Jump to content

Talk:2009–10 Premier League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Results Grid

[edit]

Bit of a moot point, but why are the links to the derbies in the Results grid shortened to an 'a'? Why not a 'D' for 'derby' for example?? - Ck786 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good idea 92.9.131.93 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
can you do change that though? 82.36.212.217 (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'a' stands for 'article available'. It is usually applied when their is a Wikipedia article about a notable rivalry. Most of them are derbies, true, but, just to name an example, how about El Clásico in Spain? Barcelona and Real Madrid are not even close in distance to call it a derby, yet the match-up is very distinctive and well-known around the world. Since the templates are currently applied for most of the recent football season articles (and not only for English ones), and given the fact above, the 'a' is more correct than a 'd' or any other letter and thus should not be changed. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 07:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teams Guaranteed to Compete

[edit]

United aren't the only team guranteed to compete, as it's impossible for Liverpool and Chelsea to be overtaken by so many other teams with only 10 games to go. Remember the rest still have to play each other so points get dropped. The pro-United editing on wikipedia is a joke at times. -- 81.154.213.36 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Arsenal fan. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you compute so that you get the list of the already saved teams ? 82.240.207.81 (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If 17 teams can't finish ahead of you then you're safe. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in maths or anything so I don't know the formula for calculating who's safe and who's not. Obviously the 'if 17 teams can't finish above you' point is pretty much it, but considering a table is relevant to all teams results against each other, some will secure safety by virtue of the other teams taking points off one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.230.242 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formula is calculating the worst case scenario for each team. So that the team loses all of their matches left, while trying to get the most points for the teams below. Now Im not sure, but Wigan and West Ham might be sure because all the teams below them might not be able to get in front of them because they would be taking so many points off each other. But making those calculations with 8 rounds left and 20 teams, will take some time. chandler · 13:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point of Note: Blackburn are on 40 points. Imagine if they loose both remaining games. Pompey (38) wins at least 1, Sunderland (36) wins 2, Newcastle and Hull (34) wins 2 each and have a better goal difference.
Then Blackburn would go down. This is also applicable to Bolton (should Blackburn pick up points...)
Unless I'm mistaken, neither Bolton nor Blackburn are strictly safe yet...
Unlikely? Yes. Mathematically impossible? No. --Majushi 15:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.212.203 (talk) [reply]

How petty is this discussion? - Ck786 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Managerial Changes

[edit]

I would just like to point out that as Ricky Sbragia resigned in the 2008-09 season and Steve Bruce was appointed in the 2008-09 season (which officially ends on the 30th June (see last season's discussion about this exact thing)) that that appointment does not belong in this season's page and as such I think it should be moved to the 08-09 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.39.246 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree. Falastur2 Talk 16:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positions

[edit]

Can we have the table that the other leagues have which show the position after each round, ive tried to do it but didnt know how to change it so that the right positions would be highlighted for europe? MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Premier League's fixtures aren't organised into rounds like the Italian or Spanish leagues are (i.e. fixtures get rearranged and postponed all the time, which plays havoc with any potential round-by-round table), said round-by-round table would be extremely problematic to create. Furthermore, it would be completely unciteable. Also, when would you record the club's position? After the final whistle of their match that weekend, or after all of the matches that day/weekend/round have been played? – PeeJay 22:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A similar request was repeatedly declined for the 2008–09 article, see also its talk page. Unless proven otherweise, I doubt that the reasons for the declinement and/or the consensus on this have changed for this season. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other english leagues have them and they will have prosponements due to weather and cup matches!MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. Another problem with this kind of "templated" rbr standings, beside the things mentioned above, is that you basically have to create a different set of templates for every league, as the colors are implemented into the templates for the places. So, in a nutshell, this would lead to zillions of templates for just a simple table. Also, the source given in the Football League articles is invalid as you cannot access every matchday, just the latest one. The content therefore can (and I guess will) be removed under WP:OR and WP:RS. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Soccer-holic. The other English leagues definitely shouldn't have them for WP:RS issues and the issues I specified above. – PeeJay 23:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The English leagues, particularly the PL, have fixtures which go all over the place. Remember that last year, Man United were 1 or 2 games behind the rest of the league for the last 3 months of the league, or thereabouts. This means you either have to plot their position with games to spare and thus the table is not indicative of where they actually are/were in comparison to the other teams - remember this table has no way to show if a team has games to hand - or you have to wait until they catch up, or at least play more. This means your table is permanently a week or two behind, which puts into question its relevance and usefulness. Falastur2 Talk 13:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Top Goal Scorers

