Talk:Roger Federer/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

Second Archive:Dates Vary

Weight?

The German Wikipedia states that Federer weighs 85kg. A 5 kg discrepancy is greater than normal fluctuations of human body weight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.250.237 (talk)

His official website says 85kg [1] and his ATP Tennis player profile says 80kg [2]. Since most of the stats for the info box comes from ATP, I think that's why the numbers are different. on camera^(t) 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Birth town

Federer was born in the town of Binningen (near Basel, Switzerland), to Swiss-German Robert Federer and South African Lynette Federer. He grew up 10 minutes from Basel proper, in suburban Münchenstein. Federer has an older sister, Diana. He considers his main language German, but he also speaks French and English fluently

Is it really proper to say Federer was "conceived" in the town of Binningen? That's a bit odd, especially when I really think we all mean to say he was "born" there. If we really intend to say conceived, then since this would be unusual knowledge, it should be footnoted.

2006

Concerning this line: Along with Justine Henin-Hardenne who lost the women's final of the U.S. Open, it was the first time in the history of tennis that both a man and a woman had reached all four Grand Slam singles finals within a calendar year.

Shouldn't it be explicitly pointed out that it was the same man and the same woman who made it to the finals of all four majors? Not just a man and a woman?

Saying the "same man" and "same woman" will probably make it clearer, but even as it stands, what else could the sentence mean?AmritTuladhar 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Article size

This article needs to be significantly down-sized to be in accordance with WP:SIZE. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How do u suggest we change the size of the article; deleting info or create more articles about him? --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, you do both, yes. Federer seems to have far too much written about his draws and the tournaments he played in when they would be better just summed up as a result. Instead, you get sprawling paragraphs that detail sometimes the most trivial of minutia.Ernham 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia? or personal life

Some of the trivia could be absorbed, prose-style into the Personal life section if it reduces the trailing feel of the trivia list. If there are no objections in a few days I could do that. Julia Rossi 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you go ahead and do that according to WP:TRIV. I think you can be bold and do it without waiting for confirmation. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 05:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think his Golden Bagel Awards have nothing to do with his personal life... they just don't go together with the other things mentioned in that section, and this way these awards seem to be of an extraordinary importance. Why shouldn't they be mentioned only among the other awards? Pumukli 13:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Titles won in the open era

The article says Federer is the only male player to win 10 or more singles titles in three consecutive years in the Open Era.

This is untrue. Rod Laver won 11 in 1968 (the first year of Open tennis), 18 in 1969 and 14 in 1970, as stated in his Wiki biography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.35.3 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

You'll find that those were not 'official tournaments' and as such are not covered in the first section of laver's title list. OSmeone 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Winning Streaks

"Federer won his 31st consecutive match over American players ..." Since when did streaks against players of a particular country come into reckoning? People could then come up with tons of other records against say British players, European players, Australian players.. Suggest this be deleted.

Simliarly, "Federer holds the record for most consecutive singles wins in North America" Again the same rationale. There is too much US/ North American Bias. Suggest this too be deleted

Ashishgala 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"As of January 28, 2007, Federer has won 30 consecutive sets beginning with his 2006 Tennis Masters Cup roundrobin match against Andy Roddick and extending through the 2007 Australian Open final (ongoing as of January 28, 2007)." should be removed. The streak ended at 31 sets, but it is not a recognised streak.

Record (10-1)

Now we're putting the record into tennis articles instead of splitting it up into wins and losses? This makes little sense. Now you have to search through in order to see which one he lost. It is simply unclear, and someone who doesn't know much about tennis would not know how to tell the difference. Where was this change discussed and agreed upon? Supertigerman 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It was never agreed upon. These changes have been made unilaterally in several tennis articles today, probably by the same user. Although the IP address changes and probably is dynamically assigned, it appears that this user has been attempting to make these changes for several months. Many of the talk pages of the various IP addresses of this user have had the appropriate "please discuss in advance before making changes inconsistent with the standard" notices placed on them, without effect or response from this user. Tennis expert 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the best decision to show his Grand Slam Finals record as 10-1 instead as 10 wins and 1 runner up. also showing that he lost to Nadal 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7 in the 2006 french open is better than showing that Nadal beat him 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6

No, neither of these is the best decision. And stop making the changes without first obtaining consensus. Tennis expert 15:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not the first guy to do this, Ive seen it both ways, but after the first guy changed the format I helped him. The NEW format is hear to stay. And who are you to make up the rules? Just cause your name is TENNIS EXPERT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.12.149 (talk) 17:30, February 20, 2007

I side with Supertigerman and Tennis Expert on this one. So I cannot see how one can conclude that a new format is "hear (sic) to stay". Another thing: Please sign up with a user name. Lots of confusion can be cleared up if people sign up, ans anon IP edits are particularly hard to understand and take seriously as many inadvertly becomes hidden behind multiple numbers. Regards, --HJ 14:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The format that's been in place on this and many other tennis players' articles on Wikipedia is clear and easy to understand. I see no reason to change it. I don't think any of the recent attempts to do so are an improvement. Zaxem 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus to change the format. The vandal's IPs and sockpuppet accounts should all be blocked. Mgiganteus1 13:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Supertigerman#tennis_score_format. "we will never back down. Me and my buddies are capable of haveing thousands of IP accounts [...] we expect to change EVERY pro tennis players score format soon. not just these few [...] This war will never end, unless Tennis Expert and his pals agree with us." Anyone want to take this to WP:ANI? Mgiganteus1 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A compromise proposal: Keep the Wins and Runner-ups as two separate subheadings, but change the scoring format of the losses to be from the perspective of the player who lost. Therefore, the loss to Nadal would read 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7 (4). Supertigerman 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that compromise is not acceptable to me. I've discussed this before on innumerable occasions on various talk pages, many (if not all) of which appear to be the sock puppets of this extremely disruptive user we are dealing with now. Best regards! Tennis expert 18:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all these discussions that affect more pages should be taking place on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis talkpage, no? And I also disapprove the recent format changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scineram (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Semi-protection?

Why is the page semi-protected? The article is not a target of continuous vandalism and it is a widely watched article. None of the wikipedia semi-protection guidelines seems to apply here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panp (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Have a look at the history page for the article itself (not the history page for the discussion page). The article was the subject of repeated vandalism by anonymous IP accounts before the semi-protection was provided. The semi-protection has helped tremendously. Tennis expert 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

I would like to get this article up to a Good Article quality. Some of what Wizardman mentioned in their assessment should be done: the Records and trivia section should be made into a new article to reduce the size of this article. And once that is done, every record included should have a reference like on Brett Favre. Here is a reference generator to make that task easier. Any trivia that could be re-written into his main article should also be done (with a reference, of course).

His Playing style section especially needs more references to show it's not original research and to cut back on some of the peacock and weasel words, just like how he considered one of the best tennis players has many references to it. Throughout this article, there should be a reference to go with the statements. Like how he had no coach for a while? ... Almost every paragraph should have a reference to back up the information.

Anyway, those are issues, when "corrected," would really improve this article. on camera^(t) 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I already did part of that: see Records held by Roger Federer; if that needs to be changed I could move it to Roger Federer:Records and Trivia or some such. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 14:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I removed that section and added a see also template leading to his records. I think the trivia section could be mostly removed or incorporated into other sections... somehow. on camera^(t) 14:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Does ayone else think this article is starting to be of Featured Article quality? Barnjo 21:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've had it at Wikiproject Tennis' assessment for some time; either way, we may want to run a WP:PR on it just to see. --tennis man 04:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Playing Style

The seventh paragraph in the "Playing Style" section seems to be more concerned with other tennis players rather than Federer's playing style: "One overlooked aspect of his game is his stamina. This is compounded by the fact that opponents will often run and serve much more than he during a game. Rafael Nadal is one player that can cope with this, while most other players cannot. For example, Andy Roddick was visibly tired in the fourth set of the 2006 U.S. Open final."

