This is an archive of past discussions about Tennis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The last indoor tournaments played on wood were played in the late sixties and early seventies. The last competition that I ever heard played on wood was the 1985 Davis Cup meeting between Paraguay and France : this is why I've slightly corrected the article.
This title is just to bring the contents to the top
So why doesn't anyone talk about the mental aspect of tennis why only the physical mental is actually the hardest part it is what seperates a good player from a great one.
It would be great if someone in the know could add some info' about the playing surface (it seems they sometimes play on grass, dirt, and paved surfaces). - stewacide
The types of court are partly covered on here tennis_courts. I have started a small page on Turf_management which includes a section on tennis. If anyone has the time i would appreciate it if they would have a look and advise. Suspect i might have put a little too much on types of court surface as opposed to how to look after them.Also not sure about quoting £s as taken from LTA website
Thankyou in advance
IndianSunset16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"The convention of numbering scores "15," "30" and "40" comes from the French quinze, treize and quatorze, which to French ears makes a euphonious sequence."
I know next to nothing about the history of tennis, but treize and quatorze mean 13 and 14, not 30 and 40 (which are trente and quarante). Could the convention of scoring come from somewhere else? Sabbut 18:09, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The scoring comes from the French, which, correctly, is "quinze", "trente", and "quarante', meaning 15, 30, and 40. Why it's scored that way in English is beyond me, however.... Hayford Peirce 23:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I had heard (and this site [1] partially backs it up) that the scroing was based on a clock face, with the score pointer being moved round in quarters, i.e. 15, 30, 45, with 60=game. Over time, "45" got abbreviated to "40".
The last comment is correct. Please see the article on Tennis scoring where I added the comment that scoring corresponds to the quarterly stations of the clock. JJ13:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like anyone really has the true, factual, reason tennis is scored in the 15, 30, 45 fashion. I'd like to see "FACTS" about it...who made it up and why it was done in this manner...Kris Jacobs September 11 2006
WTF?! An article on tennis with NO mention of Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, Martina Hingis, Chris Evert, Andre Agassi, etc.? Any tennis fan will tell you those aren't "minor" names! I'm gonna have to heavily edit the history section..."more than competitive in today's game." shows a complete lack of following the sport past the 70's. --Etaonish 19:24, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You don't think those 12 great players from before the Open Era would be competitive today? I suppose you think that Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Lefty Grove, Ted Williams, and Stan Musial wouldn't be stars in today's major league baseball? I suggest that you read a little about the history of tennis....
In the interest of strict fairness, I have recently added a couple of words about Bjorn Borg to my comments about Jack Kramer being possibly the greatest tennis player of all time. And also the fact that Jack Kramer is still alive as of today, 2004.
Some asshole named Zigger, for whatever motive, has twice gone into the tennis article and edited out the reference to both Borg and the the date. Why he is apparently obsessed with doing this I dunno. He doesn't believe that a case can be made that Borg was the greatest player who ever lived? I myself don't believe that he was, but I do believe that a case can be made for it.
Who is this Zigger, and what is his problem? If he doesn't like Bjorn Borg as a great player, then why doesn't he say so in the text of the article?
Hi '66.1.40.242', I'm this Zigger. I twice removed your edits that inserted the "Click for more information about dating" HTML link to an ad-server (see history), leaving your previous edits intact. Personally, I have no view on whether Björn was the greatest or just great. Welcome to Wikipedia. --Zigger 21:01, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
Well, I certainly never put in links to anything such as you said. I'm completely baffled. In fact, I didn't put in any links at all, just a couple of words about Borg and Kramer.Hayford Peirce 16:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
These were the reverted insertions: [2][3]. --Zigger 17:02, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
I'm stupid, but I still don't see the point of what you're talking about. All I did was add a mention of Borg and "as of 2004" -- is that the date you're talking about? And if so, why? I've seen lotsa entries with that phrase used in the article. In any case, I didn't link anything in my additions to anything else -- maybe someone else did, I dunno....Hayford Peirce 17:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Page histories have got messed up recently: sometimes when someone edits a page, the previous edit is removed from the page history and made to appear as if it were part of the later edit. This seems to be what happened here: someone else's vandalism is shown as part of your edit. --Zundark 21:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the explanation! I really didn't *think* I'd done anything wrong, but as a newbie I'm a little nervous sometimes about what I've been doing. Cheers!Hayford Peirce 22:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Grips. If I have the strength of character to write about the grips that were used in the days before two-handed tennis (and still are used, to a different degree) what should I do with this information? There are three separate grips, the Eastern, Western, and Continental, and I could probably write a couple of hundred words about each of them. Should there be 3 separate articles, with links to Tennis? One separate article called Tennis grips, perhaps, with a link to Tennis? Or a long section here in Tennis? Give me some feedback on this and I'll see if I'm motivated enough to do it. Hayford Peirce 03:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Too long This article once had a nice balance. It is now WAY too long in the "play of the game" area for an encyclopedia article. Sfahey 03:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Should the rules of tennis be a separate article? Skor 18:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I deleted Tennis balls because it contained corporate advertising. -Palmerston
recent edits
The history areas I shortened seemed too "adorned" for an encyclopedia ("fascinating" topic for discussion, "tennis athleticism", etc.). I guess someone wanted "chronological" inserted so it would not appear the six players were being arbitrarily ranked by skill. I though it was an unnecessary qualifier ... but perhaps edited too aggressively. Unfortunately, much of this article does need a strong hand.Sfahey 20:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Tennis articles in need of immediate attention
Hi. I've decided to place this message here because it's quite general, and it wouldn't properly fit in any more specific article. Over the last few days, I've going through our articles on tennis tournaments and players. Two points: 1)Although we have quite a few articles, we seem to be missing some key subjects, for instance, we don't have an article on the tennis masters series, neither about the 9-tournament ensemble, nor about any of the 9 tournaments that make up the series. We are also missing articles on some quite conspicuos players, such as Jonas Björkman, Todd Woodbridge and Jared Palmer; 2)Concerning the articles that we do have, quite a few, maybe the majority, are far from being ideal. Some are poorly written, others are rather superficial, since they don't tell enough of the history of a tournament or an athlete. One of the best examples of this is our article on the Davis Cup. There's so much to say about it, so much history there, and yet our article barely scratches the surface. I don't mean to be delegating the work here, but there's really, really a lot to be done, and I'm far from having anything near the time that it would take to get all of those articles up to an acceptable standard. I mean, our articles on the Grand Slam events are way too short, and we don't even provide a list of champions/runner-ups for all the five main events of each Grand Slam tournament (there's too much focus on the singles, very few on the doubles, and none on the mixed doubles). We need to do something about it! Is there someone with me on this? Regards, Redux 22:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The main "Tennis" article is a dog, too. Reams of excessive detail on how to play, and wandering, speculative stuff on the top players. Very non-encyclopedic. I gave it a shot a couple of times, but it didn't take, so I returned to topics where there were fewer "experts". Sfahey 02:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Justine
no mention on "henin-hardenne" in item "backhand"?80.201.29.132
Budge and Rosewall are mentioned in the backhand article because 1.) for more than 50 years each of them is generally considered to have had perhaps the greatest backhand of all time, and 2.) Budge had a *topspin* forehand and Rosewall had a *slice* backhand, illustrating that even the greatest shot may be hit in different ways. The same principle applies to the "forehand" article in which Bill Johnston and Pancho Segura are mentioned. As far as I know, Henin-Hardenne does not hit a backhand in any special way worth mentioning (Seles uses two hands for both her forehand and her backhand and *is* noted as doing so). Nor, as far as I know, is she *especially* known for her backhand above all other shots, nor is it generally called "one of the greatest, or maybe even the greatest, backhand of all time." If there were anything distinctive about her backhand, then maybe it should be mentioned. If not, it shouldn't be.
replaced terrible forehand shot sequence
Reason the three photos were taken out is that the fellow is not even
looking at the ball (his eyes were closed!) as he hits the ball, plus he
is leaning back and is late.
I thought the photo of a little girl doing a nice step-in, closed
stance (albeit two-handed) forehand is a nice touch. It is two
handed, but that is the beauty of the photo.
There was also no photo for backhand, so, I put it in.
Your two tennis pictures are terrible and have no place in a serious article. Also, just about everything you have written above is incorrect. 1.) He is looking at the ball. 2.) He is not leaning back. 3.) He is not late. He is showing perfect timing and rhythm as he puts his entire body into hitting the ball. He is hitting it with a Western forehand, which I myself think is ridiculous looking, but it is, nevertheless, the prevalent forehand style these days, and he is executing it perfectly. The pictures that you have substituted for these are close to vandalism.... (And, no, I'm not the guy who put the original pictures in, I don't know him, and I would, if I could find some, put in some better ones, but, in the meantime, the original ones are a million times more useful than your "contributions".) Hayford Peirce 23:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I could not disagree more. Look at the third photo. his eyes are closed. my 'contribution' is meant to add a bit of fun into the webpage to
have kids excited about playing the game. That is the reason to put a young player in.
Also, the text on the backhand is wrong. on both, Forehand and Backhand, player hits the ball "away from the body". I have not had the
time to edit the forehand and backhand parts (I will soon though) because they are not correct.
Lastly, on "vandalism", one mans vandalism is another mans contribution. I had reasons to put this in, to get kids excited about
playing, so, I will propose a compromise: we keep your forehand photos until we get better ones with people actually looking
at the ball, and we keep my backhand one. if you agree, great, if not, I am happy to take this to higher powers.
Your contribution to "add a bit of fun" is not the reason for an encycl. This article is to convey information.
Do you bother to read the articles? The forehand article says that the stroke goes *across* the body. The backhand article says that the stroke goes *away* from the body. Two entirely different things. Do not bother to edit these articles, as anything you say will be wrong.
