Talk:Greece national football team/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wh-wh-what?

"Since then, Greece have received several distinctions for their triumph and have reached a higher status in international football. They have also been proven more competitive than they used to be"

Yeah, Confederation Cup 2005, last place with no goals, WC2006 not qualified, Euro2008 last place with no goals again... What "higher status"? Last place, instead of "not qualified"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.72.49 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When a team that used to rank between places 40-60 and after 2004 reach places between 10-20 in FIFA Rankings, yes you can call it a higher status. When a team that in the whole 20th century qualified only 2 times in the finals of the World Cup and Euro (usually finishing last or penultimate in their qualifying groups) and has already made it 3 times in the first decade of the 21st century, yes you can call it "more competitive". - Sthenel (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A team ranked 10-20 in FIFA Ranking, who reach those letdown after an incredible success, isn't "More competitive". Higer social status? Yeah, the FIFA Ranking says so. More competitive? The ancient Romans say: one-eyed people are king in the blinds' realm. Still, one-eyed they still are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.24.14.37 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Colours the wrong way round

EPO made white the home kit after euro 2004 Reaper7 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Too partisan

Does anyone else find the Euro 2004 section in particular to be much too partisan in its depiction of the tournament? I know this is the Greece national team's page, but that shouldnt exempt it from neutrality. Also, the use of the word "tragedy" in the World Cup 2006 qualifiers section seems too biased. Blinutne 20:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Globally, it was branded as a tragedy (even here in Australia the papers where saying tragedy).

For this reason I think it is not bias at all... --Giorgos 16:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Greece as favourites

I suggest the sentence about Greece being favourites in their group is removed. Most papers I've read have suggested Norway and Turkey as the two main contenders. At any rate, saying that one team is a favourite without some strong evidence is not NPOV.

There is no mention of thier loss to England or new players being added to the squad. Maybe add that into the article. Heraklis 07:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder where the data came from. When looking at the Euro2004 page I see that the greeks lost to Russia with 1 to 0, but still the article claims that they won all the matches in the tournament. Furthermore Greece didnt play Holland in the tournament —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.139.131 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone is constantly posting these so called memorable Greek matches from the past

In fact most of them are just casual wins like against Finland or against Faroe Islands Malta or casual draws against Denmark or Croatia for example.As a result the page is getting too long with this unnecessary information . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.207.254.178 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

And what's wrong with this section exactly? And why is it unnecessary? - Sthenel 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As i said the majority of these matches AREN'T WORTH REMEMBERING.How on earth can a win against Malta or against Faroe Islands be memorable,or a draw against Denmark,Ukraine and Croatia;;;;;;

This list(in order to have a meaning) should be definitely shortened.I did it a couple of times in the past but every time a genius had it reverted to it's prior state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.207.253.53 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

A 4-0 or 5-0 win against Malta or Faroe should be included in the biggest ever wins of Greece. Away draws against Denmark, Croatia and Ukraine are mentioned because at that period the above teams were very strong. Denmark was 4th in the EURO 1964, Croatia made it to the 3rd place of the World Cup 1998 and Ukraine was extremely strong during the WC 2006 and its qualification. - Sthenel 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are out of your mind and you get this page too long with unnecessary information in the process.I revert and i am going to revert it as many times as it is needed.

First of all don't threaten me. In case you think that you are allowed to work in this way, you are wrong. Secondly, the biggest wins will be included in a separate box. - Sthenel 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't threaten you or anybody.We must put this page in proper order.If you want to paste let's say the 5 biggest wins of Greece do it.But memorable games are the one's i left in the box.I don't want to argue.I want to make this page better and i am sure you want that too.So let's do it.

Updates to article

The history section needs to be upadated. Greece's Euro 2008 campaign is almost halfway gone and the latest information is from October 2006. I wrote a neat paragraph and upadated it after Greece's 4-1 loss to Turkey but it was reverted for some reason.

Can someone explain why updates and latest Euro 2008 information is being reverted?

