Jump to content

Talk:Nikolay Davydenko

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

Deal with Dunlop

[edit]

Davydenko recently signed a deal to wear Dunlop clothes and use their rackets [1], but he is still using his Prince racket while testing out the new Dunlop frames. I'm not sure how to rewrite the equipment section because he still uses Prince. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.164.103 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk

[edit]

- added reference from original article Macavity7 07:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis Career section

[edit]
  • I've also removed a lot of the ATP site-style ellipses - apart from any copyright issues, they are just hideous and obfuscating - and put in Wiki- and reader-friendly dot points. Still needs work though, since it's still heavily reliant on the ATP site. I'm not sure every single appearance in a Futures final by a player of Davydenko's caliber merits a mention. Macavity7 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Davydenko is the sole being who inspired to become high quality at tennis. because of his exceptional temperament and will to succeed, in my view, he is the greatest tennis player this world has ever created, eclipsing the likes of Roger Federer, John Mcenroe and Timothy Norman. Well done Nikolay. If you need my experience at playing in high class tennis situations, don't hesiate to give me a ringer ding ding !!!

Isn't it a well known fact that Davydenko doesn't have a kit sponser, because he's got such a bland and boring personality, so no one will sponser him, should this be mentioned at all?...LazyManJackson 18:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for the vandals - I'm doing my best to fix the page. DanielSong39 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia please monitor Davydenko's page for vandals. There has been a lot of irrevelent info edited. I'm trying to remove it as well. I've contributed a lot to this page this year, writing most of the original info and updating the page. I don't want vandal ruining it all.

This page should probably be protected

[edit]

The allegations of match fixing are being reported in the mainstream media--see http://www.rte.ie/sport/tennis/2007/0803/tennis.html among others -- yet these articles are being removed from this page even though the references are sourced. 68.45.106.216 12:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have no objection to these things being incorporated into the Davydenko article, but you have to produce verifiable references that they're true. Until then such controversial edits are not acceptable. Xdenizen 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reference quoted above that was removed from the article. If that news source isn't good enough, here's one from the BBC. Is the BBC considered an acceptable news source by the Wikipedia admins? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6928635.stm 68.45.106.216 16:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tennis/story/0,,2140899,00.html
The basic fact that Betfair have voided over $7 million dollars worth of bets due to suspicion of match fixing - following Davydenko's retiral - is not under question. One gets the impression that some people have "pet pages" on Wikipedia which they defend against all unwanted information, regardless of the provenance, or the quality of the references. Organica 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The story is now on the front page of ESPN and Yahoo Sports. The fact that articles from places like RTE and the BBC are being removed as "not verifiable references" is absurd.

I've put up a reference to the Betfair betting scandal on the Betfair page, under "controversies". I'd hold off putting info about the scandal on this site until more is revealed about the case - so far there is no evidence of match-fixing. DanielSong39 06:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

[edit]

Under playing style the first sentence says "Davydenko employs an aggressive tanking game although he is capable of playing an all-round fix. His main strengths are his ability to retire, lightning foot speed,bank balance and return game." Later it says "Davydenko's best tank shot has to be his backhand which he can hit out at will, cross court and with extreme angles or dolly it into the net if needed." Later in the last sentence under trivia it says "...due to the fact that he throws more tournaments per year than any other player..."

I don't know how to fix this stuff but it's controversial to say the least.66.65.88.136 01:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still says all that stuff, plus under playing activity for 2004 it says "Followed with title in Munich (d. No. 5 Schüttler in QF, first bet on Betfair, Verkerk in F) and 3rd RD at AMS Rome (d. González, l. to Spadea)"66.65.88.136 18:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is being investigated by the ATP for the potential unfair play. This is undebatable so it should be mentioned in the page. You can't keep deleting these comments. http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/sports/tennis/07araton.html