Do you play tennis? Is it possible that someone's eyes might once in a while close for 1/100th of a second under the impetus of hitting the ball? Have you ever heard of blinking? In any case, so what? The sequence of photos is a textbook example of how to hit a western forehand.
These are not *my* forehand pictures -- they are someone else's. Please put them back in. If you want to keep your ridiculous backhand picture, fine. If you want to go to higher authority about these pictures, fine again. You will find, if you do, that, obviously to your surprise and dismay, eventually all of your "contributions" will have been disappeared.... Hayford Peirce 04:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I share Hayford's opinion, although I'll try to express it in a more friendly manner. While the pictures you have submitted certainly aren't vandalism, they're also not professional and not nearly as useful as the originals. The backhand picture you have submitted gives virtually no information, and amounts essentially to a picture of a very nice-looking young girl. In my opinion, it doesn't warrant the amount of space it takes in the article. It's possible that there doesn't exist a single photo that would warrant the use of that much space, in which case we should simply not include a picture.
You say the player's eyes are closed in the original third photo? I guess he blinked. Darn. There are plenty of redeeming qualities of the picture, so that seems like a pretty minor nitpick to me.
I will propose a compromise: we keep your forehand photos until we get better ones with people actually looking at the ball, and we keep my backhand one. if you agree, great, if not, I am happy to take this to higher powers.
This may be only my opinion, but to me that making threats isn't conducive to a compromise. It sounds like you're issuing an ultimatum, which, last I checked, is a pretty poor approximation of a compromise. Play nice, now. In the meantime, I'm going to restore the original pictures.
Ah, darn, Hayford beat me to it. Aerion//talk 04:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, beat me on the Talk page, too. But please try to be more courteous. Both of you. Sentences such as "Do not bother to edit these articles, as anything you say will be wrong" don't really help anybody, and are generally bad for everybody's health. Aerion//talk 04:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All I tried to do is to propose a compromise and it was called an ultimatum. And what is wrong with a cute photo? The world needs more fun, and it is a backhand shot, so, it does both things.... it relayed correct informaiton as to what a backhand shot looks like.
So, here is a compromise: I leave the forehand shot and you leave my backhand shot until we both come up with a better shot sequence for
both shots... I want to make sure everyone is happy. BTW: The youg man is late hitting the forehand shot, and his eyes are closed. So, we ought to be able to come up with a better photo.... and I made the backhand photo smaller.
All I tried to do is to propose a compromise and it was called an ultimatum.
Because it was one. Originally, you proposed a compromise, but then made a threat to enforce it. That's not a compromise, and not a good way to win trust and good faith.
That said, I think your compromise is probably a fair idea, so long as adding the picture doesn't clutter the page too much. Make sure you size/float the picture appropriately in order to avoid that. I may not agree with your statement that the picture shows what a backhand shot looks like (a series of pictures is really required, which is why such a series exists for the forehand stroke), but the picture is probably better than nothing.
It might be a good idea to limit pictures in the article to one picture per stroke, and attempt to encapsulate in that single picture what that stroke "looks like." Then, in order to reduce clutter but still convey the valuable information afforded by a series of images, move the rest of the pictures to another article, perhaps one called "Gallery of tennis strokes" or something. Aerion//talk 21:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok... thank you! I really did not mean to have any threats, I just did not understand why such a reaction and my apologies. Photos going in.
Thank you again. We leave everything in for now.
However, I will look for some real nice photos for forehand and backhand in the mean time.
good edit
good edit
...on that tedious "scoring" section.Sfahey 17:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, nicely done. The old section was awesomely tedious.... Hayford Peirce 18:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
a general "article is too long" discussion
It's already mentioned many times here, but really.. we should create more pages, each for rules of the game, courts, etc; so that the main Tennis article is not too cluttered with information that is too tedious. I'm just guessing the contributors are good tennis lovers who'd love to paste their knowledge here, but on the main Tennis page it is way too much and will intimidate people who come here to learn what tennis is about.
I agree and have been thinking about it. But *someone* is going to have to come up with a cohesive plan first. And then get people to agree to what needs to be moved. Otherwise there are going to be endless revert wars. It's too long at the moment, with too much finicky details, but on the other hand we don't want to reduce it to 100 words, each of which is a link to something else.
I think, for instance, that there could be a single paragraph about "shots", just as there is now. And each one of the 8 shots could be a link to a separate article. Ditto for the rules and most of the other. Since I'm the guy who wrote most of the stuff about the great players of the past and the greatest players of all time I'd *hate* to see that stuff moved -- but I could live with it if it was done correctly in the context of a complete revamping of the entire article.
I myself, frankly, don't have the strength of character to attempt this revamp myself: I'm a grouchy guy and I don't suffer nitwits easily. Whoever tries to do this is going to have to be both smart, hard-working and a conciliator and compromiser.... Hayford Peirce 16:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, obviously we don't want just a page of links, but I think we can reduce it to just a couple paragraph each for each topic, for the general info without the technical details. For example: for the forehand, explain what it is, how it is used, maybe mention a few legends with great forehands ,but (as mentioned before) tennis grips can be put into a separate article.
P.S. I am an advocate of removing all but one photo of the forehand
Well, I guess I agree with you. Here's a suggestion. Someone should open a separate article outside Tennis called grips. The word "grips" within the Tennis article should be linked to it. The Forehand article, then, could be reduced to something like this:
The forehand is considered the easiest shot to master, perhaps because it is the most natural stroke. It is made by swinging the racquet across one's body in the direction of where the player wants to place the shot. There are three basic grips for executing the forehand, the Eastern, the Western, and the Continental. Their popularity has changed over the years. For a number of years the small, apparently frail 1920s player Bill Johnston was considered by many to have had the best forehand of all time, a stroke that he hit shoulder-high using a "western" grip. No matter which grip is used, most forehands are generally executed with one hand holding the racquet, but there have been fine players with two-handed forehands. In the 1940s and 50s the Ecuadorian/American player Pancho Segura used a two-handed forehand to devastating effect against larger, more powerful players, and many female and young players use the two-handed stroke today. Few top players used the "western" grip after the 1920s, but in the latter part of the 20th century, as shot-making techniques and equipment changed radically, the "western" forehand made a strong comeback and is now used by many modern players.
The article called Grips should then include:
The simplest grip to understand, but perhaps the most difficult to master, is the "continental". With the racquet held so that the hitting surface is vertical to the ground, the handle is gripped on its top as if the player were shaking someone's hand or grasping a hammer. With the "continental", both the forehand and the backhand are hit with the same grip. With the "eastern" grip, the racquet is slightly rotated so that the palm of the hand is now somewhat more on the larger side of the handle. The "eastern" grip will hit a "flatter" forehand with less spin on it than the "continental". With the "western" grip, the rotation of the racquet in the player's hand is even more exaggerated, to the point where the striking surface of the racquet is now parallel to the ground after being turned from its initial vertical position. "Western" forehands are generally hit with enormous amounts of spin.
Plus, of course, additional info taken from the Backhand article, the Serve article, and new info specially written for it.
All other shots, such as volleys, half-volleys, etc. should be treated in the same way. Hayford Peirce 16:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One picture for forehand -- sure, I agree with that also. But it should be a really GOOD picture! Too bad that all the pix I have at home are copyrighted. I suppose I could take some pix of my seriously kute girlfriend hitting shots if worse comes to worst. She hits a 1,000 MPH western forehand like a laser beam.... Hayford Peirce 16:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Using some more recent players is useful too. While we appreciate Pancho Segura's forehand, people with little knowledge of tennis would like to read some familiar names with the best forehands in recent times: Sampras? Agassi? Federer? Graf? Davenport? Younes El-Aynaoui? (ok the last one is too obscure) -Aree
Sure. But I put in Pancho primarily because he had a *two-handed* forehand, not just because he had a great one. As for more recent ones, Ivan Lendle's is the only one that springs to mind, although I guess people have said that Sampras's was great too. Unless separate forehand and backhand articles are done outside the Tennis article (as you have done with Serve) I don't think we want to list too many in the main article.
Forehand picture
Just revert if you don't like it.
it looks fine to me. Hayford Peirce 23:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
types of courts
The article claims there are four general types of courts, but only mentions three (clay, grass, hard). I cannot think of a fourth, but I don't know much about tennis. So is there a fourth, or has the number to be changed? --Flosch 14:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes indoors are considered a different type of court, even though some indoors are made of the same as outdoors (e.g. hardcourts, clay). There are also the indoor carpets as well, or some rubber materials. --Aree
Someone kept putting in carpetcourt (one word) in the listings of courts. I've removed it twice. I'll have to check out the "three" or "four" and will fix it. No matter how one counts the types of courts, the word "carpetcourt" simply does not exist! Hayford Peirce 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I corrected the number and added some examples of hardcourts. Hayford Peirce 17:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The other "major" or "common" type of court surface is a collection of synthetic materials often called "carpet". Another surface that is not very common is synthetic grass. Since only a few tournaments are played on these "alternative" surfaces, mentioning them is really not necessary. MrPrecise 25 January 2006
No, it would fall under "clay court", since, in general, that encompasses all of the materials such as plain dirt, "en-tous-cas", and other stuff like that. Hayford Peirce15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
In the explanation of the mechanics of the relatively slow speed of a ball on a clay surface, the article uses the adjective "course". Don't we mean "coarse", in order to imply that the roughness of the clay court contributes to the damping of the kinetic energy of the moving ball? I think so.
