Talk:Australia national soccer team/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

It's Football - This link is incorrect

This ==

(Article name)

page should be at Australia national football team Football Federation Australia and their kit maker Nike Australia calls it football now. The matchday program is called Total Football as is the review show by the official broadcaster. We are part of the Asian Football Confederation and will be playing at the Football World Cup. It's a well established fact now. Fix it. -- 15:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Officials can call it bnfmnnfzf if they like, but in Australia soccer remains the common name of the sport. Wikipedia policy is to use common names. This has been subject to a lengthy debate. See Talk:Australia national soccer team/Archive 1. Grant65 | Talk 23:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It is still, and will be for a while yet, correct Australian English to call them a soccer team. Xtra 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
And it's got nothing to do with both of you being Aussie Rules fans has it? Wikipedia shouldn't have to suffer these inaccuracies because two lovers of Aussie Rules are in denial. Why else would the discussion page of Australia national football team be on the watchlist of two Aussie Rules fans? In Australia, the sport is called Football and this page needs to be fixed. -- 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Xtra - I'm not sure where you've actually found a definitive source that specifically defines "soccer" as "correct Australian English" (please direct me there if you have), but for the record, this is what the latest edition of the Macquarie Dictionary says under both "football" and "soccer":
Usage: While it is still the case that in general use soccer is the preferred term in Ausralia for what most of the world calls football, the fact that the peak body in Australia has officially adopted the term football for this sport will undoubtedly cause a shift in usage.
So basically (and unfortunately IMO) we have to leave it where it is, but the question remains as to when the move will undoubtedly (in the words of the MacDic) take place. Keep in mind that just because you call it soccer, that doesn't mean it's the common usage, and in naming pages, Wikipedia convention does not refer anywhere to local usage, it specifically asks what the "average user of Wikipedia" would put into the search engine, ie we are talking worldwide usage (which is "football", btw). AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 02:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I just lost a lot of faith in the Macquarie. ~J.K. 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The official name is football, the game is run by Football Federation Australia. This page should be moved back to Australia national football team. This would follow the wiki style. Tancred 02:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This has already been debated and decided. However, if the page should be moved anywhere it would be Australian National Football (Soccer) Team. Football is common usage in Australia for anything but soccer. Xtra 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It was never "decided" there were many people wanting the page left at australia national football team. These were the people who were actually updating and improving the page. i seem to recall the "decision" was made in less than a day and against the wishes of many. The is no needs for Australian National Football (Soccer) Team, we just to *return* the page to Australian National Football Team Tancred

From Wikipedia: Naming conventions (common names): When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?
Are you implying that the "average user of the Wikipedia" is Australian, Xtra? Check the backlinks to Australia national football team and Australian national football team. Note also the previous debate was not "decided" - I just got sick of arguing with you, without ever seeing "soccer" defined as "correct Australian English" from a creditable source. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 05:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused, why did the official body call it soccer for so long? Everyone must have been calling it football apparently, and they bucked the trend and called it soccer. Took 'em decades to realise too, the silly blighters.--Paul 05:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The sport known as Australian rules football was called "Melbourne rules" and "Victorian rules" for decades by their governing body as well. Your point about the ASA previously calling it soccer contradicts your argument that it shouldn't be called football because the governing body changed its name. And maybe I am stupid, but I doubt that for starters, the majority of the 3.3% of Australians who speak Italian and Greek at home think straight to rugby league or Aussie rules when "football" is mentioned. This debate is tiresome, really, and I'm really not going to enter into it anymore. If AFL and rugby league fans (of which I am one, in case you were wondering) want to lay claim to the use of the word football, so be it. Keep checking those watchlists. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 06:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
So why did they call it soccer? --Paul 06:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, this debate is tiresome. If you are going to use that argument, go and move Australian rules football to Victorian rules football. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 06:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The answer, BTW, for those playing at home: They called it the National Soccer League, because that is the name of the game --Paul 12:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
So, why is it now called Football Federation Australia? I'm not disagreeing that the common usage in Australia is "soccer", but you say that it was Soccer because that was the name of the game. Now it's football, so what does that make the name of the game? There is a major flaw in your argument. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
So, why is it now called Football Federation Australia? Exactly, why did they do this, when this runs counter to its common name? Is it because all the other soccer federations are FAs, FIFA pressured them, they think it will give the name change will give the game a higher profile etc. etc.? I know not. I'm not disagreeing that the common usage in Australia is "soccer" 'nuff said then, this is pretty much the whole argument --Paul 13:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Near the very start of this whole thing, I wrote that the page has to stay where it is. I also quoted the Macquarie saying that usage with "undoubtedly" change. My question is when will the title of the page change to reflect this change in usage? Currently at least 3 major newspapers, several television sports shows and a number of websites call it football. I know the major usage hasn't changed yet, but I don't think a group of AFL/league fans are the best judges of this either. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You must be stupid if you think that more than 1% of australians would think of soccer at the mention of the word football. Soccer is common Australian English and it is convention to use Australian English on Australian pages. Xtra 05:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So can we just change it to football now, please? It's only followers of Aussie Rules who object to this. I wonder why it's only them? -- 09:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't appear to be aware that rugby league supporters also refer to their game as football. But anyway, I like all these games. I often watch soccer on TV and as it happens, I wrote a large proportion of Soccer in Australia. But we have to face facts and IMO it's brainless and counter-productive for officials to give a sport a name which is not acceptable to, or used by, 90% of Australians. Why should we repeat their error, when they will quite possibly change it back to "soccer" in a few years time? It would be laughable to suggest to Americans that articles about U.S. soccer subjects should refer to "football", and that should be the case with Australian articles as well, especially when there are two other games which are already regarded as football in Australia. Grant65 | Talk 10:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe people who claim that Australia has a national Aussie Rules team and that it can be considered a national football team don’t have any credibility when it comes to deciding the name that most of represents football in Australia. The AFL broadcaster calls football football too. Fox Sports Football

-- 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, there is not one but two national teams of Aussie rules players; the All-Australian Team and the Australian International Rules Team. As for the union and league bodies, who cares what they call their games? It's ordinary people who decide common usage. Grant65 | Talk 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Grant, these Aussie Rules teams are unheard of in Sydney, let alone the rest of the world. I wonder if Australia has a national Gridiron team, perhaps you could include them in your examples as well.Tancred 11:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. We do have a national gridiron team, called the Bushrangers (formerly the Kookaburras).[1] And it is them that an American or Canadian would mean if he/she was searching for "australian national football team". Grant65 | Talk 16:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it isn't. a) Canadians tend to be pretty cluey about this sort of thing, and b) in any case, gridiron isn't an international game in the same way that football, cricket, softball, rugby, etc. are, and it's unlikely that someone would search for it, even if they really were silly enough to call it "football". That said, "national football team" is fine as a disambig (provided someone, Grant65, I'm looking at you, hint hint, keeps it free of links intended for the real football team), and there's no reason why we can't add that. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I wil gladly organise a bot to do it, but I'm waiting for the debate to die down. Grant65 | Talk 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no way the redirect should be removed, even if you were to "fix" all the pages. Australian national football team is the official name of the team, "football" is just a nickname for other sports such as Vic Rules and rugby league. Again, citing the example of Kyiv (official name) -> Kiev (common name), if there suddenly existed something in Australia (eg a food, a sport, a place) that was nicknamed Kyiv and subsequently became common usage (but only in Australia), would you then say this nickname is equally important as the official name (which means something else entirely) and turn the redirect into a dab page? Of course not - people searching in Wikipedia for Kyiv would most likely be looking for the city, and the small proportion looking for the Australian version would be easily notified by the redirect template at the top of Kiev. And honestly, if you were searching for the All-Australian team (not really a national team since they never play a game) or the International Rules team (which is different enough that i've never heard it called "football") in an encyclopedia, would you seriously look for Australian national football team? 02:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, if I couldn't remember the official name for the All Australian Team. But I'd expect to find it on a disambiguation page, since one would indeed expect one of the teams that actually plays games to have the more prominent article. ~J.K. 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep, and it is interesting to note whilst it is claimed that the All Australian team and the Int Rules team are listed on Australian national football team (disambiguation), there is no Australian national Australian rules football team page, as one would expect. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Though I'm amazed anyone could be bothered typing that kind of mouthful. ~J.K. 06:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of "correct Australian English", shouldn't Australian Football be refered to as Aussie Rules. No one ever calls it Australian Football - ever. --Debunct 15:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
"Aussie rules football" is the usual long form, and "football" or "footy" is the conventional short form unless the person you're talking to isn't a fan, in which case it's "Aussie rules". (Actually, the Brisbane Courier-Mail calls it "Australian football", [2] but it's hardly in common use. Sounds nice and formal, though.) ~J.K. 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So.. there's been a long winded argument to state the bleedin' obvious, soccer is called soccer.. remember the PSL, NSL etc?... does this mean it's safe to use the word soccer in Australian themed pages without it being reverted? --Paul 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

