Talk:2009–10 UEFA Champions League

Why do you delete "Top assists"?

Answer me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.12.137 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

EU Flag for defending champion

It is a scandal to put EU flag for defending champions beforehand! What if Champions League will be won by a non-EU club? Say Turkey, Ukraine or Russia??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.161.111 (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, what a scandal, I will change it immediately... FYI, this was an ironic response, hope you didn't get offended. But I've gone ahead and removed the EU-flag, and replaced it with a blank flag showing a question-mark, happy now? lil2mas (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite a scandal, but it shouldn't be an EU flag, changed // Finns 20:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean that putting an EU-flag like that is against sporting rules and certainly shows lack of respect to some participants. Am I wrong?139.179.161.111 (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and wording

Saying "Fourth team of England" isn't grammatically correct, shouldn't it be Fourth Place in English Premier League 2008-09? // Finns 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Coefficients

Uefa just released new coefficients and Portugal are still in 6th. Change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.155.40 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Why are words champions and runners-up in plural instead of singular? There is only one champion or runner-up in one national league. --SonjiCeli (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Because there are multiple associations. Saying, for example, "Round One: Champion from associations 1-6" grammatically means the champion team over all six associations, where "Champions" instead grammatically means all champions originating from associations 1-6. It's just wording. Falastur2 ^Talk 16:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the question, I believe they were asking why it says for example:

• Champions of English Premier League 2008-09
• Runners-up of English Premier League 2008-09

instead of

• Champion of English Premier League 2008-09
• Runner-up of English Premier League 2008-09

The reason is difficult for me to explain, but this sums it up quite well: American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. - MTC (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well spotted. Yeah, that article sums it up well - it's partly a question of taste, but "team" - and derivatives, such as "Champions" when the team has won something - is generally used as plural in British English. Falastur2 ^Talk 17:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

New name for 3rd qualifying round

According to this forum message, the name of the 3rd qualifying round for champions or non-champions will be changed to "play-off round", whereas the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd qualifying rounds will be calling what we call "preliminary round", 1st and 2nd qualifying round respectively. To look further on uefa.com. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Future templates of the 3QR and Play-off rounds

I am writing to express my concern about the naming of the templates of the new format of UEFA Champions League. For the new format, a double-path qualification would be used. However, there is no such name as "Third qualifying round for champions", and so on at the new format. Should we rename it back after the draw is conducted? Raymond Giggs 08:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little bit unsure about what you're saying, but I think I get it. I think you're refering to the fact that there's in no named segregation between champion and best-placed clubs in UEFA's articles: i.e. "There is only one Third Qualifying Round, and it has both types of clubs. They may well be kept separate in the draw, but there is still only one Third Qualifying Round.", which would be reason against splitting our 3QR section into "Champion" and "Best-placed" sections. I see what you mean.

If that is what UEFA is saying (and it seems like it) then we have to keep all the Third Qualifying Round clubs/ties together. However, I think it would be reasonable to have subheadings of "Champions:" and "Best Placed:" in order to subgroup the teams/ties. That would avoid saying "Third qualifying round for champions" etc (which, you're right, doesn't exist), but still illustrate to the reader that there is separation between the teams. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Half-correct. I am trying to change the wordings of the qualification round template, (e.g. Template:Fb round2 2009-10 UCL PONC), making there is no any segregation. It should not be done before a draw is performed, but I would like to remove the "for champions" and "for the best-placed team" after the draw finished. Raymond Giggs 18:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeded and unseeded teams

I was wondering if it would be an idea to list teams that will for sure be seeded and unseeded in the second qualifying round, like there is in the first qulifying round? Lars Ransborg (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work sorting this out. I have moved FH Hafnafjordur to the seeded side as they will be seeded above FC Inter, FK Ekranas and the macedonian champions no matter what, the way i read it. Lars Ransborg (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been some confusion about whether the Best-Placed Team Play-Off round will be seeded (i.e. whether the 4th-placed team from the English Premier League can be drawn against the 4th-placed team from Spain if they are both in the top 5 of team co-efficients. UEFA recently released their rules and regulations for next season and confirmed that this round will be seeded - see Article 9 (Page 12) of this document. Perhaps the 5 teams included in this section should have the 'Unknown Seeding' header (even though most of them will likely be seeded)? BlakeNJudge (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Defending champion issue

