Talk:Records held by Roger Federer

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.

Agreed. I have seldom heard non-American media mention this streak. It is of little relevance to a non-American audience.

- Do we therefore agree this should be deleted? Ashishgala 08:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 210.24.175.6 09:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have often heard non-American media mention this streak. Also there's the fact that 3 ATP Master Series events are held in the U. S. alone, and no other country holds more than one. And since these events are held on fast hard-court surfaces it is a persuasive evidence of Federer's prowess on the hard-court. Suggest that this one be left alone. There will be people worldwide who find this informative.

- I disagree. If hard court prowess is to be proven, a winning streak on hard court should be used. Not the one in North America Ashishgala 08:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also compare the total court time spent by Frederer, Sampras and borg to win 4 Wimbledons, plus how many rallies each has to play and how many decues and break point opportunties each had both in their favour and against them.

Removed this point:

By winning the 2006 U.S. Open, Federer became the only male player (and the only player in the open era) to win the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in the same year for three consecutive years.

It's factually incorrect since Federer lost in the semi's of the aussie open on 2005 to the eventual winner, Marat Safin.211.26.118.7 14:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federer has won 55 matches in a row on grass. The source quoted, saying it is only 54, is wrong. He won 5 consecutive Wimbledon Titles, thus 5 x 7 (=35), as well as 4 times the Grass Court Tournament in Halle (4 x 5 = 20). Please correct that in the article!

The article is correct. One of Federer's matches at Wimbledon was a walkover, which does not officially count as a win. Tennis expert (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing list items

Third bullet (currently) item under Grand Slam section: "Federer's victory at the 2004 U.S. Open marked the first time in the open era that anyone had won his first four Grand Slam singles finals."

What does this mean? This is very poorly worded. The best I can make out, it means that no one else in the open era had victories in each of their first four trips to a Grand Slam final match. Too much thinking is required to extract that meaning. Reading quickly, one might assume that the writer is referring to the age at which he achieved some feat, or perhaps that he won each of the first four Grand Slams that he entered.

I am not yet proposing a re-wording (though I will think about it), but I do believe this should be re-worded for clarity.

Also, a few items down begins "By reaching the singles semifinals at the 2007 Australian Open,..." I think that the last sentence of this list item should be reworded to read "He subsequently extended this record to fourteen by reaching the semifinals in each of the 2007 French Open, Wimbledon, and U.S. Open.

71.169.52.73 18:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I suggest a merger of this with the article on Awards. What do you think?--HJensen, talk 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree, three articles (bio, records, awards) is a bit much, even for Federer Wolbo 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to do as soon as possible. We need this article tip top for 15 slams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Federerslam (talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I agree, this is too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.3.7 (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would the new title be though? Records and awards won/held by Roger Federer? List of awards and records held by Roger Federer? Recirds and awards won by Roger Federer? A title that combines the two is really the only issue that I see here. --tennis man 16:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Records and awards of Roger Federer? :-) Pumukli 17:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about... for the biography, just Roger Federer as it is, and merge the awards and records articles into "Accomplishments of..." or "Achievements of..."? It seems to me the records page actually is both records and notable achievements/comparisons. So the "Records held by...." title isn't really appropriate anymore. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better the way they are now, since they are totally different subjects, we are dealing with a list and a non-list articles here, both of which are considerably long so merging them will just create an oversized disorganized article, while this way is more specific and neat, I say it stays the way it is. Habibko (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

1. Federer snaps Sampras' 31 match winning streak at Wimbledon

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/2001/wimbledon/news/2001/07/02/wimbledon_monday_ap/

2. Federer wins Junior and Pro Wimbledons.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/2003/wimbledon/news/2003/07/06/wimbledon_sunday_ap/

3. Federer wins first 4 Grand Slam finals

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/3648700.stm

4. Federer streak of 7 straight Grand Slam Finals snapped at Roland Garros.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/12/sports/tennis/12tennis.html

