Talk:FA Community Shield
|WikiProject Football||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
There seems to be an inconsistency. In the History section:
"The match was drawn 1-1, so the game was replayed when Manchester United won 4-1. This is the only Charity Shield game to go to a replay. Both games were played at Stamford Bridge."
- Fixed according to FA.com - the result was 4–0 to Manchester United. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Number of wins (Club Only)
I just made a factual change. Somebody had listed five titles for Chelsea (none shared), even though the club total (in the same table) clearly says 3. The titles listed were: 1955, 2000, 2005,2007,2009. But Chelsea did not win in 2007. And as for 2009, since it won' be played until August 9, we don't know, do we? AlistairLW (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
There have been several edits in the past few days, some putting Manchester United at the top of the table, others putting Liverpool. It is my belief that as teams with equal number of wins are sorted alphabetically in the rest table, this should be the same for the top and that Liverpool should be placed ahead of Manchester United.
Dukeseee 16:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree on the basis that United have won eleven outright (eleven not shared) in comparison to Liverpool's ten. For consistency I'll adjust the rest of the table accordingly. I haven't moved Liverpool below Arsenal on the basis that Liverpool have obtained the trophy more times. Please explain reasons if reverting.
BeL1EveR 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Being a Leicester fan I have always been curious as to how we won the shield in 1971 having never won the League or FA Cup in our history. Checking on here I can't see why we even contested this final. We didn't finish second behind a double winner, we won division two. And Liverpool won nothing, they we're FA Cup runners-up yet that who we played. The next season is just as baffling with Man City playing Villa. Can anyone with some knowledge of this let me know why these games where played between seemingly random teams. Jimmmmmmmmm 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The FA website lists the 1946 and 1947 games which according to this page did't happen
1946 Derby 4 Charlton 1 (aet) 1947 Charlton 1 Burnley 0
- As regards the non-winning sides contesting the shield, it appears that participation was not compulsory, and some clubs for whatever reason did not wish to contest it. The FA website says, "Prior to 1974, with the Shield a less prestigious fixture, the match was played at various club grounds and often involved teams who had won nothing at all." - I would guess the FA invited teams, on the basis that they had done something of note (eg Leicester winning Div 2). When Villa played in 1972 they had just won Div 3 with an all-time record number of points. I think it's as simple as that.
- Regarding the 1946 and 1947 games, I'll add them in. There were no league champions in 1946, as the season did not recommence until that point, so the game has a minor place in league history, marking the start of resumption of normal play after the war. There had, however been an FA Cup contested and won (by Derby) in the first half 1946. Charlton were losing finalists, which explains why they lined up against Derby for the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know when the competition went from being named the "Charity Shield" to the "FA Charity Shield"? I know it was renamed as the FA Community Shield in 2002, but I'd really like to know when its name changed to reflect its endorsement by the FA. - PeeJay 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
While watching the Man. Unt. Chelsea game last Sunday, I heard the commentator saying the yellow cards were not counted for future competitions because FA Community Shield is not considered a competition. Is that true, FA Community Shield is not a competition?--ClaudioMB 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
As a reader of the football magazine When Saturday Comes, which I would thoroughly reccomend, I recall a fairly recent article that builds upon the format of the competition as detailed on here. The article in WSC discussed the status of the Charity Shield as being the unofficial champions of England game, at a time when the gulf between the Football League and the Southern League was at its narrowest (Southern League doing well enough to have a professional, competitive top division but before it's top clubs began a sudden exodus to the Football League as a result of the later's expansion). Could someone with encyclopaedic aptitude please look into this and perhaps comment on the erosion of the competition's status following the decline if the Southern League from the 1910s onwards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be noted that only Man Utd (1993/94,1996/97) and Chelsea (2005/06) have gone on to win the premier league after winning the shield? 184.108.40.206 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds weird for me a curse that fail 3 times in the last 14 years (21%). Also, considering that to win both titles is not a simple task. But, if that is notable in England (lost of people know about it as a curse) and there are reliable sources of it, maybe could mention. I don't know in which section.--ClaudioMB 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure of any reliable sources, I usually hear of it in each match report each year. Maybe it can me put in the trivia.220.127.116.11 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's worth a mention. It's not a curse - it's just very difficult for any club to win the league title, and the conicidence of them having contested, and won, the Charity Shield the previous summer is just that - coincidence. It will happen from time to time, but is hardly to be expected as the norm.
- You could devise any other 'curse' - how many clubs who won the League Cup went on to win the Premiership the following season? How many clubs who lost the League Cup final went on to win the FA Cup? You can just make them up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose that the order of the winner's table be reversed to show oldest first. Most football articles seem to follow this and I think it reads better this way. --Jameboy (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This Is How It Should Be
This should be the properway of the Shield the League Champions and the FA Cup Winners but if a team wins the 'Double' the runners-up in the League get the nod. Also on this list is the Champions of England and Winners of the FA Cup from 1889.
- Wikipedia deals with what actually happened, not how it "should" have been, so I fail to see your point. --Jameboy (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is how the Shield would be if it was League Champions and FA Cup Winners.
- No, because in 1999 for example, it would have been league champions Manchester United v FA Cup winners Manchester United. Even so, I still don't see the point of collating a list of how things could have turned out, when Wikipedia covers what actually happened. --Jameboy (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
No if you think about it the runners-up in the League take the FA Cup spot if a team wins the Double or Triple
Instead of neutral venues if they were at Wembley from 1923 not 1974 this is how it would be like.
- All very interesting, but how things "should" have been is purely your point of view. West Bromwich Albion "should" have won the double in 1954 but they didn't. You can't change history so all this is of no relevance to the article. --Jameboy (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
According to my source (Gillatt, Peter (30 November 2009). Blackpool FC on This Day: History, Facts and Figures from Every Day of the Year. Pitch Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1905411502.), the 1953 Charity Shield was the first to be played under floodlights. I doubt it's notable enough for inclusion in the article, but just putting it out there. - Dudesleeper talk 00:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sir Alex Misquote?
"It's always a game we never quite use of a do or die thing" doesn't make grammatical sense. It's found in a few places, linking back to the same AP story or tacitly citing the Wikipedia entry -- the current link is broken -- but I suspect it's a bad transcription of "we never quite view as a do or die thing". Except that there's no written source to back that up. The press conference itself is available to MUTV subscribers. Anyone want to check? It'd be nice to clear it up. Holgate (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Requested move of interest
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Charity Shield (disambiguation) about moving that page to Charity Shield (disambiguation) to Charity Shield. As Charity Shield currently redirects here this is likely to be of interest to editors of this page. Please comment on Talk:Charity Shield (disambiguation) rather than here so discussion is in one place. Dpmuk (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)