I was wondering if Arsenal wins the Champions League this season and finishes fourth in the Premier League, who would take their place in the Play-off round? Isavevski (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

With the split in the qualifying paths, it's not clear who would get promoted - it seems like it would have to be someone in the non-champion path (since Arsenal would, in this scenario, be placed there if not for being the title-holder). I haven't seen anything official aside from a statement that the currently available list is provisional and still subject to final confirmation, but I would expect that two teams would be promoted to the non-champion playoff round: probably Russia's third-place team and Romania's second-place team. (Might be the Portuguese runner-up instead of Russia's third-place team - not sure whether they would give preference to third in the sixth-ranked league or second in the eighth-ranked league.) This would leave eight teams in Q3, with the four winners and six automatic qualifiers in the playoff round for five group-stage spots. This is not confirmed right now, though - just my best guess as to what they'll likely do if it comes up.

For that matter, the issue seems even less clear if the title-holder earns a group stage spot by league finish; which path do they use to promote someone for the extra spot? Based on past practice, it seems likely they would promote from the champions' path, but again, this is just speculation. PiGuy314 (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the holding champions qualify for the competition directly, the article states that the slot will not be used, and teams from the chapions' path will be promoted Lars Ransborg (talk)11:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

But what about if title holder doesn't qualify for CL at all?! I.e. If Arsenal win s CL this season and finishes 5th in England, would 4th place team from English Premier League take place in qualifying round? According past cases, they wouldn't compete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.105.208 (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

From the 08-09 regulations, past procedure says that the fourth-place finisher in the Premier League would get bumped to the Europa League and teams would be moved up in the qualifying rounds to make up for the missing team in the playoff round. I haven't seen an official version of the 09-10 regulations, though. PiGuy314 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First Qualifying Round error

There will be six teams not 4 in the first qualifying round! Faroe Islands, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Andorra, San Marino 193.239.56.205 (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Naaa, the Defending Champions spot in the group stage isn't being used, so some of the teams move up to different rounds to make up for it. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Best Placed Play-off question

I was wondering if anyone knew whether the five teams from England, Spain, Italy, France and Germany would be kept seperated from each other. i.e. Will they be each drawn against one of the five winners from the third qualifying round of best-placed path? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.46.131 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The seeding will be done using each club's co-efficient, so it depends on which clubs are present in the draw. There's no separation between those clubs in the round automatically and those who come from the previous round. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Will it even be a seeded draw? I have found no such evidence on any official site that the ten teams will indeed be seeded before being drawn. Will the top five clubs be seperated from each other?

I don't think it will be seeded - one commentator in a match said that it would be an open draw (he was talking about the difference between 3rd and 4th in the premiership) 86.131.237.120 (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Distribution Section

Whoever decided to blend together the Champions' Path and the Non-Champions' Path into just one listing made it more confusing for the casual reader of this page, in my opinion. Now the third round looks like one big pool where any two teams can be matched together. I hope that note that states that champions and non-champions don't meet in the qualifying rounds helps out that poor confused reader. Juve2000 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeded Italian Team in Playoff Round

"Milan and Juventus qualified for UEFA Champions League, but the starting round is unknown."

Why isn't Fiorentina and Genoa mentioned? and if either of these 2 clubs qualify for the Playoff Round, would either of these 2 clubs have enough co-efficient points to go in as a seeded club? Kingjeff (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Because they haven't qualified for the champions league and have nothing to do with the article. To be honest, that's the most random question I've heard for a while. Thanks for asking. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote I made above is from reference #6 in the reference section of the article. The fact is that all 4 clubs can qualify for the Playoff Round. So, why are we excluding 2 clubs in the reference section? Kingjeff (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Because Milan and Juventus are definately in the Champions League. They get a reference because we don't know where exactly to put them yet. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Juventus are not in pending the tiebreaking situation with Genoa. Kingjeff (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Juve have a better head-to-head record than Genoa. Aheyfromhome (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Genoa and Fiorentina should still be mentioned because it's the team's coefficient that will determine if a team is seeded or not. Kingjeff (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The notes are mentioned for the purposes of saying who has qualified, not for the seeding.Aheyfromhome (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeding

