This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
For those of us not familiar with UK football abbreviations, what does "UEFA" mean? It's not explained in the article. Maybe someone could edit the article to explain what that abbreviation means. Public Menace ( talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a temporary lock be put on the article as someone keeps changing the scores and the winners to arsenal. Arsenal did not win, they did not get any where near it. Get over it arsenal fans and stop editing the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.119.27 ( talk) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't information on the first qualifying round go FIRST and information about clubs certain to compete in the group stage go later in the article? 80.2.82.110 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As we go into the knockout stages i think that wikipedia should just have a little area at the bottom where the live scores are displayed. So that we can keep up with everything going on? Chaza93 21:33 2 May 2007 (BST)
Hi are you sure Milan are certain of their place for next season ? Including this weekend (12th 13th May) there are 3 rounds of matches left for every team. Firstly Milan would have to lose the 2006-7 Champions League Final to Liverpool. Then if Milan lost all 3 Serie A matches Lazio would remain ahead of them, and any of Empoli, Fiorentina or Palermo could catch up with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.161.94.33 ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone know the dates of draws or matchdays for any of the rounds? If so, could someone please add these into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyduncan ( talk • contribs)
Just a question, but who looses out on their place in the group stage now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaza93 ( talk • contribs)
The information about qualification against association rank, or the information about the second and third qualifying rounds is wrong. The information about qualification says that runners-up from association 10 (which is currently Romania), says that both the Champions AND runners up get spots in third round qualifying. Only Steaua has been put in the second round qualifying. Could someone please explain why this is. Funkyduncan 13:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I see someone has done a quick botch job, there are still discrepancies, eg, someone put that 1 team from associations 10 to 15 is 5 teams, when that in fact makes 6. 80.2.82.110 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so if the holder has already qualified for the Group, let's say Man U or Inter won the CL instead of Milan, then who would be added to the group stage (ie what range of associations would get another champion or runner up included), AND this year since Milan DID need their automatic group stage invite to bypass third round qualifying, what range of associations got another champion runner up or third place qualifier??? I realize this matters very little but I'm a details kind of guy and its driving me crazy
I don't understand, why someone deleted the seeding. If you said it is useless in UEFA Cup, that's fine. But how come you said that seeding is useless on CL? KyleR Giggs 10:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We should remove seeding from the second qualifying round, since we don't know FOR CERTAIN that Dinamo Zagreb and APOEL will get through. Funkyduncan 17:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
After I stopped editing the access list because all of them confirmed, some of them changed the teams. KyleR Giggs 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm getting bored of continually reverting the article whenever this gets put back in, so I thought I'd better take some friendly advice from User:RichardRundle and bring the debate here (yes, I know I should've done that sooner, and I'm sorry). So, what does everyone else think. I know there have been others who have removed this info when it has been put back in, but I'd like to see if there's anyone who thinks that, despite its irrelevance, the fact that Sevilla won last season's UEFA Cup should be kept in the article. - PeeJay 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Why has the fact, that Sevilla FC has won the UEFA Cup 2006-07, no effect on Sevilla FC, no effect on the UEFA Champions League 2007-08, and no effect on the qualification for the UEFA Champions League 2007-08? -- 88.77.233.180 09:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm that the Beitar Jerusalem and Zaglebie Lubin definitely WON'T be seeded. If Dinamo Zagreb or APOEL Nicosia were defeated would that mean the winner from QR1 would be seeded OR would the first two teams get the top spots.
There is some disagreement here over the best way to show the second qualifying round ties. I (and one other editor) have replaced "Winners Match 1" with Khazar Lenkoran/Dinamo Zagreb for example. This is already the format used for the 3rd Qualifying Round, and takes away the need to look back up to see who the teams involved in Match 1 are when looking at potential opponents. - fchd 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Fenerbahce are cited as a team required to qualify for the Champions League in the third round qualification stage. In fact, the champions of the Turkish Super League automatically qualify for the group stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.49.6 ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
All I say is who cares? Fenerbahçe dominated Anderlecht with two clean sheets and we should look at who Fenerbahçe have to face now: Internazionale(The Nazis) PSV Eindhoven(flying Dutchmen, I'm confused of how to plural "Dutchmen") and last but not least the Slavic representation: CSKA Moscova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokkafellah ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Why does UEFA make the Champions of weaker leagues go through three extra rounds than the top 16 seeds? I don't understand. A 76-team tournament should be formatted more like the NCAA Basketball Tournament, where the bottom seeds have to win one more round than the top seeds. Kendanielone 21:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Boo to UEFA. Having said that though, it's not like the system is entirely bias, in that no league has an automatic right to get into the cup at a later stage. The leagues that have earnt automatic group places have done so through their teams' consistent performance over a few years. If the champions of San Marino consistantly got to the group stage then they'd get an automatic place in a few years too. The coefficient system is a bit long term but its pretty much fair in the money-grabbing UEFA system. It's the same in the FA Cup. If you're a good team then you'll be in a higher league and then you get to play less matches because you've proved yourself. Everyone agrees that it would be sportingly right to have every team play 9 rounds, but then the smaller teams would miss out on the prize money and the bigger teams would complain about the extra games. The 731 clubs are pretty much happy with the way it is at the moment. And after all, it only takes 11 matches to win the FA Cup if you start from the bottom. If you deserve to win it, then