Talk:Tennis/Archive 1

message: There are 1 vs 2 (Canadian or Australian style matches right?)... Shouldn't those be mentioned?
MalionX 15:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 vs 2 

message: 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.
Carlo Colussi 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wood surface 

message: 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)
thread_title:  recent edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tennis articles in need of immediate attention 

message: good edit
...on that tedious "scoring" section.Sfahey 17:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  good edit 

message: Just revert if you don't like it.
:it looks fine to me. Hayford Peirce 23:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forehand picture 

message: 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
: Agree. It should be in Tennis score or Tennis terminology instead. Aree
:: I vote for Tennis terminology. After all, game point is almost entirely made up of definitions. - dcljr (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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//talk 04:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Don't add game point 

message: The Ace (tennis) article says:
: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)
replies: text: 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. DavidB601 07:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. DavidB601 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest ace 

message: 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!
-- Bubbachuck 05:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESPN'S Spot Shot 

message: 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 Guzman 14:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any system is flawed, but number of Grand Slam titles could be the criteria. JJ 12:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 Guzman 01:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Peirce 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Guzman 02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Goran Ivanišević (1), Andres Gomez (1), Marcelo Rios (0), Andy Roddick (1),Juan Carlos Ferrero (1),  Amelie Mauresmo (1), Kim Clijsters (1)
Noelle De Guzman 02:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Great players 

message: 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?
# White woman with brown hair, red shorts at the Australian Open 2005
#,  and  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)
#  blonde woman with ballboys in foreground 
#  and  She should be easy - very identifiable - Thai, "seagames"? "samart"?
# woman with blonde ponytail, blue outfit, US Open 2004 - Elena Dementieva?
# Man with red shirt, kind of "square" short brown hair cut, US Open 2004
# Man with ponytail, white headband and shirt, US Open 2004. looks pretty distinctive - Feliciano Lopez? Definitely NOT Feliciano Lopez Stanley011 22:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are these players? 

message: 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?  JJ 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Peirce 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.JJ 22:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoring 

message: 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.  JJ 15:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Peirce 16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Again, never heard the term used.  Let's see if others have an opinion. JJ 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: USTA rules describe the "receiver."Sfahey 22:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Receiver 

message: 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? Stanley011 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like an excellent article to me.  Probably a good idea to extend it to others such as "grass court" etc. Hayford Peirce 03:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court specialists 

message: what you people think?
:Now with all the facilities like mini-tennis and short tennis available, I can't see why it would be a bad idea. DavidB601 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennis should it be played by 5 year olds? 

message: Good or bad what do you think?
*Good.  Why not?  But don't push him/her to hard -- it should be enjoyable. Hayford Peirce 22:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennis for 5 year old? 

message: I just created this article but it needs lots of work. Hope someone can take a look at it. Thanks. Stanley011 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Scoville Jenkins]] 

message: 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 Peirce 23:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World No. 1 player list 

message: 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
:Love means you simply have no points in a game. DavidB601 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoring Section Needs to be Changed 

message: 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. -- Mikeblas 00:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Marat Safin (2), and Stan Smith (2). (Numbers in parentheses indicate the Grand Slam singles titles.) Hayford Peirce 00:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. -- Mikeblas 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbers in parenthesis 

message: "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.
http://www.real-tennis.com/archive/history/journal.html
Ogg 12:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originating in England in the late 19th Century 

message: Why are the greatest female players shunted into three lines whilst the men have qualifications of their greatness? Gareth E Kegg 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Peirce 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Kegg 20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Peirce 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Players - Women 

message: 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. DavidB601 19:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEEDING 

message: 70.170.121.142 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 4 grand slams are held in Australia, France, Wimbledon and in the United States. DavidB601 07:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean England, not Wimbledon.  JJ 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tennis grand slams 

message: 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? Doublea 04:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Tennis: "Greatest" Tennis Players 

message: 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.
*:Image:Elena119.jpg
*:Image:Hittinballs.jpg
*:Image:Mary Pierce0.jpg
*:Image:Pironkova.jpg
*:Image:Sabine Appelmans.jpg
The top image seems to have the most flexible copyright.--YbborT 20:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Peirce 21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The top one has universal free image-sharing.--YbborT 16:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 expert 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female pictures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Recording project 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coaching 

message: Lawn Tennis was accidentally invented by Major Wingfield in 1871 in England.
Rajesh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.187.33 (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Tennis was Invented? 

message: "Indoor" is not a surface!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.120.26 (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in a sense, the weather elements don't take part, thus changing a lot in the game. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Where do you see it irrelevant? We can always fix wrong things. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface 

message: 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)
thread_title:  
Masters 1000 - Madrid
 

message: 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)
replies: text: We'd need a strong reference for that. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oxford English Dictionary does not seem to know the etymology of the expression "love" in tennis — Labalius (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does "love" come from? 