Why was the seeding of champions in 3rd round left out? It carried information, and listed the actual seeding of teams when the draw for 1st to 3rd round is carried out. --Lars Ransborg (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Now the seedingpots of the teams already qualified was also removed. More information excluded. Any reason for this? --Lars Ransborg (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Table template for QR3 and PO

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg	Champions Path
Barcelona	0–5	South China	0–3	0–2
Best-placed Path
Monaco	1–3	Radcliffe Borough	1–0	0–3

Any suggestion? Raymond Giggs 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Hong Kong example made me smile. But yes, it looks good (maybe "path" instead of "Path" though, unless the UEFA actually use the expressions themselves with a capital P). —JAO • T • C 20:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even have the word "path" in there. Just say "Champions" and "Best-placed teams" like in the table of entrants. – PeeJay 21:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the UEFA official website, the paths have the word "Path". Unless they does not use that word. Raymond Giggs 11:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Still confusing

The considerable mini edit war over where the play-off round sits in this tournament is currently complicated by a number of factors. As the article sits, the box in the box corner splits it very distinctly into 32 for group stage and 76 for qualifying. On this basis, the playoff round would HAVE to be considered qualifying (as it is obviously not in the 32 team group stage). However, UEFA obviously consider the playoff round part of the (for want of a better word) "tournament proper" - which is effectively the bit for which goals scored count towards the top goal scorer tournament. In this case, the playoff round would NOT be considered qualifying (but would be its own section). So, there certainly needs to be some discussion as to why the distinction exists (because neither of the parties editing at present really explain WHY they make their changes, and the edit note is not much help either - just saying the regulations say something vague hardly helps) and there needs to be more precision on the number of teams in the tournament as well. Jlsa (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does UEFA state that the Playoff Round is part of the tournament proper? Kingjeff (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I am yet to see any evidence that UEFA considers the play-off round part of the tournament proper. As far as I can tell, only goals scored in the group stage and onwards count towards the top scorer table, and the format page on the UEFA site seems to consider the play-off round as part of the qualifying phase. I am quite willing to accept that the play-off round is a stage by itself, but it certainly doesn't need to have its own article. – PeeJay 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The regulations for the UEFA Champions league (found here) list the play-off round as neither a part of the qualifying phase nor the competition proper.Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it's not a part of the competition proper. Whether or not it's a part of the qualifying phase is irrelevant, only that it makes sense for the two stages to be covered in the one article. – PeeJay 19:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a section heading as "Preliminary stage" with sub-section headings as "qualifying stage" and "playoff round". Kingjeff (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with just having separate sections for the qualifying phase and the play-off round? The play-off round clearly carries the same importance as the qualifying phase, the group stage and the final phase, so having a separate level 2 section seems logical. – PeeJay 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with User:PeeJay2K3. Having a separate section for the play-off round makes sense, but having a separate article on just one round does not.Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that the current situation with a separate section for the PO round is misleading, bordering at the incorrect. Since the article doesn't state clearly that the tournament proper doesn't start before the group stage and as the PO round is also presented as not being part of the qualifying, a reader will inevitably assume it is part of the tournament proper. (The same holds for the Europa League.) But since people already started reverting edits obviously assuming some sort of consensus I'll refrain from changing anything about it. --Berntie (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right Berntie. As I said before, maybe we should have a section heading as "Preliminary stage" with sub-section headings as "qualifying stage" and "playoff round". Kingjeff (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would discourage using a preliminary phase heading simply because the term isn't used by UEFA. To solve the issue of when the competition proper starts, just write something to affect of "The competition proper starts in this phase" under the group phase section. –Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sir Sputnik that we should definitely not refer to the qualifying phase and play-off round as a "preliminary phase". This would be a case of original research on our part and therefore inappropriate. Having the play-off round as a section separate from the qualifying phase and the group stage is completely appropriate as it follows the competition regulations. – PeeJay 17:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's OR at all. It simply resolves the situation misleading without adding it to the qualifying round. I thought we agreed that UEFA doesn't put the Playoff Round in the qualifying round nor the tournament proper. Therefore, by definition, it would be a preliminary phase of the competition. Kingjeff (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that reasoning entirely. By grouping the play-off round with the qualifying phase, you are creating a relationship where none exists, which counts as synthesis of unpublished information. – PeeJay 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The relationship is the fact that both are before the tournament proper. Kingjeff (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Stating directly that the tournament proper begins with the group phase communicates much more clearly that the play-off round is not part of the tournament proper without needing to group things together under a name not used by UEFA, regardless of whether they are related or not. –Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The play-off round is not part of the "tournament proper" it is part of the qualifying rounds. It's basically the fourth quallifying round that's being called a different name by UEFA to try and hide the fact that there are now 4 qualifying rounds (instead of 3 in the CL and 2 in the UC) 86.131.237.120 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Live Scores

