Talk:2011 Major League Soccer season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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 American and Canadian soccer task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the season article task force.

Making team season pages[edit]

I've started out a template for the individual team season pages. It divides each competition in its own section and it inculdes technical staff, team formation, and statistic pages. This way, the pages are more through and informative.

This is how they would be structured

  • Introduction
  • Overview
    • [Insert Month Here]
  • Squad
    • First team roster
    • Reserves
  • Transfers
    • In
    • Out
    • Loan
      • In
      • Out
  • Statistics
    • Appearances and Goals
    • Disciplinary
    • Top Scorers
    • Formation
  • Preseason
  • Major League Soccer
  • CONCACAF Champions League1
  • SuperLiga2
  • U.S. Open Cup3
  • Canadian Championship4
  • [Local rivalry]5
  • Recognition
  • Notes
1 This will only apply to Real Salt Lake and Columbus Crew for the 2010-11 edition, and Los Angeles Galaxy, FC Dallas, Colorado Rapids and Seattle Sounders FC for the 2011-12 edition
2 This will only apply to Real Salt Lake, Columbus Crew, New York Red Bulls and San Jose Earthquakes
3 This section is only applicable for American-based MLS clubs
4 This section is only applicable for Canadian-based MLS clubs
5 This will depend on the "local" rivalry or cup the club plays in

Twwalter (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Are they required or something to be structured like that? (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


Any way we can add a navbar to the Standings tables to make them easier to edit?

Also are the playoffs not constructed so the top 3 teams from each conference qualify for the semifinals then the 4 others are wild cards? Because the current standings have 4 East teams as the "auto qualifiers" and 2 west teams. Nsideris24 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

At first glance you only notice 7 teams because the 1st position in the table is a different color. There are 4 teams from each conference labeled as qualified to the conference semifinals. LarryJeff (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Positions by Round[edit]

I love the Positions by Round section of the article, however, we need to come to a consensus as to when the cutoff is for each round. For instance, at the moment the article seems to indicate the standings of the first "round" as not including the results from the first sunday of play, March 20, in which LA and NE tied. In my opinion, I think it only makes sense to include the results from sunday with the first "round" so that the results from each weekend are considered together, instead of separating results that were only a day apart into separate "rounds." I could find nothing official on this topic, nor could I find a discussion of a similar issue on a similar page. Please refer me to one if it already exists. However, if it does not, please discuss, in terms of "rounds", whether we should include sunday results with the previous saturday's or the following. One argument to making the last day of each "round" sunday as opposed to saturday is the fantasy league within It uses the model of each "week" of play ending on sunday and beginning on monday. For now, I will revert the standings in each table to reflect this model. --Adam (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The overall result should not be considered. The result should be considered once the final team has played the number of matches required to complete that round. Exactly the way it's being done now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't really address your question about LA & New England. LA's first match result was a 1-0 Victory over Seattle on March 15, 2011. That gives them three points after their first match. They happened to play their second match on the same weekend that most other franchises played their first. This allowed the table to be updated for the others. So now, LA has played three matches losing the third to Salt Lake. Once everyone else has played their third match, the table in question can be updated. This table is easier to maintain in other countries where everyone plays the same number of matches by the end of a round. First division matches are usually scheduled for Friday, Saturday and Sunday and second division matches are scheduled Thursday through Monday. This allows for international play, Champions League included, mid-week. Not sure why both Seattle and LA have games in-hand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
But it is nearly impossible to consider the rankings of teams relative to other teams unless with disregard the number of games played, and provide the rankings based upon official standings after each week, which according to MLS, is from Monday to Sunday. Therefore, we have to put the rankings after each week, there will be nearly no way to figure out the true rankings of the teams after x amount of games once we get to the end of the season. In 2010 for instance, there were many weeks with a 2, 3, maybe even 4 game difference near the end of the season, we cannot possibly calculate and figure out where the teams rank after the last team finally plays their 26th game when there are many teams with 27, 28, 29 games played already. --Adam (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No we don't. The "true" rankings. What are you on about? Do you even understand what this is attempting to do? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since this is causing such confusion, and it's not done in other league season articles, and it's essentially WP:OR, should we continue to include it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that the ranking by round section needs to be either the standings of each team after week 1, 2, 3 and so on of MLS play, or, as Walter suggests and this page seems to attempt, it needs to be the standings that each team is in after they have played 1, 2, 3 MLS games and so on. The problem with this method is this: As of this moment, two teams, SEA and LA, have played 3 games. For us to accurately state every teams rank after 2 games, we must now back track to find the stats for both LA and SEA after they played their second game. Right now, this page states that round 2's rank for LA is position 7. The overall rank for LA is currently 7, but, according to this idea, we would need to disregard LA's previous game, as it was their third. Therefore, their 1-4 loss at RSL must be taken out of LA's current stats so we can accurately compare their stats after 2 games with every other teams stats after two games. LA would then have one less loss, one less GF, and 4 less GA, giving them a total of 2 games PLD, 1 W, 1 T, 0 L, 2 GF, 1 GA, +1 GD, and 4 PTS. This new GD would actually put them above NY and into position 6. As you can see, this is a rigorous process that we would also need to repeat for SEA. Additionally, this process will become more difficult as the season continues because we will need to consider more variables in tiebreaking, such as head-to-head stats first. We will also have a wider range of games played by many teams. Here is an example from a week during the 2010 MLS Season in which one team had played only 16 games, three teams had 17, six had 18, five had 19, and one had 20. This would have been a nightmare to backtrack 15 of the 16 total teams teams to the stats of 16 games played an then compare and tiebreak the teams to reflect an accurate ranking. Therefore, I propose a few options:
  • We can either provide the rankings of the teams after each week, without disregarding games played that are more or less than other teams
  • We can continue this difficult process of figuring out what position each team would be in if they all had played the same number of games (this option I find unrealistic and somewhat uninformative)
  • We can add a new stat within the current League and Conference Standings tables that shows the average Points Per Game, by dividing the total points by the number of games played (I'd find this informative and helpful in any case)
  • We can take out the Position by Round table completely