So long as the article is written in Australian English, or is specifically about (or refers to) an Australian subject, "soccer" should be used. Nobody should revert edits to that effect.--cj | talk 18:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to restart the debate, but I think it's best to put football (soccer). No confusion and should keep both "sides" happy. A compromise, if you will. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Previously, in club articles, the edit wars didn't stop until people started putting "football (soccer)" at first mention and completely dodging the issue (using "the game" or "the sport") for the rest of the article. Time for another terminology debate: is that farcical, or ridiculous? ~J.K. 23:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could put it this way: The Australian National Football team plays soccer. I don't care if that's illogical or inconsistent, it's just the way it is. Regards, Ben Aveling 14:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Regards, Grant65 | Talk 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How could you confuse Football with Aussie Rules? When do you hear Aussie Rules called football? Sometimes people refer to rugby league or rugby union as footy, but not so much anymore. --Debunct 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My local paper, for a start. That page is not about soccer. And the Melbourne papers, too. [3] [4] The major Perth paper's website is for-pay only, IIRC, and the smaller News Ltd papers import Fox Sports coverage to their web sites rather than local stuff, but you get the idea. Most importantly, though, it's every day at home talking football with my father, and the folks on the bus on the way to the game, and, hell, when I'm talking to the sports-haters at uni, they know which game I'm talking about when I say "football", even if they don't particularly care. Inertia counts for more than what some official a thousand k's away wants people to say. ~J.K. 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Look socecr and football fans. Wheither you call it Aussie rules, Aussie rules in Sydney is irrelevant. The fact is it's called Football in Vic, WA, SA, TAS and NT. So don't ask me where it's called Football. If you say football here 90% of people will think it's Aussie rules. I don't care really, but changing a name is one thing, but trying to get other people to change theirs is something different. And a lot of Soccer fans have NOT adapted the name (like me and my vast majourity of friends). Not that we object it, it's just too confusing at the moment. If it comes more popular, than yes we will. But to suggest that a name that's only been named for one year has already changed and everyone has adapted it is ridiculous. These things take time. It's not going to happen overnight, regardless of how much you'd like that.

I propose that this page be included in lamest edit wars Graham 13:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

When do you hear Aussie Rules called football?

"Aussie Rules" has been called Football in Victoria since 1858. The first "Football Team" was Melbourne Football Club, 1859; the first "Football Leagues" were the SA Football League and Victorian Football Association, formed 1877, Tasmanian Football League (1879),The WA Football league 1885, the Victorian Football League, 1897-1989, NSW Australian Football Association 1903, Queensland State League 1909, the Australian Football League 1990-.

The Football Federation Australia has only been referred to as such since 2005.

Definitively, "Australian Football", "Australian Rules", "Aussie Rules" are more commonly football, while Association Football in Australia is commonly called "Soccer" (a term that is English in origin, not Australian)

Why do you think its called A-league? They wanted to avoid the ambiguity of referring to themselves as a football league!

Proberton (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

SBS usage

It may interest some of the participants in that debate to note that on SBS's World News Australia the other night, in a story about the murder of Colombian international Elson Becerra, the reporter Frank Caruso and presenter Lee Lin Chin consistently used the word "soccer". They did not use the word "football" at all. Maybe an aberration, maybe the SBS news dept doesn't follow the SBS sports dept style, or maybe the facade is starting to crack. Grant65 | Talk 07:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your comment is a bit unnecessary. You've made your position clear before and pointing this out does nothing to help improve the article. Thanks -- AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 11:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's relevant. I'm sorry you don't like it. Grant65 | Talk 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, what the SBS uses or doesn't use is of no consequence.--cj | talk 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't, but I think someone was trying to show hypocrisy by one of the main proponents of the new terminology. Xtra 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That happened ONCE. I have heard SBS call the sport "soccer" once in the last five years, talk about clutching at straws. The game is Association Football, or Football for short.

SBS World Sport calls it football. And they never ever call AFL football. --Debunct 15:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone from SBS World Sport should tell SBS World News to fall in line. :-) BTW, the AFL is an organisation/competition, not a code of football. Grant65 | Talk 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Football is more than one game/code

In the English language the word "football" has always referred to a number of different codes. Soccer dates back only to 1863, which makes it a more recent development than either rugby or Australian rules. Even in the U.K., use of "football" to refer exclusively to soccer is a 20th century phenomenon and rugby union and league supporters there still refer to their games as "football". As does virtually every single supporter of American football or Canadian football. The "How-dare-you-call-it-soccer" fundamentalists, wherever they are found, are wilfully ignoring both history and use of the English language in other countries. Grant65 | Talk 12:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that a large proportion, if not most, of the people who search for this article are likely to be from Australia, means that they will search for "Socceroos" or "Australian soccer team" etc. Grant65 | Talk 12:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the google searches I did the last time this came up common usage is that when discussing League and Union people generally say the Nation Rugy League/Union team. There isn't a national Aussie Rules team in any meaningful sense of the term. If someone refers to the national football team, they almost always mean soccer. Which is why national football team links here. I wouldn't be sorry to see a link from here to an article at national football team, but I don't see that it matter much either way. Regards, Ben Aveling 14:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, there are national teams of Aussie rules players, in a very meaningful sense (see: Australian International Rules Team and All-Australian Team). And rugby league followers refer to "football" and "national team" in the same sentence. I thought your Google search was haphazard and not very meaningful when you did it, and I think the same thing now. Grant65 | Talk 15:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I always knew Rugby as Rugby football. I played for cjjrlfc the last five acronyms being Junior Rugby League Football Club. The national football team should be moved to the disambiguation page to avoid confusion. 10:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

Following the edit by on A-league, he has changed "association football" to " association football (soccer)". Is this not pointless as the fact it says association football indicates what type of football it is, and soccer is simply a nickname, or shortened name for association football anyway. So hence its like saying... "James Bob (James)" CipherPixel (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

for Pete's sake!

Nothing has changed since the last discussion, so there's no need to bring it all up again. The game is called football (soccer) on Wikipedia, and rightly so. The Australian national football team is called the Australian national soccer team, and while I may not agree with that it's the way the last discussion ended up, and there aren't any compelling reasons to review it just yet. Maybe in a few years' time, when one side or the other's argument becomes stronger, we can take another look. Until then, let's just leave it and concentrate on arguing over important stuff, like whether Tooheys or Carlton is better. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the person doing the moving but I fully support it. *nothing* was decided in the last discussion, apart from a number of people who actually updated the page got fed up and stopped. The people who care about the game call it football. It's the official name, it *is* used in Australia and it should fall into line with the idea that the official name is football, so it should be at Australia national football team. Tancred 05:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop deluding yourself! This is rediculous. I hate people who try to americanise (not americanize) Australian english and this is just as bad. Soccer is Australian english for the game with the round ball, football is not specifically. Xtra 05:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate people who hate people, but anyway, the Australian english for AFL is Aussie Rules, not football, not ever. On the sports news they always call it Aussie Rules and not football becasue Aussie Rules is not football. --Debunct 15:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You've never heard two Aussie Rules fans talking to each other about the game, have you? In casual speech, we call it "football" or "footy", a usage widespread enough that I've seen French travel guides use the latter name to distinguish Aussie Rules from soccer (no, really) (which is a worry because Brits use it to describe soccer, but never mind that)... ~J.K. 20:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Where are you from Debunct?!! Aussie rules is called, quite simply, "football" every day of the week here in Western Australia, just as it is in South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. And in (most of) New South Wales and in Queensland, rugby league is commonly called football. Grant65 | Talk 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this civil, please

To summarise arguments from the talk page archive, the present article title may be defended as follows:

  1. Articles on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country are to be written in the form of English used in that country (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English). Obviously, for this article, that's Australian English.
  2. On Wikipedia, popular usage trumps official usage for defining "correctness". For example, the Ukrainian government spell the name of the nation's capital "Kyiv" in English, which better reflects the correct Ukrainian spelling of the word, but on Wikipedia its article is found at "Kiev", based on the more common English usage.
  3. Clarity matters.
  4. "Football" is an ambiguous term in Australian English; sometimes it refers to soccer (including in most of the soccer "establishent"'s use of the term) but more often to Aussie rules, rugby league or rugby union.
  5. Therefore, the advantages of titling the article "Australian national soccer team" — clarity and following majority local usage — outweigh the disadvantages, which boil down to annoying some (but not all — I observe that Tancred's suburban club is, presumably, affiliated to Soccer New South Wales) of the players and followers of the game. Note that a redirect from Australia national football team here is used to ensure links put in the usual Wikipedia format for international soccer teams work.

Any reasonable additions or rebuttals are, of course, welcome. ~J.K. 08:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition - another reason Australia national football team should redirect here first is that it is actually the official name of the team. Ignoring all the regional stuff, Kyiv (official name) redirects to Kiev (common name), so whilst we are in the process of following that example for this page (in terms of the common name), we should also follow it for the official name. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 09:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That's how it is now, and if we swapped them around. calling this football, and having soccer redirect there wouldn't be too much of a difference. So there should be no real complaints from soccer aficionados on the current state of play. Most of this debate springs from the assertion that name of the game is football, when for the majority of us (Australians) it isn't. That's what has kept the pot boiling, and is sort of extraneous to Wikipedia --Paul 07:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How about soccer just call it'self 'Association Football, which it is. Then it isn't ambiguous.