you will do, getting a shot at the big teams on the way. Aheyfromhome 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I added the seeding of the third qualifying round at the article but PeeJay called me to wait. I understand it would make the article more clean but less information without linking. KyleR Giggs 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am impressed of the Spanish article about the CL 2006-07. So I think we should do something to make the article to be a good article. KyleR Giggs 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what purpose the table in the Qualification section serves. The clubs that qualified for the tournament are shown in the Qualifying Stage and Group Stage sections below, as well as the template at the bottom of the page, so what is the need for the table? - PeeJay 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What will happen for the draw?? I mean since Sevilla play their qualifying draw how will they include them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.125.55 ( talk) 00:25, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
The draw for the group stage is in the group stage article and is not needed in the main article. Kingjeff 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If two teams have the same coefficent ranking, the team that obtained the most points in the previous European campaign is seeded the highest. If this is the same, then it is based on the previous one to that..... This is done for the previous five campaigns. If still even, the team that finished higher in the league is seeded the higher. This year, both Chelsea and Manchester United have a coefficient of 99.618. To determined who is seeded higher, points gained in the previous year are used. For 06/07, these are: Chelsea - 28.486; Manchester United - 27.486. Therefore Chelsea is seeded the higher. This is shown on xs4all and uefa. Additionally, when the draw was conducted, one of the graphics show that Chelsea is ranked above Manchester United.-- Fridge46 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any need to include all the detail on the group stages in this article, when there is the article specifically for that. We are only duplicating information, at least the group tables should be removed. I know previous years are like this, but it doesn't make them right. John Hayes talk 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll forget about the groups, but what really shouldn't be in this article is a list of all the matches, as that sort of detail is in the other article, otherwise we really are duplicating the entire thing. John Hayes talk 09:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever happens with the decision as to where to put the tables... can we please put the points in the rightmost column, not the left? I know there's a couple of people here who are convinced that the points column should go immediately next to the club, but every football confederation's website, along with those for all major competitions around the world (including UEFA's for this one), have points on the right. Kinitawowi 18:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I think it's straightforward enough to list the team as FC Dynamo Kyiv. If you look at that article's talk page, you will already see a discussion where there was strong consensus to refer to the team as "Dynamo Kyiv" and not "Dinamo Kiev". As for the group stage team ordering - well, whenever I go to an article that contains a table for a competition which has not started yet, I expect to see the teams in order of seeding (or, for league tables, the order in which they finished last season). Or, even, in alphabetical order. Instead, they are in some random and arbitrary order that I cannot understand. See, for example, Premier League (alphabetical order) or Bundesliga (last year's results). ugen64 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
None of this discussion is relevant here, this article should simply use whatever the article on the club uses, regardless of what it is. If, for the sake of argument, the consensus is that the club should be called Ministry of Silly Walks then that is what we should use here. John Hayes talk 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with anon who removed the qualitying rounds from Template:Champions League 2007-08. This information bloats the template; after all, we have the article for this. Conscious 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It has been requested, by the user that came up with this idea, that it not be implemented in the article, please feel free to contact the user and try and come to an agreement. |
Sorry my idea din't work and to let you know, just reverse all of my comments below! El- Nin 09 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the results should be on the page in some way, even if we have a table such as the one shown below.
BES | LIV | MAR | PRT | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Beşiktaş | XXX | 24 Oct | 28 Nov | 3 Oct |
Liverpool | 6 Nov | XXX | 3 Oct | 28 Nov |
Marseille | 18 Sep | 11 Dec | XXX | 24 Oct |
Porto | 11 Dec | 18 Sep | 6 Nov | XXX |
I can do this for all of the groups if we have consensus for it! El- Nin 09 08:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Codes i have come up with are as below: (italics shows newly added.)
El-
Nin
09
09:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
BES | LIV | MAR | PRT | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Beşiktaş | - | 24 Oct | 28 Nov | 3 Oct |
Liverpool | 6 Nov | - | 3 Oct | 28 Nov |
Marseille | 18 Sep | 11 Dec | - | 24 Oct |
Porto | 11 Dec | 18 Sep | 6 Nov | - |
OK or we could simply shade the boxes grey El- Nin 09 10:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
CHE | VCF | SCH | ROS | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Chelsea | - | 11 Dec | 24 Oct | 18 Sep |
Valencia | 3 Oct | - | 28 Nov | 6 Nov |
Schalke | 6 Nov | 18 Sep | - | 11 Dec |
Rosenborg | 28 Nov | 24 Oct | 3 Oct | - |
I would also keed Real Madrid as RMD otherwise there may be confusion with AS Roma El- Nin 09 18:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OK right put the team name and then 1. 2. 3. 4. etc for the code you prefer!
*Besiktas 1
El-
Nin
09
07:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
<s?*Besiktas 1
PeeJay 07:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
*Inter Milan 2
no opinion on the others
—Ed Cormany
13:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
*Beşiktaş 2
Chandler
talk
14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
*Beşiktaş 2
Don't listen to him u cant own a idea 172.159.230.188 10:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC) WHERE THE HELL ARE THE VOTES??? 172.159.230.188 10:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK right put the team name and then 1. 2. 3. 4. etc for the code you prefer!
Raymond Giggs 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
MTC 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Artyx 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (Edited. Added those closed yesterday. -- Artyx 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
Congratulations to whoever re-opened the vote, all votes should remain open for a minimum of 24 hours to enable those in all time-zones and with any work patterns to contribute.