We can do more than one of these options, and their may be other solutions. But in my opinion, I think that the first and third options are a good compromise. I understand that it may be frustrating to see rankings by round that are not necessarily fair, since the number of games played is never even. However, it can be nice to see the overall rise and fall of various teams throughout the season. I would be up to add the new Average Points Per Game stat into the League and Conference Standings tables, which I think would be helpful in seeing what team really has the best of the games they've played. I also propose making those tables sortable. Any additional discussion is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam murgittroyd (talkcontribs) 21:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No. That's completely wrong. It's not by week which has been your problem all along. You clearly don't understand what the chart represents. It's after games played, not weeks played. Sorry you don't understand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that completely. You do not understand my comments. Currently, under the column marked 01, indicating Round 1, we have the Position of every team after their first game. Under column 02, 03, 04, we will have every teams position relative to one another after they have played 2, 3, 4 games and so on. I am saying that this is a problem. Currently, under this system, we have an error. LA, after their first two games, had a higher GD, and therefore should be in position 6, while NY falls to position 7. Is there anything unclear about that? Under our current rule of putting the position of the team after x number of games played, we will continually have to go back to previous stats for multiple teams, potentially all but one, so that we can compare those stats and put their accurate position. This is a problem. No one will do that. It's week two, there are only two teams with an off number of games played and we're already not putting the correct positions. It will get harder, next week CHI and RSL have byes, meaning that, under the current "consensus", we will not be able to post positions for "round" 03 until CHI and RSL play their third games in week 4. At this time, LA and SEA, maybe even other teams, will have played 5 games. but we will have to take back their previous 2 games' stats to compare them to the three-game stats of CHI and RSL. All of this cannot be done until 2 weeks from now. As anyone can plainly see, this would be a difficult and monotonous task.