Are live scores acceptable? WP: NOT seems to imply that they are not. I'd like to hear other opinions on this. –Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They are definitely not acceptable, and I used to revert on sight, but I got sick and tired of people paying no attention to me. Maybe I should pick up the sword again! – PeeJay 16:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Odds

Is this really worth mentioning? Maybe a mention of who the favourite club is, but not a list of each team's odds, surely?! – PeeJay 16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is. The odds would vary from each bookmaker anyway. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Odds give an idea on how strong a team is. This information is useful for newcomers and for people outside Europe reading this article, for example. To avoid variations among bookmakers, I linked a comparison web - oddschecker - that compiles odds from 20 different bookmakers, so the numbers are valid enough--Aidannn (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Odds are changable over time and have no encyclopaedic value. It is true that a paragraph explaining the favourites would be useful for unfamiliar people, but a table of compiled odds is giving the gambling industry more importance than it actually has. So, yeah, give brief bit mentioning how Barca, Real and then the English teams are expected to have the best chance of winning, but lets not give gambling its own little section in an article which has nothing to do with gambling. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The main reason for quoting gambling odds in the article is because they truly reflect the relative strength of all teams. UEFA coefficients are too flawed. For example: UEFA Team Ranking 2009 ranked Manchester City on position 62 whereas FC Basel was ranked 37th and AZ Alkmaar was ranked 22nd. Gambling industry is present everywhere, ¿how many English and Spanish clubs are sponsored by bookmakers?. Don't see why Wikipedia cannot take advantage of valuable information derived from their websites.Aidannn (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How can a subjective opinion of a team's "strength" (i.e. gambling odds) be less flawed than a mathematically calculated evaluation of the team's performances over the last five years? Odds have no realistic use outside a bookmaker's office. – PeeJay 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A paragraph mentioning favourites and referencing bookmaker-composites would be reasonable. I don't believe that a table extending to 12th favourite is called for. It's not worth its space in an already lengthy article. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

whatever, I give up, it's all yours--Aidannn (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

When I first ever saw a bookmarker section, I felt surprised but then change into a boring mood. I think it is worthy to make into the trivia section instead of a independent section. Raymond Giggs 12:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Placings in the League

Is there really any need for these? Everyone knows what place the teams on the Champions Route took surely??

The champions route is a different section of the tournament than the non-champions route, and the article should reflect that. Furthermore, the assumption that everyone knows which teams were on which route is not one we can make. That being said, I agree that the placing of club in its league on the team table does seem superfluous. –Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he was saying that there's no need to reiterate that teams on the Champions Path finished in 1st place in their respective leagues last season, and I agree. I also don't think that there's any need to note what position any other team finished in. – PeeJay 12:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Playoff round

Did we not have any champions qualify for the playoff round? – Michael (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but all did so through qualifying rounds, so there were no champions that entered in the playoff round. The table under "Teams" lists the teams by round they enter the tournament. (I always thought that was kind of confusing, by the way.) —JAO • T • C 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Topscorer