  Then you'd have Australian football, American football, Rugby union or league still called football and association football.  Perfect.  Think I've just solved this prob for everyone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC) 


Protected the page to end the edit war. I did this a few months ago when people couldn't decide if they wanted this title or "Socceroos" or "Australia national football team". Good grief people. Work it out. Use dispute resolution and think about how silly this really all is. Work it out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't make head or tail of the discussion, and previous discussion have been removed. So here's my summary:

There's been an edit war going on about whether this should be Soccer or Football. The page has been protected by User:Woohookitty at 06:33, February 22, 2006.

There are competing arguments in favour of football and soccer being used. To me there appear to be four options:

  1. Australia National Footba--Debunct 11:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)ll Team with Australia National Soccer Team and Socceroos redirecting to it.
  2. Australia National Soccer Team with Australia National Football Team and Socceroos redirecting to it.
  3. Socceroos with Australia National Football Team and Socceroos redirecting to it.
  4. Australia National Soccer Team with Socceroos redirecting to it. Australia National Football Team as a disambiguation page including links to national teams in other football codes.

So can we just put this up for a simple vote? Shermozle 10:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of a vote? The Aussie Rules vandals have forced out all of the football contributors anyway by constantly moving or censoring the football pages to their liking.
Why do you think they care so much? We don't attack Aussie Rules pages for falsely claiming that their sport is called football. We don't care what they call it on wikipedia. There's a "Footy Show" here in Brisbane and it's about rugby league and you don't see us attacking the Aussie Rules pages for claiming the their game is called footy too. --Debunct 11:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, but Aussie rules was referred to as "footy" a long time before soccer was. It's an Australian term. So don't claim us of stealing the word football, if now you're going to start using "footy" to describe soccer.

What is your problem? Aussie rules is known as football especially in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. I think you need to see an anger management therapist, because you are lashing out at editors who are just trying to make the pages better. Xtra 12:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't care if Aussie Rules is known as tennis in Victoria, our sport is still called football. --Debunct 12:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
And it is also known in Australia mainly as soccer (a sport i played in competition for 3 years). Xtra 12:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Socceroos is not the name of the country and is not the name of the team. --Debunct 11:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
No. Polls are evil. Wikipedia works best when we hammer out a consensus rather than counting snouts. And I say this being fairly confident in the numbers behind my point of view (count the contributors on WikiProject AFL as compared to WikiProject A-League, for example). There's been a massive breakdown in communication here, and turning it into a numbers game isn't going to help. ~J.K. 12:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Do the pro-"soccer" people have anything wrong with "Australian National Football (soccer) Team" with a disambig linking to all the other codes???? --[dM] 12:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Soccer name in Australia - two cents

To add my two cents. Firstly there is a British television show called Soccer Saturday - in other words Soccer has some currency not just in common Commonwealth English speech but in the media also.

Children in Australia (and perhaps elsewhere) play soccer on Saturdays, if they don't play basketball or something else. If they play a football code its Aussie Rules, League, Union, whatever. Households in Australia talk therefore of soccer and the common name for this team is at present the national soccer team.--A Y Arktos 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So why don't you move the Aussie Rules page to Aussie Rules? --Debunct 11:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Aussie rules isn't the common name; "football" is the common name but that is already taken ;-) Grant65 | Talk 13:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


I've made a proposal at WP:AWNB. It won't fix the "should national football team" be a disambig, but it'll stop the childish cut-and-paste moves we've been seeing so much of lately. If you dislike, go explain why. Please. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest match?

While you're having your little spat here, is there any chance of un-protecting the page so the Bahrain result can be included? Is the soccer/football argument really worth having an out-of-date article? As a fan of both Australian Rules Football and Association Football (get that, TWO whole codes of football!), I'd much rather a current article than another recurrence of this argument regurgitated from message boards across the Web. Emcee N 10:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

First line

The first line states "Australian national football team" redirects here. - but it doesn't, it redirects to a disambig page. What needs to be fixed, this line, or the redirect? Seeing as international rugby games are called Rugby (eg. Rugby World Cup) and Australian rules isn't played internationally on a high level, I would fix the redirect to point to this page. -- Chuq 01:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

GRRR! It used to be a redirect but it seems someone took it upon themselves to change it back despite the fact the issue had been discussed and a compromise reached. This creates the other problem that now every page linking to Australian national football team (as is the common style for articles about football (soccer)) goes to a disambig. Blardy hell. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I would change it back but first, it might be an idea to point Cyberjunkie to the prior discussion so he is aware of it. -- Chuq 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That change was my doing. I thought as there are numerous "australian football teams" tht the disambig was the best option as most people looking at it will be Australians. However, I should have changed that first line here. Sorry. Xtra 03:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC) I do not however apologise for the change, because in the Australian sphere it is just the wrong link. Xtra 03:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I was part of the prior discussion but I had completely forgotten about it. I saw that Australian national football team redirected to the Australian national football team (disambiguation) and moved Australian national football team (disambiguation) to Australian national football team in accordance with Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Let me know what you want done. --cj | talk 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the "move" tool was used I'm not sure if the content from the talk page can be recovered (as the talk page from the disambig page was moved also). But, a compromise was reached where the article is moved to (soccer)... and the redirect left at since that is the official name of the team. I am intrigued as to why, Xtra, you decided to make the change all of a sudden with no discussion after it was left in the same place for at least a couple of months with no problems? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
When I came across it I found the naming to be strange and being bold, as wikipedia encourages, I decided to do something that I thought would be advantageous for Australians who want to look up Australian related issues. It makes more sense to have it this way IMHO. Xtra 12:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Selective deletion

I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 04:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete. Snottygobble 04:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Peter Wilson

I have created the link Peter Wilson football (soccer) player so anyone who wants to provide info for this socceroo can do so if they wish. I had to change it from the link Peter Wilson as this leads to other Peter Wilson where he is not listed. If you want add this link there too. Cheers, fellow soccer fans.

World Cup Qualification, 16th November 2005

Who scored the penalty which won the match for Australia?--M Johnson (talkcontribs) 23:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It was John Aloisi - The details of the shootout are covered in the article 2006 FIFA World Cup - Oceania-South America Qualification Playoff but this is admittedly hard to find. I've added an additional link to the section so it is easier to see the details of the game. -- Chuq 01:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Shirt Crest

The logo shown is the logo of the Football Federation, but the team wears a different crest on their shirts, which is very similar to the Australian coat of arms. Can anyone provide a picture?

It is the Australian coat of arms, albeit in quasi-cartoon form. See this picture. Replica supporter shirts have a football over the top of it, as the coat of arms cannot be used for profit. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
So would I be right in saying the logo shown should be the Australian coat of arms?Gorast 06:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Granny rule?

In the section, "Player drain by other countries", the use of the term "granny rule" is inaccurate. Heritage alone does not qualify a player for a national team - to play for a national team, the player has to have the passport of that country, through naturalization or an existing dual citizenship. Also, the use of the phrase "lured away", combined with "granny rule", seems not NPOV. I'm going to go ahead and reword the section. Ytny 05:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that citizenship is obtained through a "granny rule". The issue of being lured away as opposed to having some other reason for leaving could require some source. Xtra 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my point was that there is no "granny rule" - either you are eligible for citizenship or not. So you have to have dual citizenship or go through the naturalization process. Having a European grandparent certainly helps, but it's neither a prerequisite nor a universal pass for a passport.

"European nations can claim native Australians for their squad using the "Granny Rule"," was at best misleading and "players become eligible if they can prove that they have ancestors of that particular nations." was simply wrong. Ytny 05:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I reinserted Bresciano into the list of Australian-Croats capped by Australia. The statement concerned Australian players with Croatian ancestry who could have played for Croatia, and Bresciano certainly could have had he chosen to, and his Italian ancestry is irrelevant in the statement. Ytny 06:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What a waste

You've spent most of this page debating about what you think people should/shouldn't call it when it's been discussed many other places. Talk about the socceroos, not soccer naming in Australia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talkcontribs).