Now that you understand the problem, please try to reread my previous outlines for various solutions, and then let me know what you propose we do to solve this problem. I think it would be appropriate enough to continue what was done with last season's Position by Round table, and just update it after every weekend's games with the standings at that time, regardless of the fact that the teams all have a different number of games played. The MLS does not play in even "Rounds", they play uneven "Weeks" that we have the ability to deal with as best we can. The current table is not reflecting results that can be equally managed in the weeks to come at the same standard. --Adam (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a problem to anyone other than you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Because you don't understand that it's the teams' relative position to each other after the matches are played. You keep trying to make it be their standing in the league at the end of the week after the matches have been played which is not what is represented.
Reiterating that we remove it. There's no need to "fix" it because the only thing that needs to be fixed is your understanding of what the table represents. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Holy cow Walter...I get that the table currently represents the teams' relative position to each other after the matches are played. But you finallly understand that yes, I am trying to get other people's opinions about the table. Beacuse in my opinion, it will not work for much longer. I want the table to represent the standings after each week, yes. Do you understand that right now, it's not accurately representing LA's and NY's relative position to each other after 2 matches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam murgittroyd (talkcontribs) 22:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes I understand what you are asking, but what you're requesting makes no sense. It's a completely other table than what the current table is. So the question is do we get rid of it because it's WP:OR or do we keep it going the way it is. Changing it is also unprecedented. The closest we have is in season tables where each team's standing is represented after a particular match, but that's based on the weeks of play as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I guess it kinda counts as WP:OR but it's based upon already sourced wikipedia data. I'm not entirely sure what season table you're referencing. But why is what I'm requesting nonsensical? The 2010 MLS season article did this exact same thing. The first few weeks they attempted the manage it, but I think it ended up just being the standings after each week eventually. But we can attempt, I just thought it'd be easier to do standings after each week. I think I'm going to put a stat in the League and Conference Standings tables that shows the Average Points Per Game at the very least. --Adam (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This sort of table. Notice the Pos. column. Many clubs have similar. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

PbR tables discussion revived[edit]

Sorry guys (and possibly gals), but the way you are trying to implement a position-by-round table does not work for this article simply because there is no regular scheduling-by-round for the MLS, as compared to the European or South American leagues. An option for a positions-by-week might be the better solution; however, there is an even bigger issue which will make an inclusion of such data virtually impossible.

Since a positions-by-round table is statistical data, the standings at the end of every "round" (or "week") must be consistently sourced in some way. As the current table cites the respective official league standings, which naturally are only a representation of the most recent standings, the table is not fully sourced and thus is considered WP:OR. If you can come up with a reliable source from which the standings at the end of each week are unambiguosly retrievable, the tables can be kept, otherwise they have to go. (For example, such a source would be something like this; use the "Spieltag" dropdown menu for navigation between "rounds". However, the concept is not correctly applied here as there are frequent occasions of teams having two matches during one round [which is not possible as one team needs to have exactly one match during each round, no more and no less] and no matches during another round, so the presented source is unsuitable for the MLS articles as well.) --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 : When I originally made it, I did not use original research, I must have not sourced it correctly, but it was via MLS Setting the Table Twwalter (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

PbR confusion[edit]

It seems there is still confusion about how to track the PbR. Currently RSL is showing as rank 1 for round 9 when they have only played 7 games. There is no way they can lead round 9 if they have not played the round yet. If we are just going by the league table currently RSL should be ranked 3rd. The following link show only the league table for each week of the season independent of the number of games played. MLS Setting the Table Metalman75402 (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So, I decided to create a spreadsheet to keep track of all the positions per number of games played. It can be viewed here. Position by Round Metalman75402 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it fully qualifies a WP:OR and should be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The data is clearly verifiable from just not in the table format. I would not consider that WP:OR. Is WP:OR not used to verify that data is accurate? Metalman75402 (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The data is from the schedule, but combining it into a different format is not from there and is a synthesis of published material. That is WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."; "That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
So, unless there is a proper source, which I have not been able to find, you are correct. Metalman75402 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I would love it if the MLS actually played a balanced season the way it is in Europe, but they don't and some sides have played only seven matches to date and other thirteen. Trying to match club results by matches played isn't fair to the leagues where that actually happens since some sides will play three league matches in a calendar week and others don't play any during a similar stretch. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not fully conversant in Wikipedia conventions, but it seems to me that the data on that spreadsheet isn't 'advancing a position not clearly advanced by the sources.' I personally think that this is a very useful chart, and a great way to compare the actual standings. I would be happy to help to maintain it. - Jdfoote (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

