Talk:2008–09 UEFA Champions League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Football (Rated C-class, Low-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the season article task force.
 
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 24, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 29, 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Group Stage Updates as teams qualify[edit]

As you add teams to the group stage list, please make sure the comment marks are in the correct place (around the UEFA coefficient rank only) for all teams. If there are more than 8 teams in a column (Each column corresponts to the pot they will be placed in for the draw) or a team is out of order, please use cut and paste to rearrange.

Thank you. Danke. Gracias. Obrigado. Shishini(sp?). Domo arigato.

RaiderRich2001 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in Association Team Allocation list[edit]

If you do your maths, there will be an odd number of teams in the second qualifying round:

Second Qualifying Round: (28 teams)

  • 14 winners from the First Qualifying Round
  • 9 champions from associations 16-24 (Bulgaria, Switzerland, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Denmark, Austria, Poland, and Hungary)
  • 6 runners-up from associations 10-15

This gives 29 teams!!!

The Champions of Poland and Hungary are not "certain to compete in the second qualifying round of the Champions League". As it stands at the moment, they will start in the first qualifying round.

However, they both will be 'promoted' if the winner of the current edition of the Champions League qualifies for this addition via its league position of its associated national league.--Fridge46 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Champions League holder ?[edit]

Should it be mentioned that if the Champions League holder qualifies through its national league, that the champions of Scotland (ranked 10th) will go straight to the group stage? This rule is still operable for 2008-09, isn't it? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because that is false, the Russian champions will be moved back a round. Chaza 93 18:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't believe you are correct. Russia is ranked 9th, and its champions will enter the group stages directly irrespective of who is the previous winner. Scotland, ranked 10th, will get the winner's place if the rules that applied this and last year (when Scotland, ranked 10th again, got the champions place after Arsenal lost to Barcelona) remain. These are the rules as they currently stand:
If the defending cup holder already qualified directly for the group stage of the Champions League, the champion of the 10th country on the country ranking list will gain direct access to the group stage, the champion of the 16th country on the country ranking list will gain direct access to the 3rd qualifying round, and the champions of the 26th and 27th country on the country ranking list will gain direct access to the 2nd qualifying round. Similar changes are made if the cup holder already qualified directly for one of the qualification rounds.
Did they change, and if so, please provide a source. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added a note to this effect as there is adequate citation on the BBC Sport website that indicates next season, if the winner finishes in the top 4 of the Italian, Spanish or English leagues then the 1st team from Scotland will get the 'Defending Champions' Spot. 86.132.166.22 (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Correction - for 'top 4' above, read 'top 2', citation has been amended accordingly 86.132.166.22 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Qualified teams[edit]

We may be being a bit hasty in filling in the teams by round as we are. By the sounds of it there's about to be a little reshuffle, to be confirmed on 1 December - from what I understand, the same teams will qualify, but some of them will be entered in different rounds, and it seems there is to be another round inserted between the Third Qual. and the Group Stage. Falastur2 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Those "reshuffles" will come into effect for the 2009-10 UEFA Champions League, not for this one. This is because the domestic leagues were each told at the start of this (2007-08) season which places would qualify for which round of which 2008-09 European competition, and they can't change that in the middle of the season. - MTC (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. I read a webpage which suggested that it would be implemented in this (08-09) season. Falastur2 (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dutch second team[edit]

The team qualifying for the third qualifying round is not necessarily the team that finishes 2nd in the league. In fact, teams 2-5 compete in a "play off" tournament, and the winner goes to the third qualifying round. So in fact the 5th place-team in the league can still qualify. See Eredivisie#European competition for details. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-29 17:42

I added a note to indicate this attached to the list of teams, but it was swiftly removed with the reasoning "it's the usual play-off system used by the Dutch" and implying it's not worth mentioning. I've added it back in, as the list of allocations only mentions Champions, runners-up etc. and from that you would assume that AFC Ajax should have been the second Dutch qualifier. - fchd (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

First team from Poland[edit]

There is surely a mistake, since champions of Poland are written in this article that they will start from 1st qualifying round AND 2nd qualifying round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.83.194 (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not completely inaccurate. This is depending on how the Champions League winners qualify. This is the same for Hungary. Kingjeff (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FC Zenit St Petersburg?[edit]

I don't know much about Champions League (so I'm not deleting anything) but how come FC Zenit is listed as the club which will automatically play in the group stage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.69.34 (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Because they won the Russian Premier League 2007.  ARTYOM  14:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it was me that added them. Winning the Russian league guarantees Group Stage play next season. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

this website has the Russian Champions playing in the Group Stage and the Runner-up in the 3rd Qualifying Round.I'm assuming a few years ago, Russian League teams did good enough to get teams into the Group Stage of Champions League. Kingjeff (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, before 2007-08 no team from Russia qualified for the group stage automatically (champion and runner-up qualified for QR3 and QR2, respectively). It was due to Russia's low position in UEFA coefficients. Advancement in ranking occured as a result of CSKA Moscow's triumph at UEFA Cup 2004-05 and the Russian teams' successful participation in 2005-06 season. Also due to Zenit's current good performance in UEFA Cup, three Russian clubs will take part in UEFA Champions League 2009-10, two of which will qualify directly to the group stage. See here for current UEFA coefficients :)  ARTYOM  16:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Inter-Wiki project idea[edit]

I came up with an idea of having an inter-wiki project for Champions League, UEFA Cup and UEFA Intertoto Cup. The idea is we can have match reports from Wikinews and use them on Wikipedia article for 2008-09 Champions League, 2008-09 UEFA Cup and 2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup. There should be no sourcing issues since there is a requirement of 2 sources per match report.

  1. This is an inter-promotion thing for Wikimedia Foundation.
  2. All match reports would be of the same standard.
  3. The standard NPOV will be in the match reports as required by Wikinews and Wikipedia.