Thedefenceman 23:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Table of current results

In my opinion this table is needless. First of all, there is no need to put such a table in a national team's article, coz in this way we should move all the results of the qualifyings into the teams' articles. The second reason is that the article about the group of Greece, provides much more information. Plus, the table is too long. - Sthenel 09:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Should it Not Be 'Greek' National Football Team?

Greece national football team is bad english and more people will use and recognise the proper english wording; 'Greek National Football Team.' I support a change to Greek.

• Support Reaper7 11:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== Guys can anyone find the excact crest appearing on the jerseys? This one shown in the page is not the original and I believe is quite ugly.I think we should place HFF's crest in the page (as it happens in other National Team's page) until we find the original one.Could anyone try to contact HFF and ask for a high resolution crest which appears on the jerseys?

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MetroStar (talk • contribs) 13:33, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Nickname

Is it really The Pirate ship ;; .Ok Helakis said it in his radio broadcast of Euro 2004 but i don't think that is really a nickname.I have never heard anyone calling the team in such a way since the tournament.I think we shall delete it but if anyone disagrees please tell me your reasons and then we shall decide.Eagle of Pontus 08:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true that nobody calls the team Peiratiko (The Pirate Ship), but I don't know if we should delete it. This nickname is closely associated with the team and the great success in Portugal. - Sthenel 11:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Making sth clear

I deleted 4 games from the memorable ones because they don't correspond to the title.For example a 0-0 can't be a memorable match simple as that unless you play against Brazil(and not Yugoslavia).Secondly however flattering the 1-1 draw with France may sound we had lost 7-1 in France already so the 1-1 is a fluke.Also 1-1 in Moscow against Russia or in Bucharest against Romania can't be memorable match guys.Any objections;;;More than glad to hear if there are any.Eagle of Pontus 06:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The table I had made at the beginning, included much more matches. Each one was selected for a reason. Many of them were deleted, obviously they shouldn't be among the most memorable because we don't remeber that Greece was not at the current level, and a 1-1 to Yugoslavia was an extreme success for them 40 years ago. Or a draw with Romania was a great achievement because Romanians were a strong team with great success at that period. - Sthenel 07:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Tables (records)

I made them more simple and more correct i think.Cauze there was a 13 number or sth under GP(=Games played) and other things that didn't make sense.In a competition we need to know how far we got how many games played how many wins draws losses and the goal differential.Am i right; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle of Pontus (talk • contribs) 06:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Much better - Sthenel 07:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia-Greece 0-4

Is this match worth to be included in the memorable matches of Greece? - Sthenel 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so.Bosnia isn't a strong team now and that match didn't decide anything in the qualifing..I had put Hungary match simply because it guaranteed us a place in the WC 1994 and was an away win(sth rare for our team).Both teams were almost equal back then.Eagle of Pontus 17:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What is more memorable Norway-Greece 2-2 or Bosnia-Greece 0-4? one of them should be added I vote for Bosnia since Greece does not score frequently and away so many goals

Macedonius 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the match in Norway can be considered memorable. It was a good result though. An away 1-0 win in Hungary is not anything special. We should take into account how strong the opponent was at that time. It would be different if Greece win in Hungary 0-4, like they did in Bosnia. A 0-4 away win is not such a usual result for Greece, especially when it comes against teams which are not as weak as Malta, San Marino, Faroe Islands etc. I agree with the game Slovenia-Greece 0-3, having in my mind that Slovenia was a quite strong team which finished ahead of Greece. - Sthenel 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia is in the same group with Slovenia,Scotland,Ireland,Belgium http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2008_qualifying#Seedings and beat Turkey 3-2 Macedonius 06:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with adding the Slovenia game because they had already qualified for Euro 2000 and we had already be eliminated.Also disagree with Brazil game because it was just a friendly and with Bosnia for the reasons i added previously.OK if you don't agree Hungary game,it shall be left out(but it was the first and only time we went to a WC and that win quaranted us so.But anyway maybe you are right). Eagle of Pontus 11:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I should make clear that when we talk about memorable matches, we mean great results against strong opponents and large wins like that in Bosnia, not games which gave to us a qualification or anything else. - Sthenel 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Memorable match is a match worth remebering.If it gained you a qualifiquation unprecedented in your history is much more memorable than winning Ivory Coast 19-0 in a friendly or either Bosnia or Slovenia 1-6 in matches that had nothing at stake.Eagle of Pontus 13:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I made this section and the table, and I wanted to present the best results Greece has acvieved. Nothing else. This is what tables are used for. What you described above doesn't need tables, but it can be described in particular sections in the article. - Sthenel 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