This is pretty much where the whole thing started though, and the discussion split off to other places. Thanks for your input though. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 02:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup records

I put in the fact about the first team to come back from being 1-0 down and the record for being the only team to score three goals in the last seven minutes of the match. I'm sure there are more firsts and onlys, if we look.--Sir Edgar 01:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup 2006 performance section

According to me, this information should not be in this article. I would like to discuss it here (WikiProject Football), in order to keep consistency maong all the articles.--Panairjdde 17:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Edit

First paragraph refers to our 'upset win' over Japan. Australia were favourites for that match and although it wasn't until the end of the game that we scored I still wouldn't refer to it as an 'upset'. I haven't got a source to back me up at the moment but sports tab and canbet both had Australia as favourites at less than 2.5 to 1 with Japan at about 3.2 to 1. (3.00 for the draw). Also seeing as we'd just come off a draw with The Netherlands and A good win over Lichenstein I think that also would classify us as favourites. Just my opinion anyhow, would like to know what others think. JDCB4 07:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Japan is not only ranked much higher, but also has tied Germany 2-2 going into the tournament and has far more international experience as a national team. This is the first time Australia participated in the World Cup in 32 years and the team had never scored even a scored a goal before. This is Japan's third consecutive World Cup. Perhaps Hiddink's coaching made odds at betting sites tip to Australia's favor, but the indicators pointed to Japan winning. Personally, I knew Hiddink's Australia would win though. But that doesn't matter: Australia's victory over Japan was an upset.--Sir Edgar 07:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Australia defeating Brazil, Italy, England, Germany or Argentina would be an upset. Compared to that, defeating Japan is not in the same league. -- Chuq 10:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
To add to what Sir Edgar wrote, it should be pointed out that betting odds can be an indicator of teams' relative strength, it's not a reliable one. Odds are set based on bookmakers' prediction of how bettors will place their money. This means that obvious favorites like Brazil are favored by bookmakers, but it will also reflect bettors' bias for team they root for or familiar with. So it wouldn't surprise me that Australian and European bookmakers set the odds for Australia higher, even if they weren't necessarily the favorites to a neutral, informed observer.
In the case of Australia vs Japan, I'm afraid you won't see many very informed, unbiased opinions on who were the favorites since the international sports press aren't familiar with either team. My personal, biased opinion is that the result was an upset based on Japan's overall quality, real tournament experience and the command of the majority of the match, but that's just an opinion. Ytny 02:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
An upset is an upset. I think what you're talking about with Brazil, etc. is a major upset. Japan was favored to win the match. It is a more experienced team and you can see that during the first half with better footwork and organization. The team's endurance faltered in the second half and Hiddink's strategy payed off well bringing in Cahill and Aloisi, but the perception that Australia was supposed to win is biased and frankly, in my opinion, seems racist. Japan had beat Russia and Tunisia (and tied Belgium) in the 2002 World Cup to make it to the final 16, before narrowly losing to eventual semi-finalists Turkey. Also, all the matches it played in during the 1998 World Cup were either a draw or lost on a margin of one goal and it only barely failed to qualify for 1994 in what is known as the Agony of Doha. Australia is an unknown entity in international football, but I can imagine Europeans rooting, and betting, for them. Most Japanese, however, expected their team to win and so did many other people who know Asian football teams.--Sir Edgar 05:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget soccer, football, futbol.

Does it really matter what it's called when the article is so shitty? I mean, "Australia has duly been entered into the Asian Cup Qualifying Tournament beginning in February, 2006. On 4th January 2006, Australia was drawn into group D, alongside Bahrain, Lebanon and Kuwait." Jesus! And quit crying about your struggles against U-R-gay. At least you don't have to live there.

So why don't you edit the article then? Otherwise, there's no point in coming here and complaining.
-QFlyer 10:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is too long.

I think the Australian football team's history is interesting, but it doesn't deserve an article length this long. No national football team does. Even Brazil, the most accomplished in the world, has a shorter page. I can't recall one longer than this and it goes into way too much detail. It should be reduced in half.--Sir Edgar 06:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

After the world cup this page will be normalised. Xtra 07:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Has this occurred? If not, i would like to put my hand up to have a go at refining the history section if the general consensus is that it needs to occur. (Fußballspielen (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC))


The Australians held Brazil to a 0-0 half time scoreline before Brazilian player Adriano put Brazil, who had the referee as a 12th man, in front in the 49th minute.

As a new-ish member, I don't want to stir the proverbial pot by doing anything without consulting the community. Although it may seem minor, this is the first step in what will be many to fix up this page after the World Cup is over, which is what I plan to do.

Although I totally agree, this probably is a little skewed considering the NPOV regulations. Yay? Nay? Say so. And if anyone else wants to help with fixing up this page after the World Cup, just say so. Killfest2 09:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As a rank neutral outsider, this page reads like hagiography. To be fair, that's the case with a lot of the football team pages, both national and local. Gerry Lynch 15:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Article name

This has been argued to death. Please don't change it. I will revert it, and if anyone wants to change it - discuss it here first! -- Chuq 13:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Refereeing in Germany 2006

I realize Aussie fans are upset about the team's elimination and the decisions that have gone against the Socceroos, but this section is nowhere near Wiki standards. Pretty much every sentence is an editorial without a single source or empirical evidence. The section needs to be cleaned up significantly or be deleted. Ytny 23:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The refereeing in the tournament was a disgrace, but the section was unnencyclopaedic, so I removed it. Xtra 23:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.Ytny 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

this article or this or [5] or the various articles about the previous games may be worth looking at for someone who wants to write a proper section. Xtra 23:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The first article you are suggesting is very funny: its summary is "since Australia did not pass through, let's change the rules of this game."--Panairjdde 10:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious, Panairjdde, where did you get that particular summary from? It was an opinion piece about how FIFA, its referees and its rules favour the soccer/football powerhouse nations or teams rather than encouraging development of the game in comparatively minor soccer/football nations, such as Australia and African countries. Personally, I agree with the author of the article, soccer claims to be the world game, but not much of the world is getting a chance to play at the highest level and that's not for the lack of trying. --Colourblind 01:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It was The Age but I am not finding it now, it is no more on the front page.
As regards the rules, they are equal for all the teams.
As regards powerhouses, Australians complain for the penalty against Italy, but with do not say anything about the red card to Materazzi against (powerhouse?) Australia. At the previous WC, Italy had five goals disallowed against "powerhouses" Ecuador, Croatia, and Mexico, and (1) a red card instead of a penalty (2) a controversial penalty against (3) an unexistend one-against-one offside call against "powerhouse" South Korea, but everyone (even Australians) dismissed those claims — except Spaniards, when they got the same service in the following game against SK). The problem is that everyone remember what it was done against them, but no one remebers what was done against the others/in their favour.
The red card against Materazzi and the penalty against Australia can be discussed, but they are part of the game. And if a controversial decision against an underdog is a complot against other world countries, it is better to avoid watching any competition involving different countries.
A final tought (if it is personal and out of place, feel free to answer on my talkpage). This sport, football, is now shaped in the way we (Europeans and South Americans) like to play it. If it is really a game that can be a pleasure even in other countries of the world, this is a good thing, because we can enjoy it together. But if the price for a wide acceptance and diffusion of football is a deep change in its rules and its spirit, than it is better to keep it a South American/European thing: we shall enjoy other sports, eventually.--Panairjdde 09:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Germany 2006

Firstly, soccer/football - who cares. Secondly, this article is long as australians love their sport. does it really matter if it is slightly bias? the simple fact is that with reporting anything, any historical account, there will be bias. With such an emotive issue such as sport, i think that wikipedia should have a slightly more leniant policy. I have been repetedly changing this article to say that australia were cruely eliminated, and the over-zealous dickheads on their powertrips keep reverting. WHY? anyone could agree that getting a penalty in the 95th minute (unfarely) awarded against you, when you had a reasonable chance of winning in extra time is cruel.

"NPOV!" they cry! but what really is the harm in this? It was cruel, it was devistating, and, unfortunate for australia and their supporters. the passion seen in world football is what makes the game so great, and why can't this be reflected in the article? Sure, i'm not advocating for the page to be titled "australia is the best and the ref's suck," but surely a little emotion in a sports page could be allowed?

--Riff Johnson 01:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, it isn't a sports page, or an opinion page, it is an encyclopedia article. If you want to, for example, re-add the second, working it better, and reference news articles and opinion pieces that quote players/coaches/officials etc. and discuss the referring problems - then I don't think there would be a problem with that. -- Chuq 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
To add to the above, if it was cruel by all objective standards, it would be self evident (which it wasn't - although I sympathize with the Socceroo fans, the cynical devil's advocate would say the Aussies got just what they deserved for not seizing the numerous opportunities they had in a match they controlled, and Lucas Neill for his clumsy and wreckless, if innocuous, challenge at such a critical juncture and a dangerous location, but that's beside the point).
That's the beauty of Wikipedia - it presents all the facts that all sides agree to be true and inarguable, and readers can make their own judgements. If everyone agrees that the result was cruel, then great, that's what the facts support. But if certain readers take a different interpretation, then they're free to do so. But the important thing is that Wikipedia remains objective and readers can be as subjective as they wish.
Not to sound like a dickhead (though I apparently am), if you don't like Wikipedia's policies, no one's stopping you from expressing your thought in a blog or on a message board or at a local pub. Why the desire to use Wikipedia as your therapist? Ytny 02:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What adjective would you use to describe their elimination then? --Riff Johnson 02:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cathartic? Sexy? Effervescent? I don't know, and I don't think it requires any descriptor to be honest, but if my answer makes any difference, then you're missing my point. Ytny 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No i'm not. Just in the same way that someone may say that Bondi is a "beautiful" beach, i think it can be said that the elimination was painfull, appeared unfair or even, dare i say it, cruel. --Riff Johnson 02:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And that's your opinion, which does not belong in a Wikipedia article - which was the point I was making. It's not Yourkipedia it's not Mykipedia, it's Wikipedia. As a wise man didn't once say, "Just the facts, ma'am." Ytny 03:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So then, what will you do about the Elizabeth_Taylor article? The first paragraph contains 5 descriptions based on oppinion only, but again, there's no way this artcle would be rewritten. Are there different standards of the beauty of a woman, and the cruel exit of the team? -- 04:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly? I'm going to do absolutely nothing. Granted, the "dazzling" and "iconic" are problematic, mostly because they aren't supported. But my understanding is that it's acceptable to have opinions (of other, prominent people or a consensus, not of the editors) in the introduction to explain the importance of the subject, as long as the opinions are attributed and are framed as strictly opinion, not facts.
Why am I not doing anything about the Elizabeth Taylor article? Because I don't care. I've been involved in editing this article and I do care about people coming in and diminishing the objectivity of this article just because their emotions are high. But I spend too much time on Wikipedia as it is without spending time on articles I don't care about. If you have issues with the POV of the Liz Taylor article, you're free to go take it up in Talk:Elizabeth Taylor. Ytny 05:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about elizabeth taylor either, it was just an example that you're going over the top. if you care so much about this article, then why not have a section dealing with the emotions of australians after the elimination? or maybe after the line in question "many australian supporters felt this was a cruel way to exit the tournament"