There will be 213 matches for Champions League, 359 UEFA Cup matches, 78 Intertoto Cup matches for a total of 650 matches. Therefore, there will be a number of people needed to do this. If you're interested or have any questions or comments, you can ask them here or if you would like to sign-up, you can go here. Don't write how this is too big or a bad idea. This is to survey to see how viable this is. However, if you have some constructive comment or question, then feel free to add. Kingjeff (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


CSKA Sofia[edit]

CSKA Sofia are starting from Second Qualifying Round ;). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.155.2 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No they are not, due to the Champions League winners qualifying for the group stage from their league, the 16th league (Bulgaria)'s champions go into the third qualifying round, not the second. See Bert Kassies' website: Qualification and access list. - MTC (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Read this article - http://www.uefa.com/footballeurope/news/kind=2/newsid=690451.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.155.2 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This article was issued before the second leg of the semi-finals. That time did not secure that Manchester United and Chelsea will be played at group stage. It is secured that two teams will be contested at the group stage by league at early May. When two teams could contest at the group stage by league, the highest ranked country, Bulgaria, shifted to the third qualifying round. There is no anything be wrong. Raymond Giggs 10:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this section goes into extra time. Does anybody have a reliable Bulgarian source on the current status of CSKA? The english sources just say they "could be out", not "they are out". So I see no need to cut them until UEFA has decided their case, which will eventually be later this week. Rollback? Hockey-holic (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If CSKA loses its licence, Bulgaria will not be represented in this year's Champions League. Sources:
The last source also states that UEFA will announce all participants on June 5.

Hockey-holic (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


It´s not true, that Bulgaria will have no team in the CL. The 2nd in the championship - Levski Sofia will participate of course! It is in the rules of UEFA!

Wrong its the team with the highest UEFA Coefficent in this case AC Milan —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattParker 119 (talkcontribs) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is you who is wrong: see http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/jun4d.html
I'd expect Levski Sofia to enter instead. Either way to have the page now say that no Bulgarian team will enter if CSKA don't just seems misleading given that its not officially the case yet. --Simonski (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to wait until tomorrow (June 5th) and see what teams the UEFA announces. With CSKA and Porto out, and no one really knowing who will compete for them, its better to leave the footnotes than editing back and forth because of 20,000 different opinions. Hockey-holic (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

CSKA Sofia are definately out [1]. Porto are apparantly appealing. Bert Kassies' site here [2] already has Vitoria Guimaraes entering the CL group phase automatically, with Benfica moved from the UEFA Cup to CL third qualifying round, as we have here on this page. This of course assumes Porto's appeal fails. Kassies also already list Levski Sofia as Bulgaria's CL entrant. Kassies is an amateur site so not strictly a 100% reliable source but he is usually correct. The suggestion that Bulgaria might not have any CL entrant is almost certainly wrong, regardless of which newspapers have claimed it (newspapers usually don't have much grasp of UEFA rules and practices and just make assumptions). Precendents suggest UEFA will allow the 2nd place team in Bulgaria to enter (Levski) - this occured with Austria in 2001-02, FC Tirol had to withdraw and were replaced with the 2nd place team (Grazer I think). The Milan rumour is false, aside from the fact that allowing Milan to take CSKA's place would hardly be logical or fair, it would leave Italy with five teams in the CL and this is against UEFA's new rules set up in 2005 following the entry of five English clubs. Regardless, CSKA should not be on our list, they are out of the tournament (and probably out of the Bulgarian Premier League too), although maybe it's best to wait until the official announcement before including Levski on the list. MarkB79 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the statement from the footnote at the bottom of the page that "no Bulgarian team will replace CSKA" because this is likely to be false and in any case, we don't know for sure until an official announcement is made. Incidentally, the Austrian situation I referred to was apparently in 2002 (not 2001) and it was Sturm Graz who replaced FC Tirol. [3] MarkB79 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just found this on Kassies, from UEFA's current CL regulations: "Article 1.07: A club which is not admitted to the competition shall be replaced by the next best-placed club in the top domestic league championship of the same national association, provided it fulfils the admission criteria. In this case, the access list for the UEFA Club Competitions (Annex Ia) will be adjusted accordingly." In other words, Levski Sofia should play in the CL qualifiers. The Milan rumour is nonsense apparently started by an Italian journalist and based on a misunderstanding. This situation is being complicated however by the fact that Levski Sofia's owner has allegedly announced that he does not want his team to play in the CL next year as he feels they are not strong enough to compete and that he will instruct the Bulgarian FA to nominate Lokomotiv Sofia instead. MarkB79 (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Its official! Conformation: http://www.focus-sport.net/?do=n1148764173193 and http://gong.bg/view_article.php?article_id=47185 both respected bulgarian sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurist 88 (talkcontribs) 08:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sofia Echo also confirms it in English language. Hockey-holic (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews invitation[edit]

Wikinews needs people to write news and match reports for UEFA Champions League. To sign-up, please go here. Please let me know if and when you sign-up here. Kingjeff (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Porto are out[edit]

