Jump to content

Talk:Novak Djokovic career statistics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Performance timeline table

[edit]

There is no need to include a players results from the ATP World Tour 500 Series, 250 Series events etc as this information is already well documented within the player's own article. Including this information makes the table quite lengthy and it can be confusing for some people to understand. Results from the major events e.g. grand slams, masters etc should be the only ones included. Thank you. JayJ47 (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Career Grand Slam Seedings

[edit]

Is there need to include information about Grand Slam seedings? I personally find it quite redundant, and I also failed to find this kind of information on any similar page about other tennis players. Nightfall87 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you. There is also the problem of this article being too large which I will address in the next section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page size getting out of hand

[edit]

Wikipedia guidelines are to keep articles to about 60k in size and in exceptional cases go to about 100k, but no more. We have the Roger Federer career statistics article below this threshold and he's been playing much longer with more records than Djokovic. The wiki police could come around and see this article and demand some cuts, especially since this article is likely to grow in the coming years. I'll get rid of some fat to get it down to a manageable size but we'll have to keep an eye on this to make sure it stays under 100k at all costs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Streaks

[edit]

When a winning run becomes a streak, as we call it here? As I'm writing this, Djokovic is at 21 wins in a row, when we count 5 matches from the end of the 2012 season.--Jdjerich (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not before his streak enter top 10 streaks of all time. So let's say 32 wins in a row or more.Nightfall87 (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was also thinking, but then again, top 10 of all time is not so logical criteria. Anyway, then we'll wait till Monte Carlo. :-) --Jdjerich (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Head-to-head record against other players

[edit]

I'd just like to ask: where did you get the list of all players that were in TOP 10/20? There is no reference in the article, and I would like to use it for some other tennis player... stclaus (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reply：Maybe check them one by one on ATP official website.But the editors didn't mark down in wiki.maybe.--Shiouloo (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

major tittles details

[edit]

Should we add the datails of every Grand Slam's tittle?And all H2Hs of every player that Djokovic met.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be way way way too much. No Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Novak Djokovic career statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Novak Djokovic career statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laver Cup

[edit]

Laver Cup is not a National representation event, there's no need to put in the form. --Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed from the performance chart as it was not consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes in Performance timelines section

[edit]

I have edited the notes in the Performance timelines section using efn so the note superscript is automated with quick links to the note below. Since the 'Singles' and 'Doubles' sections use some of the same notes (Madrid Masters, Shanghai Masters, etc) I have consolidated them in one 'Notes' section common to both Singles and Doubles.

I recommend doing the same for the following pages/sections:

Roger_Federer_career_statistics#Performance_timelines

Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics#Performance_timelines

And other tennis career statistics pages as needed to make the notes cleaner and more reader friendly.

Thanks,

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial charts

[edit]