fchd 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
PeeJay 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Chandler talk 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I decided not to post this in the previous section because it contains the red message. But I still think that the results of group games have to be included in the article in some way. Since we agreed to have the results in tables like discussed above we should probably decide what team codes to use and add the tables to the article. -- Artyx 09:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
i.e. Chelsea 3-6 Liverpool Porto 0-1 Besiktas
etc. etc. seeing as El-Nin09 decided not to leave WP with a bang. 172.202.80.67 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because El-Nin09 bailed on this project, why can't we still implement it? It seems to be consensus that it's a good idea, and we already have the table code right here in the talk page. I say we should be bold and go for it. —Ed Cormany 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The way results were included in this version of 2006-07's article is pretty good, especially because it provides dates of matches (which using the table discussed here wouldn't). Maybe a smaller font could be used and the results be entered on the side of group table rather than below it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artyx ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It may seem annoying that I'm coming back to this subject over and over, but the group standings without the results seems... incomplete, probably. Results are the important part of any group stage in any competition, in my opinion. Maybe the results shouldn't be included in the tables, as discussed above. A good example for including the results may be the UEFA Champions League 2005-06. For the article not to become too big, the whole Qualification section may be removed, ot at least the table of clubs there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artyx ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-I'm seeing some weird chracter between the digits of the scores in tables. What is that thing? Is it my system missing some fonts or is everyone seeing those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.19.240 ( talk) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I attempted to spark a discussion earlier on about where the points column should be in the group stage tables (immediately next to the team, or in the rightmost column), but I only got a couple of comments (both approving a move to the right, in line with worldwide practice for football league tables). I've been bold and moved it; feel free to chime in here if there's any comment. Kinitawowi 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with the move since this is the most important colum in the table. Kingjeff 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
us having a similar conversation about this issue sometime in the past, but the discussion petered out, so while you're here again... every single confederation's website, and those of all of the major leagues around the world (and the MLS :-p), and every significant newspaper, displays tables with the points on the right. Given that Wikipedia is intended to make things easier for the reader, why exactly should we fly in the face of internationally-accepted convention? Kinitawowi 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've piped these changes down to UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Group Stage as well now. Kinitawowi 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
To make the article into a better article, Spanish article about 2006-07 edition is a good example for archiving this - making some brief session into group stage. Raymond Giggs 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It would probably make more sense to include the club that the player plays for, rather than his nationality. -- Artyx © 09:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It is better to put the match results into UEFA Champions League 2007-08. But the price is - making the article into a featured article - at least good article. Any ideas? Raymond Giggs 16:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think that the page looked better with list of results than with result tables, as it is right now. Results tables may be taking up less space on the page, but, as I mentioned before, the whole "Qualification" section (I don't mean "Qualifying rounds" section here) may be removed to make more space. Artyom ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did the match between CSKA Moscow and Fenerbahce start early (at 18.30 CET instead of default 20.45 CET) on 02.10.2007? I could not find any information anywhere (unregistered user) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.145.91 ( talk) 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. My comment was the assumption that they were home. Kingjeff 15:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well maybe there should be some sort of discussion here (or somewhere) about what names of the teams should be used on this template
I have no problem with those changes. AC Milan could be shoten to Milan. Kingjeff 19:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact, Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Sports teams says all-English names should be used. I didn't know this either, just found out. Artyx T C 10:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
PeeJay2K3 reverted an by Xhandler with a message saying "such a huge change should have been discussed on the talk page first". Xhandler has now restored the change, I noticed that after posting this but I'll leave this here to keep PeeJay2K3 happy. Xhandler replaced the highlighting of teams in group tables with borders seperating the different sections of the tables. I think this is a very good idea, and I agree that highlighting should be reserved for when a team is assured of what they will be doing after the groups, just like the system being used for UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying tables. - MTC 15:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Where are the qualification scenarios, or where can I add them? They used to be in every competition with about 1 to 3 games remaining to play. Kiwi8 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the the qualification scenarios at the moment are too much reading and very confusing. My idea to simplify them would be to have them along the lines of (using Group D as an example):
(Example 1):
Possible developments for matchday 6 (4 December):
(Example 2):
Possible developments for matchday 6 (4 December):
Looking at that I would say Example 2 is the best option. Although I am aware it is technically more text than what is currently being used I think it is easier to decipher especially at a glance. For instance, if I were a Celtic fan (never going to happen) I could easily see that there is only 1 scenario of results in which they could not qualify for the last 16.
What's your thoughts? ( Rfc scott ( talk) 00:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
Maybe we should point out which teams can no longer finish first or second in their groups. Juve2000 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Done F 9 T 16:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me. It was my mistake. -- Worobiew 09:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Marseille beat Besiktas, they won't be qualified for the next round. If Liverpool beat both Porto and Marseille, then Liverpool will tie Marseille in points, and can knock out Marseille on either goal difference or head-to-head records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.65.222 ( talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over the hypothetical Liverpool/Marseille/Porto three-way tie situation, so here's my working.
If Besiktas beat Porto and Liverpool draw with Marseille, then Besiktas end top of the group on 9 points and Liverpool, Marseille and Porto would have 8 points each. Evaluating these positions requires analysing the mini-table produced by the results between those three teams. Those results would be:
Tabulating these:
Team | Pld | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liverpool | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5+x | 2+x | +3 | 5 |
Marseille | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3+x | 3+x | +0 | 5 |
Porto | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 7 | -2 | 5 |
This table isn't iterated further, so Besiktas go top, Liverpool 2nd, Marseille 3rd and Porto 4th. Kinitawowi ( talk) 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
All CSKA Moscow home matches were played at Lokomotiv Stadium, not Dinamo Stadium. Change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.97.49 ( talk) 04:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Should this includes Liverpool's recovery from one point from three games to come second in the group or not? F 9 T 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
On a related note - Filippo Inzaghi surpassed Gerd Müller as the all-time highest scorer in European competitions when he scored his 63rd European club competition goal, in AC Milan's 1–0 victory over Celtic on 4 December 2007. He is also currently the highest-scoring Italian player in the history of European competition, having scored 34 of his 63 European competition goals for his current club AC Milan. - is it just me, or is the statement being used incorrectly. The best of world in history will always be the best from his country. I'm guessing, but the argument (should it even be notable) would be that he is the leading scorer of goals for Italian clubs in European competition.
I believe that we should stick with AC Milan in referring to the A.C. Milan side. Milan by itself is a bit unclear. There is another club with Milan in its name, or Milano to be precise, that being F.C. Internazionale Milano. They of course are commonly referred to as Inter Milan although that is the informal name and I agree with keeping Internazionale in the article. Most other articles I've read, including previous Champions League seasons, use AC Milan or A.C. Milan instead of just Milan. I know that other clubs in this article don't have F.C. or F.K. etc., attached to their titles, but I believe with two Milan-based clubs in the competition it would be more user-friendly to just add the AC to AC Milan. -- Tocino 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Inter Milan when shorten are ussually called Inter and AC Milan when shorten are ussually called Milan.
Kingjeff (
talk)
02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Irregardless of either Internazionale or Inter, this name, whether in short or long form, is what they are referred to. Kingjeff ( talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I dunno about you guys but on my side of the ocean, the two Milan teams are referred to as:
Although I must say for the "non-fan", "Milan" per se is confusing, but not as confusing if you use "Inter" for Inter Milan. -- Howard the Duck 12:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It says he is the highest scoring European player ever and then it goes on to say he is the highest scoring Italian player ever. Doesn't the first statement make the second redundant? I have not made any changes just in case I have misuderstood something. 99.248.53.179 ( talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It may not be redundant if you say from AC Milan. The achievement can be done on several teams that make the UEFA Champions League. Kingjeff ( talk) 03:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is this name being reverted? It is likely that UEFA do not use the official name due to advertising reasons etc. This does not change the fact that the stadium name is Emirates Stadium. In a similar way the Welsh rugby team are sponsored by Brains, but the name is changed in France due to alcohol advertising laws, this does not change the fact they are sponsored by Brains. I have reverted the stadium name to the official name. There is no reason to follow the name that UEFA uses. Nouse4aname ( talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Added the dates of the quarter and semifinals. Would be happy to see them to be made to look better, but thought the article was lacking without this important information.