message: 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
:AFAIK, around the net points are valid, maybe it is how you have mentioned it. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ball goes around netpost to score? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, I have been working on reading this article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken and am going to strike the color portion of that sentence. It just sounds horrible when read out loud...and probably is better in the Tennis ball article anyway. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of ball 

message: Does anyone know why the article got protected again? I don't mind, just wanted some mention here. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually wondering the same thing myself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: To be honest the whole section is so subjective that I find it's use in an encyclopedia somewhat dubious. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatest male players 

message: In the Equipment side box, why don't we have the tennis racquet listed alongside the tennis ball? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment box 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Seek semi-protection? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strange content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is the US college circuit in the lead? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think TB had a point — I've (hopefully) clarified the text. --El Ingles (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who gets to serve? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  greatest female players 

message: What is the correct form (in English), and if the accents are not always included, should they be?
:Accents should be included. -- Mjquinn_id (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martina Navratilova/Navrátilová 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Let 

message: International Amateur Tennis Association at www.iataopen.com
68.108.133.75 (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 68.108.133.75, 11 June 2010 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Greatest Players-Male 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Kiwi" style? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with HiLo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Move 

message: Not used only (or even predominantly?) by historians. 122.107.58.27 (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  which historians now refer to as real tennis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request from 81.68.134.51, 1 April 2011 

message: 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)
replies: text: The plexicushion court is considered a hard court afaik. Hard court surfaces vary from court to court as do clay courts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Open 

message: 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)
replies: text: Which heading? I have seen this phenomenon in other articles but I don't see it here. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Edit regarding photo and text arrangement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Santoro 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ball Change in ATP vs ITF Tournaments 

message: please add History of tennis to "See also" list. thank you.
92.22.201.112 (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 92.22.201.112, 20 June 2011 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Technical Aspects 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Left-handed "advantage"/ 

message: 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)."  . 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)
thread_title:  Greatest male players 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Court dimensions 

message: Novak Djokovik has won (5) Grand Slam Tournaments now.
Please update this on this page. 
Thank you.
--Devansh.sharma (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: Being UK based, I am familiar with "van-in" and "van-out" but not "ad-in" etc.
Based on a quick internet search, van-in etc. appears to be supported by UK sources e.g.:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/tennis/rules/scoring/newsid_3574000/3574879.stm
http://status-anxiety.blogspot.co.uk/2006/08/what-deuce.html
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)
thread_title:  Usage of ad-in and van-in 

message: I came here to know the average and top speed of balls. I am disapoint. --Transisto (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ball speed info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origins of lawn tennis 

message: A name that should go in the list of the greatest ever tennis players is surely that of Bjorn Borg. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why this post. His name is already mentioned in the section greatest players ever. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bjorn Borg 

message: 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)
replies: text: Pretty much most of that is already in the article under "Origins of the Modern Game." Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: But depending on what history book you read the original source of "tennis" is a bit murky. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Might not a dictionary that gives years a word was first used (Oxford?) be a helpful source?Cloptonson (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  First use of name - did Balfour suggest it? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2014 

message: 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)
Chaturaka (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Sam Sailor Sing 17:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2014 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.   KDS4444Talk 18:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoring 

message: 192.100.162.140 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014 

message: 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.
Thank you.
PaulineRidel (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, thanks for the request.--Wolbo (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2014 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  let service? 

message: At the bottom, Novak Djokovic just won AO 2015 and is now holding 8 GS, not 7. --PetarM (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, thanks for the request.--Wolbo (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done, thanks for letting us know! BryanG (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

message: In a singles match at Wimbledon how many people are on the court during a game.  --Westerhopegolfer (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wimbledon

message: 
*Hi, could I add this article to the Spoken Wikipedia project? Thanks, Josefina. JosefinaGM (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoken Wikipedia request

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tennis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130308123815/http://www.cbc.ca:80/sports/columns/newsmakers/andre-agassi.html to http://www.cbc.ca/sports/columns/newsmakers/andre-agassi.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050313102231/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/2004/tennis/specials/us_open/2004/09/12/bc.ten.stevewilstein.ap/index.html to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/tennis/specials/us_open/2004/09/12/bc.ten.stevewilstein.ap/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: External links modified

message: The line in the text says 'The object of the game is to play the ball in such a way that the opponent is not able to play a valid return.'
It should be "The objective of the game is to play the ball in such a way that the opponent is not able to play a valid return."
182.69.201.0 (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016

message: fill in after 'the adoption of electronic review technology coupled with a point challenge system' the addition and link to '(e.g. Hawk-Eye)'
SteT 08:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Though I tweaked the phrasing. oknazevad (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016 

message: 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)
thread_title:  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. 

message: (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)
replies: text: Already mentioned in the tennis ball article. oknazevad (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017 

message: 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.
Scarlettz1 (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good informative Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Update lead image? 

message: 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.
http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/16371992/tennis-top-20-all  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.6.150 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  new link in greatest women's players from espn 

message: There is some useful information here
http://www.leamingtonrealtennis.co.uk/history-of-the-game/leamington-and-tennis.html
and here
https://www.lords.org/news/our-blogs/mcc-archivist-blog/anyone-for-tennis/
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)
thread_title:  Leamington 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adding a section about coaching in tennis in this article. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Grass, clay, and wood?

message: 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.
Rmehtany (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Novak Djokovic in the article 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Big tennis. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Big tennis" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Major achievements in tennis by nation. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Major achievements in tennis by nation" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: can I edit 2409:4072:10F:E572:6CC7:AC4C:1E1F:A6DA (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update the references / Update information on major accomplishment and the Grand Slam career leaders 

message: 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)
replies: text: What I did was link to a page that lists many racket brands. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rework of the greatest male players section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 

message: Change X: (Remove the following) Anirban2406 (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (2) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Question: Can you provide the reasons for doing so ? Run n Fly (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (3) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (4) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Continued discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Not done: per above  Run n Fly (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (5) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021 

message: Supertiebreak is now played in the final set of French Open match. 2A02:A310:E23E:7280:800:B4E:925E:270 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not updated 

message: Please remove the bold from the list of greatest. 2001:420:4487:1300:EDB9:E6E6:127B:D642 (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . –CWenger (^ • @) 15:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger Federer is now a retired player