Since the self-proclaimed authority on this page has asked for an explanation (and not in a polite manner, and not that he is owed
one either), the explanation is simple: the only reason my photos were removed is that he did not want them there and I have
too many things to do to edit and re-edit and so on. However, I will grant that photos of pros are more appropriate and
will therefore yield only because this makes more sense for a page such as this: it shoul dhave official photos. So, since
the serve photo is not one of a pro doing a serve, following the logic of master pierce, I have done to the serve photo what
he did to my forehand and backhand photos. So, maybe someone can just put up some pro, like Rodick or another big server
and we'll be done with it.
You are reverting this picture (ie, cutting it out), without warning and against the wishes of the other members, all of whom have left it untouched for many weeks. You are doing so, not because it is a bad or inappropriate picture, but out of spite. This, when it is done 3 consecutive times, is called vandalism. If you do this one more time I will ask an administrator (or sysop) to review the history of this article and then to either block this page so that you can no longer remove the picture, or I will ask him/her to ban you for at least a 24-hour period. That might, perhaps, teach you how to edit in an appropriate manner. If you have better picture of a serve, would you kindly put it in the article. If not, then please leave the present picture alone. I have looked at your "contributions" -- as far as I can tell, the only contributions you have ever made to Wikipedia in any form are your insertions of pictures or removals of pictures in the tennis article. Why don't you learn a little more about Wikipedia and its etiquette before doing such things in the future? We are here, in theory, to make these articles as good as possible. Certainly removing this particular picture just because you're feeling grouchy at me or at other editors is no step in improving the article. Hayford Peirce 00:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I haven't found any other free picture of the serve to use. If this one works, it shows somewhat a consistency with the other pictures (perhaps?). Oh, by the way, I was the one removing the old pictures to replace with professional players, not Hayford Pierce. Sorry if I acted as if I were the self proclaimed authority. Aree
I don't understand why the Sampras service GIF wasn't put there in the first place -- it's very nice. I was going to do it myself tomorrow... But, at least on my computer, the image, intially, breaks up a little bit in a way that it doesn't in the serve article. Hayford Peirce 04:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
nothing is done out of spite. If there is any spite it is your removal of photos I put up because you did not like the photos. I have as much right not to like your photos as you have the right not to like mine, so, there we are. You may threaten as much as you like, but I had a reason to put up the first ones, which you removed without any reason given (unlike I gave a reason, which you took a stand against in the first place. So, in order to cut this debate, I proposed a compromise, which you shot down, so, clearly you have an agenda against me...ie. if I dont agree with you then I must be either a vandal or deserve punishment. Perhaps this is the way your world spins, but in my world (and see all of my remarks before), I try to work with people without threats. So, whilst I understand in any form there are people who think they are the 'main man' just because others cower, I agree with Mr. Aree: professional players should be up there, so, I deleted the photo of the serve (and do again today), not out of spite (which you are free to accuse all you like), but because I changed my mind, simply: pros. should be there because they represent what Wiki should be about to readers better.
So, take your spiteful action if you would like, as surely that one will be the one done out of spite.
I delete the photo because it does not show a serve... it gives people no idea what a serve is like.
As far as my 'contributions' to Wiki, so what? I just started contributing. Last I checked there were no 'seniority union' rules as to whose
stuff is more accurate or more valued. I also put in the "Lundar Beach" entry, but so what?
This will be the last time I take this much time defending myself in front on any user on anything but content, raw and simple.
Bottom line is: the tennis page could be much better. There is a bunch of stuff missing and it should be much bigger. I am happy try try to
help, but only if we all work together and not throw around threats.
As far as 'my contribution' to the tennis page: GUESS WHAT? the end result is that the terrible photos which where "left untouched for weeks"
have now been replaced with three videos of pros. doing it right. so, this is what Wiki is all about: one thing causes another to improve
even though it might annoy 'people with their own names on Wiki'
Game point merging
I think the tennis article is long as it is, while Game Point is somewhat more technical. I propose, should it be merged, merge with Tennis score instead.
Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Wars and Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War IV" is not.
Speculation is specifically banned because it is neither verifiable or encyclopedic. (Could you imagine an encyclopedia article in a major print edition including this sort of speculation in their Tennis article in any possible circumstances?) Leave this sort of discussion at the Wikipedia:Village pump instead. I am sorry to come on so strong, but I think it is important that there be no ambiguity regarding this matter, particularly as the change was quickly reverted (and then reverted back again by me) - I don't think there's a need for a revert war when the policy is very clear. Thank you. --Girolamo Savonarola 6 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)
Concur. I especially disliked the part that says "there is relatively little difference in the quality of play among the top hundred players" because clearly there is. If the statement were true, we'd see massive ranking changes from week to week. In any case, the entire speculative section, IMHO, contributed very little other than a selected list of names of players, and added virtually no objective content to the article. I agree with its removal (and regret that I lacked the initiative to do it myself earlier!). Aerion//talk 6 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)
Animated GIFs
Does anybody think those are a little big? Let's not kid ourselves; the images bring the article size way over a half megabyte. Yikes. I can smell the smoking 56k modems from here. Any chance of replacing them with static thumbnails which link to the full animated file, perhaps with a little note that says "click to view animation"? Aerion//talk 6 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)
Don't add game point
This article is already too long as it is. For someone unfamiliar with tennis there is far too much information. I would suggest not merging game point into the tennis discussion. Escochris
The term "game point" is used in more situations than just tennis (generally, in any game in which the first player to reach a certain number of points is the winner). Due to its generality, I think it shouldn't be merged at all, although if it is to be included it ought to go on the terminology article. Aerion//talk04:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The reason I made it a separate article was so that it would be easy to link to. I suppose it would be OK to make it a section of Tennis terminology (not Tennis, that's already too long), as long as it's a section, so we can still link directly to it (e.g. via Tennis terminology#Game point). If so, someone will have to go around and change all the links to game point (as well as set point, match point, etc) as redirects to sections don't work (and probably never will). Noel(talk)04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The fastest recorded ace in tennis history has been served by the American Andy Roddick.
This info has been in that article since its creation by an anonymous user. Can someone here verify this? How fast was it? When and where did it happen? The Roddick article doesn't help — it talks about fastest serve, not fastest ace... - dcljr (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
If you hit a serve at over 155 mph, you're probably going to ace your opponent so I'd imagine that the fastest serve was also the fastest ace. DavidB60107:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It could well be. On the other hand, it all depends on where the serve was hit. If it was straight down the center line, almost certainly it would be an ace. If it was hit directly at the receiver, then it almost certainly would *not* be an ace -- even at my own advanced age I imagine that I could get my racquet onto a ball served at 155 MPH about 3 feet to the right of where I was standing to return serve. I wouldn't be able to DO anything with it, I agree, but at least I would *touch*, thereby nullifying the concept of it being an ace. Hayford Peirce16:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You've got a point there, and it would be an interesting problem to solve. However, I am still fairly adamant that the fastest serve was also the fastest ace, as if you were trying to hit a serve at that speed, you would be trying to ace your opponent. DavidB60119:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You may be adamant, but you would be wrong. A.) Just because you try to ace your opponent doesn't mean that you succeed. If that were the case, I don't think I would ever have lost a match. Nor would anyone else with a big serve. B.) If you look at the article about ace, or the Roddick article, I forget which one, you will see that someone has put in the exact info: "on so-and-so day Roddick hit a serve of x MPH to y, who returned it, and Roddick then the return into the net." Or some such.... Hayford Peirce23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
ESPN'S Spot Shot
Just wanted to call attention to the tennis editors about Spot Shot. Unfortunately I do not know enough about tennis to make anything more than superificial contributions. I got information from http://www.tennisfax.com/thread02.html which is obviously not a verifiable source but they seem pretty knowledgeable (i tend to trust forums). someone with better knowledge of tennis could improve:
what lines the cameras are watching
what exactly is being generated...someone who watches ESPN tennis could probably describe it
maybe a screenshot...i looked in google images and could not find any
anyway it seems to be new exciting technology and i think it could use a good edit!
Should we be more selective in the Great Players section? I personally think we should restrict it to players who dominated the tour for a while or won multiple Slams. So, these players, while good, is questionable for being one of 'the greats':
Goran Ivanisevic : lovable guy, but only one Slam, never no. 1.
Michael Chang: same as Goran
Andy Roddick: one great run in 2003, but only one Slam so far (Federer stands in his way though)
Maria Sharapova: same as Roddick. Would they already be one the greats if their careers end today?
As for the pre-Open players, I don't know which ones should be in or shouldn't.
Another way is to use the Hall of Fame list of players. Would it be somewhat objective?
- Aree
____________________________________________
Before recent additions (Ivanisevic, Chang, Roddick, Hewitt, Sharapova, and Clijsters) the list included all players who won at least 4 Open era majors in singles plus three players who won 3 majors (Smith, Ashe, and Davenport). I think it was a reasonable list.
Someone has added Darragh Connaughton in the list of great European tennis players. I think this may be a joke.