They were excluded for bribing referees in 2003-2004. http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3648676,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattParker 119 (talkcontribs) 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Porto decision deferred.[4]--Yick50907551 (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That is correct. They may still be allowed back into the competition, but that will not be decided until after the committee meets again, and the date for that meeting has not yet been decided. – PeeJay 13:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your info, then I suspend my update.--Yick50907551 (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The decision to suspend F.C.Porto was deferred. At this point, Porto is a team allowed to participate on the competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.93.110 (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No, at this time, Porto is "in limbo", so it would be misleading to say they are either allowed or not allowed to compete. – PeeJay 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
PeeJay, you said in the summary for your last edit "Porto's place in the 08-09 Champions League is still up for debate, so listing them here as one of the entrants is incorrect." I have to agree, but by the same token, then the positions of the other Portuguese clubs in the tournament are equally uncertain -- for example, if Porto are reinstated, then Benfica are out, so we cannot say that Benfica is "certain" to compete in the tournament. We may need some way to better represent these possibilities, especially if it will quell a potential edit war. —Ed Cormany (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
How about we put "Sporting/Porto", "Vitoria Guimaraes/Sporting" and "Benfica/Vitoria Guimaraes" instead, with the second options in each instance being the teams that would compete if Porto are reinstated? – PeeJay 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds great, if we link to the appropriate section and/or footnote. —Ed Cormany (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Porto was never out of the competition. There was an avaliation because of a protest made by Benfica and Vitoria de Guimaraes, who were obvioulsy interested in substitute Porto, but UEFA never suspended Porto. So, pleas be an honest and correct person and keep uninteresting data out of the subject. If they were not suspended there is no reason to be mentioned int the suspended clubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.104.104 (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Porto were out of the competition, but they were allowed back in. UEFA made a decision and then overturned it. That is not the same as saying that Porto were never out of the competition. – PeeJay 15:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not a matter of shame, but a matter of redundacy. Why is recorded soemthing that never happened. CSKA were really out, but Porto were not. So, if I sued you for murdering someone eles, even if were not true, and you wouldn't be condened for that because you obviously did nothing would that appear on your police record? Of course not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.104.104 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
If I was a notable person and I'd been accused of murder, even if I was innocent, I'd expect it to be recorded in my biography. To do otherwise would be negligent. Porto were originally excluded from the competition because they were found guilty of bribing referees by a Portuguese court. Of course, UEFA's decision was subject to appeal, which Porto subsequently won, but the fact remains that the decision was made and then overturned. – PeeJay 20:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
What I am trying to say is that anyone can make someone suspicious. But anyone is innocent until proofs being presented in court. And what happened is that Porto was declared innocent by portuguese courts. And when Benfica and Vitoria presented their protests in UEFA the process was running, yet. And what you say about being famous is subjective: I would not appreciate something prejorative for my name in my biography if it was provoqued by people that wished my failure. Porto is a big team in UEFA. It is, with Man Utd recordist of presences in Champions. It is a top club and I don't think it deserves something fake to give a bad image to its good reputation.
Look, I don't know the full ins-and-outs of the case since I don't read Portuguese and therefore I couldn't follow any of the local news about the matter. However, from what I have read on the BBC, a Portuguese court took action against FC Porto and their chairman over the bribing of referees. Because of this, UEFA originally took the decision to ban Porto from the 2008-09 Champions League, but this was overturned after Porto appealed. Again, I don't know what Benfica or Vitoria's involvement in the case was, but we can only report that which was reported in reliable third-party media sources, and the reliable sources say that Porto were banned and then reinstated. The article doesn't intend to take sides in the matter, it merely reports the facts, and you can't argue with plain facts. – PeeJay 10:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
German football newspaper kicker reports that FC Porto are allowed to compete in this year's Champions League, according to UEFA's director of communications and public affairs, William Gaillard. I guess the decision came faster then expected, now it just needs to be officially published by UEFA. Hockey-holic (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, UEFA are reserving the decision for the 2009-10 UEFA Champions League season. 76.71.2.150 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Codes for results tables in the group phase[edit]

The list of confirmed teams in the group stage is shown on the main page, and we need 2, or 3 letter codes to try and make the result tables of last season :)

  • Chelsea - CHE
  • Manchester United - MU
  • Lyon - OL
  • Internazionale - INT
  • Real Madrid - RM
  • Bayern Munich - BAY
  • PSV Eindhoven - PSV
  • Villarreal - VIL
  • Roma - ROM
  • Porto - FCP
  • Werder Bremen - BRE
  • Sporting CP - SCP
  • Zenit St. Petersburg ZEN
  • Bordeaux - BOR
  • Celtic - CEL
  • CFR Cluj - CFR

please feel free to post your views below // Finns 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you need to use FCP to avoid confusion with Portugal. I can't see why anyone could possibly get the idea that the Portuguese national team is playing in the Champions League, especially over such a minor matter, and if you start trying to dodge conflicts like that, you're opening up the possibility for ruling out just about any of those codes as being "possibly confusable" with a different meaning for the same code. Not to mention that on the vertical column, the club names are listed, meaning it's virtually impossible to mistake Porto for Portugal, short of if you were actually trying to. POR worked fine last year, can't see why this year is any different. Falastur2 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
We should use the same three-letter codes as UEFA, as shown by their main page on a matchday. – PeeJay 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a good idea. Nevertheless, if implemented, make sure to double-check for possible conflicts within the domestic league tables (use of r2 headers is assumed). Hockey-holic (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Three-letter abbreviations don't have to be consistent from competition to competition. For example, Manchester United may use the abbreviation "MNU" in the Premier League, but they are often referred to as "MU" by UEFA. If there are any other such differences between the abbreviation used by the club domestically and in the Champions League, we should ignore them and use the UEFA-defined abbreviation. – PeeJay 21:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I would change the following proposals: Olympique Lyon - OL (common abbreviation for the club), Zenit St. Petersburg - ZEN (the club is usually referred to as Zenit) Hockey-holic (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I have made some more changes, and we should be able to ready the full list next week! // Finns 19:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Note on Zenit St. Petersburg saying TH UCUP[edit]

Since we seem to get those repeats on adding and unadding the TH UCUP to Zenit at the moment, I would like to point out, especially to those IP editors, that consensus was reached on the topic last year not to add the note. Details see below (this is a copy from last year's talk page). Hockey-holic (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sevilla - UEFA Cup Winners 2006-07[edit]

OK, I'm getting bored of continually reverting the article whenever this gets put back in, so I thought I'd better take some friendly advice from User:RichardRundle and bring the debate here (yes, I know I should've done that sooner, and I'm sorry). So, what does everyone else think. I know there have been others who have removed this info when it has been put back in, but I'd like to see if there's anyone who thinks that, despite its irrelevance, the fact that Sevilla won last season's UEFA Cup should be kept in the article. - PeeJay 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be put in either. If we put it in we'd rather as well add all the other cup/league competitions that clubs happened to win last year (which we won't). As far as continual reverts go, I think whoever's doing it is trying out their hand at trolling (one born every minute). We'll just have to put up with it. Aheyfromhome 18:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why has the fact, that Sevilla FC has won the UEFA Cup 2006-07, no effect on Sevilla FC, no effect on the UEFA Champions League 2007-08, and no effect on the qualification for the UEFA Champions League 2007-08? --88.77.233.180 09:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it doesn't have any effect. Sevilla qualified for the Champions League 07-08 by coming third in La Liga 06-07, not by winning the UEFA Cup 06-07. Winning the UEFA Cup 06-07 was merely coincidental in relation to their Champions League 07-08 qualification. - PeeJay 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
After AC Milan is - "(automatic qualification as title holders)", therefore showing the reason why they are in the competition. So, adding "(Winner of UEFA Cup 2006-07)" after Sevilla FC could be very easily misinterpreted as meaning that they are in this competition as a result of winning last seasons UEFA Cup. OK so most of us know that is not the case, but anyone viewing the article with no knowledge of the topic, that is without a doubt, how it would read. Therefore, Peejay is correct, it is not appropriate to keep adding into it this article. In addition it does nothing to improve the article, and it could also be argued that if the article were to include details of last seasons UEFA Cup winners, then each club that has won the UEFA Cup, CL (or even the old Cup Winers Cup) should also have that information by their clubs name. But that is clearly neither relevant nor justifiable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

