Talk:2010–11 UEFA Champions League

16th Association

Are number 16 assosiation Denmark?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.192.179.4 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2009

-Yes, complete list can be found here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method4/crank2009.html --Lars Ransborg (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No Arguments Yet?

I think someone should list all of the possible teams that have a chance to qualify, listing teams twice if they could be in both paths. Then as teams are eliminated from their domestic leagues they could be removed from the page or moved to a non-qualifying team page. Then we could make a template of the same information for the Europa League page. We could even list possible seeding, or play-off matches. Johnn 7 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good idea for the talk page. Still, I'd wait until April/May 2010 so that we don't end up putting nearly every team in Europe.Aheyfromhome (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Seedings?

Have the points gained by some of these teams in te group stages of the Europa League or champions League been taken into account?

If they were would it drastically change the order?

Basically id like to know if Bohemians will still be seeded come the draw...?--Fredbobhurst (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You are probably mixing up the country rankings and the team rankings. The country rankings determine how many teams of a country will be admitted to the European competitions, and the allocation to the respective rounds. The seeding within a certain round, however, is based upon the team rankings. As of now, it is not possible to say if Bohs will be seeded or not. Check the given page once the autumn-spring seasons are near ending to get a better picture. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well i suppose im a little confused, at present what what way are they being listed? is it at present listed in tersm of country co effecient? The Source cited above doesnt seemas up to date as; http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/UEFA_coefficient#Ranking_for_2010.E2.80.9311_UEFA_competitions

in the source you cited Ireland's league is higher than finland and lithuanis as opposed to wiki's table which has ireland below. but anyways... By the source you cited Bohs are higher than Ekranus and Helsinki, and BATE is higher than bohs. But ye i guess i'll just have to wait and see....--Fredbobhurst (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The teams in the article are indeed listed in descending order of the 2009 country coefficients of their respective countries. I might have involuntarily added to your confusion by giving the link for the updated provisional 2010 rankings, which – in their final version – determine the 2011–12 spots, sorry for that. As said before, check Bert Kassies' site sometime in May 2010 in order to get a better picture on seedings for a certain round. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it 100% that Serie A will have 4 spots?

For 2010-11: Yes. Although it's not sure for 2011-12. The rankings are always a year early in terms of effecting the composition of the European Competitions; because the association rankings are out in the summer (2010), then the clubs know what they're playing for domestically next season (2010-11), then that effects European composition for the next year (2011-12)

champions of Scotland

this article does not state that if this years UEFA Champions League winner has already qualified through their own accosiation then the Champions of Scotland (almost certainly Rangers)will autimaticallyqualify for the group stage it just states that the Champions of Scotland will be in the third qualifying round which is not the case . —Preceding unsigned comment added by B68torshavn (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC) None of the 8 possible winners have qualified through their own association yet.Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeding for playoff round: Why hasn't this been created yet? As far as I can tell Sevilla, Werder Bremen, and Tottenham are definitely seeded, regardless of the outcomes of the prior round. Sampadoria are 'unknown seeding' and Auxerre are definitely unseeded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.142.242 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because you haven't done it? Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

New format proposal

Well I copied the whole article to my sandbox. I am thinking of removing the team section, but placing into a bracket instead. New format can be seen here. If there is no anyone object for it, then I am going to replace it. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, which bracket? A bracket is a tree like structure, but there is nothing to find which looks roughly similar. Or did you mean that table containing all teams at the top of the page? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I like it better than what we have now, smaller and cleaner so good for me.
-- HonorTheKing (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC).

Sorry for talking rough. I mean removing the teams expressed by sections, instead using a table to include all teams. I've already roughly finished the group stage, play-off and third qualifying round. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 16:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work, but I don't think it's an improvement. The table loses all the visual pattern of the list system, is harder to edit and is harder to extract information from, especially for people who are quickly passing through the page for information. The table is good once all the teams have qualified, but at this time I think it's just making something-that-isn't-broken worse. Plus the original format doesn't have a length problem. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh okay. Nevertheless, I have to object the proposal because of two reasons. The main problem is that the league tables in the domestic league articles all link to the specific rounds of the competition; thus completely removing the sections would lead to chaos. Also, if I remember correctly, such a table is going to be inserted into the article anyway after the draw for the first qualifying rounds has been made (at least it has been that way in the previous two years), so there is no need to rush. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the list is better suited for the situation at the moment, whereas the list will be good when the competition starts and results emerge.--Lars Ransborg (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

uefa team coefficiant ranking

the coefficiant ranking change doesen't take effect until the season after so surely uefa would use the 2009 ranking which would place Celtic above Braga and into the seeded pot for non-champions third qualifying round