The second and third sentences are totally unneeded; there is no need to talk about Nadal or Roddick and the sentences themselves carry no information about Federer's playing style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.120.38 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I took out the paragraph you were mentioning. That section really needs some references. on camera^(t) 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

Any criticisms in his playing style etc ? what about images ?

You may criticise him for becoming more and more wealthy, whilst those who sew his line of trainers and t-shirts remain in poverty. This article suggests some Federer fans are not the biggest Nike fans, maybe some fans would criticise him for his endorsement of the company.

Just a thought...

Has anyone ever thought of taking the whole match records/tournament wins section and moving it? On one hand, it is nearly half, if not more, of the page; on the other hand, there would be little of the page left after moving that whole part. Any thoughts anyone? --tennis man ^{sign here!} 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it too, when I was suggesting things for the page; and because of what you said about little being left without it, I thought it should stay. I guess we can't help that he wins so many tournaments. on camera^(t) 17:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, I suppose it's not his fault that he's so good. Seriously though, this article could use some direction in its editing. The things that are being done to it need to be seriously considered and the merges/splits/reformats need to be done with some care. Also, we definitely need more refs on this page. I've done my best to find sources for some of the points made in the article but it is rather hard to find good information for many of the statements. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had a little fun with references today. Hmm, maybe if his tables of wins and whatnot could be smaller if the font-faces were made smaller like on de:Roger Federer; aesthetically, 90%-95% might be more pleasing than as it is currently. Although, I don't know if that would really solve anything if in the future he continues to win. ;D Anyway, I agree with you about the editing needing more direction. on camera^(t) 20:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean with de:Roger Federer. It does look much cleaner in that format, so if we could change this page's formatting to that I believe that section could look much better. As for how many tournaments/matches he wins, well, we can only guess. Whether he has an Agassi-length career or retires after supplanting Pete Sampras at the top of the major wins remains to be seen and guessed at. I think that if we could get some sort of discussion going about how exactly we want to edit this page, that would be a great help. Maybe if we enlarge the size of the GA discussion at the top? --tennis man ^{sign here!} 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the fact that many consider him to be the greatest tennis player ever be in Intro?

I'm wondering if the sentence and its references "Many experts and his own tennis peers believe Federer may become the greatest tennis player in history" should be placed in the intro instead of the Playing Style section? I think it'd make more sense in the intro section, I think that people who don't know much about Federer and come to this article to learn more about him, they'd understand his significance easier and quicker if it were placed in the Intro section. Anyone agree, or disagree? Dionyseus 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be mentioned in the intro. Mgiganteus1 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be in the intro as well, as it makes more "sense" there than in his playing style section. on camera^(t) 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Tennis expert 01:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I have now moved the statement into the intro. Dionyseus 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please add to article

"He's a wonderful supporter of golf and I think it's pretty neat when you have probably the most dominant athlete on the planet in your gallery." from http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1601487,00.html 70.247.192.110 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be included to the article. It is already mentioned, and sourced, in the trivia section of the article that he is on good terms with Tiger Woods. --HJensen, talk 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Federer photo

In the image selected, why is the NIKE logo bigger than his head? This article should be about Federer, not an advert for NIKE!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.201.86 (talk) 21:00, March 28, 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, I'll go ask Federer why he makes the choices in fashion as he did in that photo... Honestly, because that's the best photograph that Wikipedia has that follows the policy on images, I suppose. on camera^(t) 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NIKE sponsors Federer. He gets paid a ton to wear their clothes. Therefore, its not an issue of personal taste or fashion. Its business. By leaving this image up we are supporting his sponsor, Nike, not him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.138.87 (talk • contribs) 17:41, March 30, 2007 (UTC)

The picture is different now. on camera^(t) 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well personally I think the original one is better, since it shows his face better without headband. And he's smiling instead of scowling. And the picture's more life- like since he's off- court. Plus, how many sports stars' photos don't show their sponsor's logo then... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.8.16.89 (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Right... I mean, in the new photo, I can count three, maybe four, Nike symbols. Maybe the old photo can be put somewhere else in the article? on camera^(t) 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at where I am about to plavce the old picture; what do you think? Also, I am adding the current picture to the Records page. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, forget that. I don't like anywhere that the old pic could be placed that would look okay. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I like how you put it on Records held by Roger Federer, at least it looks good there. on camera^(t) 20:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do like how it looks on the Records page. It just does not really have a place on this page unless someone replaces the picture in the infobox. As for the IP editor's complaint about how the old picture has a large Nike logo, well, that is his sponsor. I think that that one is a better picture (shows him better, better expression). I think we would do well to put the old, red-Nike-sweatshirt-wearing picture back. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My humble opinion: I like the current photo (Federer in receiving mode). He has a racket, he looks determined, he looks serious. It is a very nice photo for a bio of a great tennis palyer. The photo in the red Nike sweatshirt is nice as well, and could be placed further down in the article. The two photos are both superior to the rest of Federer, and I personally don't care about the Nike logo. We can't afford to be "picky" on these matters, when good free images are usually rare. --HJensen, talk 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I almost cannot believe that a comment about a picture is blowing up into something of this size. However, I agree with your comment in that it is a good picture of him as a tennis player. But, the way I see it is that if we wanted a page that was Roger Federer: Tennis Player, the current picture would be better off there. The thing is, this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias, IMHO, are about people, not necessarily their jobs. Maybe in the Tennis Player page we could have a picture such as this, but as this is a page about the person named Roger Federer, who happens to be a great player, the reasoning you put forth does not hold true. Call me uncivil, but this is my opinion. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It takes MUCH more than that to qualify as "uncivil". I see your points, but to be honest, Federer as a person is probably more interesting to his friends and family than to readers of an encyclopedia. To them, it is his status as a tennis player that counts. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the incivility. Just thought I'd be careful. Anyway, you are correct about who exactly would care about Federer. I just thought that, given it is an encyclopedia, it made sense to market, especially as an image, the person themselves, not the common view of them, as in their profession or activity. But I do agree with the fact that most people would care more about the player than the person, so I concede the point, mostly. Still, I can barely believe that this whole discussion was about a PICTURE! What are we coming to that we have a long discussion about the simple matter of what photograph we use? And did you know that this started out because an IP thought there were too many/too big of a Nike logo in the photo? Oy vey! --tennis man ^{sign here!} 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On back to back losses to same player

In response to this edit that reinserted a fact tag instead of further examples of Federer losing twice in a row to the same player: [3], I made this edit: [4]. I.e., I removed the whole thing about how many times Federer has had back-to-back losses to the same player. While the examples in addition to Canas were correct, I thought it was to much to add, as many instaces were in Federer's early career (Agassi, Ferrero, Kuerten). Also, such a "record" is quite much dependent on chance rather than skill (e.g., Sampras never beat Federer, but they also only met once). If mentioned, it could be while Federer was no. 1, but I wouldn't insist on it.--HJensen, talk 17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition (with further addition) He also lost three times in a row to Kafelnikov early in his career, and twice he had back-to-back losses to Henman. There may be more instances. So, he has had back-to-back losses to the same player at least eleven times in total: Canas, Agassi, Ferrero, Hewitt (twice), Kuerten, Henman (twice), Kafelnikov, Nalbandian, Nadal. So shouldn't we lose this when talking about Canas' wins? --HJensen, talk 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

... and Arnaud Clement also did it in 1999-2000. I will stop searching for more now :-) --HJensen, talk 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea where they get the number 5 from then, because since he's been number one only Nadal and Canas have beaten him more than once, so that would be back to back loses to the same player twice only since being number one. It would be possible to find all of them however by going to the official website and checking all his matches every year, but I can't be bothered.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.21.14 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 22 April 2007

Image issues?

