Talk:2008–09 Premier League: Difference between revisions
→Managerial changes: reply |
Soccer-holic (talk | contribs) →Map: ugly map display |
||
| Line 513: | Line 513: | ||
: didn't see the discussion on this above, sorry 'bout that. [[User:Pullshapes|Pullshapes]] ([[User talk:Pullshapes|talk]]) 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
: didn't see the discussion on this above, sorry 'bout that. [[User:Pullshapes|Pullshapes]] ([[User talk:Pullshapes|talk]]) 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
The current map put in by [[User:Chandler|Chandler]] disrupts the dimensions of this article. I would advise to create a [[Template:Location map|Location map template]] based on [[Image:BlankMap-EnglandSubdivisions.svg]], and then put the coordinates on this template. I would further suggest to revert the article in the meantime. The map created by [[User:El Pollo Diablo|El Pollo Diablo]] was not good quality-wise, but better than nothing. [[User:Hockey-holic|Hockey-holic]] ([[User talk:Hockey-holic|talk]]) 11:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:40, 10 July 2008
 | Football: England Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Confirmed Teams
A club's survival in the premiership is confirmed NOT by whether or not the club in 18th place can theoretically finish above above the first club, but by whether or not ALL but the bottom 2 clubs can finish above them. This is as of 5th April 2008 true of the following clubs:
Arsenal, Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Portsmouth and West Ham United.
If you want to find out whether or not a club's survival is confirmed, download a spreadsheet that calculates league standings Funkyduncan (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, of course, but I'd thank you to look at all the evidence first - Man Utd and Arsenal, even when I editted the article before the last round, could not be caught by the teams in 19th and 20th, which meant the deciding factor over whether any team will for certain still be in the Premier League next season is, ignoring all the effects of the 19th and 20th placed teams, could all other teams finish above any one team in the league. In the case of Arsenal and Man Utd, it was, and still is (obviously) impossible for the 18th placed team to finish above either of them, for the reasons given. Thus, Arsenal and Man Utd are guaranteed 17th or higher, and thus, they are guaranteed to survive relegation this season, thus validating my decision to edit the article. Falastur2 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think any teams can be guaranteed “safety”, even the three mentioned above. What happens if one of these teams gets a points deduction, or kicked out of the League for some breach of rules? Unlikely, but possible! Just a thought, glennb28 t/c 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- You could mention an assumption of no points deductions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyduncan (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Technically you're right, yes, but there's been cautious and there's going to far (no offence meant, of course). Yes, you're right that something might happen, but the chance is so small, and the situations where this kind of assertion helps Wikipedia are so numerous, that I can't help thinking it would be foolish to leave out everything that may be invalidated thus. If you follow that line, you can essentially dismiss all future events as uncertain, and to do this I believe would hinder Wikipedia and its goals rather than helping them. To all intents and purposes, these teams have qualified for Premier League football next year. I agree with Funkyduncan's idea, though. Falastur2 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think any teams can be guaranteed “safety”, even the three mentioned above. What happens if one of these teams gets a points deduction, or kicked out of the League for some breach of rules? Unlikely, but possible! Just a thought, glennb28 t/c 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Portsmouth are mathematically safe because although all the teams from Bolton Wanderers up to Aston Villa can finish above Portsmouth individually, they cannot all do it simultaneously Funkyduncan (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Aston Villa's survival was confirmed when Newcastle drew with Birmingham City; a result that rendered it impossible for Bolton Wanderers, Birmingham City, Newcastle United, Reading and Sunderland to all simultaneously finish above Aston Villa. Funkyduncan (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Manchester City's survival was confirmed when Bolton Wanderers lost 2-0 to Manchester United, rendering it impossible for the teams that as of 19th March 2008 occupy 11th to 18th spots, to simultaneously finish above Manchester City in the league Funkyduncan (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Why does it say Derby are guaranteed survival?83.104.60.60 (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Almost certainly graffiti, it's been changed back now. Falastur2 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
West Ham United's survival was confirmed when Bolton Wanderers lost 4-0 to Aston Villa, rendering it impossible for Bolton to catch up with West Ham Funkyduncan (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Both Tottenham Hotspur and Newcastle United are save when Birmingham City lost 1-5 to Aston-Villa on April, 20, so it is mathematically impossible for Birmingham City to catch up those teams.
Championship teams
As of 28th March 2008, 22 teams can theoretically be promoted from the championship. All except Scunthorpe United and Colchester United. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyduncan (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Leicester cannot as plymouth and ipswich still have to play each other, thus causeing them to get at least one point between them, and so they cannot be caught. MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- No they don't, Plymouth's remaining fixtures are Coventry, Charlton, Sheff Wed, PNE, Blackpool and Wolves. Funkyduncan (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
why is it not possible for Southampton to finish in the top 6 when Sheffield Wednesday can? - oahiyeel talk 09:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because of the number of games left to play. Southampton have five games left - a maximum of 15 points. Wolves are the only team in the top 6 they could catch with 15 points - Wolves are exactly 15 points above. Wolves also have to play both Ipswich and Plymouth, who are one and two points beneath them respectively. If Wolves get even a single point from those two games, then they become uncatchable by Soton. If Wolves get no points from those games, then it means both Ipswich and Plymouth score three points, overtaking Wolves and thus being uncatchable themselves, meaning Soton can't reach the top 6.
