both Federer and Agassi's record boxes, you would see that both list "3 titles in 4 years" for the Australian Open. This is because this is the most that anyone has won within that time period, as there have been 10 players who have won a record 2 consecutive AO titles. The "x titles in y years" record is used to differentiate the good from the best. This is a standard that has already been established in both Fed and Agassi's pages.

–"[H]ow [is] reaching 3 finals and losing them (Nadal) is more of a record than reaching 4 finals (Nadal)?"

• Again, as I had previously stated, Nadal's "Three consecutive runner-up finishes" is a legit record, as no other player achieved such. Not even Lendl achieved this and he lost the most slam finals out of anyone in the field. Losing finals does not make the record any inferior. If so, why don't you also complain about the record listed on Fed and Lendl's page of "Runner-up at all four" GS tournaments. Or the records listed on Fed's page of "3 consecutive runner-ups" and "4 runner-ups" at the French Open. According to your logic, these records must also be inferior. Unless you have a bias against Federer and/or Lendl, you would have also cited these records, since this is the established standard of including records.

I'd also appreciate if you could actually read my comments first before replying. That way, I don't have to repeat myself over and over again to someone who doesn't even bother to look over the arguments that have been made.

Lastly, your suggestion that "If the agreement with us is not forthcoming, we should move this to a mediation by an unbiased 3rd party" is completely ludicrous. The proposal that is in question is yours, not mine. Judging from this discussion, at least one other user supports my side of the argument and none oppose it, as the format I utilized has been in placed for 4 months now. On the other hand, your proposal has not garnered any support whatsoever. Should other users back up your argument, then we'll consider mediation. Until then, the status quo stands. As for the above compromise I offered you on April 28, that also stands. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made further concessions by removing the "6 RG titles in 7 years" (now 7 in 8) from Nadal's records (as per Mrmarble's request). The reason why it was there to begin with was to differentiate his record from Borg's. Now that Rafa holds the overall titles record, there is no need to include this anymore (i.e. he holds almost all French Open records). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 ClosedIt's been almost been 2 full months since there was any constructive discussion towards this topic. No one has made any criticism or protests with regards to the formatting of the record tables (which has been utilized for 5 months now since January). This demonstrates that the current format has become more or less universally accepted within the WP community. As a result, I am now withdrawing the offer I made above from April 28, since it would counter the current, accepted formatting and thus, against the wishes of almost all of us. Any reopening of the subject should take place in a new section and quite a significant time from now, since consensus has been solidly made regarding this subject. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Factual error under Playing Style relating to wins at Rome Masters

In the last paragraph under the heading Playing Style, it is mentioned that Rafa has won five Rome titles, when in fact he won the sixth one about a month ago. Could you please rectify that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronakshah1990 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tautology

In the last paragraph under 2012 in Tennis Career, the second and third sentences are thus, "This marked the first time where two opposing players faced each other in four consecutive Grand Slams finals. They also became the only players to have faced the same opponent in the finals of all four Majors." I feel this is a repetition. Doesn't it necessarily mean that since they are the first pair to do so, and there being no other Grand Slam played after it, they will be the only players to do so? Also, the second of the two sentences can be interpreted as they each played 4 finals against some third player. I feel it would be better worded as "They became the only players to have contested four consecutive Grand Slam finals" Does 'player' here restrict the meaning to only male tennis players; because the Williams sisters did contest four consecutive finals between 2002-03? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronakshah1990 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious belief of Rafael Nadal

Recent interviews with Rafael Nadal reveals his religious views and is atheistic in nature. In an interview with Sport Illustrated he said "It's hard to say, I don't believe in God." He was also asked, We see football players crossing themselves. You don't do that. Do you do praying? Nadal replied "If God exists, you don't need [to cross yourself] or pray. If God exists, he's intelligent enough to [do] the important things, the right things." Rafel Nadal also maintains a very critical view on religion. In an other interview for Informacion.es; he states "To me, religion is the biggest killer in history." He called for respect of others beliefs and religious views. At the same time he is critical of atrocities made in the name of religion.

Looking over the source, I think what he really meant was, "It's hard to say, "I don't believe in God."" Since that statement was a quote within a quote, it's safe to assume that Rafa thinks it's hard for him to make such a profound statement. At least that's my interpretation of his statement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC). However in 2010 he signed a letter welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to Spain .

Edit request on 11 July 2012

In the second paragraph of the the introduction, the second-to-last sentence "Rafael Nadal has at least two Grand Slams in each surface...Mats Wilander" should be deleted. It is factually wrong in every way. Nadal has only one championship each in the Australian and U.S. Open. Mats Wilander has no Wimbledon championships and one U.S. Open championship.

Slantpass (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Notice it says "surface"... that would be hard court, clay court and grass. Wilander won two AOs on grass and one on hard court, one USO on hard court and 3 FOs on clay. I did fix it to be a bit more clear. Thanks for pointing it out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)