-- 06:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, IE 7 beta keeps logging me out. All the comments from are from me. --Riff Johnson 06:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Several news articles have said that it is "cruel" (or whatever). Why not quote/reference one or more of them? -- Chuq 06:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
See my comments above under "Refereeing in Germany 2006" Xtra 06:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully my edit will help here. Emcee N 09:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

qualification process


Hey some idiot deleted my post on the Socceroos' qualification process. I would like to know how you think a team as good as the Socceroos failed to beat Solomon Islands, (a known third rate team)? I will revert it in one one week if there is no response to this post, and I will site this post if you fail to reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlsanand (talkcontribs)

I am that idiot. That is, if you're talking about this change. I did it because it was did not conform to Wikipedia's policies on several levels. It was a personal commentary, included speculation attributed to no one in particular, and it did not cite verifiable, reputable sources. Please be familiar with Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset if you are not already. Thanks. Ytny 07:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
A rather strange idea to base the quality of a team on one result; after all Australia beat Brazil in the 2002 Confederations Cup, therefore does that mean Brazil is lower in quality than a team that "could not beat the Solomon Islands"? Of course it isn't. Also, I'd like to point out that in the same qualification series, Australia thumped the Solomons 9-1 on aggregate in the final, as stated in the aticle. Emcee N 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not an unsourced claim, there was a clear commentary by many media reports at the time (hence this is not just my personal opinion). These media reports included questions to that effect of Socceroos players. I will admit that it is speculation, and no investigation was ever launched into the event in question (as was noted in my original posting). However, you will note that there have been several similar incidents in the past which are mentioned in wikipedia articles. These include 1978 FIFA World Cup & 1982 FIFA World Cup. It should be noted that these World Cups involved similar incidents where certain quid pro quos existed that are believed to have occurred. However, no sanctions or investigation occurred into the incidents. In 1978, there appears to have been some type of informal agreement between the Argentinians and the Peruvians to have Argentina win by 4 goals. Similar in 1982 there appears to have been some agreement between Germany & Austria to produce a 1-0 scoreline. These were never substantiated by investigation and are based solely on circumstantial evidence, however they are referenced in wikipedia articles. Note that these articles are accusing these teams of some form of collusion (my article simply noted a willingness by the Socceroos to underperform, a much less aggressive theory).

This is not a court of law, and so long as we state the facts, there should be no reason not to note what the possible theories are. It should then be up to the reader to make their decision. I see no reason why this very plausible theory should not be included.Please have a response within a week as to why it should not be included, or give me some guidelines on how I can amend the posting so that it may meet your approval (I am open to compromise). User: Nlsanand

You're right, it's not a court of law, but the same principles stand - just the facts, and only the facts in evidence. Your claim may have a source, but you didn't actually cite it. Remember, it has to come from a reputable, resonably unbiased source. Please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability. No matter how strongly you or anyone believe/suspect it to be true, it doesn't belong if it's not published in an independent. Anyone can come up with a theory but for a theory to be Wikiworthy, it has to be by someone notable, or notable enough that it is reported as such in a reliable source.
Now, the problems I had with the paragraph I deleted:
There is some belief that Australia intentionally underperformed in the final match to ensure the Solomon Islands finished ahead of New Zealand, and thereby have an easier final playoff. However, no investigation has ever been performed and there is only circumstantial evidence indicating this.
Besides the absence of a verifiable source, I had the biggest issue with the opening phrase, "There is some belief". They are what is known on Wikipedia as weasel words because it makes a point without providing real proof. There is some belief that the Earth is flat - this is a true statement but that doesn't mean it's a particularly useful statement. You have to explain who believes it, and why people who don't support the Socceroos should care what they believe. For example, if a prominent journalist or a New Zealand player said, "The Aussies drew the match on purpose", then write, "_____ said, '_____.'"
I don't think there would be anything wrong with the paragraph if you state the theory as explicit quotes or exerpts from a notable person, or it's widely reported in a reputable, independent and reasonably unbiased source. Again, if it's sourced, cite the source. Please refer to WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Hope this helps.Ytny 07:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I get your point in that you want the source from which it came. I do not know how to track down Soccernet and BBC articles from that time (which both posited the theory). Keep in mind, this occurred a year ago, I will try to do that. By the way, The "world is flat" argument was nice touch but a little exaggerated, don't you think :)? Nlsanand

It is Soccer in Australian English vernacular and you can't spell Socceroos without Soccer but:

Shouldn't we show a little Consistency? On a side note: Soccer in Australia is regulated by the Football Federation Australia and Australia is now apart of the Asian Football Confederation and used to be in the Oceania Football Confederation. On another side note the Umbilicus article isn't called Belly Button or Navel.--Greasysteve13 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would a compromise be to call the article, the Socceroos?--Greasysteve13 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Socceroos" is just a nickname. Brazil national football team is not at "Seleção", Ghana national football team is not at "the Black Stars", Mark Viduka is not at "Dukes". You get my point. We've already got a compromise. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
But I thought lots of people were still angry. Anyway this article states Socceroos is the official nickname and the New Zealand national rugby union team article is called the All Blacks. See the talk page there.--Greasysteve13 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Mmm... I would not be angry about it. This isn't life and death. However, it does seem interesting that the "All Blacks" are known well enough to have the articles more standardised name redirect to it. What is the difference here? Ansell 10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't think many people outside Australia call/refer to/know of this team as the "Socceroos". – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 11:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you balance that against the fact that noone in australia knows of the name of the sport as "Football". The naming of official organisations does not dictate colloquial usage. I think it is against the typical national naming scheme to even have football in the title, though I don't agree that the page should be named the "Socceroos". Australian national soccer team is more accurate in national usage terms. Ansell 12:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm in Australia. I know it as football, and I can assure you I'm not the only one. When I open the "Football Fever" section of the Tuesday newspaper, everything in there is about the round ball - it wouldn't make sense for them to start a section called "Ice Skating Fever" and write about lawn bowls, because "noone in australia knows of the name of the sport as "Ice Skating"". This discussion has been done to death and a compromise was found between people who call it football (this includes Australians) and those who call it by its nickname. I think everyone who was involved the first time would prefer if this page could stay where it is – in the meantime a World Cup happened and there wasn't a single comment to change it back. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. The socceroos are not the national football team, the Kangaroos are. The socceroos are the national SOCCER team. Just because the administration has changed its name, and a few of its friends in the media involved with contracts to the A-League and the socceroos have decided to call it football, DOES NOT MEAN WIKIPEDIA SHOULD REFER TO IT AS FOOTBALL. At least 9/10 Australians do not call soccer "football" and that will probably not change!!! Wikipedia should reflect Australian English, not some foreign English terms, and call it soccer. At best, this should be a disambiguation, and that is only, I repeat ONLY, NOT TO CONFUSE NON-AUSTRALIAN WIKIPEDIANS COMING TO THIS PAGE.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

I think that anonymous unsigned comments by people who haven't contributed to the site before should just be deleted, as all it does is cause people to repeat info that has already been agreed upon. But anyway, one more time:
How can the Kangaroos be the national football team when they didn't play at the Football World Cup? All other national Rugby League teams are described as 'national rugby league teams'. The Rugby League World Cup is known as the Rugby League World Cup. I am Australian, born in Australia, have never lived overseas, am neither a wog, sheila, nor a poofter, live in an Australian rules football dominiated state, and I call the round ball game "football", like Albinomonkey. Oh, and even if your random figure of 9/10 Australians do not call it "football", those 9/10 can't agree on what sport the word refers to anyway! -- Chuq 03:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no point in feeding the trolls, Chuq. ~J.K. 03:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It is the soccer world cup to Australians. Noone but a very angry and very small minority think that soccer is football in Australia. Never has been, and never will. The Australian National Football team has always been the Kangaroos as opposed to the Australian Rugby team, the Wallabies. DID I CALL YOU A WOG? NO, WHY REDIRECT THE POINT, that almost nobody that a tiny angry minority refer to the nationa football team when talking about soccer. Oh, and you just wait to the football world cup in Australia in 2008. Furthermore Wikipedia is wrong to refer to it as Rugby League and it should be Rugby League Football.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Actually, the Kangaroos is called here the Australian national rugby league team and not the Australian national football team which to half of Australians implies Australian Rules Football, making it clear ylu are either from NSW or QLD.--Greasysteve13 05:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How about we all just shut up and leave it the way it is. I call it football, but if someone else calls it soccer, i dont bash their heads in or call them wogs or anything. But really, it should be called football. In all the other sports, you hardly even use your feet. The only other code i would cool football is aussie rules Nic Car Bel 13:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