BRAZIL - GREECE 0-0 (April 28,1974) in Maracanã,Rio de Janeiro

This friendly match is memorable

Recently Turkey managed 0-0 against Brazil in a friendly match and they have it in the table Macedonius 06:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is memorable but the table is only for competitive matches, not friendlies. We could have a new section with some memorable friendlies. - Sthenel 06:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

World Cup record section should be limited

only in the tournaments Greece took part.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Greece_national_football_team#World_Cup_record

Macedonius 06:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

All the articles of the strong national teams, include all the tournaments not only those in which they took part. - Sthenel 06:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they have taken part more than one WC or three Euros Anyway,in case the page is being long,I think that it should be limited Macedonius 09:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Portugal national football team, Hungary national football team or Netherlands national football team. They include all the tournaments. There is no instruction not to add them. It's better to present full data. - Sthenel 09:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stenhel.The table is informative and necessary to any page of any national team.What's you problem really;If it's not included then Greece miraculously won't have progressed to just one WC but to more;;Eagle of Pontus 08:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greece National Crest.jpg

Image:Greece National Crest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Kits

I changed the kits to the new ones..just released and used in the Malta game....what you guys think..? The-real-zeus (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They are very goog, if they are the real new kits. - Sthenel (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys

I improved a lot the section by rewriting and i must say sth.The article needs to be as more summarizing as it gets.You can't write 6 lines for every game nor can you write a whole chunk of information about the position of Greek team in rankings almost after 3- or 4 games.Only important milestones should be noted.Do you like it now;If not please tell me which particular part you didn't Eagle of Pontus (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I only corrected some minor mistakes. - Sthenel (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why;

Trophy case looks horrible in my opinion.And i don't see a reason why Balkan Cup and European Cup must be separated.They are both sporting tournaments.Eagle of Pontus (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In the trophy case the Balkan Cup shouldn't be included at all as Greece didn't win it. It's not a title but it can be mentioned as a honor. - Sthenel (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK erase it.I don't disagree with that. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we can have it under the title other honors - Sthenel (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

But isn't a honor at all. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok but the Laureus is a honor and it should be listed as a honor. The sections in all the national team pages is titled Trophy case, so we shouldn't change it. - Sthenel (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article

I think that's a very good article.Shall be nominated?I don't think it's start class as it says here.What do you think? Eagle of Pontus (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say its a strong B class at the moment, managerial statistics could be a good addition and maybe some more free pics? - S.Azzopardi (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

choice words

thank you to whoever took out those nasty words directed towards greece.. you beat me to it.. the not in so many words "they are horrible because they lost" blah blah blah.. Enjoisktboarding2 (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nikopolidis and Antzas

I removed those players from the after-Euro squad as thet retired.He should make a list with notable former players.

Proposal for the history section

The history section has been too long and consists of so much information about performances in certain tournaments which will be more and more in the future. I think that we should create the article History of the Greece national football team, just like the respective History of the England national football team, where all this information could be moved, in order to keep only the significant points and the general narration of its history in this article. Any opinions? - Sthenel (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jersey Country Indentifier not English

Greece is the only country with the Upper back Country identifier in Greek. All other countries are in English. Does anyone know why? English is the Official Language in FIFA.74.15.68.190 (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