Shouldn't the topscorer list be updated now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.137.111 (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So why haven't you done it? Aheyfromhome (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Man U not through yet

In the group standings, Manchester United's row is highlighted in green, to indicate that they have qualified for the Round of 16. This is incorrect. The two teams below them have 7 points, whilst United has 10. Should the 2nd and 3rd-placed teams (Wolfsburg and CSKA) win on Matchday 6, all 3 teams would be equal on points, with 10 apiece. United could conceivably be bumped to third place on goal differential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.45.185 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The head-to-head points, goal differential, and away goals are used to break ties before the overall goal differential comes into play. So even if there is a three way tie, Wolfsburg and CSKA can't both finish better than ManU. –Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If Man U lose to wolfsburg 0-2 and CSKA wins besiktas 2-0 too. Man U goal difference would be 0, wolfsburg's would be +5 while CSKA's would be +1. Wolfsburg and CSKA would be through then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.129.47 (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Head-to-head comes first. Aheyfromhome (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Five teams per country?

If I'm not mistaken that's not possible, but the legend of File:2009–10 UEFA CL0.PNG hints it is. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The top three leagues by UEFA Co-efficient (England, Spain, and Italy) each get four CL entries. Meaning the top four teams from those leagues qualify. If the defending champion is from one of those three countries and not in the top four in the league, that country then has five teams in the competion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Thanks. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

IIRC that's no longer possible (after the Liverpool thing a couple of years ago). Now the defending champion will always take one of the countries allocated spots UNLESS the country is only given one spot to begin with. (I think Aheyfromhome has removed the 5 option from the graphic in the interim BTW). Jlsa (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, no country can have more than four teams in the Champions League since the Liverpool issue of 2005. /Dunord (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

5Goals

Owen scored 5 goals.. So can someone change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.17.7 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He only scored 4 as of now, 1 vs CSKA Moscow and 3 vs Wolfsburg. -- HonorTheKing (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Flag in the infobox

There appears to be an edit war going on over the inclusion of the Portuguese flag in the infobox. It would be benifical to discuss the matter here rather than continously revert other's edits, especially over something so trivial. I personally have no opinion one way or the other. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? – Michael (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

2009–10 UEFA Champions League

Tournament statistics
Top scorer(s)	Cristiano Ronaldo (6)

2009–10 UEFA Champions League

Tournament statistics
Top scorer(s)	Cristiano Ronaldo (6)

What he means is now at the right side, have a flag near the season Top scorer or not,

0-- HonorTheKing (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it a bad idea to include the flag also with the name of the top scorer? - Sitas —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

There are two reasons. The first reason is WP:MOSFLAG. The second reason is partially a consequence from the first reason, partially a WP:ACCESS issue. Space in the infobox is restricted and font sizes vary from computer to computer, so additional icons or pictures would worsen the readability, especially if the flag should be accompanied by something written.--Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jovetić

Jovetić scored 4 goals - 2 against Liverpool and 2 against Bayern. Can someone add him in the list of scorers? --62.204.152.181 (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. If you're right, you can do it yourself.Aheyfromhome (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bracket

Including a bracket here the way it has been done is misleading, it gives the impression that the draw was fixed from the round of 16 onwards. At least remove the link between the round of 16 and quarter finals list the teams as they were drawn for the round of 16, if not only include the bracket for the quarter-finals onwards. ZoeL (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

One could state that the bracket was created after the tournament. -Koppapa (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the bracket merely shows the route that teams take to the final. Removing the lines between the round of 16 ties and the quarter-final ties could be misconstrued as a coincidence that resulted in the teams remaining in the same order for the quarter-finals as the round of 16. – PeeJay 22:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Top Goal Scorers

Should Owen still be in bold as being active in the competition seen as he has been ruled out for the rest of the season due to injury? Rudy 13:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United are still active in the competition, and injured or not, they could still field Owen if they really wanted to. He should therefore still be listed as active, although including a note explaining his injury might be worthwhile. 15:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Group Results