Also think it should be on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylelbishop ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Reference to the Spanish article es:Liga de Campeones de la UEFA 2006-07, they made a brief session in every groups and every matches since first knockout stage. Shall we study the format from them? Raymond Giggs 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
whey does aggregate go 1,2,3,4? what does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.180.76 ( talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What do they 'draw' for the finals? Juve2000 ( talk) 23:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no real home team. One team is designated so they can go through the montions of having a home team and an away team. Kingjeff ( talk) 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Added a section on the rigging allegations. Fishy at the very least or maybe a good guess? Francium12 ( talk) 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the sentence saying: "Making such a prediction carries odds of 191–1", because I'm not so sure this is the case. The Mirror article simply says: "It was claimed that the odds of anyone guessing the full draw - including which quarter-final winners would be drawn against each other in the semi-finals - were 191/1" (my italics).
Now journalists can't do math of course, so this must be based on hearsay. First of all, the "including which quarter-final winners would be drawn against each other in the semi-finals"-part is just plain rubbish; the comment made no such prediction. Furthermore, the prediction did not get the home/away drawings right, which makes the odds a little better. I believe the right probability is: 1/7 * 1/5 * 1/3 = 1/105 ≈ 0,95%. Anybody wanna chime in? Lampman Talk to me! 14:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
hello, i'm just concerned about the language used in that paragraph. it states that a prediction was made about the result, which is misleading. the guy on the liverpool forum actually said that he heard a rumor that the draw was rigged. and the results he heard were true. that's another thing altogether. ------(Aameen Johal) 2 april 2008
Which is the better one?
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Arsenal / Liverpool | 1 | Fenerbahçe / Chelsea | ||
Schalke 04 / Barcelona | 2 | Roma / Manchester United |
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Winner of Quarter-final 1 | 1 | Winner of Quarter-final 4 | ||
Winner of Quarter-final 3 | 2 | Winner of Quarter-final 2 |
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Winner of Quarter-final 1 | 1 | Winner of Quarter-final 4 | ||
Winner of Quarter-final 3 | 2 | Winner of Quarter-final 2 |
The last one is too ugly I think... Raymond Giggs 11:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Winner of Quarter-final 1 | 1 | Winner of Quarter-final 4 | ||
Winner of Quarter-final 3 | 2 | Winner of Quarter-final 2 |
Should we include game times (kickoff times) on this page? It was the primary reason I came to the Wikipedia article on a current sporting event, and I was surprised to see them missing :) But if kick-off times are not relevant then we could remove the kick-off time for the final match. Also, I am not sure if it is important to note exactly the time when the drawings occurred for an overview of the season. -- Oeq1st1 ( talk) 03:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should take a look at removing the controversy bit. It was novel when it happened, but in the grand scheme of things I don't think it should really be kept on the page. The odds of it suggest that it isn't that statisticly significant and that a guess by :cough: some poxy internet forum (no offence) isn't really a grounding for throwing doubt on the integrity of UEFA. Aheyfromhome ( talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Controversy surrounding the draw is noteworthy. It's definetely written in the neutral point of view. Kingjeff ( talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Noteworthy. Whose gone and removed it? Francium12 ( talk) 11:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It really is noteworthy. The fact that it was predicted means this is possibly a scandalous thing that is going on here. Kingjeff ( talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that only Groups A and E only have summaries, and none of the others? Wouldn't it be beneficial if either none of the groups, or all of the groups, had a small summary? I don't find the point in just these two specific groups having one. -- Snojoe ( talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I came up with an idea of having an inter-wiki project for Champions League, UEFA Cup and UEFA Intertoto Cup. The idea is we can have match reports from Wikinews and use them on Wikipedia article for 2008-09 Champions League, 2008-09 UEFA Cup and 2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup. There should be no sourcing issues since there is a requirement of 2 sources per match report.
There will be 213 matches for Champions League, 359 UEFA Cup matches, 78 Intertoto Cup matches for a total of 650 matches. Therefore, there will be a number of people needed to do this. If you're interested or have any questions or comments, you can ask them here or if you would like to sign-up, you can go here. Don't write how this is too big or a bad idea. This is to survey to see how viable this is. However, if you have some constructive comment or question, then feel free to add. Kingjeff ( talk) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that I keep trying to add the details of missed penalties in normal time to the game summaries but they keep being removed. Can someone explain why these details are not important? The details of Cristiano Ronaldo's missed penalty against Barcelona, for example, are needed to put the game into context as it had a huge influence on the result. Thanks. 92.2.28.25 ( talk) 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
PeeJay, please stop reformatting the Records section with bullet points and tagging it as a trivia list. Why would you do this? And please don't call me "buddy", it's condescending. It was' a trivia list. I reformatted it, took out the most pointless bits of trivia, and restructured it into a viable sections on the various landmarks and records set during this season's campaign. There is no need for bullet points on viable prose. See the manual of style. Neıl ☎ 13:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Will people stop editing the results of games until the games are actually over!. Remember Man Utd were losing the final in 1999 after 90 mins Francium12 ( talk) 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone has changed the flags in front of FC Barcelona from Spanish to Catalonian flags. Though I understand that some Catalonians don't regard themselves as Spaniards, the Barcelona football team represents Spain in this competition. IMHO this should be reverted. 82.170.131.213 ( talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's inevitable. The next few hours are gonna be filled with mass vandalism. So, might as well take measure before it happens. Azuran ( talk) 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we supposed to keep this and other similar templates in club articles even though it's a past competition? - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