In summer, UEFA add up the coefficients and produce the UEFA Club Coefficient Ranking. That coefficient is then used to rank the teams for the season immediately after. There's no reason to have the apparent one year delay which the League Coefficient Ranking has (which isn't actually a one year delay anyway, because the summer's rankings effect what the teams play for domestically in the year immediately after) Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

so surely then is it not premature to include a section of seeded or unseeded teams if the rankings are not out yet this would surely then be considered crystal balling by wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.135.208 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As the doefficients can be calculated beforehand, it has nothing to do with crystal balling --Lars Ransborg (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeding an listing of teams in group stage

Previoulsy the teams already qualified for the group stage have been listed according to their coefficient, but this has been undone. As many of the teams are already sure to go into certain seeding groups I think this should be reflected by the list in some way. If no other suggestions comes up, I think reversing to listing by club coefficient instead of country coefficient is the most reasonable way to do it.b--Lars Ransborg (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between seeding for qualifying rounds and seeding for the group stage. For the latter, the seeding determines the four pots from which the 32 qualified teams will be drawn. However, since half of the teams (as of today) are still unknown, it makes little to no sense to already sort them by their coefficient, as these will just confuse readers imho. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Linking

With the "Seeding" section including a subsection "group stage" - the links for "group stage" go to that, rather than the section about the groups stage later in the article. Is there another term that can be used in the seeding section - or is there another way round this? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The second Group Stage section seems to be automatically referred to as #Group_Stage_2 by the hyperlinked content menu at the top of the page. That should work as a link. Aheyfromhome (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:UEFA Champions League

The UEFA Champions League Template above still has all of the teams from last year on them. I didn't know when the proper time would be to start switching it over to the teams being eliminated this year and added to the proper pages/removed from the older pages. I noticed this by going to the bottom of this page and seeing that it was on the wrong year. Didn't know the right timing to change it up so I left it alone.Birdy (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Home/Away Legs

I see in the results so far that Team 1 and Team 2 are mentioned but nothing about who played at home at the first leg (which I think is Team 1), should there be some note added stating this? I'm not sure if other Champions League years are the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.224.102 (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

1st time for Spurs as well

This is also the group stage debut for Tottenham Hotspur as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.180.130 (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Reinventing the wheel?

I don't know why we are not using the template:Fb r2 header and related. It's more straight-forward, in that the cell colouring is inserted automatically. Also, this is used in several league results already so it's a common format. The fact that we used a plain table in past seasons is no reason to use one again. It would be better to find a way to include the tables side-by-side rather than reinvent the tournament results wheel over again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation for FK Partizan

In the group table the abbreviation for FK Partizan has been PTZ and occasionally an anon comes in and changes it to PAR. It gets changed back immediately. I just did so a moment ago. However when I checked in the 2010–11 Serbian SuperLiga article, it's PAR. Why is it PTZ here and why shouldn't we seek consistency and the more simple abbreviation? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that it is PTZ because the pronounciation of these letters is close to the actual word "Partizan". That being said, I think the rule of thumb was to use those abbreviations in this article which are also being used in the TV broadcasts, which in turn might be distributed by UEFA itself (I'm not sure on either statement, so please correct them if erroneous). On the other hand, PAR is as equally easy to associate with Partizan as is PTZ, so it is pretty arbitrary to decide what to use unless there is something official by UEFA. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

According to User:PeeJay2K3, the abbriviations as they appear here were copied from the UFEA match centre, which would suggest that PTZ is the abbreviation used by UEFA. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. PeeJay, if you are reading this – could you provide a link to the match centre, please? All I could find is the UEFA Live scores page, and there are no abbreviations given at all... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have provided one with my comment above. However, the match centre is only available while matches are running. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

