Talk:2009 AFC Champions League

2009 Access List[edit]

The access list can be found here

In summary:

The 8 groups will be split, 4 west and 4 east.
The 16 west teams will be made up of Saudi Arabia (4), Iran (4), UAE (4), Jordan (1), India (1), Kuwait (1) and the Play off winner. The playoffs will involve Uzbekistan, Qatar, Syria and a 2008 AFC Cup finalist.
The 16 east teams will be made up of Japan (4), Korea Republic (4), China (4), Australia (2), Indonesia (1) and the Play off winner. The playoffs will involve Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and a 2008 AFC Cup finalist.

Format

Play-Offs - 2 rounds, each 2 legs, on a regional basis (December 2008 and February 2009?)
Group Stage - 8 groups of 4, home and away round robin, on a regional basis (Spring 2009?)
First Knockout Stage - 16 teams, Group winner v Group Runner-Up, one leg, on a regional basis (late 2009?)
Quarter/Semi Finals - 8 teams, random draws (late 2009?)
Final - one leg on neutral venue

Fridge46 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play-offs are 1 leg according last page of that file. Mousega (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page seems to indicate that, without stating who will host the playoffs, and the AFC calender only allocate 2 matchdays for the playoffs. But I have a question: If both AFC Cup Finalist comes form the same region (i.e. both from East Asia or both from West Asia)?Frankie goh (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question: What if

SAFFC/

Home United/

Dempo qulify for 2008 AFC Cup Final and win the domestic league, the spot will go to league runner-up or AFC Cup semi-finalist?

I have a question: If Adelaide United wins the 2008 AFC Champions League, will they qualify for the tournament as the defending champions by taking one of Australia's qualification spots? Or can they not qualify at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.180.39 (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Team Names[edit]

Recently, i have been removing qualfied team names, simply because these teams have not qualified for the tournement. Please only put in correct information. For example, the Chinese slots and Thai slots keep having club names entered, when thir season's are no way to completion.

Druryfire (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. Can someone please explain why most Asian countries are not allowed to compete? Where are the clubs from Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Oman, Malaysia, North Korea, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.196.165 (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They drop into the AFC Cup (UEFA Cup for Asia). For some reason, they don't allow for qualification rounds like the UEFA system. Also, I don't know how they'll deal with a ten-team A-League next year (it arguably ups their quota allowed to 3; either they'll change the rules to keep Australia at 2, lose a qualification spot, or bump Indonesia rather unfairly.) 121.208.19.160 (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3+1 foreigners rule[edit]

From the AFC source: http://www.the-afc.com/eng/articles/viewArticle.jsp_168329304.html Should be updated in the main page, pending new catergory to be created.Frankie goh (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan, Syria and Kuwait cut from eligible list[edit]

From an Australian source (FoxSports) http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24578225-5012708,00.html Should be updated in the main page, however, since the list is still not final, maybe we can wait for the final list to be confirmed before updating.Frankie goh (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K League Representitives[edit]

What is the format for qualification from South Korea?

I think, although i'm not too sure, that the K-League will enter their Cup winners, the regular season league winner and runner up and then the team that wins the play-offs, (team that gets furthest assuming the winner is the side that has already qualified). Is this information correct?

Druryfire (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff winner, runner-up and the losing semifinalist will be awarded the 3 spots. The regular season winner will get a bye into the final and the runner-up will get a bye into the semifinal, so actually top-2 had got the spots. It is incorrect to said that the spots will go to the regular season top-2 and the playoff winner. Mousega (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it now, before i didn't know the process for the K-League play-offs. But all is now understood and correct in the wy you put the article before

Druryfire (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying play-off[edit]

It seems that only five teams will be doing the qualifying play-off, and not eight [1]. --MK (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group stage table[edit]

Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Ulsan Hyundai	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Newcastle Jets	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Beijing Guoan	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nagoya Grampus	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

	BEI	NAG	NEW	ULS
Beijing Guoan
Nagoya Grampus
Newcastle Jets
Ulsan Hyundai

Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Ulsan Hyundai	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Newcastle Jets	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Beijing Guoan	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nagoya Grampus	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0


Ulsan Hyundai		–	–	–
Newcastle Jets	–		–	–
Beijing Guoan	–	–		–
Nagoya Grampus	–	–	–