International football status issue

Both Greece and Turkey achieved successes that no one expected, they were given an higher status in international football, why is this deleted all the time? Because these two teams were weak in the past, I think they made their mark dont they? 188.202.146.57 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right its strange why it got deleted. 195.240.250.105 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Greece played in 6 tournaments and only managed to reach the knockout stages once, 6 years has passed and Greece is not performing like in 2004, its the same like Turkey, thats why I deleted it. Redman19 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For example: "Since then, Greece have received several distinctions for their triumph and have reached a higher status in international football. They have also been proven more competitive than they used to be"

They didnt perform well at the Confederations Cup in 2005, Euro 2008 or 2010 World Cup, its not a correct line to use. Redman19 (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Since other users don't agree with your edit, you have to discuss it first instead of deleting/edit warring.. First of all we had the same discussion in the past. Secondly, I can't understand what's your objection. We don't talk about Turkey here, nor we care about what Turkey's article mentions.

1. Since 2004 Greece is considered a favourite in their qualifying groups and usually perform very well and qualify in comparison to the past years that they usually finished in the last places in their groups. That means "more competitive".

2. They have qualified three times in the finals of major tournaments in 6 years (and won one), while in the past they did it twice in 50 years. That means "more competitive".

3. Before 2004, they were ranked between 30th-60th while after 2004 they are steadily placed in the first 20 positions. That means " higher status" and "more competitive".

4. Since 2004 they have an extremely good record in official matches (win-draw-loss), compared to their poor record before 2004. That means "more competitive".

5. They managed to win and be competitive in the 2010 World Cup, while back in 1994 their performance was tragic. That means "more competitive".

6. All these make what we call progress. Be careful, we don't say that Greece belongs to the highest level of teams, but that they perform in a higher level than they did. You can't deny it and they don't have to win every tournament to prove that their history/achievements after 2004 have nothing to do with their history history/achievements before 2004. - Sthenel (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that there are subjective indicators of this mythical "status", cite them. There is no "status" held by being in the top ten of World rankings, other than being able to boast that you are in the top ten. If you can cite comparative rankings or seedings, then you have encyclopaedic fact, but a subjective impression has no place in an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Then find another way to mention their progress. I could put that they finish always in the top 20 (not 30 as you've written) of the rankings at the end of every year (which actually means that they do have a better record of success/points), I could also put that their competitive record since 2004 is 34-11-16, while it was 55-31-68 before 2004, but it would make the introduction look terrible. - Sthenel (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rankings are published monthly: they have dropped out of the top 30 since 2004. These are facts. Why should one seek to find only complimentary facts? Kevin McE (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The last time they dropped out of the top 20 was in 2006, would be inappropriate to write it as well? There is a huge difference between stressing the good parts and ignoring them at all. If you've noticed, the opening paragraph says "Greece spent most of their history in relative obscurity"; is it good enough to write about their poor performances, but anything else is just a boast? Should we choose what to mention between the ups and downs of a team? Would it be complimentary to mention that a club that used to compete in the second tier of its national league, won the national championship (which was a surprise) and since then they regularly finish in the top places in the league? - Sthenel (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah: one could equally well put either "have been consistently in top 20 since October 2006" or "since Euro 2004 they have been in the top 20 for all but 4 months"; I would not have put the "relative obscurity" comment in myself: I left it for the same reason as it had been put there initially, to contrast with the "until Euro 2004" clause. Thgere would be nothing wrong at all with saying that a team competed in a higher division: that is a genuine, discrete, subjective status: such a thing does not exist in international football, where Spain and Anorra compete alongside each other. Kevin McE (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You left the "relative obscurity" thing, but you removed anything after 2004 that marked a new era in the team's history, completely different from the "before 2004 part". Qualifying for the main tournaments, winning a title, being competitive, all of them are subjective for national teams, nothing to do with peacocking (you did see it in Turkey's article). Anyway, I'll try to find a conciliative solution for the introduction here, combining neutrality and accuracy. - Sthenel (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot find a solution because he will remove it right away. Redman19 (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Everybody is free here to discuss, propose and edit! - Sthenel (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the most successful?

I understand Greece has improved vastly since 2004, turning from a weak side to a regular in international competitions; but to define them in introduction as "one of the most successful in Europe" is a bit biased in my opinion. Eporediese (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1