It was brought to my attention by Errabee that there is an issue with Image:Federer_Serve.jpg that should be resolved before the article can be considered GA or FA-class. I have two questions:a) how can we solve the issue? b) why exactly is an image keeping an article from becoming a higher class? Thanks, --tennis man ^{sign here!} 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your first question: you need to look into whatever issue was brought up about the image and see if it is possible to fix it. Example: origin of the image is not clear; ascertain origin and clarify on image's page. Images with unknown origin, uncertain copyright status and similar situations simply cannot be kept on Wikipedia. If the problem cannot be fixed, then the image would need to be deleted.
Now about your second question: because attaining Featured status means that the community considers that the article has reached a point where it can be considered as good as it gets, for lack of a better term (that I can think of right now). Articles with problems as obvious and, frankly, unacceptable, as carrying images with uncertain status, possibly a copyright violation, clearly have not reached that level where they can be considered to be on a higher level. An article carrying any image whose status is not crystal clear is certain not to be considered as Featured on Wikipedia. Redux 05:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a doubles performance stat under Singles performance timeline?

Please remove it. It will cause confusion among newcomers to tennis or to roger federer. Gold medal is a doubles performance. It should not be under the heading singles timeline performance.

New Federer Userbox

Enjoy everyone

Code

Result

|{{User:Jairuscobb/Userboxes/FedererFans}}

Federer is betterer.

Usage

Endorsements

What are your thoughts regarding putting a section regarding Federer's (lack of) endorsements? In contrast to other celebs / athletes like Tiger Woods or Peyton Manning, Federer has very, very few endorsements and does not lend his image indiscreetly, which I feel (and many others) is extremely admirable. It does make him stand out from other atheletes and I feel merits a mention.... thoughts? 128.147.196.118 (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have the data, and maybe some good other sources discussing this, then i would have thought it was a good addition. Ged UK (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Golden Bagel Awards

I have already written this to the Trivia? or personal life section, but it may have escaped your attention there:

I think Federer's Golden Bagel Awards have nothing to do with his personal life... they don't go together with the other things mentioned in that section, and this way these awards seem to be of an extraordinary importance. Why shouldn't they be mentioned only among the other awards? Pumukli 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the section. The awards are already mentioned in the Awards list, so no need to give them particular prominence, and not in that place. Also the text is quite close to the cited reference (which I have moved to the currently deadlink-sourced article on the Golden Bagel Award.--HJensen, talk 10:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Metrosexual???

It is a nonsense, Federer is not metrosexual. He has his own style, he loves fashionable clothes, that's all. I think we shouldn't deem him metrosexual (it is not our task anyway), especially as it has pejorative connotation. Have you opened the metrosexual page???

"Narcissism according to an authoritative Simpson, plays a crucial role in the metrosexual concept." "The metrosexual, in its original coinage, is a person who, under the spell of consumerism, is or desires to be what he sees in magazines and advertising. Simpson’s metrosexual would be a type A or type C narcissist, as he loves himself or an idealized image of what he would like to be."

Oh my God, if you read this page, is it Roger Federer who you relate to it??? Narcissist? Why don't you write about his amiable personality instead of labelling him metrosexual? Pumukli 09:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to our coverage of this person, unless Federer had made it a point to state publicly and for the record that he either is or is not metrosexual (or anything else), which, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't. This is non-notable and should be removed, baring the presentation of some kind of evidence that this has somehow become of any relevance in understanding the notable aspects of Roger Federer's biography. The key point is: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Redux 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is removed (along with the other unsourced stuff). --HJensen, talk 18:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :-) And sorry for my vehement reaction...:-) Pumukli 23:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Another time, just be bold and remove controversial unsourced statements right away. That would be in accordance with the biographies of living persons policies.--HJensen, talk 07:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK :-) Pumukli 17:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sortable tables?

These sortable tables, introduced on May 25, 2007, have they been discussed? I find them quite annoying. If one sorts for particular championships, and then go back sorting after year, then the sequence of the events no longer follows the calendar year. So, what is the rationale for introducing this feature? (Sorting on the score is completely beyond me!) --HJensen, talk 22:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments

Brilliant article. i think that the article has enough info to take it to FA (by either Wimbeldon - aggressive timelines or U.S. Open - more realistic). The major concern with the article is the lack of references and i am attaching fact tags to wherever i think citations are required.

In detail, the following is the feedback:

ToC is long with 42 lines. i would suggest combining sections 7 to 10 into one section
- Would you consider using the function TOClimit|limit=n and setting 'n' to 3, so that it is limited to a more manageable 24 lines.
Lead sections talks of only records. I think that is unfair to the player. Non-tennis info on Roger should also make it there
I think the personal section can be bifurcated into 2 sections - one dealing with personal information and another dealing with social commitments
~~~~the following sentence is a misfit in the personal section: "Federer has won singles tournaments in 16 different countries:..."~~ Moved to 2007 section (not by me).~~ --tennis man 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
General comment: The paras are too stubby. I usually use a yardstick of no less than 4 sentences for a para.
~~The following sentences needs references:~~
- ~~Professional career does not have references. I think you need to add ref to all victories at a min. In fact, i shall add a fact tag wherever i think there needs to be a reference.~~
~~what is "AMS final"? Is it the tournament name?~~ My apologies. missed it in the prev sentence. --Kalyan 09:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
~~"In 2004, Federer had one of the most dominating and successful years in the open era of modern men's tennis." - POV statement unless backed by fact~~
~~"His forehand grip is somewhere between a modern eastern and mild semi-western." - as a non-tennis tech geek, i have no idea what the statement means. can you please add details~~
~~Records section: Need atleast a para in here rather than just point to a different article~~

Please leave a note on my talk page once you address these comments. --Kalyan 09:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

revisited the comments based on changes made. --Kalyan 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

references (follow-up to GA review comments)

with respect to the references added: 1. I am not in favour of having all victories referenced thru Federer's official website. I would prefer if we use references from ATPtennis.com or whichever website can be considered as benchmark for tennis news and analysis. This is akin to referencing cricinfo.com or cricketarchive.com for most of the data for a cricketer than his official website. If there is no other source of info but the official website, i am game for it; but otherwise i would like the reference to be changed to some tennis website 2. When using the same reference, can you avoid repeat of the reference by unique number and use the common reference name so that there are no duplicate weblinks

wrt to resolution of other comments, i shall respond above. --Kalyan 15:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I had similar concerns. If this article gets GA status, it could set precedence for other tennis bios. Hence, we should be careful not to let the referencing go "over the top". I really admire the great job done recently, but it cannot be reasonable to make a footnote reference to every match result mentioned in a paragraph. It must be sufficient to include reference to a given year's results, and wait citing the reference until the end of the description of the year. This will read much more natural both from a visual point of view (as of now the article is virtually plastered with footnotes making the reader NOT wanting to consult them), and from a pure referencing perspective (as of now several results point to the same URL, which really does not makes much sense). --HJensen, talk 18:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would strongly prefer that the ATP web page is used for citing results. It is in all likelihood the most stable URL, and it will in all other cases be the authoritative reference over players' own pages.--HJensen, talk 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I didn't agree on this kind of references, now I think it would be a pity if you agreed on starting again the whole thing... It couldn't have been easy to add references to all his results! I have deleted my previous contribution in the morning, because it seemed to be of no use any more, but who knows... If you still insist on changing the references, you could think about it, so I replace it:

I have written an article about Roger on the Hungarian Wikipedia, and I have put after each paragraph (eg. 2004) an external link to the particular year's playing activity page on atptennis.com. Check my article, and if you like my solution, it could be used here as well. Pumukli 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I think it should be left the way it is, now that it's ready. Pumukli 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I indeed do admire the job that has been done, but we should be careful not to let amount of efforts excerted blind our judgements (also, a fair amount of cpoy-pasting has been involved ;-) ). I think we should follow your approach, and use ATP results as cites. It is a very natural benchmark for Open-area results. Moreover, I don't think the article reads well with the "overreferencing" (if there is such a word). Think of any other bio (say, George W. Bush where every sentence would be followed by a footnote to the same website - it would be ugly and unnecessary). In sum, I don't think it should be left as is. I hope others will join in on this debate--HJensen, talk 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both point made. I think it is acceptable to have one reference at the end of the para for the year's results (though i am not certain it will be OK during FAC). Secondly, ATPtennis website should be used as much as possible instead of personal websites. Please implement the same and we can have the GA nom closed at the earliest and target FA nom. --Kalyan 07:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I was the one who went through and added every single reference for ^{[citation needed]}, I think they should be left as I added them ;-). Though it may now look the best, and his website was used a lot, it is better than not having any references at all. --tennis man 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think something should be done... We couldn't get the matter to a head, I see. I list my arguments why I used in my article (see above) external links at the end of each paragraph.
I think there's no sense in referring to the same page several times, even if we use a common reference name to avoid duplicate links, because it would be terrible to have the same number after each sentence in a whole paragraph.
It is not good either to have only one reference after the last sentence of the para, as sombody who don't now our agreement would think that it only refers to the content of the last sentence.
So there are two possibilities: having an external link at the beginning of the paragraph (eg. next to its title), or at the end. It would be logical to have it next to the title, but it's not aesthetic, and it would confuse the table of content. So that's why I think the best solution is the end of the paragraph, and it's not embarassing if we use small letters. I will demonstrate this idea on the paragraph of 2001, if you don't like it, delete it :-) Pumukli 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good enough I suppose. Better than having them all from the same website, anyway. Yeah. Go ahead. --tennis man 02:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the best idea (at least as far as possible), only I couldn't find any better. There is at least one problem with it: I think external links are rarely used in the middle of the articles. Please try to find other solutions as well, I think we shouldn't change anything unless everybody agrees. Pumukli 08:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This may or may not be a helpful comment, but WikiProject Formula One has got three driver articles to FA using a single reference at the bottom of the list of articles to the effect that "All Formula One world champsionship results are taken from www.formula1.com", with a link to the page. www.formula1.com is the closest thing to an official archive of results online. It hasn't excited much comment from reviewers and avoids having huge numbers of footnotes. See Damon Hill, Alain Prost and Tom Pryce. Cheers. 4u1e 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be also OK, though it would again have the appearance of not having any references at all... as it would be similar to the initial situation when there was nothing but an external link to atptennis.com at the end of the article. I don't mind what solution you find but I think something should be done to achieve the GA level (and the nomination will expire...) as it is clear that the present situation is not satisfactory. Pumukli 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As a semi-late aside, I made the references look a bit cleaner by using the format that I saw at the Madeleine McCann-related pages (not to make a point, but that's where I saw them), which uses:

It looks cleaner and is easier to scroll through. <selfdoubt>Though you may not be able to view each ref as easily. I must go check.<selfdoubt> --tennis man 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Why is a Swedish source not o.k.? I'm talking about the fact that one of history's most prominent players, Björn Borg, says that Federer will be the greatest - if he doesn't get injured and is still motivated for a couple of years to come. /Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.56.60 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 1 July 2007)

Since this is the English Wikipedia, people without knowledge about Swedish will have a difficult time assesing the reliability of the source. And since the statement in the article has five sources, there is not a desperate need for a source. That is why I guess the language problem becomes sufficiently severe. --HJensen, talk 11:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. But after all the strange stuff you find on Wikipedia this actually amazes me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.56.60 (talk • contribs) 1 July 2007)

The fact that there exists strange stuff in other articles is not a valid argument for putting strange stuff in an article (though avoiding non-english sources when english sources are available in an english encyclopedia is not actually 'strange' imo). BTW, remember to sign your posts.--HJensen, talk 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

The references comment has not been addressed and hence i think the article doesn't meet GA standards, primarily for referencing:

Use of player personal website should be limited to cases when no public information is available
Please use standard websites dedicated to the sports (like cricinfo.com for Cricket; formula1.com for F1, pgatour.com for Golf)