So far there is no evidence of any foul play. Once more information becomes available it may become appropriate to include this article. But as of now, any allegations of match-fixing is pure speculation. At this point it would be more appropriate to call this a betting controversy, and not a tennis controversy - and as such, pertinent information can be found on the Betfair page. DanielSong39 18:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not speculation, it is an absolute truth about him that he is being investigated by the ATP. Once he is cleared, then the information can be updated that he was investigated, but found not to have engaged in unfair play. It is not speculation that he is being investigated and it is clear from what is written that his involvement is not certain. If he is mentioned in Betfair's page, why is it wrong to mention Betfair in his page?! Nothing I have written is untrue and my comment was excerpted from the NYT. This is not your "pet page" danielsong39 and information that is true deserves to be put in wiki. If you read the policy on living persons in Wiki, this is totally within the guidelines established by Wikipedia. Here is an example taken directly from the policy: " Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." Quit deleting my comments!

Seriously how can anyone suggest the recent events should not be mentioned in the article. While it would not be fair to label him a cheat, to whitewash any mention of the controversy is absurd. As stated above there is nothing controversial about mentioning the allegations, nor the fact Betfair voided the market, as these facts can be verified. If he is later cleared of any wrong doing, that information can be added to the article. I'm not going edit but DanielSong you need to stop reverting valid edits. 212.140.167.98 23:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DanielSong looking at your edits I see that you have been reverting a lot of real vandalism on this page, and that is to be commended, but you must stop reverting valid edits. 212.140.167.98 00:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUIT CHANGING MY EDITS DANIELSONG! The excerpt was taken directly from the NYT.--Tdccm 06:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danielsong, please stop changing the edits about the gambling controversy! This addition was taken from the NYT and is only one of many references.--Tdccm 11:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davydenko's Innocence

[edit]

Why did sum1 remove the the sentence that Davydenko and Arguello are innocent? There is no proof of them of any wrongdoing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.173.63 (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because that statement is untrue since he is under investigation. the proof is to be determined--Tdccm 23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Danielsong needs to quit changing the page to suit his own biases about Davydenko. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdccm (talk • contribs) 01:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information from NY Times is misleading, and does not describe the full extent of his poor play preceding the match, or his physical condition before and during the match. DanielSong39 01:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are also misleading by saying he "needed a painkiller injection just to able to start the match" and in "poor form", both of which are your own biases. Where is the reference for this?--Tdccm 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out; could not find it in references. Put in a few new reference, which now backs what is written. I think it is fine now.--HJensen, talk 00:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the proper references that reference Davydenko's physical condition at the time of the match. His use of painkillers before the match was "locker room knowledge" but did not make it into mainstream media - probably the reason why the gamblers took a shot at Arguello in the match.DanielSong39 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed them in footnotes to be in conformity with the rest.--HJensen, talk 00:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redundant text danielsong39 added regarding the details of his foot injury since the same thing was stated in two consecutive sentences.--Tdccm (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined tennis markets for quite some time and I can attest that large swings in betting odds occur frequently, based on the physical condition of the player. Even if a player is a set up, the odds will often swing against them if the player seems to be in poor physical condition or suffering from injury. For example, Clijsters was once listed as a 6-1 underdog to Mauresmo while on serve in the final set - as the aforementioned player suffered a foot injury during the match.DanielSong39 (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davydenko's Grand Slam and Master Series Table

[edit]

Can someone fix it up like it was before but just with 2008 year added please??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.173.63 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davydenko´s citizenship

[edit]

I do not understand the reason for application. I think that this is an interesting issue. As far as I am informed he was born in Ukraine. How he got russian citizan? Or is he born as russian? He left his country and have lived for many years in Germany. So this can be a reason for decideding to be german. This is possible. Hoever it is not possible to get citizan of two EU countries. This means that you can not be German or Ausrian citizan, at the same time. I have heard, that he moved to Austria/Pörtschach. He has a house there and is managed by his older brother Edward and Ronnie Leitgeb. A very interesting story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.132.104 (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davydenko's Playing style

[edit]

Who keeps editing that section by removing parts of it?