Should the list be revised to exclude the players who are currently playing and don't meet the old criteria? Their careers aren't over yet and calling them "greatest" would be a stretch. Noelle De Guzman14:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
"Greatest" surely refers to achievements. I don't think anyone believes that Federer is the greatest male player of all time. He may be playing better than anyone before him, but that is an entirely different issue. As for players with only one slam victory, how can they possibly be put on a "greatest" list? E.g. Kim Clijsters is a very good player, but not one of the "greatest" yet. Metamagician300006:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
We seriously need to clean up the "Greatest Players" category on the main article. It's becoming more of a list of current Slam title holders (even those who have only one Slam title to their name) rather than a list of players who have achieved much in the professional sport. But how can we go about selecting who should be on the list? Noelle De Guzman01:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This Great Players thing is getting completely out of hand. Editors are now sticking in any and everyone who has ever won a Grand Slam title. Soon there will be dozens and dozens of people listed. True, they are all *wonderful* players, certainly by the standards of our own personal playing levels. But are they worthy to be listed in the same list as Sampras, Borg, Federer? Of course not. I would suggest that for the modern players of the Open Era a minimum of three Grand Slam titles be required for being listed here. An argument could be made for *two* titles, I suppose but certainly not for the myriad of players who have won a single title. As for the relatively few pre-Open players listed just above, I don't think any student of tennis history would seriously argue against the inclusion of any of them in the list. Indeed, many other wonderful old players are omitted but this is the place to name the truly *greatest*, and the same should be true about the Open-era players. Someone has *got* to cut that list down to reasonable length. Hayford Peirce03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll do it (be bold!); I'm going to remove the players with only one Slam under their belt, and I'll stick a comment notice in the section that states the qualifications for being a Great Player. Noelle De Guzman02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The following are the players I have removed from the "Great Players" list. If you see a need for their inclusion, please place the appropriate arguments below.
I'm reverting the recent addition of Amelie Mauresmo to the Great Players list. IP address 81.57.171.6 added it; if you would like to make an argument for the inclusion of Mauresmo in the Great Players list, I invite you to do so here. :) Noelle De Guzman (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The whole discussion on "Greatest Player of All Time" is fatuous. It's way beyond speculation, primarily because it's not given any basis. What do we mean by "greatest"? There are probably a hundred reasonable definitions... most aces, most grand slam event wins, highest mean ranking over career, fewest sets lost, broken least often. With any of these definitions, it would be a simple exercise in data collection to decide the "greatest". It's not even clear whether we're trying to be objective at all. I frankly think that the idea that Laver or Tilden, even at the top of their games, would reliably make even the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam event today a somewhat ludicrous proposition. Today's players are much more fit and have used lots of modern tech to fine tune their games. I doubt they'd even do well in the women's singles. So if "greatest" means "most likely to win a hypothetical tournament played among all pros as they played at the top of their game", they're not even on the list.
There are separate lists for the No. 1 players -- to put them all here would make this "great players" meaningless. This has been discussed before and the consensus was that it takes *TWO* grand slam victories to be listed here. Hayford Peirce20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I understand (by the way: I meant *TWO OR MORE*, but I typed it wrongly as MORE THAN TWO, clumsy me :) ). But why aren't Tracy Austin and Ilie Năstase included in the list then? After all, they both meet the requirement to be included (winning 2 Grand Slam titles). Smoutebolmetkrenten15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The Great Players list is seriously flawed: Patrick Rafter, who won 11 tournaments in his career is a "great" player, while Thomas Muster, who won 44, is not?! Now, I'm not a Muster fan by any stretch of imagination, but this does not make any sense. Even inclusion according to purely subjective criteria would be better than this (two-Grand-Slams-plus). GregorB21:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Who are these players?
Hi... I want to increase the range of photos that commons: has, especially of players, since at the moment it's quite poor. See commons:Tennis. But I need some help identifying pictures. If you know who these players are, could you please tell me?
[4] White woman with brown hair, red shorts at the Australian Open 2005
[5], [6] and [7] are all the same woman, I think (white skin, brown hair, white skirt, Wimbledon) I'd vote for Mary Pierce on the 1st one, but I don't see her name on the scoreboard)
[9] and [10] She should be easy - very identifiable - Thai, "seagames"? "samart"?
[11] woman with blonde ponytail, blue outfit, US Open 2004 - Elena Dementieva?
[12] Man with red shirt, kind of "square" short brown hair cut, US Open 2004
[13] Man with ponytail, white headband and shirt, US Open 2004. looks pretty distinctive - Feliciano Lopez? Definitely NOT Feliciano Lopez Stanley01122:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have enhanced the article on Tennis scoring with a discussion of tiebreak scoring as well as a history of the tiebreak. Can the tiebreak stuff now be removed from the Tennis article? JJ22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the convoluted tiebreak stuff from the main article on Tennis.
Scoring
I deleted the scoring of "five", "three", "four." Although players will sometimes use "five" to mean "fifteen," I have never in my lifetime of tennis (played and watched) heard of this scoring method. Even if it's used somewhere, it's too arcane for the general article on tennis. Comments? JJ18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It was a very long-winded addition and you were right to delete it. That said, my regular tennis partner, a guy in his late sixties, *does* sometimes say "three" and "four", particularly when he's serving. I thought it was odd the first time he did it, but since I knew the score anyway, I figured it out fairly quickly. But until I started playing with him about 7 years ago, I had never before heard these terms, and I've been playing tennis since 1955. I do, however, frequently say "forty-five" or "five-forty" when serving. "Five" is definitely fairly common, I would say.... Hayford Peirce20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely that "five" is often used for "fifteen." I'm glad you agree that such an arcane scoring does not belong in the mainstream article on tennis.JJ22:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be good to point out in which occasions tie-break is NOT allowed (i.e. in the final set of a final Grand Slam; in the Davis Cup). And perhaps it will be good (although it goes better in the "Tennis score" article) to mention the history of this changes (even from 5 to 3 sets a game). 200.55.118.23304:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Nahuel
The forehand is accomplished by starting the racquet above the height of the ball, and then dropping the racquet head behind your body.
Really, this guy is persistent, he has changed the forehand to this description over and over (and usually with a link to an obscure website).
"The forehand is accomplished by starting the racquet above the height of the ball, and then dropping the racquet head behind your body. Then swing up and across to get the right amount of spin." really doesnt say anything about a forehand, for backhand you do this too!
Also it describes the mechanics (and not the description) of the stroke which I think is too involved for a general Tennis article. I believe this is the simplest way to describe forehands and backhands:
A right-handed player hits a forehand when the ball is on the right side of his body.
A right-handed player hits a backhand when the ball is on the left side of his body.
The present forehand definition in the main article is the most ridiculous (and meaningless) thing I have ever read about anything. Your proposed definitions above don't help much, though. Here's another suggestion:
For a right-handed player, a forehand is a stroke that begins on the right side of his body, continues across his body as contact is made with the ball, and ends on the left side of his body.
For a right-handed player, a backhand is a stroke that begins on the left side of his body, continues across his body as contact is made with the ball, and ends on the right side of his body.
This is good and should be used for descriptions of the strokes. I agree that this article is not a primer on how to play tennis. JJ23:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
One wrong technique in low level play is not having follow through, instead stopping the racket at contact point. However, we'd still call that a "forehand" even though the racket doesnt end on the left side of the body. So when do we call the stroke a forehand (not necessarily a textbook forehand)? Thats why I wrote those definitions to be as general as possible. Aree09:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless it's a volley (sometimes), or a drop shot, no one stops a forehand stroke the moment he hits the ball. There's always some follow-through because of racquet momentum, even though it's not as much as there should be. Or we follow through in the wrong way, perhaps. I wouldn't worry about trying to include what is mostly a non-event in an all-inclusive definition. Hayford Peirce15:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Lol, you haven't seen some of the people I play with. NO follow through at all, believe me. And we will agree its a forehand nonetheless. I'm just saying, should the definition include ALL forehands or 99.9% forehands? I was going for the "general definition" (including non-events), which you said "don't help much". Ah well I have too much time to be actually arguing about this. At least now, its not the "The forehand is accomplished by..." Aree15:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I have seen what you described. But that's hardly what I would call tennis, at least the ideal of tennis. I think that in this general article we ought to be concerned primarily about how strokes should be hit, at least basically. We say, for instance, that the forehand is generally hit with one hand -- but that it can be hit with two hands by someone like Segoo. But we don't say that so-and-so, a club player in Tulsa, frequently starts out with a normal-looking forehand, then moves around so that he hits the ball between his legs. If Sampras did it that way, it would be worth writing about.... Otherwise, not. Hayford Peirce16:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken. Funny now that you mention it, Sampras loves to hit his topspin approach shot (the one where his right foot is in front) and end up with his racket on the right side of his body. And can we say Steffi Graf? I'm just teasing, hehe...Aree16:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we've all hit some weird shots from time to time. A couple of times I've returned serves that jammed me on the forehand side by hitting a backhanded-racquet head-upside-down-ping-pong sort of lob that made it over the net by about 1 foot. At least once it make my opponent laugh so hard that he missed his put-away smash. And I know what you mean about the Sampras shot. But that's not the way it's taught -- at least I hope not! Hayford Peirce17:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Receiver
I deleted the addtion of the term "returner" in the sentence that talks about one player being the server and the other the returner. In many years of playing and watching tennis, I have never heard the term "returner" used. If anyone has, please let me know on this talk page. JJ15:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I started playing in Sept. 1955 and have never heard it that I can recall. I *think* that in French one can say "le renvoyeur", which would mean "returner". Certainly in English one says: "He has a great return of serve." So I suppose by extention someone, maybe even me, has said something like: "Gee, Agassi is a great returner!" But I don't think I'd ever *write* that in a formal or even a semi-formal context. Hayford Peirce16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
My Idiot's Guide to Tennis says "receiver" as well. :) By the way, I reverted some changes made to the spelling of "hardcourt" and inadvertenly reverted to a version that had "returner" instead of "receiver." Sorry for that, and thanks to Hayford Peirce for making the necessary changes. Noelle De Guzman (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Court specialists
Hi everyone. I recently created the article Clay Court Specialist but was thinking we should probably create a more general page of court specialists so we can have sections devoted to "hard court specialists," "grass court specialists," "carpet specialists" etc. Or perhaps we can have separate articles for each. Or perhaps both. What do people think of these ideas? Stanley01102:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just created an article/list called World No. 1 Tennis Player and put in the first entries from 1914 through 1937, for both the No. 1 male player and the runner-up. I'll try to do it for as many other years as possible. For some of the years, such as 1954 through 1961, when Gonzales simply beat everyone else on the Pro Tour it will be easy. Other years will be more problematic, but there are at least some encyclopedia articles and autobiographies that have a lot of info in them. It should be possible to figure out whether Riggs was better than Budge in 1946, say.... I've also linked a number of the individual players such as Lacoste to the article. Hayford Peirce23:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Scoring Section Needs to be Changed
Hello everyone, I am new to tennis and I don't have much of a clue of how to play and what the terms are. I came to read this article for clarification on what the sport is, but I find the 'scoring' section quite confusing. (I still don't understand what 'love' is.) --JD
What are the numbers in parenthesis for some of the players in the lists of great players? The number of grand slam titles they've won in their career? It would be swell to add a description to the text so we're not left wondering. -- Mikeblas00:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! It's odd that the description was left in the middle, between the women's list and the men's list. I've fixed it up. -- Mikeblas01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Originating in England in the late 19th Century
"Originating in England in the late 19th Century". I don't think so. There is archaeological evidence for a tennis court off Fenchurch Street in London in 1461.