I think the bottom one is much better, any thought?Mousega (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AgreedDruryfire (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be some way of denoting that the top two qualify, the green line serves that purpose in the current (top) tables. The use of flagicons in the bottom example is better, except that the flag wraps onto a second line beside Nagoya Grampus in the grid, that could be prevented using a {{nowrap}} template. Certain people would argue that the use of flags is decorative, but I am not one of those people. MTC (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Mousega (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, the bottom one is now far better than the top one, in my opinion. MTC (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not appropriate! It seems that the team are going to play the countries. But that's not true! Raymond "Giggs" K o 07:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no need to put one more flag there. The flag made the article large, increasing the loading time. Raymond "Giggs" K o 20:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you put the flags in, it will seem like the national teams are competing, and to very stupid people who don't recognise the flags that there are countries called Ulsan Hyundai, Newcastle Jets, Beijing Guoan and Nagoya Grampus (not me, I'm clever). Except for the AFC Champions League, all other competions that cover more than one country either include the name and no flags, or the name and flags, but none with only flags. Stick to what everyone else is using and the readers won't get confused, like I did when I first saw the example of this at WT:WPF. DeMoN2009 09:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what will happen if there are two teams from the same country? Nonono, the lower one is no good c h ¹⁰ · 12:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will not happen under the current rule. No doubt the flags make the result searching more easy and indicate certain teams which come from different countries but have a same name. The flags only show where the teams are from, not what countries they are, IMO in this article no one will think about something like Beijing Guoan playing against the Japan national football team or, what Raymond Kyle Giggs Ko said, Beijing Guoan to have a war against the Japanese Army. What about this one? Mousega (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Central Coast Mariners	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Tianjin Teda	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kawasaki Frontale	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pohang Steelers	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

"It will not happen under the current rule." What a good response. The related rule is also applied at UEFA Champions League and CONCACAF Champions League. Why don't you add the flags to those two competition? The format has been adapted at UEFA Champions League articles for over three years, and no one found difficulties to find out which teams the codes refer to. However, the innovation in this article made us have to take more time to load the article. If you don't, I'll! Also, it will create a wrong sense that the country instead the team involved. Raymond Giggs 13:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, "Be friendly when using internet." It is a morality. Please find out how many bytes used for this article. My format saved 5000+ bytes - One second of loading time can be saved for 5000 bytes. Why do you need to waste our time for loading only? Raymond Giggs 14:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think using flags without proper identification is discouraged, and what's this current rule you talk off? You mean the "wikiwide" consensus used on all other confederation competitions, because if you do that rule is for no flags in the result table. c h ¹⁰ · 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country protection rule of course! Raymond Giggs 14:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will not have more than one team from the same country in the same group under the current rule. Like what I said, the flag helps. Most people know Man utd are from England, but not that much people know Tianjin Teda are a Chinese club. And there are more than one team name Al-Shabab, Al-Ahli and so on, the flags also help. I already added the codes after the flags, if the flags still bother you I suggest you go to delete flags in the articles of the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification UEFA. Mousega (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National teams are TOTALLY different... They actually can be represented by their flag, clubs CANT. And the flags are already infront of the name in the table... so they will already know that Tianjin Teda are Chinese. c h ¹⁰ · 14:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think there is no much people know that Marathón is from Honduras, but we still do not include a flag after Marathón at CONCACAF Champions League 2008–09. Also, your idea goes wrong. FIFA World Cup is really representing a country. But the Champions League are NOT! Raymond Giggs 14:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I knew that, but the bytes still waste your time right? I already added the codes after the flags, I think it ain't doing any bad but helping, specially for those two teams both called Al-Shabab.Mousega (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The teams aren't in the same group, and the nation in indicated in the table list. When/if they'd meet in a play off their country flags will show there, but the flags don't have to be repeated 3 times in the standings/result table c h ¹⁰ · 14:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be kind to refer to the Copa Libertadores 2009. There are two teams both called Nacional AND in the same group. We used that method to label them. However, both Al-Shabab are not in the same group. Raymond Giggs 14:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already made my point, flags are being use for indication and disambiguation. Are the flags that bad? Useless at all? IMO they are not bad for article and do help. Why ACL 09 have to use this non-flag-format when the flag-format can indicate and disambiguate, just because UCL and Copa are using it? Mousega (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One, it doesn't help disambiguate any more than the one flag already in the standings, it's just flagcruft. c h ¹⁰ · 16:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I found I can't read the table smoothly when I saw that flag table. Raymond Giggs 01:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that using abbreviations on tables makes it more confused. Because unlike European or South American teams, there are no official 3-letter abbreviations for any teams except Aussie (and maybe Singaporean) teams set, because English is not an official language in China, Japan, Korea, and countries in the Middle East. Even for Aussie teams, some people tries to describe New Castle Jets as NEW, while some others do as NCJ. --Belle Equipe (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South American? Sorry. There is too much team called "Nacional" and this year there are two Nacional placed in the same group. Look at the following table. Raymond Giggs 01:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group 3[edit]