[edit]

Can we have only the top five goal scorers by removing the single goal scorers. It actually looks like clumsy. Chock (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue will eventually have solved itself in four weeks. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No Wayne Rooney? Scored 26 PL goals! 84.143.81.63 (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

[edit]

This section is always in danger of being used as a "fact junkyard" and therefore on constant edge of violating WP:NOT#IINFO. While I agree that some facts are worth preserving, such as "first/last goal of the season" or "fastest/latest goal in a match", the notability of "First penalty kick of the season" or anything cards-related or miscellaneous stuff is rather questionable. Hence we should agree on a definitive set of facts which can be applied to all league season articles, pending that these can be properly sourced, of course. I further suggest that this discussion should be led over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Season article task force since this is not an Premier League-only issue (La Liga season articles, among others, also tend to have stuff like this). --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. Falastur2 Talk 03:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it's interesting information to me, but otherwise incredibly trivial. Stuff like "first yellow card", "first red card", and "first penalty kick" are basically dependant on the fixtures list. "First goal of the season" is in all likelihood gonna come from the first match, which is determined almost randomly. I don't think there's much reason it should be mentioned in a section to itself. Ksy92003 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more addition to this list. Do we need to list out the Most common result. I dont feel this has any significance. Avg goals per match sounds good. This one doesnt serve any performance. Chock (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, "most common result" is bogus. "Average goals per game", however, are directly generated in the infobox on the top of the page when the matches and total goals parameters are filled, so no need to put this into "Statistics" either.
I was just about to suggest the same thing. with regards to the "most common result". It's soccer! You're gonna have a lot of 1-0 games because of the nature of the low-scoring sport. And considering one match is independant of the other 379 each year, no need to compare them. Ksy92003 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ksy92003. Unless all matches start at the same time, I can't see any merit in scoring the first goal of the season. --Aidannn (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So consensus seems to be that this section should not be included? Further, is this decision valid for any past and future article of the series? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Seems to me that the consensus is to get rid of meaningless stats and keep the useful ones. That said, it rather beggars a further debate on what is deemed "meaningless" however. Falastur2 Talk 12:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So propose a set of "meaningful stats", then. :-) --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My personal proposal would be simply to remove all "first/last X of the season" stats as I can see value in the rest. I might also give an exception to "first hattrick" and "first red card" as these aren't every-day occurrences. I welcome proposals from other people however. Falastur2 Talk 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like relatively a good idea to me - except that, as the list currently stands, of all the first/last stuff there, the only one that are everyday occurrences are the 'first goal of the season' and 'first yellow card'. IMO, what I would take out would be 1) first goal, 2) most goals in a half, 3) most goals in a half by one team, 4) most goals in a match by different players, 5) first yellow card, 6) latest card, 7) both of the stoppage time stuff - and don't put in stuff like 'last card' or 'last goal' when they come up. CyMoahk (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

on the results they should have links to see reports on each match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanolympics010 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Single domestic league season matches are not notable enough to warrant links to (BBC or any other) match reports. Besides, the links in the results tables point to Wikipedia articles on particular rivalries, for example the Merseyside derby and NOT to any kind of reports. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 23:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going to suggest that links to match reports with meaningful statistics would actually be a worthwhile thing to include. Reason being that the Premier League has horrible statistical keeping. Fouls won by team, fouls conceded by team, offsides by team, etc. None of this data has been available readily after hours of searching the internet. Links to match reports such as those at the telegraph that include some of these lesser used but still key statistics would be a welcome inclusion in my opinion.NJDevils1087 (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goalscorers table

[edit]

Am I just imagining things, or is the line between the three goal scorers and the two goal scorers thicker under the player name, club, and goals column? I'm using WinXP and IE if that helps anyone. I've looked at the code, and I can't seem to figure out what could be doing it. Anyone else notice this too? 69.135.191.49 (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed layout changes and discussion thereon