Please avoid populating references with the same data. Instead, use common reference name so that the editor is clear on the number of times a reference is used in the article

The 2 areas that i would like references to be focused - wins/play across years and awards (section doesn't have a single reference). Please address this and re-nominate for GA. As i earlier indicated, this page has enough data for taking to FA as well. --Kalyan 14:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Great feedback. I agree the material here is worth FA as well. I will track these changes and get solid references -- RC 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawkeye

Could that Hawkeye 'contradiction'(disruption, argument whatever) in the WIMBLEDON 2007 Final be added somewhere in the article. Controversies, maybe?

Yes. It should be stated that Federer does not like the computerized line calling system, as he sees no need to it. His frustration with the system can definately be seen in Wimbledon 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.142.167 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace?

From the infobox: Place of birth - Binningen, Switzerland
From the first sentence of the 'Personal life' section: "Federer was born in the town of Münchenstein (near Basel, Switzerland)"

The Binningen article confirms it as his birthplace, while the Münchenstein article says nothing.

Welche ist welche? -- jibegod 04:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources used (rogefederer.com and atp site), both state "Basel". I've put that in.--HJensen, talk 17:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Winning percentage

Does anyone think that it should be included with the player's career record? I can see using the win-loss percentage would make comparisons and contrasts between players easier, but then again, don't most tennis players have a percent between 70-80?--GregCujo 07:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be there. The infobox is updated continuously, and computing that is just another complication. Also, as you indicate, it is not that interesting a statistic (there is a problem of self selection: the players having full bios on Wiki are typically those with percentages around 75 or more). Some players mature "late" and will have many losses early in their career, and others will peak early and go down. So the overall number, if it says something, may only be interesting for a whole career, i.e., for retired players. For active plaers it should definitely not be there. The win-loss record is fine as it is. I think if people are interested in comparisons based on winning percentages, they can do the math themselves, or alternatively one could make a list comparing retired players' perentages.--HJensen, talk 09:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation of his name

...must be wrong. Or am I missing sth from the WP guidelines here? I mean, surely you can twist any name to its 'English pronunciation' (to use the term from the referenced website), but isn't the IPA pronunciation in the beginning supposed to guide the reader to its (for lack of a better word) native pronunciation? So obviously the g in Roger should be as in 'get', not as in 'geez'. --NeofelisNebulosa (моє обговорення) 06:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not according to himself. His mother is South African and he states himself that his name has always been pronounced the English way. See footnote 11. --HJensen, talk 09:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, though the question "English or French way" was peculiar because his mother tongue is German as we all know. Anyhow, intresting Q&A... --NeofelisNebulosa (моє обговорення) 07:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofelis Nebulosa (talk • contribs)

German might be his mother tongue, but I've read he's fluent in French and English as well, so maybe that's why someone asked. Whatever, on camera^(t) 14:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing "German" to "Swiss German." The source itself says "Swiss-German," and the Swiss-German dialect is different from regular German dialects. -- Yano 00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether Germans from Germany might pronounce "Roger" with a g as in "get"; no Swiss would do this, anyway. The Swiss (also the German-speaking ones) usually pronounce the name "Roger" the French way (something like "Roshe"). That Roger Federer's first name is pronounced the English way, however (neither the French nor the hypothetical German way), is well-known in Switzerland. Gestumblindi 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do know some German, and can assure you that the "g" in Roger is definitely "hard" (as in "get"). Swiss-German differs from German-German in some phrasal expression and is generally milder in pronunciation, but there will not be any exception on the hardness of the "g". The sound "g" as in "geez" does not exist in German (either Swiss- or German-). unregistered user 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm Swiss myself and I can assure you: The "Swiss way" to pronounce "Roger" is the French way. This applies to all German-speaking Swiss persons. Roger with a hard "g" as in "get" makes us Swiss just laugh. No Swiss would seriously pronounce "Roger" this way. Roger Federer's first name, however, is by most German-speaking Swiss pronounced the English way (similar to "Rodscher" if you would try to write it phonetically in German) because they know that's the pronunciation he's using due to his South African mother. Gestumblindi 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Records in the lead

Due to Federer's continuing dominance, the article's lead is getting longer and longer. Especially his Grand Slam acheivements imply several records that is being mentioned (either in terms of each tournament over the years, and Grand Slams within years). This makes the lead a bit cumbersome to read (a lot of combinations of tournaments added in different ways are mentioned; difficult to grasp for a non-tennis fan). I mean if the day arrived where he holds 15 Slams, that would probably be the only thing to mention. So as of now, I think we could perhaps trim down the stuff, where he is not the sole record holder. E.g., his 5-year Wimbledon record could be dropped, as that is shared with Borg. But then again, it is such a remarkable feat that not mentioning this is a bit odd. So anyone have some suggestions here on this (for Federer himself, luxury) problem?--HJensen, talk 14:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should and could be trimmed down. It doesn't need to be so wordy; combining sentences into shorter ones would work. I don't know, Tiger Woods' page doesn't have a difficult-to-read-slighty-lengthy introduction, but golf isn't tennis either. Hmm, there are too many "only player to do this feat" sentences, especially towards the end of the intro that could be shortened or moved down into the Record section (without it becoming massive itself). I mean, there's a whole page for his records, haha, on camera^(t) 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Will this article ever be a featured one?

I wish we could work on the quality of this article so that it might be ready to be a FA, the day Federer hopefully gets 15 GS. There's just too much clutter as it is right now with too much fanboyism for a wp article :( RC 15:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Greatest Ever"

The statement that everyone agrees he is the greatest player ever is a lie. What the citations support is almost all qualified phrase. Just for the record, here is what the quotes actually say:

• ^ "Roddick: Federer might be greatest ever", The Associated Press, 2005-07-03. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.

"He's the most physically gifted I've played against," said Roddick, who walked around the net to hug and congratulate Federer after the match. "But he's become a mental force, too."

• ^ "Federer inspires comparisons to all-time greats", The Associated Press, 2004-09-12. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.

McEnroe: “This guy could be the greatest of all-time.”

Jack Kramer: "Personally, I would have loved to have seen Don Budge or Ellsworth Vines play with this equipment. I don't care who's on the other side, whether it's Roger, Agassi, no matter. I think they would have figured out a way to win. They had the power and control."

• ^ "4-In-A-Row For Federer", The Associated Press, 2006-07-09. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.

No supporting statements at all.

• ^ Sarkar, Pritha. "Greatness beckons Federer", Reuters, 2005-07-04. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.

"Roger Federer is already being hailed as one of the greatest players ever to have picked up a tennis racket."

• ^ Collins, Bud. "Federer Simply In a League of His Own", MSNBC Website, MSNBC.COM, 2005-07-03. Retrieved on 2007-04-09.

“I’m not quite ready to call Federer the greatest player of all time, but make no mistake about it he’s probably headed towards that distinction.”

“he certainly could become the greatest to ever play the game.”

• ^ "Jack Kramer: Federer is the best I have ever seen", The Observer, 2007-06-24. Retrieved on 2007-07-15.

"'I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good,' he says. 'And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for minor update from a WP newbie, regarding section "Equipment & Apparel"

Hi, in the section "Equipment & Apparel" we can add the Indian cricketer Rahul Dravid also; he too appears in the Gillette ad along with Roger. Reference [5] Sena why 09:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page.. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He is added now.--HJensen, talk 22:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Orange Bowl?

In the Career section, it states Roger Federer won the Orange Bowl in 1998, but accoriding to this page, he did not win that tournament. However, Federer winning the Orange Bowl has been in the Wiki article for so long, I figured I might just be missing something. Someone care to look into this a little more?--GregCujo 03:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello GregCujo! I am not quite sure about the validity of the page you linked. Infact, I am not quite sure if that website is remotely legit. Here's the link to the official ITF results for Orange Bowl 1998. - RC 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo

The Red-Nike-Sweater-Photo should be immediately replaced. It fills no purpose and feels out of context. Is this picture the best free Photo availible -- no there are other on the wikipage that are better. It could be mentioned in the text that Nike is a Federer sponsor, however Wikipedia should not actively help Nike with its work. The important "headline"-photo should show Federer in his most natural environment, the tennis court, NOT standing still where nothing shows except a Nike sweater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.198.85 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 17 October 2007 and edited by —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacco77 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 17 October 2007