For completeness (and let's hope that this one is persistent): Link to UEFA MatchCentre --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The link you want is for yesterday's matches where at the bottom it reads: SCB 2-0 PTZ --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wiseman018, 20 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the group tables, Valencia is listed as having one won, two ties, and one draw. That is incorrect as they have only played three games. Change the two ties to one. Thank you

Wiseman018 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Top Goal Scorers

OK. Now I'm really confused. As of this moment, the rank is 1, 2, 3, 7. WHAT? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the way to do it if there are 4 players tied in third place. -Koppapa (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Real Madrid, group G, is qualified

Edit semi-protected Real Madrid 10pts., in group G, is qualified. (If Ajax makes 10 points, Milan makes 8, tops). Add green background to the table, please. 188.81.31.132 (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nevermind. People add colours at random... 188.81.31.132 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tough keeping the roght colors if people with no clue edit this over again and again. You are right of cause. -Koppapa (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hapoel Tel Aviv, Bursaspor and MSK Zilina knocked out?

In the group stage schemes HTA, BUR and MSK have been made red. However, they are not knocked out yet. If HTA wins the final two matches against Benfica and Lyon and Benfica loses the other match, HTA will become third. If BUR wins the final two matches against Rangers and Valencia, BUR will become third. If MSK wins the final two matches against SPM (more than 3-0) and Chelsea, MSK will become third. Why have they been made red? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone has changed the colour of Partizan to yellow, stating the partizan could still qualify for the Europa League if they win their remaining games. This is not true since they can only get to six points max, which is the same as Braga. "If two or more teams are equal on points on completion of the group matches, the following criteria are applied to determine the rankings (in descending order):[17]

a) higher number of points obtained in the group matches played among the teams in question"

Partizan lost both games against Braga, so they are knocked out for all European competitions! Please make it red again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that according to the key a team highlighted in red can no longer make the round of sixteen. It does not mean that they are eliminated form the competition altogether. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Noted. In this case I would suggest the introduction of another colour for teams that can no longer make the round of sixteen, but can still qualify for the Europa League (yellow perhaps?). Right now it is not possible to see the difference between such a team and a team that has been knocked out all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Which was on the page earlier today, but got deleted. It seemed sensible to have the extra colour, but obviously some people have other ideas. Jlsa (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Alas. Still I think red should mean a team is knocked out for all competitions. It seems illogical to me that a "red team" might not be red anymore after next round!

Indeed. That is why the current version is stupid. Jlsa (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone feel commited to adding another colour? Or, if the afore mentioned is not desirable, changing the definition of "red"? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the phrasing "Team has been eliminated from all European competitions" since it still has to play two additional matches for the Champions League. If some phrasing can be made to reflect that a team is relegated to the Europa League and another to indicate the other condition, that's fine. However, I have two issues with this. In league play, relegation is marked in red. There is no concept of elimination. I would prefer to see that shade of red remain as the colour for relegation. So I'm not sure what colour to use to indicate the new "complete elimination" state. I think the colouring used at 2009–10 UEFA Champions League#Group stage should be used. Notice there isn't any red at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

File:2010–11 UEFA CL.PNG

Is there a reason the Isle of Man is the same colour as England in this map? Hrcolyer (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Isle of Man Football Association is under the jurisdiction of The Football Association, so in footballing terms, the Isle of Man is part of England. – PeeJay 07:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To bracket or not to bracket?

1. There's a template for the bracket Template:CLBracket.
2. It's been used in previous articles.

I'm not quite sure why we don't want to use it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing is the bracket hasn't been determined yet. We don't want give the impression that pairings haven't been drawn yet, have been drawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The first level of the bracket, the round of sixteen, has been completed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure the games have been played, but if we were to add a bracket now, it would give the impression that the pairings for the quarterfinals have already been determined. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. We shouldn't add the bracket until the draw for the quarter-finals, semi-finals and final have taken place, i.e. tomorrow afternoon. – PeeJay 23:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing that we was discussed during the last Stanley Cup (Ice Hockey) Playoffs was to have a disconnect between the first round and the second round since the teams are re-seeded at that point. Should we do that with the CL table to avoid this sort of thing here? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth splitting a bracket for the Europa League, where there's two rounds and then another draw, but for the CL I don't think there's any value in having the bracket until after the quarter final draw. Aheyfromhome (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to split any bracket unless there is a re-seeding process as in the NFL play-offs or the Stanley Cup play-offs. There is an argument that the completed bracket implies that the seeding was determined from the outset, but as long as we make it clear that there is a separate draw after each round, I don't see that there's any need to make any drastic changes. Just don't add the bracket to the article until the full path to the final is determined. – PeeJay 01:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