File:2008 UEFA Champions League Final logo.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:2008 UEFA Champions League Final logo.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2007–08 UEFA Champions League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The hyperlink is to FC Astana created in 2009. This should be obviously incorrect. The link should be to FC Astana 1964, the Kazakh champions of 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.231.78 ( talk) 06:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
For those of us not familiar with UK football abbreviations, what does "UEFA" mean? It's not explained in the article. Maybe someone could edit the article to explain what that abbreviation means. Public Menace ( talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a temporary lock be put on the article as someone keeps changing the scores and the winners to arsenal. Arsenal did not win, they did not get any where near it. Get over it arsenal fans and stop editing the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.119.27 ( talk) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't information on the first qualifying round go FIRST and information about clubs certain to compete in the group stage go later in the article? 80.2.82.110 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As we go into the knockout stages i think that wikipedia should just have a little area at the bottom where the live scores are displayed. So that we can keep up with everything going on? Chaza93 21:33 2 May 2007 (BST)
Hi are you sure Milan are certain of their place for next season ? Including this weekend (12th 13th May) there are 3 rounds of matches left for every team. Firstly Milan would have to lose the 2006-7 Champions League Final to Liverpool. Then if Milan lost all 3 Serie A matches Lazio would remain ahead of them, and any of Empoli, Fiorentina or Palermo could catch up with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.161.94.33 ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone know the dates of draws or matchdays for any of the rounds? If so, could someone please add these into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyduncan ( talk • contribs)
Just a question, but who looses out on their place in the group stage now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaza93 ( talk • contribs)
The information about qualification against association rank, or the information about the second and third qualifying rounds is wrong. The information about qualification says that runners-up from association 10 (which is currently Romania), says that both the Champions AND runners up get spots in third round qualifying. Only Steaua has been put in the second round qualifying. Could someone please explain why this is. Funkyduncan 13:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I see someone has done a quick botch job, there are still discrepancies, eg, someone put that 1 team from associations 10 to 15 is 5 teams, when that in fact makes 6. 80.2.82.110 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so if the holder has already qualified for the Group, let's say Man U or Inter won the CL instead of Milan, then who would be added to the group stage (ie what range of associations would get another champion or runner up included), AND this year since Milan DID need their automatic group stage invite to bypass third round qualifying, what range of associations got another champion runner up or third place qualifier??? I realize this matters very little but I'm a details kind of guy and its driving me crazy
I don't understand, why someone deleted the seeding. If you said it is useless in UEFA Cup, that's fine. But how come you said that seeding is useless on CL? KyleR Giggs 10:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We should remove seeding from the second qualifying round, since we don't know FOR CERTAIN that Dinamo Zagreb and APOEL will get through. Funkyduncan 17:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
After I stopped editing the access list because all of them confirmed, some of them changed the teams. KyleR Giggs 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm getting bored of continually reverting the article whenever this gets put back in, so I thought I'd better take some friendly advice from User:RichardRundle and bring the debate here (yes, I know I should've done that sooner, and I'm sorry). So, what does everyone else think. I know there have been others who have removed this info when it has been put back in, but I'd like to see if there's anyone who thinks that, despite its irrelevance, the fact that Sevilla won last season's UEFA Cup should be kept in the article. - PeeJay 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Why has the fact, that Sevilla FC has won the UEFA Cup 2006-07, no effect on Sevilla FC, no effect on the UEFA Champions League 2007-08, and no effect on the qualification for the UEFA Champions League 2007-08? -- 88.77.233.180 09:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm that the Beitar Jerusalem and Zaglebie Lubin definitely WON'T be seeded. If Dinamo Zagreb or APOEL Nicosia were defeated would that mean the winner from QR1 would be seeded OR would the first two teams get the top spots.
There is some disagreement here over the best way to show the second qualifying round ties. I (and one other editor) have replaced "Winners Match 1" with Khazar Lenkoran/Dinamo Zagreb for example. This is already the format used for the 3rd Qualifying Round, and takes away the need to look back up to see who the teams involved in Match 1 are when looking at potential opponents. - fchd 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Fenerbahce are cited as a team required to qualify for the Champions League in the third round qualification stage. In fact, the champions of the Turkish Super League automatically qualify for the group stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.49.6 ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
All I say is who cares? Fenerbahçe dominated Anderlecht with two clean sheets and we should look at who Fenerbahçe have to face now: Internazionale(The Nazis) PSV Eindhoven(flying Dutchmen, I'm confused of how to plural "Dutchmen") and last but not least the Slavic representation: CSKA Moscova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokkafellah ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Why does UEFA make the Champions of weaker leagues go through three extra rounds than the top 16 seeds? I don't understand. A 76-team tournament should be formatted more like the NCAA Basketball Tournament, where the bottom seeds have to win one more round than the top seeds. Kendanielone 21:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Boo to UEFA. Having said that though, it's not like the system is entirely bias, in that no league has an automatic right to get into the cup at a later stage. The leagues that have earnt automatic group places have done so through their teams' consistent performance over a few years. If the champions of San Marino consistantly got to the group stage then they'd get an automatic place in a few years too. The coefficient system is a bit long term but its pretty much fair in the money-grabbing UEFA system. It's the same in the FA Cup. If you're a good team then you'll be in a higher league and then you get to play less matches because you've proved yourself. Everyone agrees that it would be sportingly right to have every team play 9 rounds, but then the smaller teams would miss out on the prize money and the bigger teams would complain about the extra games. The 