I pretty much wrote up the whole Davydenko wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.173.63 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would somebody remove the part about him running around his backhand to hit his forehand? Are you denying that fact? How can his backhand be his best shot given that he himself tries to hit more forehands than backhands and he runs around his backhand all the time.

Wikipedia is not about ownership. If you write something I disagree with, I will change it. So, as a retired tennis coach who has watched him play live at least 7 times now, I'm not sure who came up with the line about Davydenko having "extreme power" on his groundstrokes. He doesn't. In reality, he hits them EARLY, which makes life awkward for opponents. His game - when on - is brilliant, but let's not call it "powerful" (Del Potro and Soderling have power - not Davydenko). His footwork is truly among the best of all time. Look at the tapes from London '09 and the Australian '10. He's far quicker than most people realize but doesn't get credit. (Go ahead and delete my edits. Then I'll come back and delete yours. It'll be like a tennis match)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.63.225.6 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

schedule?

[edit]

The article might benefit a bit from adding a link to Davydenko's schedule, especially because:

He is said to play so much.
He seems to be skipping the two grass tournament segments leading up to Wimbledon, though he is listed as being expected to play at Wimbledon.

I did not find his schedule on the Web. Thanks for any ideas or info. Bo99 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not here, as Wiki should provide verifiable facts (thus dealing with the past), and generally not information about schedules pertaining to the future, which can change.--HJensen, talk 05:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tentative idea, but it seems strange to think that Wiki cannot state a supported, verifiable fact about intent, e.g. country C plans to launch a mission to Mars on date D in the future. I did not find any such ban in the Verifiability guideline. Perhaps you would be able to find some evidence of such a ban? Thanks again Bo99 (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yearly highlights section is inherently POV

[edit]

Sorry but this section is completely down to someone's idea of what is a "highlight". There are no criteria defined and even if there were, it would be entirely subjective. I propose this section be removed and placed on the talk page until someone with the expertise is prepared to re-insert information into the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, what objective criteria should an editor use to determine which information should be included in a Wikipedia article? If not "highlights", then what? Tennis expert (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert in these areas, but deciding on what a particular player's highlights are is entirely subjective and non-encyclopedic. We should be aiming for (1) "engaging prose", not bullet point lists of someone's idea of a highlight, and (2) a summary of the major events which would be of interest to a broad audience, not intricate detail designed to entertain tennis fans only (e.g. "... in 5 sets, having held a match point." really is over-the-top. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This proves the bankruptcy of your theory. Deciding what is a "major event" of "interest to a broad audience" is a subjective task, just as deciding what to include in any article (tennis related or not) is a subjective process based on editor consensus. And given that you are not well-versed about tennis, your opinion about whether a five-set match that included the saving of multiple match points should be included in an article does not have the weight you apparently believe it is entitled to. Tennis expert (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In anyone's book, that is intricate detail, excessive to the point of trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. And your insisting that only you know what should or should not be in a Wikipedia article is disruption and a regrettable element of ownership. Tennis expert (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm trying to get one of the tennis bios peer reviewed with GA or FA in mind. It will be instructive to hear from others with an outside view who aims for articles of the very highest Wikipedia standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. Daniela Hantuchova. What a joke. That article has innumerable problems. Tennis expert (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, among those being a rambling, non-summary style and a reliance on intricate and "everything-and-the-kitchen-sink" facts that only appeal to serious tennis fans or experts. Hopefully any changes and recommendations for that article will help set a positive precedent for the rest of the tennis biographies to follow. AlonsornunezComments 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point of view Tennis expert, "What a joke". I'm trying to start improving these articles using the tools available to us, such as peer review, and all you can offer is "What a joke" - how unconstructive would you like to be here? At least some of us are trying to see a way of getting a tennis article up to a reasonable Wikipedia-wide accepted standard. Maybe you'd like to help instead of just sniping at us. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The joke is that you chose an article that is far below the standard of other tennis articles. A reasonable person would have selected an article that was closer to perfection, whatever that is, instead of an article of a woman that some consider to be "hot". I don't know what you selection criteria are but I hope hotness isn't involved. Tennis expert (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am favor of improving articles. If improving an article results in it achieving good or featured status, so be it. But I will oppose the dumbing or cutting down of articles to reach that status. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to present reliable knowledge to the public, not comply with obscure technical writer rules established by a small unelected group of good and featured article reviewers. Tennis expert (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't want to help get articles to GA or FA? You want tennis articles to be independent of the way the rest of Wikipedia works? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said. Tennis expert (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right that you don't know what my selection criteria are. How would you? I am 100% positive it will make little or no difference to you whatever is said at the peer review, I acknowledge that already. But at least some of us are trying to achieve GA or FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That will depend on what the peer reviewers say, obviously. Tennis expert (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That, I'm afraid, is not obvious. If you personally disagree with what is brought up in the peer review, you will simply dismiss the findings as produced by a "small unelected group" or similar, preach "established consensus", use the BRD essay to systematically revert any reversion you personally disagree with and the project will lose more good writers as a result of their edits being treated no better than vandalism. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambling Man, at what point does an editor's continued disruption in the face of community teamwork and article-building become too much? What avenues does one pursue? Hopefully, a peer review will be enlightening to some and will help to build unity around getting some FA quality work done, but I fear that more stonewalling is likely. AlonsornunezComments 12:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You let fear and pessimism and assumptions of bad faith run your life too much. Tennis expert (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're probably right Alonso. But we should continue despite the opposition. We may just get a good or featured article out of this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV-sect