Team	Pld	W	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Nacional	2	2	0	5	1	+4	6
U. San Martín	2	1	1	3	3	0	3
River Plate	2	1	1	2	2	0	3
Nacional	2	0	2	0	4	−4	0

	NA(P)	NA(U)	RIV	USM
Nacional (PAR)		0–3
Nacional (URU)				2–1
River Plate	1–0
U. San Martín			2–1

Then, who will decide proper abbreviations for teams without any Alphabetical abbreviations? For example, both Shanghai and Shangdong can be described as SHA.--Belle Equipe (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. You don't have to take the first 3 letters, 2. Don't AFC use abbreviations on tv broadcasts? Or domestic tv broadcasts, usually are. So for Shanghai you could do "SHA" or "SGH" and Shangdong "SDG" or something... cha ndl er · 10:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"or something..." that is the problem I'm talking about. It can be "unreliable" unless each abbreviation is officially announced by AFC or its affiliate. 3-letter abbreviations are hardly displayed on TV broadcasts if it is broadcasted in non-English speaking countries, especially in China, Japan, Korea, and in the Middle East, which consists of almost 90% of participating teams. --Belle Equipe (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Raymond Giggs said "They actually can be represented by their flag, clubs CANT." But I disagree with what he is saying. If so, why National Anthem of each representing country is played before the game every time, even some players are not from that country?--Belle Equipe (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each spot is awarded to the country, not the team. AFC gave China and Japan 4 spots each, so Beijing Guoan and 3 other teams will represent China, Gamba Osaka and 3 other teams will be the Japanese representatives. In this case, if the clubs represent the country like the national teams do, why they can not use the flags as the national teams can? In this very article, we did put the clubs' name in the result table, no one will ever think that the flags represent some national football teams or national handball teams, but the clubs which can be seen in the very same table. Mousega (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? AFC gave those team just because of the league instead of the country! Raymond Giggs 14:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point I want to talk about. The team is not representing the country, because some players are not from that country. But the players of a national team must have the full-citizenship of that country. So the team cannot represent a country because of the players' nationality, IMO they are an organisation instead of a country only. Raymond Giggs 14:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They represent the country, sometimes even not from it. If they don't, why we put a large flag here? Mousega (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teams can represent national football associations, but doing that doesn't mean you can represent them with a flag ONLY. The difference with fixtures is that the flag isn't already shown. Here it's just flagcruft to put it in next to every mention of the team which isnt necessary. cha ndl er · 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't one flag only, it is one club name with two flags in one table. It is double standard, it is perfectly proper using flags to represent national teams, but isn't it flagcruft? Mousega (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You actually think a flag only can represent clubs, how would anyone know which club it is?... If you read a football article and see "

1–1

" you could actually figure out "oh it's the national teams" whereas "

1–1

" would make you think "China vs South Korea" rather than "Beijing Guoan vs Ulsan Hyundai Horang-i" cha ndl er · 18:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should not use "

1–1

" to represent "Beijing Guoan 1-1 Ulsan Hyundai Horang-i", but in a gourp result table, which including 4 clubs and each club are using one name with two flags, the results can be found without confusion. Mousega (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't indicate clubs with ONLY a flag... This flagcruft really has to go. cha ndl er · 22:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ulsan Hyundai Horang-i		0 - 0	2 - 2	3 - 3
Newcastle United Jets	1 - 2		-	-
Beijing Guoan	1 - 1	-		-
Nagoya Grampus	2 - 1	-	-