That is in itself an inaccurate and stupid understanding of the meaning of the term football. It merely refers to ball games on foot, not to games neccessarily involving monotonous and repetitive kicking. You are so ignorant. I am sick of the soccer monoculture getting their way in these matters. Soccer is not football in Australian English and this term should be redirected to a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Let's keep this constructive. Abusive language ('stupid', 'ignorant') does your cause no good at all. And please sign your posts. -- Wantok 12:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I support using the term 'football'. This page is not just for an Australian audience. Every other national team page in the world has a title of the form 'XXX national football team' (I should know, I just edited almost all of them). 'Football' is standard Wikipedia terminology for association football. I'd hazard a guess, also, that far fewer people using the global Wikipedia are searching for a 'national' Aussie rules team (!) than those looking for the Socceroos page. -- Wantok 12:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Much as I'd hate to see this mess start up yet again, it's not "the whole world"---in fact, it may not even be a plurality of native English speakers. You may wish to have another look at the American and Canadian team pages. ~J.K. 14:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I hate to bring this up again as well - but questions need to be answered:
  • The "soccer monoculture" (whatever that means) is not "getting their way". You see how most articles about the round-ball football have the messy "football (soccer)" in their name? That's a compromise.
  • Articles such as Football in Australia ARE disambiguation pages. The article about national team is different, because Australia doesn't have a national Aussie rules team, and the rugby teams are named as such.
  • There are more english speakers in the world that just residents of countries which have English as a primary language - it is an extremely common second language.
  • Both the example links JK gave above redirect to the association football national team - so we are in alignment with other countries in that regard.
  • I'm writing up a proposal for a new naming convention at User:Chuq/Football in Australia if anyone would like to take a look at it. And yes, I am open to discussion from all points of view.
-- Chuq 02:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To anyone who doesn't think Aussie rules is called football, look at the name. the "Australian FOOTBALL League". Not the "Australian Australian-Football League", not the "Australian AFL Football League", not the "Australian Aussie Rules Football League". It is referred to as Foootball. If NSW or QLds want to go ahead anf falsely call it "AFL" (the competing body, not the sport), then go ahead. As for being arrogant, NSW and Vic never seemed to have a promblem with calling rugby league or aussie rules football. Then some sporting body who claims to own the sport says they can change the name and the australian dictionary and no else can refer to it as football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:32, 19 November 2006

Thanks for that, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this article. -- Chuq 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I've got issues with the britcentric name too, but the team is controlled by the Football Federation Australia, so... StuartFreeloader 11:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed the discussion is a year old. Just ignore my comment then. StuartFreeloader 11:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
A year old, a decade old, a century old ... the thing is that it's still an issue no matter how long it goes unresolved. The controlling body could call themselves His Imperial Magesty's Pink Elephant Grooming Association, doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade ... or a bloody shovel if we please. Jɪmp 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


I noticed that Australia was included in the Category:Asian national football teams, but not in the Category:Oceanian national football teams. Since most of the nation's football history has taken place while they belonged to the OFC, I included them in the latter category as well. Categories should not be limited to current status only. - ChaChaFut 02:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Current Active Squad

I think we need to clean up the squad list - maybe put it into two columns (or reduce the font and make three columns), and remove the */**/***'s after the names; maybe replace them with some sort of symbol to show if the player is European based or Australian based. -- Chuq 07:41, 8 October 2006


thats exactly why i thought something like this table should be put on the front page. The current listing of */**/*** is too clunky and complicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I've mucked about with the list above. It still looks a little full - maybe the DOB and caps columns could go? How is the "current" team officially decided - is it anyone who has played a game and not retired? If so the members of the "A-League allstars" Socceroos squad may be on that list for quite a while, despite it being unlikely many of them (except a few - Milligan, North, Dodd etc.) will play for the national team again anytime soon. (Although that would be amusing - Australia could play two friendlies simultaneously - one in Europe with the European squad, and one in Australia with the A-League squad!) -- Chuq 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What do people think of the following layout? It may get crowded if more games are included.

User:Chuq/Sandbox/GameTable -- Chuq 23:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a 3rd layout now to User:Chuq/Sandbox/GameTable - it just places either an Aus or a EU flag next to the player number to show where they are based. I realise this is show in their club anyway. Maybe we should just have two columns, EU based (including eg. Qatar) and Aus based? -- Chuq 05:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Users have been adding young players with no caps (or even senior call-ups) to the squad listing eg. a 16 year old GK called Bouzanis. It's highly speculative. Perhaps we need a clear criteria for inclusion? eg. currently active players with at least 1 national cap, and/or no senior cap but active +called up/sat on the bench for a senior game, and/or has played for Australia within the last 12 months? Cheers. 06:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


In regards to this edit: [6] - is it correct to call Lucas Neill captain? His position in the game last night was certainly as captain, not as deputy or vice or acting captain, but it in a temporary capacity, and was solely because Viduka was not playing? -- Chuq 04:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would just call Viduka, Moore & Neill captains all at once.Nic Car Bel 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The captaincy isn't settled so it does seem inaccurate to put Neill's name there. Moore and Viduka are the regular choices but Skoko (v Kuwait), and Grella (v Ghana), have also captained recently. Hmmmm ?? 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what I know about the captaincy after the world cup:

  • Kevin Muscat captained the team v Kuwait on August in a squad of A-League players
  • Josip Skoko captained the team v Kuwait on September in the absence of Neill, Viduka, Moore and even Muscat
  • Lucas Neill captained the team v Paraguay and Bahrain on October in the absence of Moore and Viduka (it was first announced that Moore would be captain but he was expelled from the team)
  • Vince Grella will captain the team v Ghana on November in the absence of Neill, Skoko, Viduka (Moore was in but he was doubtful for the match)

This is very complicated situations but I personally like to name Lucas Neill as captain because he captained Socceroos on 2 matches, not Viduka because never been called to the team since World Cup, and not Moore because this time he is on the squad but Grella was chosen over him. -- Martin tamb 00:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Moore wasn't picked because, right up until the last minute, he was 50/50 to be fit for the Ghana game. Neill was/is being primed for the captaincy and he's odds on favourite to be our regular one in the future. However, Arnold just said he's going to adopt a rotating captaincy policy, at least until the Asian Cup.

Can we put "rotating", perhaps with a short footnote attached that lists the various players when they captain? IMO that would be most accurate right now.

Also, considering Arnold has been given up until the end of the Asian Cup with the NT, I think "caretaker" deserves to be removed. Cheers. 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you would count fill in captains, Brett Emerton is after Vinnie Grella.--------Nic Car Bel 11:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would personally call Viduka captain, the only reason he was not given captaincy in the post-WC games is because he didn't play. It's likely he will regain captaincy for the Asian Cup. Perhaps Neill and Viduka? Nic the Man 05:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


The only blemish was the questionable dismissal of defender Luke Wilkshire in the 61st minute, for an altercation with a Dutch player. The referee deemed this to be his second bookable offence and he received a second yellow and consequent red card.

Hmm I could be wrong but I seem to remember Wilkshire being sent off not for an altercation but for a clumsy challenge, and that it was a stright red not a second yellow and the sending off itself wasn't that questionable. If someone can find a match report it would clear this up, ta. Teiresias84 03:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, the match report from soccernet ~ Martin tamb 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Blatter's "apologies"

I removed the text about Blatter's "apologies", since it looks like it was a misquotation. FIFA issued a statement claiming Australian media misquoted Blatter's words, and that he "simply wanted to pay credit to the Socceroos as well because they played a great match and their lack of experience did not permit them to go to extra-time. [...] At no time did the FIFA President make any inappropriate comment whatsoever concerning the Australia vs. Italy match, and he most certainly did not comment negatively about Italy. [...] the topic as to whether the controversial penalty kick awarded to Italy in the last moments of the game was justified or not, never even came up during the interview."[7] --Panarjedde 14:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no press release on Kingjeff 17:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So what?--Panarjedde 17:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Kingjeff reverted again claiming that the press release does not come from However (1) it is referenced and (2) the "apologies" were not released by too.--Panarjedde 11:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