New Coefficients or What?[edit]

It would be nice to see some explanations for teams automatically qualifying for the group stage or qualifying rounds. Teams such as CFR Cluj, Zenit St.Petersberg are included in the list of teams automatically qualifyed. Please some explanation for this would be helpful. rokkafellah (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cluj and Zenit are in the group stage because they won the Romanian and Russian leagues respectively. According to the UEFA Access List, the winners of those leagues qualify for the group stage directly. – PeeJay 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Coefficients for leagues determine where a club enters both UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup. A club's coefficient ranking has no bearing on where they enter. A club's coefficient ranking determines if a club is seeded or not seeded, or in the case of UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup Group Stage, determines what pot they are in. Kingjeff (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates of matches[edit]

The dates of these matches become ambiguous after the games have been played. Even as I write folks out there are scrambling to update and edit when the games for the 3rd Qualifying round are to be played - but once they've been played the viewer has to guess as to when the games were played. There has got to be a better way to save this information and display it. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we must add dates as comments which appears when you move mouse to the result of game, for example as in ru-wiki in ru:Шаблон:ДваМатча (I don't know is there such template in en-wiki or not).--Ahonc (Talk) Flag of Ukraine.svg 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
When the date of the games is noted which narrows the possibilities down to one of two dates, do we need to make it more obvious? You may think so, I'm not saying you're wrong to think so, I merely ask the question. I see the marking of dates before games are played as more informative to those who want to know when they are happening, while after the game is over, the exact date becomes less relevant - if you wanted to see the game you've missed your chance anyway; the score is the important thing by then. Falastur2 Talk 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. After the match, the date becomes almost irrelevant, and when the date is on one of two consecutive days, which are listed above anyway, it's hardly worth the effort to mention it. – PeeJay 00:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You guys must be completely out of whack in terms of the historical exactness of this event. Isn't date of occurence a reference point for encyclopediac entry. While you boys think that it is irrelevent I beg to differ. I bet that when the entry for the Final will entered that that date will be quite exact (and the massive updates that will occur while the game is in progress)! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The approximate date of occurence is already listed above the table of results, so is the exact date really necessary? – PeeJay 07:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There are no special links to areas documenting the Qualification Rounds, but for last season in UEFA Champions League 2007-08 group stage, UEFA Champions League 2007-08 knockout stage and the final 2008 UEFA Champions League Final all have dates exactly and even time of kickoff as well. And if I were to come back next year and asked you what day FC Dynamo Kyiv played against Drogheda United in Ireland - Could you tell me exactly (without going to a different source)???? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I would ask you why exactly you wanted to know this, then check the page history for what the page looked like when the date was still listed. Falastur2 Talk 11:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you are a masochist!!! I go to a page of source and then you want me to weed through thousands entries in the history log! Obviously date of occurence has little meaning to you. Consistancy through the tournament of exact reference dates of an event, IMO is important!
Again I ask you the same question - And if I were to come back next year and asked you what day FC Dynamo Kyiv played against Drogheda United in Ireland - Could you tell me exactly (without going to a different source)???? From what is entered on the page you have a 50% chance of getting it wrong!!!!! Thanks encyclopedia whiz! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Does the exact date actually matter that much? It's going to be one of the two days shown above, and I don't think that the date ever has a direct effect on the result. – PeeJay 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it so difficult to add the dates?--Ahonc (Talk) Flag of Ukraine.svg 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It would involve changing the {{TwoLeg start}} template, and hence every {{TwoLegResult}} template on every Wikipedia page that uses it. And all to incorporate the date? I don't think so... – PeeJay 19:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well if thats the case that you are scared of changing a template to incorporate information that IMO is worthy of been displayed - Your philosopy on templates vs what should be on wikipedia is all wrong!!!! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you actually aware of how much work would have to go into such a change? Evidently not. – PeeJay 21:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If it will be optional parameter (which used i.e. {{#if:}}) we'll not need to change every Wikipedia page.--Ahonc (Talk) Flag of Ukraine.svg 19:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There is also alternative variant: we can write dates in text before table, for example: "Kaunas and Ventspils played their second leg games on August 5, other games took place on August 6".--Ahonc (Talk) Flag of Ukraine.svg 19:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Or "the second leg matches were played on 6 August, with the exception of Kaunas vs Ventspils, which was played on 5 August". – PeeJay 20:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Why not give one date - and since ECLeague games are usually played on the Wednesday and use notations similiar to ground changes for games that were move to Tuesday or any other day! How hard is that???? But the fact that there are folks out there that are resistant to modifications and additions because of skrewy templates and their inability to deal with them is all wrong! Resistance to change is futile! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I think Ahonc's idea was better than what you suggest. – PeeJay 21:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
His idea is good but it has far more keystrokes than
Bunghole United - Scrapper City 2-2 1-1[1]
Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrusha, I may ask to lower your tone a little since it is very angry and sometimes on the border to insult. Regarding the topic: Although I agree to the opinion of PeeJay and his likes that it is unnecessary to show the exact date once AFTER the game has been played, I have to make a proposal.

I disagree and strongly! I have indicated that there is an inconsistancy between the way matches are displayed in the post qualification games and with those in qualification. Games in the post qualification have exact dates given.
I think you are mixing up things. (All following examples use the 2007-08 season.) The main article does not carry any specific dates except for, of course, the final. The sub-articles, on the other hand, do indeed have exact dates to the games, but they are also more specific on their part of the overall competition. Hockey-holic (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You have not answered my question as to how I can reference an encyclopedic entry for the event and know the exact date of the that event took place.
I would propose to add a link to the official match reports for every game, as it is done for the knock-off rounds as well. This should satisfy both the needs of an encyclopedic reference and the exact date issue. Hockey-holic (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What about using this template? It has the option to display data which can be revealed by a mouseclick. The question of this template using fb team templates is also non-existent since all teams (except San Marino, but I will create those once the divisional alignment of this year's league has been announced) within an UEFA top-tier league have one in the meantime. An example can be seen on the current DFB Cup competition article.