The article says wimbeldon is the "Wold's most prestigious tennis tournament". I asked an author of the article to explain to me how he decided that Wimbeldon was the most presitigious tennis event and he answered me something like : "because google says so". I'm not continuing the discussion with him as he seems a little bit ... aggressive about this. But I was curious to know, in a general manner, what is the rule for superlative on Wikipedia. How do you decide that this car is the greatest car ever produced or those kind of things? Thanks. JeDi11:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to know. While it may seem obvious to some, it'd be nice to get some explanation on the subject. After all, we don't want POV on here. MToolen14:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The New York Times: "UNTIL Wimbledon, any talk about the changing face of men's tennis sounded like idle speculation or wishful thinking. Until Boris Becker became the first unseeded player to win the world's most prestigious championship, there wasn't any reason to suspect that John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander would lose their hold on the Grand Slam events."
Sport Magazine: "IN THE memorable summer of 1974, a beleaguered Richard M Nixon resigned in disgrace as President of the United States. Tim Henman was born. And two prodigious American players who were fast approaching their primes walked away with the top honours at the All England Club while they were engaged to be married. Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert - displaying outstanding two-handed backhands, extraordinary court sense, and unwavering determination - stamped their authority sweepingly on the lawns of Wimbledon, winning the world's most prestigious titles as the ... "
USAToday: "Yet when play begins today at the world's most prestigious tennis tournament, there will be a bit of chaos in the air."
The Sports Network: "He wasn't even supposed to be at the 2001 fortnight, but was extended an invitation (wild card), due to the fact that he's Goran Ivanisevic and was a three-time runner-up at the world's most prestigious tennis event."
Grand Slam Tennis Tours: "Television's coverage of "Breakfast at Wimbledon" has been a tradition for Tennis Fans for the past 30 years. However, to truly appreciate one of the world's most prestigious sporting events and to experience the tradition and pageantry of Wimbledon, nothing can replace a seat in Center Court."
Gamespot.com: "Blessed with powerful first and second serves, a fierce two-handed backhand, great speed, and an arsenal of amazing ground strokes, Sharapova combines supermodel looks with an aggressive playing style. The Russian-born, U.S.-based player took the tennis world by storm when she won the 2004 All-England Championships at Wimbledon, the world's most prestigious tournament."
CNN Sports Illustrated: "We are delighted to be able to continue our long relationship with the world's most prestigious tennis championships," said Ebersol. "For more than three decades we have regarded Wimbledon as one of the crown jewels of the NBC Sports schedule."
Is the World Cup the world's most prestigious soccer tournament? Or just, Wikiwise, "arguably"?
Is the Davis Cub the world's most prestigious tennis trophy for international competition or, Wikiwise, just "one of the"?
Is the World Series the world's most prestigious baseball championship or just, Wikiwise, "according to many"?
I don't know much about baseball, can we really call this "World Series"? But that is another debate.
But, as I know, there is 3 other Grand Slams, and frankly, I do not consider Wimbeldon as being more prestigious that the other three. Anyway, if you really want it to be the most prestigious, I'm not going to fight for that.
Why are the greatest female players shunted into three lines whilst the men have qualifications of their greatness? Gareth E Kegg20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably because no one has taken the time or trouble to put in a little of their qualifications. Why don't you do so, yourself? Hayford Peirce20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I thought the expanded greatness players were Open Players, but perhaps we should put open players from both sexes in there, BUT would the section would be too long? Gareth E Kegg20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it would get too long. The whole point of the Great (male) Players was to point out that there were fine players before the Open Era that many people today have never heard of. Most of the Open Era great players have long individual articles about them. There are 4, I think, pre-Open "great" women mentioned. It would be easy for someone to add a line or two for each woman's achivements. And they might put in Althea Gibson and Pauline Betz Addie, the woman Jack Kramer calls the best after Helen Wills Moody (he never saw the Divine Suzanne). Hayford Peirce20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Clarification Needed
This line towards the top of the article:
'In a legal service, the ball travels over the net (without touching it) and into the diagonally opposite service court.'
What is the service court? Up until this point, the term is not used nor defined. Not knowing anything about tennis, I have no idea what this could be. This should be clarified.
SEEDING
Can anybody discuss seeding in tennis? How it is established, how often it is reviewed, etc...
Seeding in tennis is a bit like putting the players in order of who is favourite to win. So the number 1 seed is favourite to win, number 2 to be the finalist etc. If you look at the draws for competitions, you will almost always see the number 1 seed at the very top and the number 2 seed at the very bottom. This ensures that a 1 v 2 final is possible as the players won't be able to meet before that. In tournaments, players who are seeded often have the early advantage (in addition to being the world's best) as they will play unseeded players for at least their first match. Different tournaments have a different number of seeded players. For example, grand slams have 32 seeds, whereas smaller tournaments may only have 8 seeds.
The seeding of players varies between tournaments. In the majority of tournaments, it is based on the player's world ranking. However, at tournaments such as Wimbledon the player's grass court record is also taken into consideration to determine seeding. DavidB60119:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A link to the glossary
When I first viewed the main tennis page, I was unable to find a link to the glossary - the glossary was not explicitly mentioned even in the table of contents. It is obscured under "8. See also / 8.1 Tennis in general" not very far from the bottom of the page.
I have added a more prominent link to the glossary right under Manner of play. There may be a more suitable location for the link, but it must be prominent, at the top of the page.
I would like to enquire, how can the article consider anyone with more than one Grand Slam title "one of the greatest". Mary Pierce? One of the greats along side Martina Navratilova? Doesn't make any sense to me. This list should be consisted of players with remarkable Slam achievements (like, at least 3-4 titles) and consisted of champions who were great advocates to the games. How can the "greatest tennis players" be considered someone who won more than two slams? Doublea04:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You should be happy that it's at least limited to players who have won *two* slams or more -- for a while there were a bunch of people who tried to put in the names of anyone who had ever won *one* slam.... Personally, I agree with you -- I think it ought to be 3 or higher, but most of the other editors seem to feel that 2 is a high enough threshholdHayford Peirce04:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Female pictures
It was recently pointed out on WP:RP that all pictures in this article are of men. If someone with more knowledge about the article than me could add or substitute some pictures of female players, that would be great. I've included a few images of female tennis players as suggestions.
Unless they're pictures you've taken yourself, you're almost certainly going to run into copyright problems with any newer ones. This is why all of the pictures in the article are of historic interest and can be used. Hayford Peirce21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The site to which you have linked has been "temporarily closed down." Also, the picture has a subtle advertisement in it. Note the tennis ball logo. Tennis expert17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Recording project
Guys, I am trying to record this article for the "Spoken Wiki" project....but really need to revise some of the text as it just does not make sense when I read it out loud. (I cite the part about the color or the ball in the initial paragraph...or the shortness of the paragraph...which really should be a paragraph about "What is Modern day tennis today"...then the section about history... Please let me know if any of the changes that I am making are less than optimal...Please WP:AGF -- IrishDragon 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDragon (talk • contribs)
Coaching
Franco Barrantes
En el campo del tenis, a sido interesante su carrera de jugador pero a lo mas de Profesor, ya que a estado en uno de los mas prestigiados tours del tenis, ya que el a sido entrenador, profesor de jugadores profesionales que hoy día participan en el tour profesional de tenis ATP/WTA.
Con el tiempo, experiencia y dedicación a logrado obtener la madures de llevar a jugadores que han estado en un circulo psicológico, físico en mal estado en sus carreras de tenis, y los a podido regresar a recordar y disfrutar lo que es el bello juego del tenis, por igual mantener un solo punto, el cual es el mayor punto en tenis que es el éxito de ser el mejor jugador y competidor en este deporte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.201.27 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
How Tennis was Invented?
Lawn Tennis was accidentally invented by Major Wingfield in 1871 in England.