They did not misquote Blatter's words-they even televised the interview with Blatter. Most likely FIFA issued the statement to avoid controversy. binks 23:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you agree with me that eiter you put both statements or none in the article? If you think that Blatter's "apologies" are to be noted, why would you oppose to add also his later statement? And if you think that his second statement is not noteworthy, why do you think his first is?--Panarjedde 12:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there was no need to put this news in the article as it has no significance on anything. - Martin tamb 05:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Martin tamb. There is no need to go into this much detail in an article of this scale. I do find it strange that he claims he was "misquoted" – the interview in question was on television, which is incredibly difficult to misquote from. :-) . – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I am going to remove it.--Panarjedde 12:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't really care whether the quote are in or not, it makes no difference that Socceroos lost and Italy won. Let just leave the quote alone and let the reader decides for themselves whether it is important or not. For Panarjedde an AlbinoMonkey who do not think that this quote is important, there is no harm in putting this quote as extra information. Martin tamb 01:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there is no harm leaving it there, but in the overall context of the article it is pretty irrelevant. That section itself is almost longer than the France 98 qualifying campaign (where Aust became the first team not to lose a match and fail to qualify) and the history intro. If the article was solely about that match, or even Australia's 2006 WC, of course it would be relevant, but when you are looking at the history of Australia's national football team, it pales into insignificance. I don't care if it's in now, but if this article was ever to be a FA, it is more than likely that Blatter's comments won't be in it. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Martin, I think that the quote is irrelevant, and should go away. However, if you really want the reader to judge, you must include both quotes, not only the one Jeff likes. If one day Blatter says the penalty should not have been conceded, and the following day, he says he never talked about penalties, why are you including only the first quote? Either both or none, not only the first, otherwise it is POV.--Panarjedde 12:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess both quotes are there, however I find this discussions rather useless, wouldn't you all has better articles to edit than discussing the quote that has no effect on anything. The only thing I get from reading this quote is that Blatter is stupid by saying the thing he shouldn't, saying it 4 months after the events, and then take it back the next day. I'm outta here. Martin tamb 14:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Keeping an article NPOV is as important as adding information to an article.--Panarjedde 14:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How about creating an article for the match. If that call doesn't happen then Italy don't win the world cup. Kingjeff 03:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup controversies#Italy vs. Australia (Second round) seems to be the perfect place for it, to be honest. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 06:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
" If that call doesn't happen then Italy don't win the world cup" is POV.--Panarjedde 12:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

85472207 version

As regards this edit, the reasons are:

  1. writing "Grosso appeared to have taken a dive and went down under a Lucas Neill challenge" is non-NPOV, as implies Grosso's dive. "Grosso went down under a Lucas Neill challenge", instead, simply states a fact, so it is NPOV.
  2. "The final score was 1-0 in favour of Italy" is redundant, as previously is stated that the match was 0-0, that a penalty was scored, and that the match ended immediately.
  3. As regards the inversion of Lippi and Arnold, as both spoke the same day, the order of presentation is the diving charge before the refusal, not the opposite.

I hope that anybody who is going to revert this edit will be so kind to explain his reasons.--Panarjedde 14:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

El Fatah,"Japan’s goal" comment, sources...

The article gives a quote from the referee of the Australia v Japan game saying that "Japan’s goal against Australia was correct". I had issue with, and have hidden for now, the cited source on the grounds that it cites an interview from a site which, at least on my computer, redirects to a totally irrelevant website that has nothing to do with football, let alone the interview. And that's ignoring the whole nonsensical "would’ve awarded Japan a spot-kick" paragraph and the hearsay of the rest of the article. There HAS TO be a better source around, otherwise it really isn't article-worthy IMO. -[dM] 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Friendlies and match reports

There is no place here for matche reports of every friendly. A match report can be added for noteworthy mateches, of course, but reporting every single friendly is a no-no. And this holds both to reduce the amount of text in the article, and to keep consistency trought WP.--Panarjedde 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

List of "up and coming" players

My opinion is that these shouldn't be here - they are not members of the national team, and to list them as such is speculation. There is a separate article for the Australia national under-23 football team (Olyroos) - details about their players can go there. -- Chuq 03:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Most if not all of these players are mentioned in the Olyroos squad list. Delete them. This is for the senior team not "up-and-coming players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boltonfan22 (talkcontribs) 04:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

'Reserve' and 'Youth'

I have removed these "sections" again.

  • Info about youth team members can go in Australia national under-20 football team (same for U17 and U23).
  • There isn't a separate "reserves" squad as far as I know. Players are just selected as needed (based on availability, location, and importance of match). Harry Kewell and Archie Thompson are both just members of the team, there is no technical difference between the two so far as membership of the national team goes.

I think we should remove the */**/***/**** as well as it is getting too crowded. -- Chuq 13:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't hate: Disambiguate!

I know it's getting old. But I think Australian national football team should go to the disambiguation page (otherwise, what's the point in having it?). No information will be lost. People are still going to be able to read about whatever they want to read about. The United States and New Zealand national sides are called soccer teams. Australians don't use the term soccer any less than Americans and Kiwis do. In Australian schools it's soccer, on the (non SBS) news it's soccer. But I digress. This discussion isn't meant to be about this article's title. People who reach a disambiguation page might be interested to see that there's more than one "Australian national football team". If football takes us to a page explaining all the different codes, why does Australian national football team not do the same? Australia is the ultimate example of a country with more than one kind of 'football' (and hence, more than one kind of 'national football team'), so as far as our national teams on wikipedia are concerned, we should follow the same spirit in which the football article was created. My two cents.--Jeff79 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is method to the madness: simply put, most people who edit soccer articles on the Wiki aren't Australian and do call the game "football". As a result, there's an informal but very widespread standard for national soccer team links of the form Name-of-country national football team, and people create links in that format without checking if the link actually goes to the right team or not. The redirect has the effect of sending most readers where they want to go in one click (link in soccer article > this one), and everyone else in three (link in another article > this article > disambig > article about the code they wanted). That, and having the link to the disambig page in the heading at the top does drop the hint there are other kinds of football played down here . . . ~J.K. 12:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This is effectively a debate about the interpretation of Wikipedia's Primary Topic Policy. Australia's soccer team may have a majority of links in existing articles, but you'll be hard-pressed provng that there's consenseus that the soccer team's article will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings. That's where your case falls down. I see what you're saying about consistency with other countries in relation to the words "national football team". But Australia's use of the word football simply isn't consistent with that of other countries. As soon as you add the word Australia to the title the meaning of the expression multiplies, and the link for it on wikipedia should reflect that. You argue for people clicking on a soccer link going to this article in one click, but everyone else reaching it in three. What's wrong with everyone reaching it in two? The people from overseas who click it and reach the disambiguation page will see that there is no clear cut meaning for the term and that is the reality of the situation. I'm all for them being informed about that. This article's title in itself is controversial, and the source of prolonged debate. So it being the primary topic is even more controversial. The policy also states: If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". And before you try pointing it out to me, I'm aware that it says "may". The case for disambiguation is pretty strong. Having the word 'Australia' in the title means that usage of the expression in Australia is given weight. You have no choice but to admit that when Australians say 'Australian football team' there is no clear primary meaning.--Jeff79 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
With general articles titles such as Football in Australia I agree with you - it should point to a disambiguation page. However the national team article is different (IMHO of course), for many reasons:
If there was only one other type of football (with say, the local popularity of Aussie rules/Rugby league combined, and the international popularity of rugby union) then that would be a different case; but as it is, the other three codes of football are regionalised anyway - using "national" to refer to them doesn't sound right.
Regarding "Australians don't use the term soccer any less than Americans and Kiwis do. " - just looking at official orgs/names here, the US uses soccer across the board (Major League Soccer, United States Soccer Federation), NZ uses a mix (New Zealand Soccer moving to Football New Zealand, and the New Zealand Football Championship), whereas ours is (Football Federation Australia and the non-name specific A-League).
Of course, the most important thing is that people who do happen to be looking for one of the other teams can find them - and they can, through the first link on the page. I hope I've explained all this well enough! (Also, it is refreshing to see this brought up by an experienced editor, rather than an IP address or new user that either disappears or ends up banned a few days later!) -- Chuq (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to fill you in, there has been discussion recently regarding changing the rugby league article's title to 'rugby league football'. Regarding: RL/RU are only really popular in New South Wales, ACT and Queensland, where the term "football" is used to refer to the game as a slang expression. Firstly, I don't think it's really appropriate to use the word "only" as these states constitute around half of the country's population. Secondly, the term is more than just a "slang expression". The Brisbane Broncos' and Sydney Roosters' official names are Brisbane Broncos Rugby League Football Club Limited and Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club respectively. Rugby league in the United Kingdom is administered by the Rugby Football League. I'm aware that's not in Australia, but I'm sure you get my point. Also, (pretty much nationwide I daresay) "backyard footy" and "the footy show" never refer to soccer (I'm also aware that 'footy' is a slang expression, but it does explicitly mean 'football'). I think the case for 'Australian national football team' having no clear primary meaning still stands. Foreign ignorance of Australia's multiple football codes (and national football teams) is not an effective argument for primary topic (in my opinion).--Jeff79 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what Jeff writes. Football to mean "rugby" in NSW, ACT & Qld is by no means slang. If there are links to Australia national football team when the soccer team was intended, fix 'em. The policy to follow regional dialects in regionally-specific articles is well accepted. The sport is called soccer by almost all Aussies. The organising bodies can pick whatever name they like, they don't dictate usage. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Jɪmp 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackay's goal to qualify for 74 World Cup.