— I agree. I dont think this picture fills any purpose than giving Nike free publicity. Can you even get a sweater with that big Nike symbol on it =) ? If anyone has a better picture, for example Federer on a court that should be uploadedBaso80 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Baso80

This has been discussed (and closed) before: Talk:Roger_Federer/Archive2#Federer_photo.--HJensen, talk 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening Overview

The overview is too long I think for a good article in my opinion. Only his most important acheivements and information should be given in a concise nature.

The sentence "Widely regarded as the best player of his generation, he is considered among the elite group of all-time great male tennis players.[3][4][5][6][7][8]" could be changed to "Widely regarded as the best player of his generation, he is considered as having the potential to be the greatest male tennis player ever.(quote link...etc.)", or "Widely regarded as the best player of his generation and one of the all-time great players, he is considered as having the potential to be the greatest male tennis player ever.(quote link...etc.)".

- I think this is worth mentioning as his career currently has many great retired professionals, commentators and fans following his progress to become the best ever rather than 'just' an all time great, a factor readers should know.

Unnecessary statements that can be used only in the article:

"Federer is the first living Swiss to be pictured on a postage stamp, issued in April 2007 depicting Federer with the Wimbledon trophy.[9]"

- Is the swiss stamp sentence really necessary for the overview I think it would be better placed in a trivia section or atleast elsewhere.

"In 2007, by winning his third Australian Open title, he is the only male player to have won three separate Grand Slam tournaments at least three times.[10]"

- We already mentioned he has won 3 GS in a calendar year 3 times in the overview...this is better left in records.

"By winning the 2007 U.S. Open, Federer became the first player in the Open era to win four consecutive U.S. Open titles and the only player ever to win back-to-back Wimbledon and U.S. Open titles for four consecutive years (from 2004). He is also the first male player in the Open era to win at least ten singles tournaments in three consecutive years (from 2004 to 2006).[11]"

- Though spectacular acheivements this is also non-essential information unless a reader is looking for such detail and then they pursue the article further anyway.

Record vs Nadal

I'm not sure if it is THAT significant but check these statistics out now as they quite interesting to point out-

With the win over Nadal @ TMC 2007 SF and with the year having ended

-Federer now has a winning record over Nadal on hardcourts/indoor carpet with 3 wins (Miami 2005, TMC 2006, TMC 2007) and 2 losses (Miami 2004, Dubai 2006).

-Federer has amassed a winning record over Nadal for the 2007 season with 3 wins (Hamburg 2007, Wimbledon 2007, TMC 2007) and 2 losses (Monte Carlo 2007, French Open 2007) which is the first time he has had a winning season record over Nadal (however in 2005, they had win/loss tie of 1:1).

-Federer has a 2 win (Wimbledon 2006, Wimbledon 2007) and 0 loss record against Nadal on grass.

-From having 1 win and 6 losses to Nadal in 2006 prior to Wimbledon 2006, Federer has won 5 of the 7 matches they have played from Wimbledon 2006-present and is only 2 wins away from tying the win/loss ratio (currently 6 wins and 8 losses to Nadal).

-Nadal only has a winning record against Federer on clay with 6 wins and 1 loss.

-2008: Nadal leads 4-0. Now that is what is called domination. Therefore Federer still has only 6 wins against Nadal and 12 losses, ha! Go Nadal!

Enjoy.

Interesting statistics, but I don't think this might contribute further to the Roger Federer article in itself. That is, the statistics deals more with the Federer-Nadal rivalry. So it's either there is a new section for the rivalry in the Roger Federer article, or we just create a new article entitled "Tennis Rivalries" or something similar, and then include a Federer-Nadal section, in addition to Navratilova-Evert, Sampras-Agassi, etc. Joey80 (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I was thinking that some of the infomation could be placed after stating the TMC SF win over Nadal in the "2007" section. For example "With the win over Nadal, Federer now has ...." Just a thought.

Enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.135.3 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The "rivalry" belongs on a tennis site or a forum. It's not encyclopedic. It's something created by the media and fans. We don't want to speculate on Wikipedia. It is very interesting, but Federer has a couple different rivals that can be seen from different view points, such as David Nalbandian in this 2007. Remember, Wikipedia is more formal, for lack of a better word. Has to be neutral and all. The facts are important, but even so, talking about this rivalry would be unnecessary to the article about Roger Federer. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how statistical information is something that is "created by the media and fans" as all it is doing is just merely stating the facts, and I don't see how it wouldn't be considered "neutral" either. But even if we do talk about Federer's rivals, Nadal is truly the only one in his way. Of course David Nalbandian has gotten the upper hand on Federer on many occasions, but his losses to Nalbandian have been in the early stages of Grand Slams. Plus this was before Federer started his winning streak. The other losses to Nalbandian are basically from other tournaments that aren't as big as Grand Slams. On the other hand, Nadal has been the only obstacle from Federer acheiving Career Slam so if anything, Nadal is the only man standing in Federer's way at least from 2005-2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.135.81 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Davis Cup matches

I know they count as official matches, but do they count as tournaments or not? In 2007, his tournament tally is at 16, which does not include his appearance in the Davis Cup. However, his 2006 total says "18," even though he only played 17, so that total must include the Davis Cup. So, which is it?12.218.84.248 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not convinced that any Davis Cup participation counts as a tournament, per se, even if they are official matches, so I will update all the tournaments he participated in by removing the Davis Cup from the tally.--12.218.84.248 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Section Length

I've noticed that as the years go on, the sections grow larger and larger. This is a bit of a problem, as they are either poorly referenced, overly referenced, or just contain too much minor information. I managed to pare the 2007 section down a bit but we really need to work on deciding what is crucial information and what are simply fun facts. As we all know, trivia sections are discouraged, and lists of who beat whom at what tournament for what meaning (such as those about Nalbandian having an 8-8 record against Federer) mean nothing in encyclopedic context. --tennis man 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to rush the truth or exaggerate

Federer certainly has enough honors that there is no need to exaggerate. The article begins:

"Roger Federer (pronounced /ˈrɒdʒər ˈfɛdərər/[1]; born August 8, 1981) is a Swiss tennis professional, ranked World No. 1 since February 2, 2004, for a record 208 consecutive weeks."

Today is Friday, January 25, 2008, which means that 208 weeks after Feb. 2, 2004 will not arrive until January 28, 2008 -- three more days from now. If this article has any chance of being selected as a Wikipedia "good article", I suggest it stick to truth, and avoid claiming what is false or premature.Daqu (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My only possible defense of this (which I had nothing to do with writing) would be that it is impossible for any other player to overtake him, since Nadal lost. So, yes, in a way he has in fact continued his record before that date. AffirmationChick (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I confess that I'm being fussy and prefer to see news reported only after it has happened. Still, a good justification for the article as it was written may be that the rankings in question (ATP) are announced once a week each Monday. In that case, then what is relevant is that the 208th Monday would occur just 207 weeks after the first one, and so has already occurred on January 21, 2008.Daqu (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias or partiality: Federer's Australian Open 2008 Semifinals Loss

I note that this article has been written with some bias. One such instance would be the beginning paragraph for the 2008 period of his career. It is well-known that the excuses for a major tournament loss is usually overplayed in the case of Roger Federer, such as in non-Wikipedia fora or news. It is not surprising that this also happens in this Wikipedia article. The writing is of such a nature that it tends to imply that a previous injury or a short spell of being unwell is a major contributory factor for a subsequent match loss. This camouflaged form of subjectivity may not only mislead readers about the actual nature of the tennis match in question, but can also paint an unfair picture of the opponent who defeats him, because the opponent may have won with deserving merit, rather than just because Federer was unwell a fortnight ago or did not not play at his 'usual A-game' level. Articles describing major events in time should be written as impartially as possible, regardless of whether we strongly favour the event's major actor/s or not. Oxford Dictionary (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Some correction has now been made for the above. Oxford Dictionary (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. The facts should be reported, anything else is original research. If Federer says anything pertaining to any injury/illness, then it can be added. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And Federer did say in his press conference afterwards that he isn't even sure if the illness which had been like 3 or 4 weeks before had had a small impact on his movements, but he also said that he "likes to give credit to (my) opponents". He himself understood that Djokovic was playing at a high level, and the commentators understood that this level of play actually made the great Federer look a bit sluggish too. So people need to be careful about using bias. This isn't a blog. If Federer credits the opponent, which Djokovic played a very very good match, it's wrong for Wikipedia editors to say otherwise.