I admit that the proposed templates have their issues regarding two-legged competition games, but it would be better than checking 500 pages currently using the TwoLegResult template on errors should it be altered one way or another. Hockey-holic (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As a member of RSSSF [[5]] for years, I must say the annotations for the date of the game in the UEFA/ECL area are much clearer and more consistant throughout the tournament.
With so many contributors here, unfortunately there is lack of foresight for change and a blockage around templates which seem to usurp barriers for modification from the plebes around here. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Most people think that templates actually make life more difficult than it should be. I do not agree as long as the respective template is self-explanatory on the very first sight. However, the documentation section of at least the fb templates could use some improvement, as it is nearly non-existent in large parts. If there would be proper documentation, people would have fewer to no difficulties using them. But that's another topic. Hockey-holic (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Andrusha, it's bad form to delete warnings addressed to you, and some of your language is becoming insulting. I'd also point out that there is an ever-present tendency in Wikipedia for editors to come up with an idea for change and refuse to believe that their idea won't be included. If we are being short-sighted in not agreeing to this change you have to admit that you are being short-sighted in advocating a stance that appears to be "we should add every bit of information imaginable to Wikipedia, regardless of consensus for or against". Wikipedia's mandate is not to compile every single fact ever known in an attempt to make websites such as RSSSF entirely outdated and unnecessary. We have guidelines on relevance, length of articles and such to make sure that our data is as concise as it is helpful, and you have to admit that adding footnotes as you suggested would be an eyesore in these articles - especially consider the UEFA Cup, where your proposed footnotes would see the early stages templates be followed by several screens of notes - the UEFA Cup First Round has eighty teams in it! I'm not saying that your idea of including dates for these games is wrong, although I oppose it, but advocating a stance of "change is good, we must edit Wiki to include all change, resistance is futile!" is not right for Wikipedia, and neither, might I add, is your attempts at pushing through poorly-developed ideas such as those footnotes purely because "resistance [to change] is futile". If you really want these dates added, then I recommend you try to find a consensus, and perhaps speak to a template maker to show us a proposal for a new template including these changes which will neither be an eyesore (with screens of data purely about fixture dates) nor will add un-Godly amounts of extra text. We do technically have a 40,000kb limit, after all. Falastur2 Talk 11:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
In fairness, I believe Andrusha is suggesting that we state the date that the majority of matches were played on in the section's prose, and then add notes to the matches that were played on anomalous dates, i.e. "the second leg matches were played on 6 August, with exceptions noted below". By the way, Hockeyholic, I really despise that {{fb match}} template, so I won't be supporting its use. – PeeJay 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
As it was just a proposal, I have no problem with that. :-) To be honest, I do not expect major changes for the main article anyways. Hockey-holic (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, a mistaking of intent there, I apologise. But I'm still not convinced that footnotes are the right solution to this. Falastur2 Talk 12:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

About notes[edit]

There is such note on the page:

Team 1 Agg. Team 2 1st leg 2nd leg
Sparta Prague Czech Republic 1–32 Greece Panathinaikos 1–2 0–1
  • ^Note 2 : Order of legs reversed

When we click on 2 we go to the Note 2, but when we click on ^Note 2 : we don't go to the 2 (because there is not id #endnote 2_back).

I suggest to change these note to (for example):

Team 1 Agg. Team 2 1st leg 2nd leg
Sparta Prague Czech Republic 1–3[a 1] Greece Panathinaikos 1–2 0–1
Notes
  1. ^ Order of legs reversed

--Ahonc (Talk) Flag of Ukraine.svg 20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. However, I would also suggest that all of the notes be moved to the bottom of the page, in-keeping with the MOS. All footnotes should be in a section at the bottom of the page, between the "See also" section and the "References" section. – PeeJay 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are the legs reversed in the first place? — chandler — 22:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Zenit code[edit]

Seeing as we were trying to use the UEFA codes for everything, the Supercup match center uses ZNT for Zenit rather than ZEN // Finns 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Better change it then. – PeeJay 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
On TV It uses MAN and ZEN for me. — chandler — 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That's probably a code used by the TV network broadcasting the game in your area. On ITV in the UK, the codes are "MAN U" and "ZEN", but the UEFA MatchCentre says "MU" and "ZNT". – PeeJay 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Are there official codes of teams?--Ahonc (Talk) Flag of Ukraine.svg 13:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Not as such, but for the purposes of an article about a UEFA competition, I don't think it's too outlandish just to use the same abbreviations as they do. Saves on a lot of petty arguments anyway! – PeeJay 18:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that codes are not important. Each code has a link to article about team. I think that's why we can used similar codes in different tables (for example, abbreviate both Olympiques as OLY).--Ahonc (Talk) Flag of Ukraine.svg 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why abbreviate Olympique Lyonnais and Olympique de Marseille as OLY when we can differentiate between the two by abbreviating to LYO and OM? – PeeJay 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it will be also understandable.--Ahonc (Talk) Flag of Ukraine.svg 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It's perfectly understandable as it is. That's the idea behind the codes. They're supposed to be immediately recognisable as referring to the clubs they are meant to refer to. Anyway, the common names for Olympique Lyonnais and Olympique de Marseille are "Lyon" and "Marseille" respectively, which makes "LYO" and "OM" perfectly acceptable as codes for those clubs. – PeeJay 21:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
And why does Lyon use three-letter code and Marseille - two-letter? If I'll make this article I'll unify codes (LYO, MAR, MAN, ZEN...).--Ahonc (Talk) Flag of Ukraine.svg 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you would. However, I'm sure there are others who would disagree with your opinion of what the correct code should be. Therefore, we should use the UEFA codes to avoid arguments, as I said before. – PeeJay 21:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Names[edit]