From 2009 the tournament will be moved to a new stadium and be played on clay courts as part of the ATP's new Masters 1000 series. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The article should mention where love comes from. The term "tennis" comes from the French "tenez!" which means "Here! Take it!" (or something close to that). When a player did not score, he was told "vous avez l’oeuf" - "You have the egg"( the 0 - zero). The French "l'oeuf" was taken by the British as "love". I think the article should mention this as an interesting fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.44.243.118 (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This has come up again, on Wikipedia talk:Talk of all places. I'm moving the comment here:
There needs to be more about the early history of tennis. That history is French. No one can understand "Love" without understanding the French connection. The English adopted tennis in the 19th century and made it famous with Wimbledon, but the French made that possible long before. The score is 15-Love because the English could not pronounce the French for zero, which idiomatically was represented as "the egg," as in our "zip, zero, goose egg. In French that is "l'oeuf." English speakers got LOVE out of this. Actually, or perhaps possibly, since this is entirely lost in history, the French may have said goose egg. That would be "l'oeuf d'oie" or the egg of the goose. But the English were lost well before they got to the goose. So we understand no score to be "LOVE." History is facinating. Imagine an American fooball game with a score of 21-l'oeuf d'oie. The source for this note is the Tenniseum, le musée de Roland Garros, Paris. The next time I stop in there I will write up the early history of tennis properly. I still am working on understanding the origin of the main scoring; 15, 30, 40, game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.193.222 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I remember seeing Lendl in the early 80's run far out of court and return a ball successfully AROUND the netpost and not OVER it into the opponent's court. I tried to include this in how points are scored but this got erased. Have the rules changed since I saw this Lendl point?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.120.26 (talk) 04:38, February 3, 2009
Thanks for mentioning it, IP editor, I've added it into the "Point (tennis)" article (because it is a minor detail that didn't seem to fit in the main "Tennis" article, even though it is very interesting), with a citation of the rule that allows for it, so it should stick this time. --Iritscen (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Type of ball
The very first paragraph mentions that the ball can be yellow or any color, but, in modern professional play, depending on where the game is being played, it must adhere to ITF and/or ATP and/or USTA rules. That's why cans of tennis balls clearly indicate that they are so approved, and that's why you won't see such an approval on the pink-for-cancer balls, practice balls, multi-colored balls, or any other "odd" balls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaizun (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
A section of men without a section for the women? Guess we need to so something about that. Also, since there is a Champions section, I will probably pull names out of the Men/Women sections...since it generally becomes a popularity contest. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that most of the edits to the article lately are vandalism, and they virtually all come from IPs. To me, this looks like a case for semi-protection if ever there was one. Should we request this from a sysop? What do you all think? --Iritscen (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
To be honest whenever a Major is on the tv slate I wish all the tennis articles could be semi-protected for a week before till a week after. Especially anything connected with that particular Major. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
So you think the vandalism will die down after the U.S. Open is over? (Or were you thinking of another event?) --Iritscen (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It always seems to. There will always be vandalism but as the news goes so do many vandals. Of course the Year End Masters brings it up again as does next years Australian Open so it's a never ending cycle. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Strange content
I just removed the following content from the beginning of the page. I seams bogus to me:
tennis is not a real sport
| image=US_Open_2007,_Maria_Sharapova_serving.jpg
| imagesize=300px
|O'doyle Rulescaption=The US Open is a prestigious Grand Slam tournament.
| union=International Tennis Federation
| nickname=
| first=19th century
| registered=
| clubs=
| contact=No
| team=Single or doubles
| mgender=
| category=Racquet sport
| ball=Tennis ball
| olympic=1896-1924, 1988-present
}}"
That looks like what was left when the code for an image (of Maria Sharapova serving, apparently) was vandalized. We definitely don't want the "tennis is not a real sport" comment. We may still want the picture. TypoBoy (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is the US college circuit in the lead?
In the second paragraph we have the first mention of an organised tennis competition, the Olympics. Next comes the US college competition then, two paragraphs later, the tournaments that make up the Grand Slam. And that's it for the lead. I propose dropping the US college stuff from the lead. It doesn't fit there. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Who gets to serve?
The article mentions that it's an advantage to be the server, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't explain how it is determined who serves. Do you take turns, as in ping-pong? Does the serve go to the winner of the last point, as in volleyball? (No, right?) Is there a ritual to get it started, as with the coin flip in football or the lag in billiards? TypoBoy (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a summary, a slightly confusing one, of the greatest male players. However, in the greatest female player section, there is only a link to the main article for further information. There is no summary. Somebody should add some info from the main article in that section. (I am not a women's tennis expert so I can't really help.) RG104 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Martina Navratilova/Navrátilová
What is the correct form (in English), and if the accents are not always included, should they be?
If the word only refers to the ball's touching the net during the service, what is it called when happening later in the rally? --Thrissel (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Depending on the announcer the term will be, "hit the net", "net cord", or "net court." I believe that "net cord" is preferred. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 68.108.133.75, 11 June 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
International Amateur Tennis Association at www.iataopen.com
Rafael Nadal is also considered to be one of greatest tennis players. His record is 440 wins-96 losses, and he has won 7 Grand Slam titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cevanosky (talk • contribs) 22:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"Kiwi" style?
Under "Rule Variations," the article makes reference to the "Kiwi" style, but this is not defined anywhere in the article. Should this read "Canadian"? Nasulikid (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Section Move
Rather a large change. I want to move "Court" into "Equipment" rather than "Play". I also think "Surfaces" belongs as a sub-category to "Court". I figure on waiting at least 7 days for comments. -- Mjquinn_id (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's not quite right where it is, but it's not really Equipment either. I think it deserves its own section, after Equipment. And yes, Surfaces should be in there too. HiLo48 (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the first part of 7. Match play the article states that players have 30 seconds inbetween points and 2 minutes when they change ends. This should be 20 and 90 seconds respectively, as indicated by the provided reference, the ITF rules.
81.68.134.51 (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The Australian Open is not played on hard courts, it is played on plexicusion courts, this are newer courts and give the ball more bounce, the surfaces on major tournaments are Australian open: Plexicushion, Roland Garros (not French open) Red clay, Wimbledon Grass (natural) and US open: Hard courts. If you don't believe me go on to the Tennis Australia website and look up on the tournament calendar the four grand slams, it says the name of the grand slam and the surface —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.1.99 (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Suggested Edit regarding photo and text arrangement
There is a massive space under one of the headings with only pictures along the right hand side. Text resumes roughly half a page below. This formatting error should be corrected. I would do it myself except I am not familiar with how to properly format an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.63.202 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
In the section "forehand", Santoro is mentioned, I think he should be removed as non-active player since the beginning of last year. Voo de Mar (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yup, changed it. I didn't remove his name, just changed the tenses, since he's still known for his double-handed forehands. For that matter, Monica Seles is also retired. Marchfur (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ball Change in ATP vs ITF Tournaments
As a professional tennis official, I can say with certainty in *most* ITF tournaments ball changes occur every 11 games, with the first change occuring at 9. In some cases where the level of players is exceptionally high in an ITF tournament, the referee can decide to change balls at 7 and 9 instead.
In fact, in any ITF tournament, the ball change may be set to an arbitrary odd number, as long as the first ball change is 2 games less the the following ball changes due to the warmup. This is apparent in the ITF rulebooks in this link: http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/rulesregs/rulebooks.asp
The Grand Slam events have ball changes exclusively set at 7 and 9, which is what is currently stated in the article.
Could someone with an accredited Wikipedia account make these changes to the relevant section? You can easily verify my claims in the above link. I simply don't often have much to add to Wikipedia, so I don't keep an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.110.211 (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The article was fairly descriptive if you just wanted to know a little bit about the sport. I wish it included more about "in" and "out" calls as well as scoring and some other technical terms like lets, faults, etc.
If you are wondering, the scoring goes luv, 15, 30, 40, game. The game count is called as 1, 2, 3, etc. The server's score is always first, both in set count, game count, and the score.
The typical "in"/"out" call is that if the ball is on the line, it is in. If it is outside the line and does not come into contact with the line, it is called out. Sometimes, the line will be called out, but that's not too common.
A let is when there is some sort of interference with the play. Like if for some strange reason a ball boy ran across a court mid-point. Sometimes, a let is also called if the serve bounces off the net and into the correct box. If it hits the net and goes out, it is called out.
A fault is when a serve hits the net or fails to land in the correct box. The point is lost if a player double faults.
Also, the rule that a server must have one foot on the ground at all times is not enforced. Many servers jump and have both feet off the ground at one point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202195.stephens.a (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
You didn't read carefully enough. The rule about the server having to keep a foot on the ground ended around 1961. Since that time period players can jump when they serve. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Challenges
Everything said about Challenges is correct... unlimited as long they're correct, otherwise 3 per set, plus 1 for tie breaks. But is it complete information? What about the 5th set in Grand Slam tournaments? Does a player not get 3 more challenges per each 12 points once the set goes beyond 6-6 and there is no tie break (anymore)? I'm not so into tennis and just wanted to find this piece of information here... so I'm not sure about it... maybe I'm just confusing this with something else. --116.118.89.194 (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right, more challenges get added on once the tiebreak extends. I'm not sure about the actual number of challenges added on, as it might differ from tournament to tournament, but thanks for bringing it up. Maybe a larger section on the actually mechanics of the challenges system would be good. Marchfur (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Left-handed "advantage"/
No discussion about the so-called lefty advantage? I've been arguing this "advantage" since I was ten. Starting with paddleball to raquetball to tennis. How about some information.Dcrasno (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I would say it's not needed. Most articles I've ever read on the subject talk about the lefty advantage in all sports, not just tennis. This is not a tennis specific theory. There could be an article on it under general sports, but I'm not sure we need anything in this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Greatest male players
The article cites Agassi as "the first man to win slams on all modern surfaces." I don't believe that's accurate if we're dividing court surfaces into clay, grass, and hardcourt. Connors was the first to accomplish the feat -- see 2d paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors. Perhaps the snippet is borrowed from the Agassi article, which says "He was the first male player to win all four Grand Slams on three different surfaces (hard, clay and grass)." [18]. That's awkwardly phrased, making it sound as if each tournament changed surfaces during his career. Agassi was the first to win all four Slams during his career when that feat meant that he had to win on all three surfaces to do so.