PbR Ranking[edit]

I just changed the PbR ranking so that it reflects the ranking of the last round that is complete, instead of the last round with any data. I don't have strong feelings either way, but I think that reflects the purpose of the table a little bit better. Jdfoote (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Name[edit]

Rather than having a edit war over the title, we need to discuss it here. The main contention seems to be whether or not to include the word "season" in the title. I am in favour of including the word season, as per WP:COMMONNAME this is how it is most commonly referred to in North America. Yes, European leagues don't often use season, but that the media coverage of the MLS does, and that's what we should be concerned about. Ravendrop 05:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the original move was for consistency. The related articles for previous years include "season". 2010 Major League Soccer season, 2009 Major League Soccer season, 2008 Major League Soccer season, 2007 Major League Soccer season, 2006 Major League Soccer season, 2005 Major League Soccer season, 2004 Major League Soccer season, 2003 Major League Soccer season, 2002 Major League Soccer season, 2001 Major League Soccer season, 2000 Major League Soccer season, etc. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
My original intent to renname it "2011 Major League Soccer" was to keep the article consistent with other soccer seasons from around North America and the world. I have no issues with it being named "2011 Major League Soccer season". Twwalter (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems a bit unnecessary to add 'season' at the end. One could imply it's the 2011 MLS year without "season" at the end. Quidster4040 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we go back and change the articles for every previous season or are you suggesting that this year be a clean break from previous years? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If that's the way the others are, then we should keep things the way they are assembled. Quidster4040 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Excessive "Citation Needed"'s[edit]

Are all those Citation Needed's in the Infobox really needed? I mean...really? Treyvo (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:V they are. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The solution for that might actually be quite simple – however, the stats engine needs some major tweaking since it does not display all teams correctly, as demonstrated by the gaps in some lines. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

doble qualification rules  ?[edit]

Who get the remaining CCL-Berth in case of multi-qualification eg.? (And who get the 2nd Berth for Group Stage if a team win both, SS and MLS-Cup) Langholz8 (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Longest runs, attendance, etc.[edit]

Time to update the longest winless, etc. runs. For example, Chicago has 11-game winless streak as of today. The front page still lists 6-game Vancouver streak from earlier in the season. Attendance stats are old too. (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Top Scorers source is miscounting goals[edit]

For the top goal statistics, the source for the statistics (the MLS site) seems to be only counting goals per player per club. For example, Dwayne De Rosario is listed as having 6 goals, which does with DC United. However this season, he also scored two goals with NY Red Bulls and one with Toronto FC. He should be ranked tied for 4th overall with 9 goals. I'm not sure if there are other examples of players who are not included due to this glitch. Should players like this be added by hand? How should it be cited? Pulpspy (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Wooden Spoon"[edit]

Who in the real world uses the term "wooden spoon" in the context of MLS? This comes across as original research as I've never seen anyone of official standing ever use the phrase. Only on Wikipedia does the last place team in MLS league standings receive this label. (The last place team probably shouldn't even be colored red as there is no relegation. Coming in last carries the same consequences as coming in 11th.) --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File:PPL Park Union 1, Wizards 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:PPL Park Union 1, Wizards 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

History of MLS Cup Playoffs?[edit]

MLS Cup Playoffs article need look more like NBA_Playoffs#History, showing how the system change by the years, just do some copypaste, recopilation of the diagrams from every year page--Feroang (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 Major League Soccer season. 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}}).

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.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 Major League Soccer season. 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.

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.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)