Talk:Tennis male players statistics

message: OK for the advice but for Albert Burke I prefer to give the first name because this is the problem with all the players having the same name as brothers or simple homonyms : there were 3 Burkes brothers playing as pros and therefore I don't want people confuse Albert with Edmund for instance. You have thus many examples : Ampon father and son, Krishnan father and son, the Amritraj brothers and now one of their sons, the Renshaws, the Dohertys, the Frasers, the Coopers and so on. According to the ATP statistics there are 11 Beckers with no relation and so on. So I want to make it clear that in this article this is Albert Burke. Do you know that Donald Budge has beaten William Tatem Tilden in the USLTA Championships at Forest Hills but this was William Tatem Tilden III, nephew of William Tatem Tilden II the famous one ? Do you know that in 1946 Riggs has beaten both Budges, Lloyd the elder and John Donald, at the 1946 US Pro ? Who has beaten Borg at Tokyo 81 : Tim or Tom Gullikson ? Tim.
There are so many confusions and errors because the first name isn't precised : so let the first name of Burke to be sure it is Albert and not Edmund even though some previous lines before it is indicated because sometimes repetitions aren't useless. Thank you.  Carlo Colussi 07:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Repetition is useless in this case.  The article mentions only "Albert Burke."  Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume that when "Burke" is mentioned thereafter, a person will be puzzled about whether the article means "Albert Burke" or one of his brothers.  There is no ambiguity here.  Tennis expert 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once a person's full name is stated in a section of the article, give only the person's last name thereafter. 

message: Hello Germanfriend and Jeffreyneave.
Germanfriend you have rightly written the runner-ups to Nastase : I will just add that Jovanovic was a 68 Roland Garros quarterfinalist. Alexander was to become the youngest player to play a Davis Cup Challenge Round at the end of the year so he was very young as you've stated. Finally in the 2003 edition he has brushed away "Mamaia" 68 (I don't exactly remember) and only kept Bucarest 68. Here is an example of correction so Sutter's amounts have very slightly changed between the 1991 edition and the 2003 one (of course it has changed for ascending or new players).
Nastase indeed beat Borg and Ashe both in 5 sets in the Avis Challenge Cup WCT event which was played at different sites on Hawaii from January to May (it had the same format as the Masters Cup but all matches were best-of-five set ones).
Jeffreyneave : I haven't had the courage to count all the tournaments listed by Sutter but in his 1991 edition which covers all years from 1946 to the autumn of 1991 (October for main circuit and September for challengers circuit), he has written there were more than 7300 tournaments. If we consider that almost 45 years were covered, we have a means of about 160 tournaments a year i.e. about 3 tournaments a week.
You have added Jacksonville 71 as a Connors's win over Graebner but in fact Connors has won Jacksonville over Graebner on January 16, 1972 (according to Sutter, confirmed by World of Tennis '73 where it is written January 12-16, 1972). This tournament is in the ATP list but at a wrong year, 1973, so I will remove this tournament and explain that the ATP has given a wrong year.***** Connors won Jacksonville in 1971 and 1972 both times over Graebner [jeffreyneave 15 jan 2005]
**** You've learnt me something 80.70.42.194 12:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sutter's informations 

message: Had possibly 20 "Slams": 1 Olympic, 1 USO, 5 Wimbledon, 6 Queens and 7 South of France - Nice.
Plus 4 Davis Cups.
Thanks.
--Lucio Garcia (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly Laurie Doherty could be included here? 

message: I was wondering if we will soon have a similar article for the women especially in counting their total titles won in tournaments in general. it would be an interesting list to see how many would have more than 100 titles (wta, pre wta, and invitationals)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.42.93 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any similar article for the females? 

message: This article appears to represent original research and includes several subjective & unverifiable claims.  This is really more of a commentary than an encyclopedia article.  Frankly, I'm not sure it can be salvaged in such a way that it can stand on its own as a separate article.  (I'll add the commentary is actually very interesting, but belongs in a magazine or on a sportscaster website.)
Here are some examples of potential issues that need to be addressed.  These are just from the first section, since nearly every statement made in the entire article relies on speculation, exaggeration, and/or comparisons that may be unverifiable:
1. "the professional circuit was much less popular than the traditional amateur circuit." - "much less" is a substantial claim.  This needs data for support.  Also, popular in terms of spectators?  Popular in terms of the players?
2. "The only exceptional male player who entered Wimbledon that year was Lew Hoad."  Making the claim that Lew Hoad was "exceptional" needs to be supported.
3. "experiences small crowds and lost money". to suggest the tournament came out with a deficit in funds needs to be verified.
4. "although he was cruelly forced to play the doubles event there."  "Cruelly" is too vague, and how do we know he was "forced" to play?  What does that even mean?
5. "motivated tour players to create the Association of Tennis Professionals in 1972 because they no longer wanted to be dependent on tennis federations or professional tennis promoters." - Wanting is an internal state that cannot be verified without drawing support directly from statements made by the players themselves, which would constitute original research.  Also, the statement overgeneralizes, suggesting ALL tennis players wanted to make this change and for the same reasons.
6. "U.S. Pro was a high-class tournament with all the best players, but just two years later, this tournament was ordinary because only professional teachers (no leading touring pros) entered the event. - Relativistic claims that need to be hedged or quantified.  What makes a tournament "high-class" versus "ordinary".
7. "but it doesn't mean that the banished players of the pre-open era were less great than their open era colleagues."  - We know from the article on Federer that the use of the term "great" is difficult to verify without appealing to both statistics and expert opinions.  Also, the word "banished" is not used correctly here.
8. "Rod Laver captured the amateur Grand Slam in 1962 he was probably only the 5th player in the world behind Rosewall, Hoad, Segura and Gimeno. - speculation - How do you know he was "probably" the 5th player?  What does that even mean?
9. "But to give you another ironic example..."  This passage includes subjective claims about the relative greatness of tournaments (see 7), and isn't even particularly ironic.
10. "In reality to fairly compare pre-open era players records with open era players's it would be necessary to select from the tennis beginnings the 4 greatest events of each year, knowing it would change every year (some years it is awfully difficult to choose the 4 greatest tennis events)." - Again with the "greatness" - what criteria should be used to determine if a tournament is one of the four greatest in a year?  This passage really just proposes one possible method to compare across tennis eras.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianeck (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * I was thinking the exact same thing while reading through this article. It's one of the more bizarre styles I've come across on wikipedia, addressing readers directly, huge chunks of random bold and italic typeface, speculation, and very, very few sources. I have removed or edited some of those examples you mention (without having read your comment), but you're right, it needs a massive overhaul. I, too, fear it is too big a job and would require too many drastic edits. It definitely belongs in a magazine article somewhere instead of an encyclopedia. Feudonym (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research & Neutral POV issues 

message: MOS:FLAG states that "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality". As far as I can determine from this and other tennis articles, tennis players do not represent a country in any sense, and thus the flags cannot be used in the list of matches. Use of flags there violates WP:NPOV, because it over-represents the importance of nationality in a person's identity. As such, I have removed the flag icons. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags removed 

message: Template:Tennis records and statistics links this page as "Misc", and that seems about right - a completely random selection of records nowhere near living up to the title. My first thought is that this page should be merged into All-time tennis records – men's singles. Sod25 (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article?