731 clubs are pretty much happy with the way it is at the moment. And after all, it only takes 11 matches to win the FA Cup if you start from the bottom. If you deserve to win it, then you will do, getting a shot at the big teams on the way. Aheyfromhome 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I added the seeding of the third qualifying round at the article but PeeJay called me to wait. I understand it would make the article more clean but less information without linking. KyleR Giggs 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am impressed of the Spanish article about the CL 2006-07. So I think we should do something to make the article to be a good article. KyleR Giggs 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what purpose the table in the Qualification section serves. The clubs that qualified for the tournament are shown in the Qualifying Stage and Group Stage sections below, as well as the template at the bottom of the page, so what is the need for the table? - PeeJay 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What will happen for the draw?? I mean since Sevilla play their qualifying draw how will they include them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.125.55 ( talk) 00:25, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
The draw for the group stage is in the group stage article and is not needed in the main article. Kingjeff 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If two teams have the same coefficent ranking, the team that obtained the most points in the previous European campaign is seeded the highest. If this is the same, then it is based on the previous one to that..... This is done for the previous five campaigns. If still even, the team that finished higher in the league is seeded the higher. This year, both Chelsea and Manchester United have a coefficient of 99.618. To determined who is seeded higher, points gained in the previous year are used. For 06/07, these are: Chelsea - 28.486; Manchester United - 27.486. Therefore Chelsea is seeded the higher. This is shown on xs4all and uefa. Additionally, when the draw was conducted, one of the graphics show that Chelsea is ranked above Manchester United.-- Fridge46 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any need to include all the detail on the group stages in this article, when there is the article specifically for that. We are only duplicating information, at least the group tables should be removed. I know previous years are like this, but it doesn't make them right. John Hayes talk 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll forget about the groups, but what really shouldn't be in this article is a list of all the matches, as that sort of detail is in the other article, otherwise we really are duplicating the entire thing. John Hayes talk 09:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever happens with the decision as to where to put the tables... can we please put the points in the rightmost column, not the left? I know there's a couple of people here who are convinced that the points column should go immediately next to the club, but every football confederation's website, along with those for all major competitions around the world (including UEFA's for this one), have points on the right. Kinitawowi 18:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I think it's straightforward enough to list the team as FC Dynamo Kyiv. If you look at that article's talk page, you will already see a discussion where there was strong consensus to refer to the team as "Dynamo Kyiv" and not "Dinamo Kiev". As for the group stage team ordering - well, whenever I go to an article that contains a table for a competition which has not started yet, I expect to see the teams in order of seeding (or, for league tables, the order in which they finished last season). Or, even, in alphabetical order. Instead, they are in some random and arbitrary order that I cannot understand. See, for example, Premier League (alphabetical order) or Bundesliga (last year's results). ugen64 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
None of this discussion is relevant here, this article should simply use whatever the article on the club uses, regardless of what it is. If, for the sake of argument, the consensus is that the club should be called Ministry of Silly Walks then that is what we should use here. John Hayes talk 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with anon who removed the qualitying rounds from Template:Champions League 2007-08. This information bloats the template; after all, we have the article for this. Conscious 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It has been requested, by the user that came up with this idea, that it not be implemented in the article, please feel free to contact the user and try and come to an agreement. |
Sorry my idea din't work and to let you know, just reverse all of my comments below! El- Nin 09 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the results should be on the page in some way, even if we have a table such as the one shown below.
BES | LIV | MAR | PRT | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Beşiktaş | XXX | 24 Oct | 28 Nov | 3 Oct |
Liverpool | 6 Nov | XXX | 3 Oct | 28 Nov |
Marseille | 18 Sep | 11 Dec | XXX | 24 Oct |
Porto | 11 Dec | 18 Sep | 6 Nov | XXX |
I can do this for all of the groups if we have consensus for it! El- Nin 09 08:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Codes i have come up with are as below: (italics shows newly added.)
El-
Nin
09
09:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
BES | LIV | MAR | PRT | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Beşiktaş | - | 24 Oct | 28 Nov | 3 Oct |
Liverpool | 6 Nov | - | 3 Oct | 28 Nov |
Marseille | 18 Sep | 11 Dec | - | 24 Oct |
Porto | 11 Dec | 18 Sep | 6 Nov | - |
OK or we could simply shade the boxes grey El- Nin 09 10:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
CHE | VCF | SCH | ROS | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Chelsea | - | 11 Dec | 24 Oct | 18 Sep |
Valencia | 3 Oct | - | 28 Nov | 6 Nov |
Schalke | 6 Nov | 18 Sep | - | 11 Dec |
Rosenborg | 28 Nov | 24 Oct | 3 Oct | - |
I would also keed Real Madrid as RMD otherwise there may be confusion with AS Roma El- Nin 09 18:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OK right put the team name and then 1. 2. 3. 4. etc for the code you prefer!
*Besiktas 1
El-
Nin
09
07:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
<s?*Besiktas 1
PeeJay 07:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
*Inter Milan 2
no opinion on the others
—Ed Cormany
13:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
*Beşiktaş 2
Chandler
talk
14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
*Beşiktaş 2
Don't listen to him u cant own a idea 172.159.230.188 10:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC) WHERE THE HELL ARE THE VOTES??? 172.159.230.188 10:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK right put the team name and then 1. 2. 3. 4. etc for the code you prefer!
Raymond Giggs 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
MTC 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Artyx 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (Edited. Added those closed yesterday. -- Artyx 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
Congratulations to whoever re-opened the vote, all votes should remain open for a minimum of 24 hours to enable those in all time-zones and with any work patterns to contribute.