~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Federer has also said "I mean, considering, you know, my illness, I'm sort of happy with the result here."(Give me credit, says Open champ Djokovic) Something really should be added to the article indicating that. Everyone knows Federer is always graceful towards his opponents and he won't go about giving excuses. So it makes that statement about his illness even more important. The indication is he was ill even during the tournament. Why else would he struggle so much against Tipsarevic? --Mankar Camoran^talk 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that something could be mentioned about his illness (as it must have affected him in some way: eg. he couldn't prepare well), though not as an excuse. But what I would like to call your attention to is the negative tone of the paragraph so far, which also shows the influence of the media which over-dramatize his losses. The present wording is just as unfair with Federer as bringing up excuses would have been with Djokovic.

"But he participated in the Australian Open, where he lost in the semifinal to Novak Đoković 7-5, 6-3, 7-6(5). This ended his record string of Grand Slam final appearances at ten. The loss also ended his 37-match winning streak in best of five set matches on hardcourts. It was the first time that Federer had lost in straight sets in a Grand Slam singles match since he lost 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 to Gustavo Kuerten in the third round of the 2004 French Open. His last straight-set loss at a hardcourt Grand Slam tournament was even further back, when he lost in the fourth round of the 2002 US Open to Max Mirnyi."

As you can see, everything is about losses, you are speaking about losing in the SF (instead of reaching a semifinal), which ended a number of otherwise fantastic records. You also bring up his latest straight set losses, as if deterrents. The tone is negative and malicious as it calls the attention to the end of the streaks, without appreciating his huge achievements, as if they were normal, and he was a bungler by not keeping them up. Pumukli (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a little harsh! Any streak has to end, and when it does it would need to be reported as such. He did lose, and the streaks did end as a consequence. I think as it's written it does highlight the importance and unusual nature of the loss and of the streaks. Each streak is explained and the longevitiy is inferred. I agree that the sentance about losing in the semi, so i'll have a look at tweaking that. It certainly isn't malcious! Ged UK (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not fair to say, "Why else would he struggle so much against Tipsarevic". He played a great match and it isn't simply Federer that lost, Tipsarevic won. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Tipsarevic played well that night but, let's face it, there is no mortal who can even come close to beating Federer when he is at his best (except Nadal on clay!)! That's just my humourous opinion but analysts have agreed that Federer simply wasn't at his best. If that is not enough, Federer himself has admitted that he was ill, which is very important. Being an encyclopaedic article, it should portray the truth. BTW, Tipsarevic didn't win that night, although he almost did. --Mankar Camoran^talk 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OOps, did I say Tipsarevic won? Sorry bout that. I guess the match has that effect lol. I think everyone would not mind a good, referenced, neutral, and encyclopedic-necessary mentions of Federer's performance factors - so long as no one is trying to make any excuses for his tight win over Tipsarevic and loss to Djokovic. Because Federer certainly isn't. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't Federer's words reliable? There is no point in looking for anything else when he himself has said so. He didn't say anything when he lost some of the other matches. Perhaps his medical report would be better but I can't find it! Anyway, it is certainly better to just state facts without worrying about giving credit to any one.

And just for your information, "encyclopaedia" is, traditionally, the right way to spell the word. "Encyclopedia" is just a simplified form of it. --Mankar Camoran^talk 12:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that he went into the tournament recovering from illness and lack of practice, but definitely not to mention that as being a cause for loss; let the readers make that decision for themselves. So in other words, it's fine as it is. However, perhaps it should be noted that Kooyong is a warm-up tournament for the Aussie Open.--GregCujo (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What makes a tournament a warm-up tournament though? Whilst I'm sure we all know that it is, I don't think it's advertised as such, and if we put it in the article it's OR. Kooyong is only the tournament immediately before the slam. Ged UK (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think the tone is negative for Federer, as the whole paragraph speaks about losses. By reaching the semifinal, Federer continued his streak of Grand Slam semifinals (15), and saved his No. 1. ranking as well: these are not mentioned. By the way, today is the fourth anniversary of Roger's being World No. 1. Pumukli (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can see where you're coming from, but to be fair, almost the entire rest of the article is positive, and it is a paragraph about 2008, and the Open is the only tournament he's played in and he didn't win it. I think it says a lot about the expectations that we all have about him that we're having such a conversation about a man reaching the semi! However, I think we can probably include the GS semi streak stat. I don't think the number one needs to go in as it's mentioned in the lead and elsewhere in the article. Ged UK (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to pressurize my point. Thanks anyway for involving the SF streak. I only wanted to point out (to Oxford Dictionary, above all) that finding excuses is not the only way by which the media "overplay" Federer's losses. If he loses, everybody makes a fuss, "feeds the monster": people can hardly appreciate what he did achieve by getting that far (especially after an illness which deprived him of preparing in a normal way, which is a fact, and not an excuse). This is highly unjust, and the Wikipedia shouldn't adopt this habit. It hurts Fed more than any excuse can hurt his opponents, to whom Federer himself does justice, while nobody does justice to him. Pumukli (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"People, I think, are talking like I lost in the second round or something," Federer said. "But under the circumstances - having not played a tournament before and maybe being also a bit sick - I was actually quite happy with the result in the end." "Of course," he made sure to add, "I wish I could have played better against Djokovic."[6] Pumukli (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pumukli has made an excellent point. That's exactly what I was trying to say. His illness prevented him from preparing normally for the Open which made him more susceptible to defeat than usual. I agree that the article doesn't really do justice to him at the moment. By reading it one feels as if everything was normal. --Mankar Camoran^talk 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the point is until Federer himself said so, all we would be doing is speculating, and that's not what wikipedia is about. Now that we have a verifiable quote from him, it can be included. Ged UK (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Now the section is a lot more balanced. Thanks. --Mankar Camoran^talk 11:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my arguments! :) Pumukli (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mono

Federer was suffering from mono over the New Year and he's been recovering from its side-effects for most of 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/sports/tennis/08tennis.html --Madchester (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to intervene in your work all the time without actually taking a very useful part in it. I don't feel myself authorized to rewrite what you have already written, but I would really like to change your approach a little bit. I think you are too anxious not to write anything that may seem to be an excuse for Federer.

In March, Federer revealed that he was recently diagnosed with mononucleosis, and that he may have suffered from it since December 2007. He noted, however, that he was "medically cleared to compete."[44]

I think it is not a fair account. Not that I want you to explain his recent losses with his illness, but it certainly should be linked to them somehow. "They did more tests and they said I actually went through a very strong mono. Only later did they tell me it was all over and fixed. This was when I was quite relieved. I think I had food poisoning and mono at the Australian Open. I was sick prior to that before Christmas and that wasn't normal. I got sick three times in such a short period of time after not having been sick for like eight years."[7] Now the sentence about his illness is even in a new paragraph, carefully separated from the rather detailed report of his losses. (Also, I think this "medically cleared to compete" quote is quite out of place here; in this context it suggests that he is no longer a threat to other players' health. I may misinterpret it though, as my mother tongue is not English. But never mind this quote, it is not that important). What I really would like to tell you is to be just. For fear of being biased, you go too far the other way. Act as the subject of this article, he deserves to be listened to more than the media, as he does not go to extremes.
"I'm not the kind of guy who looks for excuses. I hate to do that," Federer said. "Even if I'm a little bit injured I wouldn't tell it right away it could always come out later, but then the story isn't as hot anymore. I'm surprised, really, how much people picked up on this story. I just thought I would give a quick interview and let somebody know how I felt and I'm feeling better actually. I think there's no need to lie about it either. Being sick is a normal thing; it's like being injured. I wanted to see how Dubai went for me. I struggled a little bit, but I felt fine. I was okay bringing it out in the news that week. I didn't want to do it [break the news] in Indian Wells. I wanted to get it out of the way."[8]