[edit]

This article contains an unhealthy amount of POV writing. The following need attention from someone with expertise in the subject matter:

  • "This performance captured the public eye of his talent and ability."
  • "It was a steady year ..."
  • "...made huge strides ..."
  • "...was backed up with solid performances ..."
  • "After a solid year..."
  • "...in 5 close sets 3–6 7–5 6–2 4–6 4–6" (and since when was 6-2 close?)
  • "After a great season..."
  • "...his rapid rise into the ..."
  • "...in 4 tight sets, 4–6 6–3 6–7(7) 6–7(5). "
  • "...breaking his streak of two straight semi-finals." (two is a streak?)

Also, the prose is poor. Most of the sentences are missing an article e.g. "Finished the season with a win ..." This should be written "He finished..." or "Davydenko finished..."

Also, the career highlights section needs some attention. "Highlight" is inherently POV. Can the authors of this section define what is and what is not considered a highlight please. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From an online dictionary:
high·light (hlt)
n.
1. An area or a spot in a drawing, painting, or photograph that is strongly illuminated.
2. An especially significant or interesting detail or event.
I trust that helps. Tennis expert (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very sarcastic. Thanks. And how have you and other editors hand-picked these particular "highlights"? What criteria have been applied on the selection of these items? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Through consensus. You've heard of that process by now, right? Tennis expert (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well we need to be objective, right? This "consensus" is simply down to bad habits being perpetuated by editors who are clearly unaware of WP:NPOV. I would like to see the criteria for inclusion. "Consensus" is inadequate and doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supposition on top of supposition. And you just don't get it. Subjective decision making is used when deciding which verifiable facts are going to be included in an article, based on importance, relevance, impact, or whatever the people involved decided to use. You apparently weren't around when the article was written. So, if you are so determined to find out why things are in it, look at the article history and then send people some talk page message or e-mails, i.e., do your homework. Tennis expert (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I need to do is make sure the article is NPOV. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a simpler solution is to remove the phrase "Highlights"... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence incomprehensible

[edit]

The very first sentence of the first section, Personal Life, seems to have had content cut out of it in one of the moves mentioned in earlier discussion.

"Davydenko was born on the belief that Russia would afford more opportunities to become a professional tennis player."

Perhaps it was - born in Ukraine but family moved based on the belief - etc. In any case it is meaningless as it stands and should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.98.127 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nikolay_Davydenko&oldid=1206895354"