First, by "split" I meant not connect the first round to the second round with lines so the first round and second are not an actual ladder.

Second, the reason you state is the precise one where it makes sense to. There is a re-pairing or re-seeding after the first round.

If it doesn't make sense then we don't have to do it though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use Template:8TeamBracket-2legsExceptFinal? I think it is useful to show the links determined by the quarterfinal draw (e.g. that Man Utd couldn't possibly wind up playing Inter in the final, only the semifinal). An eight-team bracket does just that without any confusion about the previously drawn rounds. —Ed Cormany (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The bracket is a nice way to see the way to the finals. Removing the lines between. R16 and QF might be a good alternative. -Koppapa (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the correct way to do it. See template:NHLBracket as an example. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could try to fiddle with the brackets, preferably in a sandbox. I'd support a no lines version. NHL is a good example. -Koppapa (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I created a lineles version here: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:CLBracket&oldid=421110015 but have reverted for now. Problem is many other cups are using that template. -Koppapa (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Save it as the EUFA Champtions League template and you won't have the problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with any changes to the bracket. Sure, the link between the round of 16 and the quarter-finals isn't completely established until after the QF, SF and Final draw, but the bracket is supposed to be a retrospective look at how teams progressed through the tournament. It is adequately explained in the prose that separate draws take place for the R16 and the QFs, so why do we need to over-complicate things like this? – PeeJay 12:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your complete disagreement since you contradict yourself. If the "bracket is supposed to be a retrospective look at how teams progressed through the tournament" and they do not progress from the first to the second round directly, as the lines suggest, then it makes sense to remove the lines. Prose are not the answer in the case. Either have the ladder correctly represent the progress from the first to second round or don't include it at all. I know which your preference would be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

But without the lines it looks like we've put the R16 ties next to the QF ties they lead to by complete accident. Keeping the lines shows that there is actually a link between the ties. Just because that link isn't established until after the R16 matches are played doesn't make that link any less solid. – PeeJay 22:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes "by complete accident" as in a random repairing after the first round. The lines implies the winner of the group the line is attached to has advanced to the next round. However, they don't work like that at all. The absence of lines implies a new draw was created, yes "by complete accident". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

that there is some sort of progression via placement from the first to the second round.

You could also argue that the ordering of the bracket suggests that UEFA drew them in that order (ie, running down the list) when they didn't - and we have created this bracket to reflect the way the rest of the draw (SFs and Final home designation) occurred. Yet we have no problem with the "reordering" of the QF draw to fit the bracket - I don't see what the problem with leaving out the lines is (Personally I would leave the R16 out of the bracket all together because of this issue - but that would never happen) Jlsa (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Champions template removal

Can I ask why the Champions template I used had been deleted? Thanks Uni red (talk) 19:38 05 January 2012 (GMT)

I suppose I could ask you why it was added, but I wouldn't presume.

The reason I removed it was explained with the removal: "The use of this template is discouraged, which is why it wasn't already here." In short, it's big, ugly, and detracts from the rest of the article. It's not in other Champions League articles that I've seen, mostly because it's so overwhelming. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty unnecessary too. It's obvious who won the tournament from the scoreline in the final; we don't need an unwieldy template for that. – PeeJay 22:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010–11 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811024013/http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/seedcl2010.html to http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/seedcl2010.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/matchorganisation/disciplinary/news/newsid%3D1502425.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723003628/http://en.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/matchorganisation/refereeing/news/newsid%3D1506902.html to http://en.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/matchorganisation/refereeing/news/newsid%3D1506902.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/statistics/round%3D2000118/players/type%3Dtopscorers/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)