Talk:1953 FA Cup Final

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject London (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Name[edit]

Surely The Matthews Final would be a better name. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 20:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On consideration, I'm moving the page to FA Cup Final 1953 to match all other FA Cup Final names. Many Finals have nicknames. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 20:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1953 FA Cup Final ticket.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:1953 FA Cup Final ticket.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Expanded[edit]

I've expanded the article with sources. However, there appears to be two players credited for Bolton's second goal and I don't know which one is correct? Both Bobby Langton and Willie Moir are credited. Anynone know which name is correct?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

During the match, Wolstenhome commentates that the BBC had just asked the Blackpool dressing room for confirmation of the scorer of this goal. He reports back that Blackpool have Moir as the scorer. However, repeated playing of the DVD of the game seems to show that Moir is being highly fanciful in claiming to have re-directed the path or trajectory of the Langton floated ball.

Who scored? The above just needs stating in the article, no?

90.203.95.60 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on alleged hat trick and Matthews Final[edit]

Re the Mortensen hat-trick

Stan Mortensen did NOT score a hat-trick on this day - this is a myth created by journalists after the event. As Kenneth Wolstenhome's match commentary testifies several times, the first Blackpool goal was an own goal scored by Harold Hassell, the play intercepting SM's shot and directing the ball into the opposite corner than intended. Indeed, Bolton keeper, diving in time and in line with the original direction of the strike would almost certainly have parried the ball or even caught it.

Though obviously a matter of speculation, the current disputed goals committee would, for me, judge such a goal if scored now to be an own goal.

Secondly, wikipedia surely should just state factually. Fact: the 1953 Cup Final became very quickly dubbed by the press as 'The Matthews Final.' Opinion: 'Stanley Matthews was the man of the match, made the difference between the two sides, etc, etc.' Another opinion: 'Ernie Taylor was at least if not more important in explaining Blackpool's victory, playing brilliantly at inside-right throughout.' Another opinion: 'Bolton may well have held on to win had referee Griffiths not awarded a free kick from which SM equalised that on repeated inspection on the DVD of the game seems clearly to have been made because of a purely imaginary offence.' Another opinion:'We might more accurately re-name the final of 1953, "The Crocks Final" or "The Final of Injuries." Bolton finished the game with one player incapacitated (Bell, from the 16th minute) and four suffering clearly from the effects of injurious incidents during the latter stages of the game (particularly Lofthouse and Banks, but also Barrass).

So can we please try to sustain Wikipedia as a repository of fact, not as a repository of re-gurgitated press-created myth.

I cite the DVD of the game as my source for the above.

90.203.95.60 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

While you are correct in your assessment that the first goal in this final was given by commentator, Kenneth Wolstenholme as a Harold Hassall own goal and that indeed was by modern judgement a Harold Hassall own goal, there are two key points that mean that the accreditation of this as part of a hat-trick should remain. 1.Kenneth Wolstenholme was not the person who decided the official credit for each goal. That role was conducted by the referee and he gave the credit for the first goal to Mortensen, no doubt to the relief of Hassall. 2. There was no dubious goals panel as there is today. In the modern game this would indeed have been ruled as an own goal as Mortensen's shot would not have gone into the goal if left unimpeded. In 1953 however such statistics were much more relaxed and nobody was concerned with the statistical analysis so required of the modern game. Most newspapers ran with a hat-trick, the FA ran with a hat-trick and fifty years of post game history and publications say hat-trick. That the ball took a wicked deflection of Hassall is a sub detail. You can by all means add a note to state that in the modern era it would not be credited as a hat-trick due to the first goal deflection but onle as long as you can find a reliable publication that also points this out. Wikipedia however is a publisher of facts as they stand, right or wrong and not a place for unique research. Until such time as the FA say different in print, it remains a hat-trick Captainbeecher (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1953 FA Cup Final. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)