Is there any way we can try to keep using the same name for a club all the way through the article? For instance, Anorthis Famagusta are called exactly that for the qualifying rounds, but are just called Anorthis in the group stage. This can be confusing for many reasons, and I think that whichever name (shorter, longer, doesn't matter) we settle on should be used throughout. I also don't think it would be a bad idea that if we settle on the really short versions of names (like just Bayern for Bayern Munich), we should try to stick to as short a name as possible for the rest of the clubs, again for consistency. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the inconsistency in the naming of Anorthosis. Also, which clubs do you think should have their names shortened? All the names seem fine to me. – PeeJay 09:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No, what I meant was that "Bayern" is to "Anorthosis" as "Bayern Munich" is to "Anorthosis Famagusta," so whichever one we go with, we should stick with for all clubs. Examples would be just calling A.C. Milan "Milan" or Inter Milan "Inter." I guess what I'm saying is that if we're going to go with the shortest unique name possible for some clubs (which is fine), we should do so for all of them. Hopefully this clarifies the issue? -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're suggesting, but which team names would you change? How extensive would this change be? Basically, I think I'd be happier to change "Anorthosis" to "Anorthosis Famagusta" and "Bayern" to "Bayern Munich" than to change all the rest. – PeeJay 07:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is that something like CFR Cluj, if it were like AC Milan it would just be Cluj if we're going to use Milan, etc. Basically I think we should decide if we're going to use prefixes, suffixes, and location indicators in the articles. If we're going to shorten Liverpool F.C. to Liverpool, then there's no reason to use Aalborg BK, since "BK" is just the Danish form of "F.C.," AFAIK. Also, if we're going to leave the "Munich" out of FC Bayern Munich, then I don't understand why we need to include the "St. Petersburg" or "Eindhoven" in what by all accounts should just be "Zenit" and "PSV." I guess what I'm saying is that we should not include things that are not part of the name of the club (like location indicators), or the functional equivalent of "F.C." (C.D., C.F, BK, IFK, etc.), whether they are prefixes or suffixes. I've tried to do this with the CONCACAF Champions League, and once you get going, the names become much more consistent, and the rest of the community usually catches on rather easily. I think it improves the readability of the article by increasing consistency. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this needs to be done on a case-by-case basis - e.g. I'd always just use "PSV" as that appears to be the complete name of the club and the "Eindhoven" is just added by those who don't know any better, but use "Anorthosis Famagusta" as that is the name of that club, the Famagusta bit not as thier current location (which I believe is Larnaka), but as a reminder of where they played until 1974. I'd use AaB for Aalborg, as that's what I see most Danish sources use. I'm not too bothered either way about F.C./BK etc. - fchd (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shakhtar Donetsk and Porto[edit]

Shouldn't Shakhtar Donetsk and Porto switch places? Shakhtar Donetsk has more away goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.116.116 (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I think you mean Sporting CP, not Porto. Second, no. As the two teams have not played against each other, and their overall goal differences and goals scored are equal, they are ranked by their UEFA coefficients. Since Sporting's is higher, they are ranked higher than Shakhtar. – PeeJay 15:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service[edit]

There is zero encyclopedic value in updating intermediate game scores. Just enjoy the games while they run.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, we've heard this spiel umpteen times. People will continue to update live scores regardless of whether you tell them not to or not, so I suggest that you just leave them to it. – PeeJay 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it can become disruptive enough to warrant administrative measures. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not saying I condone it, but like I said above, people will continue to update scores as they come in despite warnings to the contrary. By the way, I just noticed that my comment above sounded a bit accusatory, and for that I apologise. – PeeJay 08:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. There may indeed always be someone who will consider the scores out-of-date, but what I hope for that it is a phase people move through before doing something more productive. But that is probably an insight people indeed have to reach themselves. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I've been guilty of updating the scores as they happen, but I'm trying not to do so any more. By the way, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't "correct" my spelling ;) – PeeJay 09:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Nah, that wasn't me but this spell checker thingy, that I installed to correct my own awful typing.;)--Tikiwont (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the harm in updating live scores? 222.130.112.211 (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What if Juventus beats Real?[edit]

Will Juventus be qualified for the knockout stage if they beat Real Madrid on matchday 4? I say yes, but Hockey-holic says that this would be a scenario after gameday 5

Let's see:

If Juventus beats Real, they will have 10 points and Real will have 6 points after 4 games. In order to catch Juve, Real can't lose to BATE on matchday 5 neither to Zenit on matchday 6. But BATE needs to beat Zenit, Real and Juve in order to catch Juventus. And Zenit also needs to beat BATE, Juve and Real to catch Juventus.

So, if Juventus beats Real on matchday 4, they will be qualified for the knockout stage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.91.202 (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Scenario discussions[edit]

Please discuss any questions about scenarios here!!!

Group E[edit]

Can Celtic still qualify for knockout stages if they lose to Manchester United in next match? And if Manchester United defeat Celtic are they definitely through to knockout stages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.195.24 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the article, in the case of a Manchester win against Celtic, the fate of both teams is in the hands of Aalborg BK. If and only if Aalborg manages to beat Villareal, there will be a small chance for ManU and Celtic to escape their current destiny, and then only if a couple of other strange things happen so that three teams will be tied on points after Matchday 6. Hockey-holic (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's what i thought but as a Celtic fan, and earlier reading on wikipedia that if Man Utd win then Celtic are out !! I just wanted another opinion. Regarding the 'Encyclopaedic value' mentioned below, i agree that for supporters that don't have a calculator and plenty of spare time to work out various Scenarios for results, it's helpful to know the possible implication of various possible results as long, as you say, it's only for the coming matchday and accurate..

After matchday 4, Group H[edit]

Upon further thought, it will be sufficient for Juventus to qualify for the knockout stage if they win their game on 5 November, even if there is a winner in the other game on that day. The reasons for that are:

  • If BATE wins, they would have 5 points. In the worst case, another BATE win against Real and a Juventus defeat against Zenit in the Day 5 games would get this group to Juventus 10 pts, BATE 8 pts, Real 6 pts and Zenit 4 pts, thus assuring Juventus the qualification.
  • If Zenit wins, they would have 4 points, setting the group standings at JUV 10 pts, RM 6 pts, ZEN 4 pts, BATE 2 pts. Zenit then win their Day 5 game against Juve, which would get them to 7 points while Juve still have 10 points. If Real wins against BATE (this would be the only case where Day 6 matches become relevant), they would have 9 points after five games. Since Real and Zenit then play each other on Day 6, only one of them would be able to qualify besides Juventus.