[edit]

There is currently a discussion at the season article task force talk page about potential layout changes to this and related articles in order to establish a common layout for those. The changes include

  • a section rearrangement in order to reduce clutter throughout the article
  • the way how the goalscorer/assistant lists are displayed (WP:LIST or WP:TABLE)
  • minor changes to the infobox

The proposal can be found here and is open for comment at the respective section of the SATF talk page. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Card

[edit]

Anyone know what time Mascherano was sent off against Manchester United for Liverpool? I think there is a chance this might be later than the Kaboul card. 94.2.191.78 (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tackle made 93:50, yellow card shown 93:57, red card shown 94:00 ([1]) BBC reports it as 90:00+4:06 Sent off chandler 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So this would be later than the Kaboul card? 94.1.101.169 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur 9-1 Wigan Athletic

[edit]

Should someone make a page for Spurs' win against Wigan? There is already a page for the Man U-Forest game where Ole Gunnar Solskjaer scored 4 goals off the bench, so I think we shold have a page for a game where someone equalled the record for the most goals scored in a Premier League match. 222.154.46.60 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth Administration

[edit]

How should Portsmouth F.C.'s entry into administration be marked off on the league table? Should the points simply be deducted with a footnote regarding the penalty or should a full paragraph and sub-heading be entered? User:TheOneKEA —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Not mathematically guaranteed qualification

[edit]

Should we refrain from putting mathematically unsure information on information for qualification of European competitions?

For example, by the time immediately after the League Cup Finals in 2010, Manchester United should have probably secured a place in Champions League through their position in the league, leaving the Europa League spot for the winner of the League Cup for the sixth place of the league. However, it is not mathematically secured. I wonder if such highly probable but not guaranteed information? Ckhandy (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well! It is more nonsense if we do that. The template would be shown like that if taking your point:
Pos Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Qualification or relegation
1 Chelsea 28 19 4 5 65 26 +39 61 2010–11 UEFA Champions League Group stage
2 Manchester United 28 19 3 6 66 24 +42 60 2010–11 UEFA Europa League Third qualifying round 1
3 Arsenal 28 18 4 6 66 31 +35 58 2010–11 UEFA Champions League Group stage
4 Tottenham Hotspur 28 14 7 7 50 27 +23 49
5 Manchester City 27 13 10 4 52 35 +17 49 2010–11 UEFA Champions League Play-off round
6 Liverpool 28 14 6 8 45 28 +17 48 2010–11 UEFA Europa League Play-off round
Updated to match(es) played on 28 February 2010. Source: Barclays Premier League
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
It is more leaving the track of the fact. So leaving it at the sixth and make a note is better. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 18:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have to remind that the usage of "qualified" is certainly qualified to the respective phase of the tournament without any reason making them could not qualfy to the tournament. So Manchester United did not qualified. They are just at least qualified. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 18:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The highlighting in football tables has always been there to indicate what positions get which European places. Additional places which are variable and not simply tied to "xth in the league" get a note clearly explaining why that spot is where it is as the table stands. The highlighting and note will quickly inform readers what the current state of play is, and how it may change in the future. It's exactly the same as having the table with teams filled in in the first place; it is purely for information of how things stand and it doesn't mean anything at all until all the games are played. Just as the teams are moveable, we can have movable qualification highlighting. To my knowledge, this has been the custom across all European fotbal tables for the last few years. And, as Giggs was attempting to say, there is a "Qualified" label which can be added when a team is certain of it's Euro place. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still insist that stating the information in the footnote is good enough. Otherwise, it misleads readers that the sixth place will qualify for the Europa League under all circumstances, while it is not true if Manchester United drops to the seventh or below, though highly unlikely. Ckhandy (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we added the note there. If they still being misleaded with looking at that note, that's their own problem. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 13:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematically Uncertain Information

[edit]

As of 24 April 2010, Hull City still have chance to escape from relegation mathematically although the chance is virtually zero. (They have to overcome a goal difference of 23 goals from West Ham United in 2 matches and some other conditions apply.) As Wikipedia requires a neutral and unbiased point of view, this kind of mathematically uncertain information should be not included. How can you guarantee that West Ham United won't lose at 0:6 in 2 matches, while Hull City win at a margin 6:0 in their 2 matches too? Ckhandy (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That point is currently the focus of an edit war. You most likely viewed the page when someone had edited to say that Hull were relegated. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

liverpool guaranteed?