Also, it's not at all clear why there is a section on greatest male players, but not greatest female players. And if there are going to be such sections in the article at all, some attention should be paid to doubles. Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, and Martina Navratilova won way more grand slam titles overall than any male player because they were also exceptional doubles players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.93.219 (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Court dimensions
It should be added to the court dimensions section a detail as to the location of the net posts. The article mentions says, "A net is stretched across the full width of the court, parallel with the baselines, dividing it into two equal ends. The net is 3 feet 6 inches (1.07 m) high at the posts and 3 feet (91.4 cm) high in the center." but does not specify that the actual location of the net posts is defined as three feet from the side line. It should also be noted that in an officially sanctioned match, it is proper to actually insert "singles sticks" to raise the net height to 3 feet 6 inches at the point 3 feet from the singles side line since most all courts are constructed with doubles alleys and the net posts permanently mounted 3 feet from the doubles side line.
Jmao (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as Agassi being the "the best returner" and only man to win on all Slam surfaces, I think that feat is far surpassed by Borg - the only man to continously win Wimbledon 5 times at the same time as winning Roland Garros 5 times. I assure that will be harder to repeat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.8.85.240 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is one of the most suspenseful and successful man to play this game! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberly.zimmel (talk • contribs) 12:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
whereas ad-in etc. appears to be supported mainly by US sources.
Can anyone substantiate this difference in usage? GilesW (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned lawn tennis was first played in Birmingham, England. It was played at 8 Ampton road, Edgbaston.Pwshay (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)pshay
It would be useful to establish the year "lawn tennis" first came into the English language as the game's name. I have seen a footnote account on page 120 of Mother Tongue, The English Language by Bill Bryson (1990), that, to illustrate his theory "inventors are generally hopeless at naming their inventions", that:
"Further, and possibly conclusive evidence of this was shown in 1874 when Major Walter Clopton Wingfield, an Englishman, invented an outdoor game that he called sphairixtike(sic). It only caught on when his friend Arthur Balfour, the future prime minister, suggested he call it lawn tennis."(author's italics)
It gives Balfour credit unique among British prime ministers for effectively naming a sport but may be discountable if it could be proven the words were in use before 1874.Cloptonson (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
This section of the article does not make clear when the first use of "lawn tennis" came in. Establishing the year would put in clearer context the degree to which Wingfield could be considered its 'inventor'.Cloptonson (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
There's the ancient game of tennis and the term "lawn tennis." The word "tennis" for hitting a ball over a net was probably coined by the french in the 13th century. Wingfield first played it in 1869, and for all we know they may have loosely used the term "lawn tennis" back then. His December 1973 book Sphairistike mentions the tern "lawn tennis" and he patented the game in February 1874. But there was also Major Gem who marked out a lawn for tennis back in 1858 in Edgebaston. It was played there for 12 years when they moved it to Leamington. In 1872 the Leamington Lawn Tennis Club was established and Major Gem was the president. But there were slightly different versions of tennis played on lawns in the late 1500's and no doubt with the term tennis already established someone probably also called those outdoor versions lawn tennis. Not the same game as today but the term might have been applied to it. But Wingfields book and patent, with the term "lawn tennis" in print, has usually made him the founder of the game we know as "lawn tennis." Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
At the very beggining, the writing style is wrong.
Tennis is a sport people usually play individually against a single opponent (singles) or between two teams of two players each (doubles).
should be
Tennis is a sport people play individually against a single opponent (singles) or between two teams of two players each (doubles).
Usually has nothing to do there, because the two "formal" ways of playing it are already mentioned.
Drdoppler (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Done seems reasonable enough of an explanation. I find nothing in the article that mentions any other ways it is played Cannolis (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2014
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The following players have won at least five singles titles at Grand Slam tournaments:
Male
Rafael Nadal (14)
(Now Nadal has won 14 Grand Slams after winning the French open 2014)
Under the scoring section, it says "Game, set, match" then it talks about each of the topics labeled respectively. This looks weird to me. Is this necessary? Buscus 3 (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand what exactly looks weird (though something surely must, or you would not have mentioned it). A game consists of a series of points, and this is explained in one paragraph, then the structure of a set is laid out in the next, then the nature of a full match on the next, each contest "nested" inside the other and each discussed in a sequential paragraph. Structurally, this seems to make fine sense to me as a casual reader. Can you explain what looks weird? Is it the formatting? The headers? Or the text somehow? I am curious. KDS4444Talk18:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: This is not a "spot the difference" competition. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2014
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under the heading "Balls", please consider replacing
"Although the process of producing the balls remains virtually unchanged for the past 100 years, the majority of manufacturing now takes place is the Far East."
by
"Although the process of producing the balls has remained virtually unchanged for the past 100 years, the majority of manufacturing now takes place in the Far East."
[This corrects the tense in the first part of the sentence and changes "is" to "in" in the second.
In "Play of a single point" section is this: The player can serve any number of let services in a point and they are always treated as voids and not as faults.
Is this really practiced in professional tennis? I can't remember any occasion when the server would have tried more than two first serves. Or are two or more successive lets just so rare? As having watched as much games as I have, I'd think I'd have seen it happen even once, but no. 82.141.116.89 (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that's the way it is in Pro tennis. On your first serve you could have 9 lets in a row and the ump would keep calling out "first serve." Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the "Origins of the Modern Game" section, the inventor of the modern tie-break system is misidentified as James Van Alen, and links to that person's Wikipedia site. However, the real inventor of the tie-break system was this person's great grandson, the similarly named Jimmy Van Alen, who has a Wikipedia page of his own.
Cfhosford (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tennis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
There is also a "foot fault," which occurs when a player's foot touches the baseline or an extension of the center mark before the ball is hit.
First, what a magnificent article! I am a tennis newbie who just read Andre Agassi's book Open, and I wish that I had found this article earlier! Wow. Now, in this sentence (that I cited above), "a player's foot" refers to a foot of the server, correct? (It says earlier in the article that the receiver can be anywhere.) If so, I move that we change it to specifically refer to the server, rather than "a player." CousinJohn (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
(I think that an addition should be added to the beginning of the chronological “In Popular Culture” section that would reads as follows:)
William Shakespeare references the game of tennis in his history play “Henry V” (1599). In act 1, scene 2, King Henry is visited by an ambassador from France’s heir apparent, the “Dauphin,” who presents a “tun of treasure” purportedly as a peace offering. The “treasure” is a chest full of tennis balls, a gift designed to mock the English king. After discovering that the chest contains tennis balls, King Henry responses to the French ambassador with both threat and sarcasm, saying: “We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us/…/When we have matched our rackets to these balls,/We will in France, by God’s grace, play a set.” Source is at "Henry V" from Folger Digital Texts. Jefflynch967 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Article seamed neutral and well written. I would recommend updating some of the sources.
This article also only has a year of view history, so it is relatively a new.
Anybody else think it's time to update the lead image? As clear and aesthetically pleasing as it is, it's a ten-year-old image from before the roof was added to Centre Court at Wimbledon, and therefore doesn't show the current state of the professional sport. And if so, anyone have any suggestions for what could be used? oknazevad (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course this is an article about the sport of tennis, not just professional tennis. In it's current state there are very few grass courts so showing Wimbledon may not best encompass the sport in general. Hard court is by far the most used and seen surface for millions of people so it doesn't have to be a pic of Wimbledon. It's the most prestigious tennis event, no doubt about it, but grass is rare these days. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
new link in greatest women's players from espn
it is worth adding the link below which chose steffi as the greatest female player ever last june by espn as this was done by a panel of specialists.
The greatest of all-time is so speculative and subjective. As far as dominance over ones peers Steffi is far behind Wills, Lenglen, and Court. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
which covers the origins of Lawn Pelota and 'sticke and the role of the MCC.
oddly both Leamington clubs claim to be the oldest tennis club.
Though MCC was offering real tennis to its members from 1838 -8 years before Leamington Court Tennis.
Gem appears to have been more a rackets than a real tennis player - so used rackets scoring.
The MCC draw up rules that use tennis scoring and the rectangular court - but drop chases in favour of serving alternate games.
I do not know when chases were dropped or if either of the early variants kept the idea of always serving from the one end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.80.20 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding a section about coaching in tennis in this article.
I feel there should be a section about the rules of coaching in tennis. Coaching is kind of controversial in Tennis right now. There are many people who disagree with the verdict of allowing on-court coaching and there are also people who are all for it. I believe there should be an a sub article added to this article to give information about what’s happening as of late right now regarding the rules of coaching. Jordan.blackburn546 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Grass, clay, and wood?
Under the "Greatest Male Players" section, it says that there are three types of courts (grass, clay, and wood). This is incorrect, it would be grass, clay, and hardcourt. Tennis is never played on wood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrysonOA (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It is specifically talking about the Pro Slams of the 1960s. Those were played on grass, clay, and wood. Having wood as a surface was fairly common prior to the Open Era. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Lack of Novak Djokovic in the article
I'm not a Djokovic fan, but I couldn't help but notice an obvious lack of a mention of Djokovic in several key sections
Backhand: Mentioning Nadal and Williams as examples of the two-handed backhand is fine, but most experts agree that the best two-handed backhand stroke in the men's game belongs to Djokovic. The citation used in this section is broken.
GOAT: Both Federer and Nadal are mentioned, but there is no mention of Djokovic, despite consistently being mentioned with the other two in GOAT debates.
Additionally, in the GOAT section for the women, BJK and others are cited to claim that Steffi Graf is the best female player of all time, but note that the dates on which these claims were made was before Williams had a chance to contend for the "title". BJK, for example, has claimed on numerous occasions that Williams is in fact, the GOAT.