fchd 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
PeeJay 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Chandler talk 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I decided not to post this in the previous section because it contains the red message. But I still think that the results of group games have to be included in the article in some way. Since we agreed to have the results in tables like discussed above we should probably decide what team codes to use and add the tables to the article. -- Artyx 09:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
i.e. Chelsea 3-6 Liverpool Porto 0-1 Besiktas
etc. etc. seeing as El-Nin09 decided not to leave WP with a bang. 172.202.80.67 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because El-Nin09 bailed on this project, why can't we still implement it? It seems to be consensus that it's a good idea, and we already have the table code right here in the talk page. I say we should be bold and go for it. —Ed Cormany 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The way results were included in this version of 2006-07's article is pretty good, especially because it provides dates of matches (which using the table discussed here wouldn't). Maybe a smaller font could be used and the results be entered on the side of group table rather than below it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artyx ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It may seem annoying that I'm coming back to this subject over and over, but the group standings without the results seems... incomplete, probably. Results are the important part of any group stage in any competition, in my opinion. Maybe the results shouldn't be included in the tables, as discussed above. A good example for including the results may be the UEFA Champions League 2005-06. For the article not to become too big, the whole Qualification section may be removed, ot at least the table of clubs there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artyx ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-I'm seeing some weird chracter between the digits of the scores in tables. What is that thing? Is it my system missing some fonts or is everyone seeing those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.19.240 ( talk) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I attempted to spark a discussion earlier on about where the points column should be in the group stage tables (immediately next to the team, or in the rightmost column), but I only got a couple of comments (both approving a move to the right, in line with worldwide practice for football league tables). I've been bold and moved it; feel free to chime in here if there's any comment. Kinitawowi 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with the move since this is the most important colum in the table. Kingjeff 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
us having a similar conversation about this issue sometime in the past, but the discussion petered out, so while you're here again... every single confederation's website, and those of all of the major leagues around the world (and the MLS :-p), and every significant newspaper, displays tables with the points on the right. Given that Wikipedia is intended to make things easier for the reader, why exactly should we fly in the face of internationally-accepted convention? Kinitawowi 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've piped these changes down to UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Group Stage as well now. Kinitawowi 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
To make the article into a better article, Spanish article about 2006-07 edition is a good example for archiving this - making some brief session into group stage. Raymond Giggs 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It would probably make more sense to include the club that the player plays for, rather than his nationality. -- Artyx © 09:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It is better to put the match results into UEFA Champions League 2007-08. But the price is - making the article into a featured article - at least good article. Any ideas? Raymond Giggs 16:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think that the page looked better with list of results than with result tables, as it is right now. Results tables may be taking up less space on the page, but, as I mentioned before, the whole "Qualification" section (I don't mean "Qualifying rounds" section here) may be removed to make more space. Artyom ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did the match between CSKA Moscow and Fenerbahce start early (at 18.30 CET instead of default 20.45 CET) on 02.10.2007? I could not find any information anywhere (unregistered user) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.145.91 ( talk) 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. My comment was the assumption that they were home. Kingjeff 15:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well maybe there should be some sort of discussion here (or somewhere) about what names of the teams should be used on this template
I have no problem with those changes. AC Milan could be shoten to Milan. Kingjeff 19:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact, Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Sports teams says all-English names should be used. I didn't know this either, just found out. Artyx T C 10:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
PeeJay2K3 reverted an by Xhandler with a message saying "such a huge change should have been discussed on the talk page first". Xhandler has now restored the change, I noticed that after posting this but I'll leave this here to keep PeeJay2K3 happy. Xhandler replaced the highlighting of teams in group tables with borders seperating the different sections of the tables. I think this is a very good idea, and I agree that highlighting should be reserved for when a team is assured of what they will be doing after the groups, just like the system being used for UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying tables. - MTC 15:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Where are the qualification scenarios, or where can I add them? They used to be in every competition with about 1 to 3 games remaining to play. Kiwi8 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the the qualification scenarios at the moment are too much reading and very confusing. My idea to simplify them would be to have them along the lines of (using Group D as an example):
(Example 1):
Possible developments for matchday 6 (4 December):
(Example 2):
Possible developments for matchday 6 (4 December):
Looking at that I would say Example 2 is the best option. Although I am aware it is technically more text than what is currently being used I think it is easier to decipher especially at a glance. For instance, if I were a Celtic fan (never going to happen) I could easily see that there is only 1 scenario of results in which they could not qualify for the last 16.
What's your thoughts? ( Rfc scott ( talk) 00:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
Maybe we should point out which teams can no longer finish first or second in their groups. Juve2000 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Done F 9 T 16:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me. It was my mistake. -- Worobiew 09:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Marseille beat Besiktas, they won't be qualified for the next round. If Liverpool beat both Porto and Marseille, then Liverpool will tie Marseille in points, and can knock out Marseille on either goal difference or head-to-head records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.65.222 ( talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over the hypothetical Liverpool/Marseille/Porto three-way tie situation, so here's my working.
If Besiktas beat Porto and Liverpool draw with Marseille, then Besiktas end top of the group on 9 points and Liverpool, Marseille and Porto would have 8 points each. Evaluating these positions requires analysing the mini-table produced by the results between those three teams. Those results would be:
Tabulating these:
Team | Pld | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liverpool | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5+x | 2+x | +3 | 5 |
Marseille | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3+x | 3+x | +0 | 5 |
Porto | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 7 | -2 | 5 |
This table isn't iterated further, so Besiktas go top, Liverpool 2nd, Marseille 3rd and Porto 4th. Kinitawowi ( talk) 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
All CSKA Moscow home matches were played at Lokomotiv Stadium, not Dinamo Stadium. Change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.97.49 ( talk) 04:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Should this includes Liverpool's recovery from one point from three games to come second in the group or not? F 9 T 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
On a related note - Filippo Inzaghi surpassed Gerd Müller as the all-time highest scorer in European competitions when he scored his 63rd European club competition goal, in AC Milan's 1–0 victory over Celtic on 4 December 2007. He is also currently the highest-scoring Italian player in the history of European competition, having scored 34 of his 63 European competition goals for his current club AC Milan. - is it just me, or is the statement being used incorrectly. The best of world in history will always be the best from his country. I'm guessing, but the argument (should it even be notable) would be that he is the leading scorer of goals for Italian clubs in European competition.
I believe that we should stick with AC Milan in referring to the A.C. Milan side. Milan by itself is a bit unclear. There is another club with Milan in its name, or Milano to be precise, that being F.C. Internazionale Milano. They of course are commonly referred to as Inter Milan although that is the informal name and I agree with keeping Internazionale in the article. Most other articles I've read, including previous Champions League seasons, use AC Milan or A.C. Milan instead of just Milan. I know that other clubs in this article don't have F.C. or F.K. etc., attached to their titles, but I believe with two Milan-based clubs in the competition it would be more user-friendly to just add the AC to AC Milan. -- Tocino 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Inter Milan when shorten are ussually called Inter and AC Milan when shorten are ussually called Milan.
Kingjeff (
talk)
02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Irregardless of either Internazionale or Inter, this name, whether in short or long form, is what they are referred to. Kingjeff ( talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I dunno about you guys but on my side of the ocean, the two Milan teams are referred to as:
Although I must say for the "non-fan", "Milan" per se is confusing, but not as confusing if you use "Inter" for Inter Milan. -- Howard the Duck 12:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It says he is the highest scoring European player ever and then it goes on to say he is the highest scoring Italian player ever. Doesn't the first statement make the second redundant? I have not made any changes just in case I have misuderstood something. 99.248.53.179 ( talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It may not be redundant if you say from AC Milan. The achievement can be done on several teams that make the UEFA Champions League. Kingjeff ( talk) 03:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is this name being reverted? It is likely that UEFA do not use the official name due to advertising reasons etc. This does not change the fact that the stadium name is Emirates Stadium. In a similar way the Welsh rugby team are sponsored by Brains, but the name is changed in France due to alcohol advertising laws, this does not change the fact they are sponsored by Brains. I have reverted the stadium name to the official name. There is no reason to follow the name that UEFA uses. Nouse4aname ( talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Added the dates of the quarter and semifinals. Would be happy to see them to be made to look better, but thought the article was lacking without this important information.