Pumukli (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite fair to express like it is done. This is an encyclopedia, and we can't write specualtions about how his illness has affected his performances. As it is written now, it is verifieable information. Whether the quote about being mediacilly cleared in the sense that he may affect other players' health, I don't know. I am not a doctor, but as the reference nor the ATP have expressed fears that he may pose a medical threat to other players, I don't think we should write about it. --HJensen, talk 18:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I must have been unintelligible:) I didn't mean we should write about his being a medical threat; I think this quote already suggests something like that (like he is now medically cleared to compete = he is no longer a threat), and that's what I don't like. But I may be wrong. Pumukli (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that medical clearance is about his own safety, not that of other players, but i've made no effort to read up about the condition and whether it's contagious or not. It's tricky to approach this. Federer himself says that he's not sure whether he had it at the Aus Open, and if he did whether it would have stopped him winning, and it's very difficult for us, because we obviously can't speculate. I'll let a few days go past and have another look at it, see if i can come up with something that hits a better balance. Ged UK (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Progress in 2008

Suffering from glandular fever, Roger Federer hasn't won a tournament so far this year (as of 15 April, 2008).

What has happened to the once mighty Roger? He was winning everything - particularly breezing thru the less important tournaments - but now he is being beaten before the finals. Is this simply due to this stomach virus or has he peaked and is now more mortal? I heard Djokovic say in an interview towards the end of last year that the men's locker room are now saying he is beatable and maybe this is true. Ivankinsman (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this talk page is for discussion of the article, how it can be improved etc, not about the subject. Thanks. Ged UK (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I only say this because I have been watching tennis since the days of Bjorn Borg, McEnroe and Gerulitis. I first noticed it with Pete Sampras that he started to look worn out from the constant pressure of being the world's top player. I think this may be affecting Rog. Sometimes I feel it might be better for him to take a break from the grind - even if a player has to maximise his playing time whilst he's still young - and then return refreshed and reinvigorated. Maybe go walking in the Andes/Rockies or something like that... Ivankinsman (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but then discuss those matters another place. Cheers.--HJensen, talk 16:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this article in The Daily Telegraph, 11th May, 2008,[[9]] now confirms what I have been saying here, and perhaps some mention of this should now be made in the article. Ivankinsman (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It confirms that people speculate about the strenght of Federer. But still, it is just speculation an thus unencyclopedic. In any case, He is still no. 1 and has improved or equalled (Monte Carlo) in all his Master Tournaments appearances this year compared to last year (plus won in Estoril). So he seems to be doing pretty well. --HJensen, talk 13:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Swiss-German

He was born to "Swiss-German Robert Federer". Just out of curiosity, what does that mean? That his dad is half-swiss half-german? Or that his dad is a swiss from the german speaking part of switzerland? - PietervHuis (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

External link to ZotFish?

Hi, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for someone to add an external link to the ZotFish page for Roger Federer?. I believe it's of genuine interest to readers, but I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia policy and not post it myself -- more info on the site can be found at Mashable.

Zotman (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The site violates WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and it does not enhance the article. It should not be added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames

Can we come up with some consensus on his nicknames. I've browsed through the WP:MOS, and couldn't find anything. I'm not very convinced that some of the ones we have now are particularly notable. Ged UK (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the references someone provided for these nicknames, and seriously what is this - just because someone blogs about Federer and makes a nickname doesn't mean that it warrants notability on wikipedia (see WP:Notability. There isn't even supposed to be a nickname section - of course many players have tons of "nicknames" - that's not what wikipedia is for. I'm removing that section now. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard Fed Express a whole bunch - but still, it takes away from the quality of the article - it's like adding a trivia section, you know, which is discouraged by Wikipedia. That's where something like that would go - and still, just because someone says it doesn't mean it should be here on wikipedia. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Recentism

Just pointing out the obvious - the career sections of 2007 and especially 2008 are disproportionately large compared to the previous years. Perhaps somebody who knows enough about the sport to sort the relevent stuff from the unimportant could give both sections a major trim? Lethesl 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling question

(I added a new section for this question, hope this is ok. 88.105.43.110 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Sorry to act like the novice that I am, but I have a comment regarding the term "runner ups." This isn't unique to the page on Roger Federer, but as a fan, I've noticed it here (and also on other pages).

Shouldn't it be "runners up?" Admittedly, the whole concept is a bit awkward, but can anyone weigh in on the proper term?

Regards.

Funksobruva (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Feel free to change it! Ged UK (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now I look at it properly, I'm not so sure. If it was two people who were each a runner-up, then it would be runners up. But referring to one person and how many times they've been a runner up, i'm not so sure. Perhaps we should just cut through it and call it 'finalist'?

Grand Slams

The French Open (Roland Garos) isn't listed with the other Grand Slams. Shouldn't it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.220.178 (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do you mean? Ged UK (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

make a new article with his statistics and results, like with Rafa Nadal

Nadal's article was too long and you made a separate results & statistics article for him, you should do the same with the Federer's one cause its even larger!

Rationale for statement

I was reading, and I was just about to remove this line in the 2008 section, just only because of NPOV and weasel words, etc. speculation and all: "A victory for Federer would have been his sixth consecutive Wimbledon singles title, breaking Borg's modern era record, and equalling the all-time record held since 1886 by Willie Renshaw" - but then I realized that this possible great moment is actually worthy of being included in this encyclopedic article for a variety of reasons. Not even to play down Willie Renshaw's achievement, but back then the winner was placed straight into the finals the next year, so one could definitely argue the vast impressiveness of Federer's near history mark in that respect. The way things look, I fear the world will have to wait a while before seeing another champion do it 6 times straight. It may be in 5 years, maybe 25. But I just wanted to rationalize the keeping of this statement in case anyone else might find it not belonging in a wikipedia article. And let's hope for my great finals like this one! ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And I also find it quite peculiar that Borg also had a chance for 6 in a row, but lost in the final of that possible 6th, as Federer has now done. Maybe that can be included in the Federer Record page. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and to a lefthander that he'd beaten in the final the previous year. There are numerous McEnroe/Nadal Borg/Federer comparisons, they just need to be sourced properly. Ged UK (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And we all know what happened after borg lost to McEnroe, though i doubt federer will do the same, i hope not anyway. but in matters relating to the article, i think we maybe should have a comparison, but then part of me thinks not as it doesn't seem very encyclopaedic Jimjom (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've no doubt that's part of why he said straight after the final "I'll be back next year". I've no problem with some comparison if it comes from a reliable third party, and isn't just OR. Ged UK (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sampras's words

Hello, I took the liberty to quote Pete Sampras's opinion about Federer in the 2008 section. My reasons were: I think that section does not do justice to Federer's achievements so far this year. If anyone but him had achieved the same, everybody would praise him. This article does not emphasize that it was Federer who had set the standard for himself: it only measures him by that standard. I think this is unfair, and a neutral encyclopedia should not follow the example of the unjust press. I know very well that it is impossible, but we should at least try to do Federer justice, if only by pointing out this problem of appreciation. It can best be done by quoting such a sentence from such a man, whose opinion is worth listening to. Pumukli (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roger Federer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs some cleanup and more references (there's the most in the lead..) but it could be a GA with some sprucing up.--Wizardman 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In some areas there are one-sentence paragraphs, which should be merged into another paragraph. Plus the records and trivia section is quite large, I would make a new article for the records, and anything that isn't actualyl a record in that section I would also like to see merged into the article.--Wizardman

The references really need to be cleaned up for consistency, correcting links, adding needed detail, etc. Mm40 (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)