My apologies go to the anon editor who came up with this first but got constantly reverted by me. Hockey-holic (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I had added the scenarios under my IP address yesterday, thanks for updating it accordingly and filling in things I've missed. I hope everything is correct now. Radicell (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic value?[edit]

Do these "Scenarios" have any place on an encyclopaedic article anyway? Being full of ifs and maybes doesn't add any value to the facts as already presented. - fchd (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Two things come into my mind. First, the sentences in their current form are facts themselves because they are applied logic reasoning. I get your point though. The discussion of this topic might probably lead to a similar philosophical discussion as "What was first - hen or egg?". Second, I think that people adding "what if"-facts can be compared to people doing "live updates". You just can't stop them. Personally, I'm not against adding sentences like "abc qualifies if xyz happens" IF they describe possibilities for the coming matchday ONLY. Any further-going assumptions should stay out of the article and rather be discussed in a local pub or similar facilities. :-) Hockey-holic (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
They were prominent in the World Cup Qualifying sections, so I added them here as well. Radicell (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding your "You just can't stop them." comment, why would you want to stop them? Radicell (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, can we move these to the Group Stage Page and thereby eliminate clutter on the main page? Right now we seem to update the main page first. I will make the edits myself when I get home. Nlsanand (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
As proven by my edits today, I too am not convinced that the scenarios have a place in this article. It may be simple mathematics to analyse the teams' records and extrapolate their potential finishing positions, but it is also original research, IMO. – PeeJay 18:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, OR, as a rule, eliminates people posting their theses on Wiki. This again is just an extrapolation of fact that is used to give context to users. Why should we wait for soccernet to publish their what if scenarios (which are sometimes wrong)? I think these items are useful to readers. Since it is convention to have these (as in World Cup or Eurocup), I am going to put the scenarios but only on the Group page. My concern is that there seems to a "Yes" and "No" side on this. However, if we eliminate it entirely, then the "No" side who ignored the precedent from previous tournaments, will have created a precedent to site in the future. Again I won't do this til later. Nlsanand (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
They still have no encyclopaedic value, in my opinion, whether here or on the Group Stage Pages, regardless of what "soccernet" whatever that is says, or regardless of any precedent, either in the past or for the future. Best kept to fan pages. - fchd (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If they are to be included at all, add them to the Group Stage Pages. But they are, let's face it, facing the OR regulations right in the eye, and it's close between who is going to blink first. I wonder if there is much point in telling people "If X wins and Z draws or loses..." to be honest. In any other context, they would be deleted (if, halfway through the American elections, someone edited "If Obama gets A, B and C, and McCain doesn't get D, then Obama wins" it would have been undone immediately. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason this is preferable is that often end of group matches are filled with permutations that people like to have summarized. This is consolidating a state of facts which are alreaady available on the print but may not be easily decipherable to someone not acquainted with tiebreakers. Everyone here seems to hit on the OR issue, or the encyclopedic issue, instead of looking at "What do people care about." Nlsanand (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Being able to "give the people what they want" is all well and good, but it's irrelevant if the information cannot be properly sourced. – PeeJay 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Previous match results are sourced. They are the information on which the scenarios are determined. Hence, the info used to write the scenarios is sourced. If I have a source which tells me a=1 and b=2, do I know a separate source that tells me a+b=3? That is what you're saying. If you think the stuff written is untrue, just verify it and edit it if it is wrong. All it takes is someone taking two seconds to think before they press the revert button, which you have appeared unwilling to do so far. Nlsanand (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how including the scenarios can violate OR. Saying that Liverpool will qualify if they win or draw their next match is not OR. It's sort of obvious. We don't have to source that π = 3.1415926535... for example, do we?  ARTYOM  10:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
So, did we just go ahead and delete it? I don't think it's original research, it's just a summary to help the average Joe Dimwit figure out how teams will go through. If we really want to be strict about this, then the World Cup Qualifying ones should be deleted as well. Radicell (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There has been no concensus to delete. It has just sat as deleted for right now, because the No side got the last edit. I'm at work right now. If someone else can do it, would appreciate. Nlsanand (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The onus is always on the editor adding a piece of information to prove why that information deserves to be included. I am yet to see a decent reason for the inclusion of the scenarios. – PeeJay 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Here are the reasons, the info is verifiable (your OR argument, on which the initial revert was predicated, does not hold water, see above). It is useful to a user as a means of consolidating info (see arguments above). Finally, in the lack of consensus previous precendent of it being used for other events should have some sway; there is always onus on the reverter to make a case where deleting that's usually standard for a page; I have seen no attempt at a legitimate in your arguments above that warrants your reverts. Groups page for now, while leaving debate open??? Arbitration if need be. Nlsanand (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I still cannot see how the info is verifiable. Unless a reliable source publishes similar scenarios, anything you do to prove it yourself is OR. – PeeJay 20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it is OR. Your opinion doesn't prove things, until it is proven that scenarios = OR, then the scenarios should stay. 221.220.177.156 (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The qualfication criteria is sourced, the scores are sourced. The fact that you can't verify it is because you're too lazy to do the calculations. I am willing to listen to an argument that says these aren't encyclopedic, but really your OR argument is bullshit. I'm beginning to think you don't have a grasp of logic, or are just trolling. Nlsanand (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I have inserted them into the Group stage page. We can delete them from the main page if there is some form of consensus. I am actually for elimiating them from the main page, and putting in some form of colour scheming, that identifies teams that control their own destiny or something. Nlsanand (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that the scenarios don't go that well with the individual scores, I read that somewhere around the WC Qualifying talk pages. The UEFA Cup 2008-09 article has the scenarios as well, should we add them to their group stage article? 221.220.190.190 (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks okay to me on the page, but I'm not that picky about presentation. Nlsanand (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Atletico Madrid[edit]

They shouldn't be first? They have greater goal difference than Liverpool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.172.226 (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the tie-breaking criteria. – PeeJay 10:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah they win based on the 2nd tie breaker which is total goal diff. The goals away only comes into play if the total goal diff is tied which it is not. Atletico is in first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.159.169.123 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I may quote your proposed criterium. It says:"superior goal difference from the group matches played among the teams in question". In other words, only the matches between teams who are even in overall points are taken into account in order to break up the tie. If, let's say, Liverpool, Atletico and PSV were all three tied at 5 points each, only the games between those three teams would be taken to break the tie. So, in short, as Liverpool drew with Atletico, criterium #2 still leaves the tie intact. Hockey-holic (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Group Winners/Runners-up[edit]