Also think it should be on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylelbishop ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Reference to the Spanish article es:Liga de Campeones de la UEFA 2006-07, they made a brief session in every groups and every matches since first knockout stage. Shall we study the format from them? Raymond Giggs 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
whey does aggregate go 1,2,3,4? what does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.180.76 ( talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What do they 'draw' for the finals? Juve2000 ( talk) 23:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no real home team. One team is designated so they can go through the montions of having a home team and an away team. Kingjeff ( talk) 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Added a section on the rigging allegations. Fishy at the very least or maybe a good guess? Francium12 ( talk) 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the sentence saying: "Making such a prediction carries odds of 191–1", because I'm not so sure this is the case. The Mirror article simply says: "It was claimed that the odds of anyone guessing the full draw - including which quarter-final winners would be drawn against each other in the semi-finals - were 191/1" (my italics).
Now journalists can't do math of course, so this must be based on hearsay. First of all, the "including which quarter-final winners would be drawn against each other in the semi-finals"-part is just plain rubbish; the comment made no such prediction. Furthermore, the prediction did not get the home/away drawings right, which makes the odds a little better. I believe the right probability is: 1/7 * 1/5 * 1/3 = 1/105 ≈ 0,95%. Anybody wanna chime in? Lampman Talk to me! 14:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
hello, i'm just concerned about the language used in that paragraph. it states that a prediction was made about the result, which is misleading. the guy on the liverpool forum actually said that he heard a rumor that the draw was rigged. and the results he heard were true. that's another thing altogether. ------(Aameen Johal) 2 april 2008
Which is the better one?
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Arsenal / Liverpool | 1 | Fenerbahçe / Chelsea | ||
Schalke 04 / Barcelona | 2 | Roma / Manchester United |
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Winner of Quarter-final 1 | 1 | Winner of Quarter-final 4 | ||
Winner of Quarter-final 3 | 2 | Winner of Quarter-final 2 |
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Winner of Quarter-final 1 | 1 | Winner of Quarter-final 4 | ||
Winner of Quarter-final 3 | 2 | Winner of Quarter-final 2 |
The last one is too ugly I think... Raymond Giggs 11:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Winner of Quarter-final 1 | 1 | Winner of Quarter-final 4 | ||
Winner of Quarter-final 3 | 2 | Winner of Quarter-final 2 |
Should we include game times (kickoff times) on this page? It was the primary reason I came to the Wikipedia article on a current sporting event, and I was surprised to see them missing :) But if kick-off times are not relevant then we could remove the kick-off time for the final match. Also, I am not sure if it is important to note exactly the time when the drawings occurred for an overview of the season. -- Oeq1st1 ( talk) 03:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should take a look at removing the controversy bit. It was novel when it happened, but in the grand scheme of things I don't think it should really be kept on the page. The odds of it suggest that it isn't that statisticly significant and that a guess by :cough: some poxy internet forum (no offence) isn't really a grounding for throwing doubt on the integrity of UEFA. Aheyfromhome ( talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Controversy surrounding the draw is noteworthy. It's definetely written in the neutral point of view. Kingjeff ( talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Noteworthy. Whose gone and removed it? Francium12 ( talk) 11:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It really is noteworthy. The fact that it was predicted means this is possibly a scandalous thing that is going on here. Kingjeff ( talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that only Groups A and E only have summaries, and none of the others? Wouldn't it be beneficial if either none of the groups, or all of the groups, had a small summary? I don't find the point in just these two specific groups having one. -- Snojoe ( talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I came up with an idea of having an inter-wiki project for Champions League, UEFA Cup and UEFA Intertoto Cup. The idea is we can have match reports from Wikinews and use them on Wikipedia article for 2008-09 Champions League, 2008-09 UEFA Cup and 2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup. There should be no sourcing issues since there is a requirement of 2 sources per match report.
There will be 213 matches for Champions League, 359 UEFA Cup matches, 78 Intertoto Cup matches for a total of 650 matches. Therefore, there will be a number of people needed to do this. If you're interested or have any questions or comments, you can ask them here or if you would like to sign-up, you can go here. Don't write how this is too big or a bad idea. This is to survey to see how viable this is. However, if you have some constructive comment or question, then feel free to add. Kingjeff ( talk) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that I keep trying to add the details of missed penalties in normal time to the game summaries but they keep being removed. Can someone explain why these details are not important? The details of Cristiano Ronaldo's missed penalty against Barcelona, for example, are needed to put the game into context as it had a huge influence on the result. Thanks. 92.2.28.25 ( talk) 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
PeeJay, please stop reformatting the Records section with bullet points and tagging it as a trivia list. Why would you do this? And please don't call me "buddy", it's condescending. It was' a trivia list. I reformatted it, took out the most pointless bits of trivia, and restructured it into a viable sections on the various landmarks and records set during this season's campaign. There is no need for bullet points on viable prose. See the manual of style. Neıl ☎ 13:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Will people stop editing the results of games until the games are actually over!. Remember Man Utd were losing the final in 1999 after 90 mins Francium12 ( talk) 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone has changed the flags in front of FC Barcelona from Spanish to Catalonian flags. Though I understand that some Catalonians don't regard themselves as Spaniards, the Barcelona football team represents Spain in this competition. IMHO this should be reverted. 82.170.131.213 ( talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's inevitable. The next few hours are gonna be filled with mass vandalism. So, might as well take measure before it happens. Azuran ( talk) 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we supposed to keep this and other similar templates in club articles even though it's a past competition? - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
File:2008 UEFA Champions League Final logo.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:2008 UEFA Champions League Final logo.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2007–08 UEFA Champions League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The hyperlink is to FC Astana created in 2009. This should be obviously incorrect. The link should be to FC Astana 1964, the Kazakh champions of 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.231.78 ( talk) 06:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)