- The Wednesday, on the other hand, have two extra games more than Soton - a maximum of 21 points left to win - and are only one point beneath them - that in the case of mathematical possibility makes them five points higher than Soton (six points for two theoretical wins, minus one point for being beneath Soton) which just about precludes them from any of these slightly-complicated "where will points have to be awarded" games that I just played with Wolves, Ipswich and Plymouth. Falastur2 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification :) - oahiyeel talk 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Map
Will it be possible to show a map indicating where the teams are in England? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.243.216.4 (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is one on the Scottish Premier League article. Darryl.matheson (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikinews invitation
Wikinews needs people to write news and match reports for the FA Premier League. To sign-up, please go here. Please let me know if and when you sign-up here. Kingjeff (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixtures
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS Template:Fb r2 header
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r Template:Fb r
Managerial changes
There's been a bit of a dispute over what belongs here. I'd just like to point out that the season starts on the 1st of July, and so the Chelsea job in my opinion does not belong in this article - it didn't happen in this season. Also, the Blackburn job has not been resolved yet but there's no certainty - in fact there's a high likelihood - that it will be filled before 1st July. Unless we reach the 1st July with that vacancy still unfilled, then it doesn't yet belong to this article. If anyone disagrees, especially in light of the edit war last night, I'd very much appreciate them speaking up and hearing their reasons for disagreeing, because I'm not really sure why those edits would be left in otherwise. Falastur2 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Scolari doesn't actually take up the post of Chelsea manager until 1 July, so that one definitely does belong in this article. However, the Man City post has already been filled, so that one doesn't belong here and, like you said, the Blackburn one doesn't either. – PeeJay 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if the new Blackburn manager is appointed after 1 July, then we need to add that into this article. Hughes' appointment from Man City is actually post-season I think... Raymond "Giggs" Ko 04:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is it not easier just to mention managerial changes since the close of play of the previous Premier League season? Mark hughes may now be City manager from before 1st July, but I still think he deserves a mention.--El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I hear you, I really do, but we had to set a point for splitting the different season articles (not just for managers, but transfers, etc.) and we came up with the July 1 deadline a few years ago on another article. It seems as though the FA or some other body considers July 1 to be the split between one season and the next, so we stuck with that. Unless there is significant reasoning to change the date, we'll just stick with this. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is it not easier just to mention managerial changes since the close of play of the previous Premier League season? Mark hughes may now be City manager from before 1st July, but I still think he deserves a mention.--El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that actually adds to the article though, or more rather, it contributes to what the section is supposed to be about. If you take that stance, then it indicates that what you are doing is listing all the relevant information about managers' appointments as of this season. If that is your aim, then you're almost setting a precedent for adding anything about managers relevant to this season - we might as well add the appointment date of all managers all the way back to Alex Ferguson because they are "relevant" to this season, and that would be to change that mandate of what the "managerial changes" section is about. What the section is supposed to be about is charting the points during the 08-09 season in which managers were replaced, and the thing is that neither the sacking of SGE nor the appointment of Mark Hughes happened during this season. Falastur2 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd disagree with the statement that it adds nothing to the section, but mainly because I disagree with the 1 July start date for this season. If Man Utd sacked Alex Ferguson and replaced him at exactly 11:55pm 30 June, as far as I can see that's just as notable to the 2008-09 season as if he was sacked and replaced five minutes later. It's still a major change for the start of this season (when the first whistle is blown on 16 August 2008) compared to the end of last season (when the last whistle was blown on 11 May 2008). I appreciate that the July 1 changeover has been agreed, so it needs to be stuck to for as long as it's agreed between everyone, but I don't think that it's the right way to handle it. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 21:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just to add to my previous comment, looking a bit deeper, the transfer window is open from 1 July (I think its a UEFA thing rather than just the FA), so I guess that's the main reason for that date to be the changeover point. If that is the official date, then fair enough. Guess I was wrong - apologies! El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- According to FIFA, all winter seasons (that is, seasons which run over winter instead of during summer months) begin on 1 July, and end on 30 June, although the month of June is regarded to be a close-season appended to the season before. I see your point, and to an extent I agree with it, but as Grant has said above, my issue is that if we allow small circumventions then we increasingly lose our ability to say that large circumventions of the rules shouldn't be allowed, and you find yourself in danger of being pushed back and back until the section loses its original identity. If you want to propose a change to the nature of this section, then feel free and the issue (and perhaps my opinions) will change, but under the present circumstances I find myself feeling that we should stick rigidly to the 1st of July cut-off. Hope that makes my position clearer. Falastur2 (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that actually adds to the article though, or more rather, it contributes to what the section is supposed to be about. If you take that stance, then it indicates that what you are doing is listing all the relevant information about managers' appointments as of this season. If that is your aim, then you're almost setting a precedent for adding anything about managers relevant to this season - we might as well add the appointment date of all managers all the way back to Alex Ferguson because they are "relevant" to this season, and that would be to change that mandate of what the "managerial changes" section is about. What the section is supposed to be about is charting the points during the 08-09 season in which managers were replaced, and the thing is that neither the sacking of SGE nor the appointment of Mark Hughes happened during this season. Falastur2 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Map
Just had a quick look at the current Serie A and La Liga pages to see how they compared to this (they're nothing in comparison, I must say!), but one thing they do have is a map showing each club's location, something which this article doesn't. I was just wondering if it would be worth doing something like that? I think it would help to see where clubs are based; help to see why based on location there are rivalries, and see where newly promoted, and lesser known teams, are based in England. Would this add to the article in any way, or not? Pullshapes (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- didn't see the discussion on this above, sorry 'bout that. Pullshapes (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The current map put in by Chandler disrupts the dimensions of this article. I would advise to create a Location map template based on 
, and then put the coordinates on this template. I would further suggest to revert the article in the meantime. The map created by El Pollo Diablo was not good quality-wise, but better than nothing. Hockey-holic (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)