Update the references / Update information on major accomplishment and the Grand Slam career leaders
I opened up 10 out of the 147 references and 3 out of 10 were outdated. It is a small sample, but I had no access to 30% of my sample. That is a lot and it should be reviewed. On the other hand, information itself is outdated. In the section of the greatest male players, there is a lack of information about Djokovic. The article does not mention Djokovic's astonishing record in Masters 1000, being the only player in history who has won all Masters 1000 at least two times. A record that can be compared to Rod Laver's Grand Slam record which is mentioned. Besides, the list of Grand Slam leaders is outdated. Nadal has already tied Federer at the top, both having 20 Grand Slams. This information must be put up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.254.206 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Many companies manufacture and distribute tennis rackets. Wilson, Head and Babolat are some of the more commonly used brands; however, many more companies such as Yonex, Prince, and Dunlop exist. The same companies sponsor players to use these rackets in the hopes that the company name will become more well known by the public. A Lupine Mimesis (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
In this section currently, images of Federer and Nadal are presented, along with the claims that certain individuals view them as the greatest of all time. For Djokovic, it is claimed that he is one of the greatest of all time, with no accompanying image. At this point, all three have claim to the GOAT title, so perhaps this section deserves a bit of a rework? Especially as many commentators who proclaimed Federer as having the most complete game of all time have switched their stance in recent years? Rmehtany (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Why is Roger Federer's image used as the main image in the Wiki page for tennis? There are multiple reasons why this is absurd and unreasonable:
(I) Tennis is not just an individual sport. It's insulting to doubles players, national teams, wheelchair tennis players, etc.
(II) Tennis is not just played by men. Having Roger Federer's image is borderline patriarchal.
(III) Federer is not even the best player in history, with Nadal having the same number of grand slams (20), more Masters 1000 titles (36-28), better head-to-head (24-16), and an elusive Golden slam (all four slams plus an Olympic gold).
(IV) Federer does not represent tennis. Please don't promote people as demigods. Tennis as a sport needs a lot of orchestration behind the scenes for us to enjoy, from coaches to ball-kids, to umpires, to physios, to trainers. Having Federer's image is yet another example of such ridiculous practices.
Please bring down Federer's image and keep a generic image. We should not be seeing Federer's image when we google tennis. That just promotes biases in the world. Anirban2406 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide the image you'd like to see in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (2)
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "Roger Federer 2012 Indian Wells.jpg" to "File:Tennis Racket and Balls.jpg" in Infobox. Remove "File:Tennis Racket and Balls.jpg" in Balls. Anirban2406 (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Why is Roger Federer's image used as the main image in the Wiki page for tennis? There are multiple reasons why this is absurd and unreasonable:
(I) Tennis is not just an individual sport. It's insulting to doubles players, national teams, wheelchair tennis players, etc.
(II) Tennis is not just played by men. Having Roger Federer's image is borderline patriarchal.
(III) Federer is not even the best player in history, with Nadal having the same number of grand slams (20), more Masters 1000 titles (36-28), better head-to-head (24-16), and an elusive Golden slam (all four slams plus an Olympic gold).
(IV) Federer does not represent tennis. Please don't promote people as demigods. Tennis as a sport needs a lot of orchestration behind the scenes for us to enjoy, from coaches to ball-kids, to umpires, to physios, to trainers. Having Federer's image is yet another example of such ridiculous practices.
Please bring down Federer's image and keep a generic image. We should not be seeing Federer's image when we google tennis. That just promotes biases in the world.
Change "Roger Federer 2012 Indian Wells.jpg" to "File:Tennis Racket and Balls.jpg" in Infobox. Remove "File:Tennis Racket and Balls.jpg" in Balls.
Reason: Roger Federer's image is not generic for the wiki page on Tennis. It promotes Federer as a demigod. There are multiple reasons why this is absurd and unreasonable:
(I) Tennis is not just an individual sport. It's insulting to doubles players, national teams, wheelchair tennis players, etc.
(II) Tennis is not just played by men. Having Roger Federer's image is borderline patriarchal.
(III) Federer is not even the best player in history, with Nadal having the same number of grand slams (20), more Masters 1000 titles (36-28), better head-to-head (24-16), and an elusive Golden slam (all four slams plus an Olympic gold).
(IV) Federer does not represent tennis. Please don't promote people as demigods. Tennis as a sport needs a lot of orchestration behind the scenes for us to enjoy, from coaches to ball-kids, to umpires, to physios, to trainers. Having Federer's image is yet another example of such ridiculous practices. Anirban2406 (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's implied that he's the best player, just that it's a high quality picture of someone playing tennis with no copyright concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It's a high quality picture of someone playing tennis. If the image was just a portrait of Federer, of course, change and remove it. But as this it seems perfectly fine. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, I'm actually browsing on commons to see if there are any other high quality action shots of people playing tennis. I haven't found any yet, but there's a whole series of black and white photographs of a naked man going through the motions of playing lawn tennis, for some reason. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Continued discussion
Change Infobox image to one of these high quality images:
This seems to be a high-quality image. I checked wiki pages of many other major sports such as golf, cricket, football, table tennis, badminton, etc. Most of them have a very generic image. Shamefully enough, most of those generic images have pictures of men. Perhaps to balance the scales, tennis should have a "generic" picture of women playing tennis? Anirban2406 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No need for an edit request anymore. Let's see. No. 1 is too unfocused, we just see the whole of the court but not much in the way of action. No. 2 is two non-descript doubles players so not really much of an improvement over having a well-known one. In fact, a well-known player would be more appropriate as a more representative and recognisable image. No. 3 suffers from the same problem. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS so shouldn't be a concern. As far I can see, the other images in the article are balanced. There's one image of a game at Wimbledon, where the players aren't really recognisable anyway, there's two images about rules and etiquette which feature women, another is Andy Murray hitting a backhand, and the reminder don't feature players so not really problematic in any way. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I think what this really shows is we have a lack of court level action shots that show both players, aren't blurry and don't have any large brand name signs in the background. I spent more time than I probably should have and didn't find anything that I could say was an objectively better picture. Like I mentioned though, plenty of old timey naked men playing lawn tennis pictures. Anyway, I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. None of these are an objectively better picture. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (5)
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Multiple problems in this paragraph:
By the early twenty-first century, the "Big Three" of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic had dominated.[123][124] Roger Federer is considered by many observers to have the most "complete" game in modern tennis. He has won 20 grand slam titles and 6 World Tour Finals, the most for any male player. Many experts of tennis, former tennis players and his own tennis peers believe Federer is the greatest player in the history of the game.[125][126][127][128][129][130] Federer's biggest rival Rafael Nadal is regarded as the greatest competitor in tennis history by some former players and is regarded to have the potential to be the greatest of all time.[131][132] As of 2020, Nadal and Federer share the record for grand slam titles with 20 each.[133] Nadal is regarded as the greatest clay court player of all time.[134] Novak Djokovic is also considered to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time and the most dominant of the 2010s decade, being the first male player since Rod Laver in 1969 to hold all four major titles at once, the only player to achieve the Career Golden Masters, and amassing a superior head-to-head record against Federer and Nadal.[135]
(I) This paragraph says Federer has the most complete game without any citations. What is even a "complete game"?
(II) It says Nadal is regarded to have the potential to be the greatest of all time (A player who has more Masters 1000 titles, has a Golden slam, has the same number of grand slams, and most importantly, has the big winning record over the so-called greatest of all time). This has to be the biggest joke, seems like this article was written by a Federer fan and not a neutral.
(III) It misses a bunch of oxford commas.
Here is the changed paragraph that I suggest:
By the early twenty-first century, the "Big Three" of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic had dominated.[123][124] Combined, they won 58 of the 72 grand slams held since 2003. Each player defined the game with their own unique styles. Federer's game-play, with his one-handed backhand, is considered to be slick, stylish, and effortless. Nadal and Djokovic are regarded as world-class baseline players. Nadal is considered to be an excellent strategist, with many calling him the greatest competitor in the sport. Djokovic is regarded to have the best backhand, one of the harder shots in tennis. Federer and Nadal share the record with the most grand slam titles in men's tennis, winning 20 each.[133] Djokovic is close behind with 18 titles, being the only player to achieve the Career Golden Masters, and amassing a superior head-to-head record against Federer and Nadal.[135] Federer with his 8 Wimbledon titles is considered to be the greatest player on grass courts, Nadal with his 12 French Open titles is considered to be the greatest player on clay courts, and Djokovic with his 9 Australian Open titles is considered to be the greatest player on hard courts.[134] Many experts of tennis including former tennis players and TV commentators consider one of these three to be the greatest player of all time. [125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132] Anirban2406 (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding iii) Oxford commas: MOS:OXFORD says it doesn't matter so long we are internally consistent in the same article. Given that the article doesn't appear to be using Oxford commas, it should stay like that. As for the rest, I'll leave it to the regular editors of this page. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the paragraph is mostly written from a 00's perspective using sources that are >10 years old, and could use an update. A "complete" game implies the use of a variety of techniques (as opposed to specialization), especially in terms of tailoring one's playstyle against different opponents. This is not explained in the article though, so I agree that it should be removed. While the general consensus seems to have become less clear-cut in recent years, it still seems to tilt in favor of Federer. Plus, the first half of the proposed re-write seems somewhat opinionated or vague, and could use some sources of its own. As it stands, it seems too drastic for a change that introduces dubious improvements to neutrality. TimSmit (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per above As it stands, it seems too drastic for a change that introduces dubious improvements to neutrality.Run n Fly (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021
This edit request to Tennis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I wanted to add how to play tennis and the manners behind it on this page. This page or article doesn't have the history behind tennis. Thank you. Yeet990 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done Krashlandon (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Done Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Not done: This is not a "spot the difference" competition.
Done. Though I tweaked the phrasing. oknazevad (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide the image you'd like to see in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Question: Can you provide the reasons for doing so ? Run n Fly (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Already done. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
