![]() | 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 |
Second Archive:Dates Vary
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)
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
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?
This article needs to be significantly down-sized to be in accordance with WP:SIZE. Yonatan ( contribs/ talk) 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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)
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).
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)
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).
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.
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 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)
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)
Thanks for the responses, I have now moved the statement into the intro. Dionyseus 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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.
Enjoy everyone
Code | Result | |
---|---|---|
|{{ User:Jairuscobb/Userboxes/FedererFans}} | Usage |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
Though I think it should be left the way it is, now that it's ready. Pumukli 19:41, 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)
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)
<div class="reflist4" style="height: 220px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px" >
<references/>
</div>
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)
The references comment has not been addressed and hence i think the article doesn't meet GA standards, primarily for referencing:
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
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 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)
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.
• ^ "4-In-A-Row For Federer", The Associated Press, 2006-07-09. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.
• ^ Sarkar, Pritha. "Greatness beckons Federer", Reuters, 2005-07-04. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.
• ^ Collins, Bud. "Federer Simply In a League of His Own", MSNBC Website, MSNBC.COM, 2005-07-03. Retrieved on 2007-04-09.
• ^ "Jack Kramer: Federer is the best I have ever seen", The Observer, 2007-06-24. Retrieved on 2007-07-15.
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)
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)
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
This has been discussed (and closed) before: Talk:Roger_Federer/Archive2#Federer_photo.-- HJensen, talk 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
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.
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? Leth esl 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
|
Last edited at 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Second Archive:Dates Vary
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)
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
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?
This article needs to be significantly down-sized to be in accordance with WP:SIZE. Yonatan ( contribs/ talk) 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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)
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).
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)
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).
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.
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 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)
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)
Thanks for the responses, I have now moved the statement into the intro. Dionyseus 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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.
Enjoy everyone
Code | Result | |
---|---|---|
|{{ User:Jairuscobb/Userboxes/FedererFans}} | Usage |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
Though I think it should be left the way it is, now that it's ready. Pumukli 19:41, 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)
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)
<div class="reflist4" style="height: 220px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px" >
<references/>
</div>
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)
The references comment has not been addressed and hence i think the article doesn't meet GA standards, primarily for referencing:
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
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 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)
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.
• ^ "4-In-A-Row For Federer", The Associated Press, 2006-07-09. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.
• ^ Sarkar, Pritha. "Greatness beckons Federer", Reuters, 2005-07-04. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.
• ^ Collins, Bud. "Federer Simply In a League of His Own", MSNBC Website, MSNBC.COM, 2005-07-03. Retrieved on 2007-04-09.
• ^ "Jack Kramer: Federer is the best I have ever seen", The Observer, 2007-06-24. Retrieved on 2007-07-15.
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)
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)
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
This has been discussed (and closed) before: Talk:Roger_Federer/Archive2#Federer_photo.-- HJensen, talk 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
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.
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? Leth esl 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
|
Last edited at 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)