5. Federer wins 12 of 14 Grand Slams

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/sports/tennis/10men.html?fta=y

6. Federer wins 3 Grand Slams in a row at 2006 Australian Open

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/low/tennis/4656846.stm

7. Federer becomes first man to win 3 Grand Slams in a row twice at 2007 Australian Open.

http://www.tsn.ca/tennis/news_story/?ID=193974&hubname=tennis

8. Federer ties Borg with 5 straight wimbledon wins.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon07/news/story?id=2929085

9. Federer drops fewer sets then Sampras or Borg

http://championships.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/articles/2007-07-07/200707071183832720140.html

10. Federer first to win 8 grand slams in 3 years and 12 in 4.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen07/news/story?id=3011797

11. Federer first since Laver to reach finals of all 4 slams in one year, and the first in 2007 to do the feat twice.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen07/news/story?id=3012146

12. Federer first to reach 8 straight grand slam finals.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/french07/news/story?id=2897385

13. Federer wins 6 of 7 grand slam finals, equalling Rod Laver.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus07/news/story?id=2744992

14. Federer wins Australian open without dropping a set.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus07/news/story?id=2744992

15. Federer wins 12 Grand Slams second behind Sampras.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen07/news/story?id=3011797

16.

Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering - weeks

Ok so I just did some math on my trusty calculator and phone here. Federer has been number 1 since February 2, 2004. As of February 4, 2008 (also a monday) - that would be 209 consecutive weeks. This is 1463 days (209 x 7). (Why people keep putting 210 as of 2/4/08 I know not why).

Now... if you add 4 x 365 days = 1460 days to February 2, 2004, you get February 1, 2008 that he has been number 1 for exactly 4 (365-day) years. This included 2004's leap-year day and, of course, weekends.

Actually, yeah I guess I thought the date was incorrect, but it was just the 210 weeks that was wrong.
2/2/04 - 2/4/08 = 209 weeks but also 4 years, 3 days.

So this is just reference. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification,

"I counted every week by hand. It looks tempting to just say 48 weeks left in 2004 after February 2, but you actually have to count it out, which I did on my phone. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... and so on. Starting Monday, February 2, the first week was until february 8 and say... 11:59:59 pm. February 9 started the second week. So I did that every Monday, by the time I got up to February 4, 2008 it was 209 weeks, and 1463 days (February 1 was exactly 365 x 4 days after February 2, 2004)

I'm not trying to diminish Federer's weeks at number 1; I am a big fan of his and his matches. But I don't think the counting is correct - especially when you do it out by hand.

And for your reference that you pointed out, when it says "As of February 4. 2008..." that is completed weeks at number 1 (since it is a Monday also actually). It doesn't make sense to say he has been number 1 for a week when it is only the first day for example. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"

(I copied this from a communication I had with Makhan100 just in case. I know the counting can get a little crazy sometimes, but I did make sure of it, 3x)

~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud, now it all says 215 weeks, and the websites say 215 weeks, as of March 10, when it should be 214! Are they counting a different way or something? From Feb 2, 2004, did they count Feb 9, 2004 as week number 2? That must be what they have done. In terms of time elapsed since turning number 1, Federer would be at 214 weeks and 2 days today. What is happening? ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. - Please answer? I don't really agree with this numbering, though I suspect then that it is counted as I've detailed in this last post? ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vague article name

"Records held by Roger Federer" is an ambiguous title. "Tennis records held by Roger Federer" is more accurate and to-the-point. Fdssdf (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

This page needs serious organization. Random records, in no particular order, and typos and grammar mistakes. I can't find anything! Please work on clean up guys. I try to help from time to time, but with a page like this people just add any record they can think of, and many are not sourced, which also is a problem. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological organization would be good. When he exactly set these records, and even by tournament. So the recent 2008 US Open should be last. This article is really a mess. GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]