We may need to open this up to a formal RFC to allow all wikipedia editors of all topics to weigh in. The top 10 chart, where Djokovic's record against players who were ranked in the top 10 when they played, is great. It shows how well he did against top ranked opponents. But the charts of all players ever ranked in the top 10 and top 20 is really trivial stuff and should be removed. Many of these players have never been ranked in the top 10 when they played Djokovic. One of the complaints about tennis articles (especially the career statistic articles) is they violate WP:NOTDATABASE. Remember this is for all readers, not just the few that love trivial stats. Most would never care about how Djokovic did against a player that was never ranked above 80 whenever they have played. That's what this stat table is. It's trivia. Do you have a link to a source that publishes this trivia table? If not it would likely be Original Research. The table of who he has beaten that was in the top 10 when they played is certainly viable stuff. We should open this up to all of wikipedia to see if most non tennis folks think it's relative. It'll be a wikiwide rfc so we can get a large sampling. I worry they may not like a lot of the charts in the article, so more might have to go, but at least we'd know. If I open an Rfc, charts in the "ATP ranking" section will get a hard look, as will some of the win streak charts, which are pretty heavy overkill. And Grand Slam tournament seeds? That's really out there too. What source shows these seeding as a chart without doing original research? I'm not advocating for their removal since they are borderline trivia, but they will all get looked at in an RFC. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a discussion, even though it's only your opinion again :) Nevertheless I will try to explain you as detailed as possible, even though I doubt it will change your opinion because you seem like an unreasonable and stubborn person.
1. First of all you should find a dictionary and look for a word "trivial" because you dont know what it means.
2. If you have ever watched any tennis game or any other sport event, which I also doubt, you would have noticed that commentators at the beginning of every match give information about H2H of players/teams who compete, and for tennis even the H2H on the surface they play certain match. Those informations can easily be found on official ATP tour website and do not require any research, opposite from specific H2H when both players were in top 10 which would require Original Research, because that info can't be found anywhere, which makes them more trivial , which makes your arguments completely wrong.
3. I will also remind you that every world media published the article when Djokovic and Nadal got H2H against Monfils and Gasquet to 18-0 as greatest H2Hs in history. But no one told what is their H2H when they where in top 10.
4. The way you explained problem seems like low ranked player is forbidden to win against higher ranked player, or that it's not possible for that to happen, unless they are both in top 10 ?! Does this mean that we should also edit articles about Big3 or Big4 rivalries and delete those H2H matches where some of the players wasn't in Top10??
5. Ranking is amongst the most unimportant factors to decide who will win match. Many great players struggled with injuries throughout their careers, which kept them at low ranks but didn't stopped them to perform on level of top 10 player which they managed to achieve at some point (Del Potro). But you would just delete that ...
6. When we talk about rankings the ranking system itself is very compromised. Just look at the last season where neither player finished on place he deserved.
Example 1: it could have easily happened that Djokovic drops out from top 10 and great match he played against Rune in Paris final, wouldn't be mentioned neither in his nor Rune's stats! Because you would just delete that ... Example 2: Kirgyos would have entered top 10 with Wimbledon points which weren't given to him, and now is hard to believe that he will ever enter. But you would just delete those stats because 11-20 ranking players suck at tennis ...
7. In this century only 90-100 players achieved top 10 rankings and some 40-50 reached 11-20 rankings. You should show respect to those players because you seem to be completely unaware how great achievements those are. H2H stats are not meant to show only who is better player, but also how big some rivalries are, how long they are, to show through how many eras some player competed and with how many generations of different top players he faced and many more ... And the biggest advantage of this stats is that they are all at one place so people who want to see them doesn't have to type for every H2H separately and look at atptour.com.
Sorry if I was to long (in fact I have many more examples). I still don't have hope in changing your opinion even with all these facts given to you, but maybe some people with similar opinion to yours will be more open-minded than you. Of course if someone like that ever shows up :) 176.104.104.102 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After the first two sentences of nastiness the rest just didnt make sense. There are others removing the trivial original research also, not just me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I have expected – no constructive response was given. But the fact is you got exposed with facts :) It's your choice if you are going to admit you were wrong or continue embarrassing yourself and spamming articles :( 176.104.104.102 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are all being replaced so it's only a matter of time. And if you post nastiness like your first post then you are not worthy of a response. They are original research not allowed by Wikipedia unless you can show these exact charts are used in reliable sources. And they are absolute trivial except for really diehard stat lovers, and that is also not what Wikipedia is for. We need to strike a balance of useful data and trivial data. This is an encyclopedia which is a brief summary of a player's career. That type of data is fine for a book on the subject (if even then) but not for Wikipedia. That is why several editors are removing them. Since it was re-instated here I chose not to contest that, but I did add a template that should remain. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to read that first post as many times as needed ... Hopefully at some point you will understand and stop repeating that same nonsense like a robot. 176.104.104.102 (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple editors handling the change and OR removal so no problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This removal is sad decision. Wikipedia mods should know the rudiments of the field they are moderating.
The entire "Original Research" claim is backwards:
1) Top ranking is not trivia, it is a defining feature of a player's career. "Former top 10 player" means a lot, since it shows best ability outside of injuries/setbacks. It stays with a player for life (just like "Top100"), as anyone playing sports knows.
2) Every ATP database contains the information about players H2H across the career, while absolutely none contain "H2H while both in top 10", which would be both painstaking OR and completely useless.
3) Additionally, a ranking is a strongly lagging indicator: even in their breakout season, a player may not enter the Top 10 for 6 months due to a 2-3 bad matches at the slams. Wawrinka was ranked within the Top10 for just 3 years after age 29 (2014-2017). By the current logic, should all his other matches be disregarded? Is a fairer depiction of his H2H with Nadal 3-4 (both top10), or 3-19 (career)?
The audience for tennis player career statistics pages is the hundreds of reader passionate with stats. The H2h Wiki table was an extremely helpful piece of info, arguably the highlight of the entire Career Stats page and the only section reliably updated.
Scrapping it shows that Wikipedia is just becoming another boring formatted encylopedia, unresponsive to quirky demands. What a shame. 88.119.250.220 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut

[edit]

Can someone please add a shortcut to this page? djokovic stats

thanks 71.206.10.155 (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do shortcuts just for shortcut sake. We add redirects if it's a term that would logically be used to find something. And I think "Djokovic stats" is a normal thing to search for this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics&oldid=1213699089"