I don't see how my revision is a bad change compared to the existing one. Its more visually appealing and easy to recognize the teams. I actually had a hard time navigating and trying to know which team was which so I revised it. BridgeBlues (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Not only is your revision a violation of WP:MOSICON, but it's also far more confusing in my opinion. Using flags on their own to represent clubs makes no sense as it doesn't show which club is which. At least with the abbreviations it was possible to identify each club. It's not exactly rocket science to work out that the club listed at the top of the left column is the same as the club in the next column, and so on. – PeeJay 15:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay. And regarding "more visually appealing" – this may look okay for someone which has a high-end computer, a broadband connection and is not suffering from color blindness or other visual impairments, but this is the minority of users. For example, people with mobile devices might not be able to even display pictures, icons or similar stuff, so the column headers would not be displayed. Icons or graphics take their time to load on slow connections, thus increasing the time of the page to build up. The templated structure of the icons also consumes bandwidth. All these are disadvantages which plain text has not, so the three- or whatever-size-they-have letter abbreviations should be preferred. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the two previous comments. If this were a national team competition, this type of edit would be fine, but the flags represent countries not the clubs, and while there is some disagreement about which three letters to use for any one given club, the three letters system is preferable simply becuase the abreviations actually represent the club in question and not merely the country in which it is located. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We'll look at the french version of this article and look at the group stage results. I dont see anything wrong with that. BridgeBlues (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. In my opinion, the French article has the same issues this one would have if we were to change it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean this is a European competition and the flags represent the different countries partcipating via the clubs. I see flags everywhere in the article, so why not have them in the group results. BridgeBlues (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

With one exception (the quarterfinals), flags are always used in conjuncture with the club name. The flag represents the country and only the country, while the club name represents the club and only the club. The two are used together to demonstrate that a certain club is in the competition as a representative of a certain country, but using one for the other is a clear misrepresentation. Furthermore, unless you can address the issues raised by PeeJay and Soccer-holic, the changes you are proposing cannot be made because they violate WP:MOSICON. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why are their flags next to the club names in the group tables? And its not only the quarterfinals, its the round of 16, Semifinal, and Final. Also to address PeeJay's comment, you could keep the abbreviations but change the rest to my revision. BridgeBlues (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The flags are used to denote which association each club belongs to. If the flag is displayed without a club name next to it, then it is meaningless; i.e. it has no context. – PeeJay 20:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats what I did, I displayed the clubs name next to the flag and if your concerned about the horizonal row on the top, you can keep the abbreviations. BridgeBlues (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the flags in the top row are the only real issue. I have no objection to putting flags next club names in the left hand column. However, there isn't enough room for both flags and abreviations in the top row. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no problem with putting the flags next to the club names in the results tables, as long as they do not replace the abbreviations in the top row. However, don't you think it's overkill to put flags next to the club names in the results tables when there are already flags in the points tables? – PeeJay 21:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Put the flags next to the club names and keep the abbreviations. The flags will just make it easier to navigate compared to no visuals at all. BridgeBlues (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay on that point. It does seem a little redundant. What I meant with no objections is that if someone were to add the flags, I wouldn't revert, but I wouldn't go so far as to make that edit myself. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get started on the revision BridgeBlues (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question: since the flags are already visible immediately to the left, don't you think it's overkill to put them in the results boxes too? – PeeJay 21:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue might probably be that the order of teams in the results boxes (alphabetic) is not equal to the order of teams in the group tables. So there are basically two solutions to the problem – either changing the order of teams in the results box or adding the flags. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You said you had no problem with it at first so whats your stance? BridgeBlues (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think its better to change the order so it corresponds to the one in the group table. BridgeBlues (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would rather add the flags. Go ahead. – PeeJay 21:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed then. BridgeBlues (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

PeeJay was right, it was too overkill with the extra flags. Reverted. BridgeBlues (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

mistake

Just a little mistake - FC Twente actually lost on away goals to Sporting Club de Portugal in the qualifying rounds, but the table seems to suggest they won. Faced with a huge amount of text I couldn't be bothered to do the editing myself. Thedreamdied (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)