So wait, did Nagoya Grampus win against South Korea 2-1?? Interesting. If I were color blind, I'd quit editing Wikipedia immediately. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good idea. The color blind cannot look at the flags. Raymond Giggs 11:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert per Wikiproject Football Talk and considerate the situation of color blinds. Raymond Giggs 11:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone applied exactly same acronim for both Shanghai and Shandong AS I EXPECTED. I cannot find any 3-letter acronim posted on AFC website. My questions are

Who determined these acronims?
Are all of these VERIFIABLE?(I do not think so, at least for two Chinese clubs)

If not, it should not be used.--Belle Equipe (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three first letters of the team name for example is much better than a flag of the country they come from which is absolutely wrong. And Shanghai and Shandong aren't in the same group, so what's the problem? cha ndl er · 16:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Are these acronyms

Officially announced?(as far as I looked up the AFC website, even match reports does not have any acronym of club names)
If so, is there any source of information which is verifyable?
If not, who decided these acronyms?

You can use whatever you want on your website, but it is not!

All currently-posted UNOFFICIAL acronyms should be changed to club names which are announced in here, which are OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED shortest abbreviations of clubs.--Belle Equipe (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the three first letters of a name to shorten it to give some recognition, is doubtful that it would fall under any need to verify them. cha ndl er · 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be ok if ALL TEAMS use the first three letters of names, but actually not, especially for teams in Group A, B, C, and D. In fact, it seems that all acronyms are applied in an arbitrary manner.--Belle Equipe (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editing was made by Raymond Giggs. Is it indicating the club with only one flag? And if you do care about people with colour blindness, then do them a favour by changing this page like what you did to this article. If not, do not use them as an excuse. Mousega (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean using colour blindness as an excuse? Stop digging into other people's editing histories in order to reduce their credibility, it's quite a pathetic and pointless thing to do. We're dealing with the issues of this article, not other ones. Colour blindness is already addressed per WP:COLOURS, so it's not like we're the first people to ever come up this. And plus, no one has still explained me how did Nagoya Grampus win against South Korea 2-1, which was actually my main point. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also, I really do not understand this whole debate about how abbreviations are arbitrary and we need official abbreviations. Firstly, there's no such thing as an official abbreviation. In fact abbreviations are arbitrary by definition; it is simply a way of shortening a longer name or term. It would be nicer to use the more common ones, but as long as they are not ambiguous I don't see the problem. Hence, I find the reasoning against abbreviations to be quite flawed. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think someone make mistakes like Udonknome pointed out (Nagoya vs S. Korea). Because they have to refer actual names of clubs listed on the left of each chart after all. I cannot tell each clubs by abbreviations only unless I know listed names of clubs well (especially clubs in Group A to D, which has so many common names and totally confusing). Also, the biggest reason why I suggested not to use inofficial abbreviations is because it already caused an edit war. Some abbreviations were changed and reverted several times because anyone can set "not wrong" abbreviations, but others do not like some, or all of those.--Belle Equipe (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd look into the context of that edit you'd realise that the flag is there because there are two Mexican teams in one of the semi-finals. cha ndl er · 10:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very regret to move the format of UEFA CL to the AFC CL.[edit]

All of you are forcing me to face another controversial issue after the naming of Dynamo Kyiv. Okay, I quit! Because you are accusing me. Raymond Giggs 21:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I brought the format idea from the UEFA CL articles, no one knows what I want to do. I wished to unify the design of all continental club championships. It has been adopted at UEFA CL, Copa Libertadores, CONCACAF CL, and O League, i.e. almost all without AFC and CAF. However, you are accusing me that I am disobeying the consensus. Excuse me, did you listen to the ones who brought that format to this article? Sorry! Don't think so you want to listen! Raymond Giggs 21:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above, stick to what everyone else is using and the readers won't get confused. DeMoN2009 09:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha DasGermanMoses (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2009 AFC Champions League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 AFC Champions League. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626072927/http://www.the-afc.com:80/en/tournaments/clubs/afc-champions-league to http://www.the-afc.com/en/tournaments/clubs/afc-champions-league

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]