[edit]

arent liverpool going to lose their place should fulham win the europa league? so wouldnt that make them not guaranteed spot in that competiion? also, fulham will play either by winning EL or by fair play table. Barciur (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool are guaranteed to be in the Europa League next season. If Fulham win the Europa League, they will qualify as the title holders, which would not impact on England's other places in the competition. – PeeJay 22:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map

[edit]

I couldn't find this discussed earlier, so I'll now raise the question. Why is the map that shows the geographic location of the cities where the teams participating are based a map of England and Wales and not just of England? I could give counterarguments of the three main arguments in support of Wales' being included that I can think of.

  • Wales is a part of the United Kingdom exactly as much as England is.
    • Scotland and Northern Ireland are, too. So why not a map of the entire United Kingdom instead of one just of England and Wales? Moreover Wales has its own league.
  • There are Welsh teams, such as Cardiff City, that compete in The Championship or other levels of the English football system.
    • There are not any Welsh teams that compete in the 2009–10 season of the English Premier League, and this is an article about the expiring season of the English Premier League only.
  • Those Welsh teams still compete in the English football system, and are former and potential future members of the Premier League.

Considering the above, may I suggest the inclusion of a map of England in the article, instead of the one that is currently there? --Магьосник (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only problem here is the missing border between England and Wales. That being said, I would also include a map highlighting England only as the article deals with the English Premier League, not with the Premier League of England and Wales. The changes would only be minimal, being the removal of the words "and Wales" from every code element of the map and the adjusting of the coordinates. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: The inclusion of teams from Wales (e.g. Cardiff City, if they win the promotion play-offs) in this scenario would be unproblematic as Wales is usually included due to its size on a England map as well (see also Template:Location map England). --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The German and Italian teams in Switzerland are from exclaves. You could add Germany and Italy to a map of Switzerland but adding the teams would make no difference because those two teams are within Swiss borders. Swansea and Cardiff - both very plausible Premier League teams in future - are from miles and miles outside England. Falastur2 Talk 12:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Swansea and Cardiff did not take part in the 09-10 season of the Premier League! And the 09-10 season is the only thing this article is about. I would venture the following suggestion: iff Cardiff win the last remaining spot for the 10-11 season, then we should provide a map highlighting Wales for the article 2010–11 Premier League, and procede analogously with all the articles in this category. Some time ago I read about the idea of transferring Celtic and Rangers to the English Premier League for a period of a few seasons with the purpose of balancing the strength of the teams of the Scottish PL and giving the other Scottish teams a chance to participate in the Champions League. Let's presume this gets done; then we'll need a map of the island of Great Britain for the EPL seasons in question. But will that mean we would include the same map - of Great Britain - in all the articles about past and future seasons of the Premier League? --Магьосник (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Streaks/runs in the infobox

[edit]

Should the streaks/runs in the infobox also indicate when they began, instead of just when they ended? Digirami (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they should even be included. There is a lot of information in that infobox, and a lot of it is unnecessary. Perhaps we should remove a few of the parameters from the template itself. – PeeJay 22:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems logical that if you're going to show a streak/run, you should state when it started as well as when it ended.
But I wouldn't mind seeing those parameters go, as well as the largest winning matches. Digirami (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, sorry; if we must keep the streaks, then we should add the start dates. – PeeJay 22:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

[edit]

Can some more content on the final match and that Chelsea have won the league be added so this article can go on the front page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to this I've readded the bit about Chelsea's goals to the lead, if anyone objects can it be discussed here? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like my addition to the second paragraph was erroneous: it is already in the first para. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, sorry :o. Btw HJ Mitchell has said the article needs more content in the body for it to go up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results 2?

[edit]

Shouldn't this section be removed? If not there should be something clear to explain what it is compared to Results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.80.55 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2009–10 Premier 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on 2009–10 Premier 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism/linkspam on March 3, 2017

[edit]

Hi, this edit was apparently vandalism.Biologos (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009–10_Premier_League&oldid=1196558147"