The article says this was from a free kick, but it wasn't. I saw this goal many times on TV at the time (it was such a great goal they even showed it at the end of the English football show "Match of the Day") and distinctly remember that it was beautifully laid off from Rooney after a header from a defender.

Rumours about future coach

I think the whole sections about rumours for the new coach is a bit useless, since none of the rumours came true. Maybe we can just put 1 simple sentence that although a lot of foreign coaches are rumoured to take over, Graham Arnold was remained as a caretaker until Asian Cup. I know that the rumours have proper references but I just don't think this is significant enough to be included in History section. Martin tamb 09:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong team?

In the Germany 2006 qualifying campaign section is the following piece of text (as of June 1 2007):-

In October 2005, Australia beat Jamaica 5-0 in a friendly in London. The win was the Socceroos' biggest win against a team ranked higher than them in the FIFA World Rankings list and also, Australia's biggest win against a country which has participated in the World Cup.

It's quite obviously not supposed to be Jamaica - that or the following information is incorrect. So who's it supposed to be? Or is the following information incorrect?

What do you mean incorrect? The match did occured, see this. At that time (October 2005), Jamaica's ranking is 40 while Australia is on 54 [8]. Jamaica also participated in 1998 FIFA World Cup. I haven't had the chance to research more but unless Australia has larger win against higher ranking or other World Cup participant, nothing's wrong with the information. Martin tamb 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tournament Records - Asia Cup

I believe FIFA state that a match that goes to penalties is actually deemed a draw officially. So in saying that should the table not say P4 W1 D2 L1 instead of P4 W1 D1 L2 ??? Batobatobato 01:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is - I have fixed it. I believe the coaching record should also be corrected - it currently says 3 draws- I can count Ghana, Paraguay and Oman. I'll make it 4. -- Chuq (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bracketed word in article title

Okay, there's been previous discussion on this, but nothing for a year, so I'll bite. Why is there a bracketed "(soccer)" in middle of this article title? This article should either be called Australia national football team (following England national football team, with a standard disambiguation link of "For the Australia nation American football team, see Australian Outbacks"), or if it really needs to be disambiguated in the title, Australia national football team (soccer). (I can't see any actual style guideline about putting disambiguation brackets at the end of a title, but it seems very strange and ugly not to.) Any thoughts? --McGeddon 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Australia national football team would not be appropriate because the word football as used in Australian English generally does not refer to soccer. How about Australia national association football team or simply Australia national soccer team? P.S. Why Australia rather than Australian? Jɪmp 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Jim, "[country] national [sport] team" is just standard naming practice for sports teams. I think, but have no real evidence, that it originated with sports sub-editors on Fleet Street. I guess it saves the geographically-challenged from having to look up if a nationality ends in "-ian", "ese", "-i" or some other suffix. (Or maybe it's because the England cricket team doesn't necessarily have many "English" people in it ;-) As for the rest, I couldn't agree more.
McGeddon, may I refer you to football (word)#Australia? Grant | Talk 12:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If that be convention (albeit ungrammatical), then let it be I s'pose. Jɪmp 03:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Australia national football (soccer) teamAustralia national football team — Almost all national football team articles uses "Country national football team" format. I think we should unite the standard. —Raymond Giggs 09:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Very strong oppose. This matter has been discussed, at length, several times on this and other talk pages. The word "football" refers to at least four different games in Australia. Also, the "standard" Raymond Giggs mentions to may be regarded as contentious in itself, since "football" refers to several games worldwide and American football is the game most commonly referred to simply as football, by people who speak English as a first language. Grant | Talk 13:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I have to say that most Australians, if not all would refer to it as Australian National Soccer team. Australia has several different types of football and i think the soccer is needed to disambiguate. Woodym555 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whilst Australian english tends to resemble British English for the most part (a fact I'm proud of and want to preserve), on the matter of soccer we lean more toward the Americans. This is a fact that everyone in Australia is aware of except for the few diehard soccer fans who are somehow able to delude themselves into thinking it's otherwise.--Jeff79 06:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Football is referred to as "soccer" by the vast majority in Australia. If this article must be moved, it should be moved to "Australia national soccer team", but I believe it would be best off where it is. - PeeJay 09:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, such standards must give way to local convention in this most emotive of issues. Relata refero 16:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page move

As of recent the name of soccer on wikipedia is no longer "Football (soccer)" to "Association football". It to me that it would be better if this page remained where it was instead of Australian national Association football team. InsteadOf (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Association football is a very clumsy term. Soccer I know, Football I know, but Association Football? While I'm familiar with the terminology, nobody uses it. It's like one of those technical compromises to satisfy dictionaries that everybody ignores. In the same way that Aussie Rules has gardually fallen into disuse and AFL, a term only invented what twenty years ago when the VFL was alterred to AFL, while AFL was just a shift of VFL, AFL has started to become the name used colloquoillay (I have no idea how to spell that) for Aussie Rules in a way that VFL never did, presumably because of what the 'V' represented but also because the expansion of the senior comp has started to reduce the significance of the state and local leagues, similar in its own way to the decline of the QRL after the advent of the Broncos... that wound on a bit, but seriously, Association Football I believe ain't the best answer. --Falcadore (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree "Australia national association football team" is very clumsy. There have been many comments on Talk:Association football stating that "not all references to this page/sport in Wikipedia need to be changed" so there is no harm in leaving it. I think the AFL thing is weird, you don't say "I went and played some NRL in the park with my mates". Anyway as for the article name, leave it as it is for now unless any other valid alternatives present themselves. -- Chuq (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Biggest Win

Howcome it onli sez "Largest win" under "Biggest win" even tho in the article it clearly states we beat American Samoa 31-0??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krsoneost (talkcontribs) 04:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ty for fixing it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists of current players

This appears a bit inconsistent at the moment. For instance, neither Harry Kewell or Vince Grella is mentioned anymore (both clearly remaining in national team calculations), yet Mark Viduka is mentioned under the list "recently capped". Also, in the final list where some younger players are mentioned as having been capped, Spiranovic and a couple of others are mentioned, when clearly they haven't been capped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippu d'angelo (talkcontribs) 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Current Squad ???? Need to rethink

Given the squad picked for the China game had so many new and C string players in it, and the one for the Ghana game to some extent, I think the concept of the "current squad" and a separate other "recent call ups" needs to be rethought. The current squad is an ever rotating list of players. Verbeek has already used something liek 42 players in the past few games.

My suggestion is to replace these two sections by two somewhat similar sections, being "Latest Game Squad", and "Current Players In The Mix" (or some such similar namin). The more important of these would be the "Current Players in the mix", which would carry all the information about each player, including the latest players used.

In the section "Latest Game Squad", after the game, there would be a right hand column to indicate who was in the starting 11, who was subbed off, who was subbed on, times of subbing etc.

In the section "Current Players in the Mix" I would suggest having two columns at the RH Side labelled - latest game played; latest team/squad selection. To distinguish between those who were named in a team "for experience", as opposed to those who actually played, and therefore earned a cap. Perhaps we could also make room for a column "first team/squad call up".

Also, I would like to indicate the position of a player by a column entry, not by seperate sub-tables. Then one can sort the whole list by name, or by position, or by number of caps etc. Especially as the placing of a player in the Defenders/Midfielders/Strikers sub-tables can be a little questionable. For instance, Brett Emerton played as a midfield/striker in his last game, scoring two goals. Not as a defender!

IS there any point in having a column "usual shirt number", as there appears to be little consistency from game to game ? but we could for instance indicate that Harry Kewell usually plys in number 10, Brett Emerton in 7 etc.

Also, perhaps we should have a way of listing/including recently retired Socceroos, such as Craig Moore, who has actually played more recently than some of those named. Suggest inlcuding any that have retired in the past 12 months.

Before I try to make these changes, two things -

  1. Any strong disagreements.
  2. Very complicated to do it in direct Wiki "code". Is there any editor out there that I can use to build the new tables, and then just produce/paste the Wiki "code" I need ?

Also, I would try it all out on a trial page first, and see what you think of the result. --Richardb43 (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Well, in the Jimmy Mackay article, it says he died in 1998. So do other links say he died in 1998. Can anyone give me any link on how he died? Seriously, im confused.--AJ44 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Head Coach

I may be wrong, but I believe the Socceroos coach is not yet Dick Advocaat (although he most definetely will be in the future.) Unless someone knows for sure that he is, it should be removed. 12:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Curse

Should we include some information or perhaps a separate article on the curse on Australian football? Here is an SMH article on it. There’s also extensive coverage of it in Sheila’s, Wogs and Poofters. --Executive.koala 18:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh and SMH requires registration. --Executive.koala 19:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's relevant to Australian football somewhere, but I don't know where it should go. --Debunct 09:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Right Here .. but it belongs somewhere here too, it's an important part of the Soccceroo's history, true or not Oliyoung (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)