Is there any merit to distinguishing between who wins the group and who finishes 2nd? As I understand things, group winners avoid each other in the Round of 16, so there is a point to missing out on the theoretically best teams in the tournament. If there is, then it should be inidcated within the group standings, and the scenarious should discuss group winning scenarious as distinct from simply qualifying for the next round. I dunno. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia session[edit]

I agree to the statement that trivia is not encyclopedic by Richard Rundle. However, it is notable that the game Bayern-Sporting is the biggest two leg win in UEFA Champions League era. How do we include them? Raymond Giggs 07:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the knockout stage article. – PeeJay 08:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Not so clear. I need to search to find the words. Raymond Giggs 07:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

number of rounds in bracket[edit]

i know we bring up the inclusion of a bracket every year, and i don't want to belabor the point too badly. nevertheless, it seems wrong to include all 16 teams from the knockout stage in the bracket. the last three rounds do feed into each other in a way that can be represented by a bracket, but that relationship just doesn't hold between the first knockout round and the quarterfinals. the bracket makes it look like Barca were guaranteed to play Bayern if the two won their ties, even though that was not determined until a later draw. i propose using an 8-team bracket, but i'm sure some others will express a desire to eliminate it entirely. —Ed Cormany (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This same dilemma was held during the 2008 Stanley Cup playoffs (see the discussion here under 2008 Playoff Bracket Misleading). The result of the discussion was to uphold the 16 team bracket, but remove the connection-lines between the last 16 and the last 8 (see the result here). lil2mas (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd support removing the bracket entirely, it provides no information not already available. If the bracket must be kept, remove the first knockout stage. Removing the lines just means further explanation and to me it looks a little messy (although still a vast improvement on having non-existent connections) Stu.W UK (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The bracket quickly displays information about the knockout rounds that is not adequately conveyed by just a list of ties. The relationship between the teams and their place in the draw is best shown by a bracket. I also don't think there's anything wrong with showing all of the knockout rounds in the bracket. There are plenty of sports that reseed teams after certain rounds, and they show their tournaments using a bracket. It doesn't have to mean that the whole thing was predetermined. Showing only the quarterfinals on is misleading as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Grant, it shows the way to the final much easier than text ever can. It takes 1 second to see "oh the winner between barca and bayern play chelsea or liverpool" while otherwise you'd have to look up "oh which quarter final was it that was drawn against the other? ..., 3 and 4 ok.. and 3 was Barca and Bayern, 4 was Chelsea and Liverpool... ok so the winner of Barca / bayern play chelsea or liverpool", if you want to go in closer and read the text they'll see that there was a new draw before the quarters. chandler · 04:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with having the bracket in it's current form as it gives the impression that the draw is set from the first knockout round onwards. I would rather not have the bracket included at all but if it must stay then keep it to quarter-finals onwards. ZoeL (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep the bracket, it displays the path to the final more easily than any table, scoreboard or paragraph can. However, ditch the lines connecting the round of 16 to the quarterfinals, and arrange the R16 matchups the way they were drawn by UEFA. My second choice would been ZoeL's suggestion. –Howard the Duck 05:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

1st[edit]

Why not display the final match as the first item? It is the most important one, followed by the semi-finals, quarter-finals etcetera. Migdejong (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Two words: chronological order. – PeeJay 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
PeeJay2K3, be nice ;) Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi PeeJay2K3, thank you for pointing that out. My question however was, and let me refrase that: why would chronological order be better that the inverse order? Isn't it better for a reader to first see the important matches, and only later the matches that were played by unkown Georgian and Luxemburgian teams? (No offence intended) Migdejong (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
No, that would be completely illogical. The article should (and does) follow the competition through in chronological order. - fchd (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If users want to look at the final stages, it will only take a few seconds for them to scroll to the bottom of the page. Or they can go to the Knockout Stage articles and flick through the seasons. However, other people can follow a teams progression or read through the structure of the competition without having to unnaturally read from bottom to top. Aheyfromhome (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Minutes per goal[edit]

What's with the "minutes per goal" column? It's not in the source. Is it a commonly used statistic? Or is it just synthesis of published material that advances a position? —JAOTC 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's not in the source, but I don't think it advances a position. It's simple arithmetic. – PeeJay 01:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course it's simple arithmetic, I'm not saying we need a source for the numbers. I'm just saying that if the statistic is not normally used in reliable sources, then it's pretty strange to have it here. There's a lot of simple arithmetic we don't go adding to articles, so I was just wondering whether there was some special reason to include this seemingly arbitrary statistic. I don't know why I didn't google it myself though—I did now, and I'm getting 2,000 hits, and while I don't see any organization publishing official lists of this kind, a few of the hits do seem to be from reliable sources, so it should be fine (I certainly agree that it's an interesting statistic). (Another problem with the column might be that it might get people to think Gerrard has the best MPG of all scorers in the tournament, which is not necessarily true, but I don't think we have to worry too much about that, especially since it's not a sortable column.) —JAOTC 09:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Jao - Seems to me that there are Pool supports out there attempting to clutch at some success out of an otherwise shyte season ;) In all seriousness though, it is a misleading piece of arithmetic... - Ck786 (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The UEFA '"conspiracy" against Chelsea[edit]

We all remember the drama of the Chelsea vs Barcelona semi-final 2nd leg. The referee did not have his best day. Nonetheless, I think it is not appropriate to include this rather subjective recollection into the short paragraph about the semi-finals: "Chelsea were knocked out by Barcelona after a highly controversial performance by referee Tom Henning Øvrebø." Firstly, it sounds as if wikipedia was stating that Øvrebø's performance was the actual and only reason for Chelsea not winning. And secondly, we could write a similar sentence next to practically each and every game of football. This sentence does not belong here as it hints to an intentional discrimination of Chelsea by the referee and the UEFA. We should not forget that Øvrebø's worst call during that evening was to send off Barcelona defender Abidal after a blatant Anelka dive with 25 minutes left to play. 83.191.122.174 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the current wording gives the impression that Barcelona's win was down to Ovrebo's refereeing at all. It merely points out that it was a major aspect of the game, which it was. – PeeJay 22:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008–09 UEFA 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.

YesY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008–09 UEFA 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 02:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)