Jump to content

Talk:2011–12 A-League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speculation with kits

[edit]

It has come to my attention that people are putting in speculative answers. I feel that if it hasn't been announced, it shouldn't be added as it is speculation created by fans and/or media. Until it is confirmed, it should be left vacant or TBA. Protenpinner (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably the worst kept secret of the year that Sydney and Melbourne Victory at the very least have signed contracts with Adidas. I mean heck, there's been a leaked mobile phone image of the Victory kit. - I also believed it's been confirmed that the Central Coast are with Hummel. I'm sure I read an article about it somewhere, I'll try and dig it up. Nath1991 (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, That didn't take long did it! A quick google search, and bazinga! Nath1991 (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though CCM have announced they're with Hummel, it's beside the point. If the club haven't announced it, then it's just a rumour, nothing more and nothing less. That's what wikipedia is isn't it? Putting in what is fact instead of rumours and speculation created by fans of the club. Even if there "mobile phone pics" of the Melbourne Victory club shirts with Adidas, it's extremely easy to photoshop it to make it seem that way. Hypothetically speaking, even if Melbourne are with Adidas, Sydney haven't had anything, neither have the Jets, yet people keep putting in what hasn't been confirmed by the club. Even if it is as close to being signed as possible, the clubs haven't said that they have. The clubs can be as close as a toothpick to being signed but if they haven't announced it, at the end of the day, it hasn't been said. Protenpinner (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Match detail templates

[edit]

There are three different layouts being used for A-League match details:

It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect all of these to use a consistent layout? -- Chuq (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think grouping the games by date with the time showing is good for our viewership because it's bad design to have to expand the [show] box just to see what time a game starts. The hilite template is experimental, using colour to show which games have been played without an editor having to update it. I was actually very satisfied with how the 11-12 layout ended up looking, separating the rounds into individual days clearly shows how many games per round and how many games per day . --203.206.243.105 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubtful whether the detailed match statistics is necessary in the first place. Every other season page is OK with just the results table and frankly, the long sheet we have here atm makes an article much less readable. —WiJG? 07:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TBH all we need is the scoreline, the goalscorers, the ref, the times of the matches and if necessary, thee player that gets sent off. Yellow cards aren't needed as it will make the pages longer. The show/hid thing is though I feel. Pretty much like this Protenpinner (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Round 14
Saturday, 6 November 2010 		Brisbane Roar Australia 4 - 0 Australia Adelaide United Brisbane, Queensland
20:15 UTC+10 Reinaldo 43'
Smith 56'
Barbarouses 62'
Barbarouses 67'
Yellow card 43' Yellow-red card 54' Reinaldo		 (Report)
(Summary)		 Stadium: Suncorp Stadium
Attendance: 13,248
Referee: Matthew Breeze


Ok, so I may be several months late for this discussion but here's how I think it should look for each week/round:

Round 1

[edit]
8 October 2011 4:30pm, Saturday Newcastle Jets 3 : 2 Melbourne Heart Ausgrid Stadium, Newcastle
4:30pm AEDT (UTC+11) R. Griffiths 31', 45'
S. Byun 90+3'		 Report
Summary		 23', 51' M. Duganzdic Attendance: 12,467
8 October 2011 6:30pm, Saturday Melbourne Victory 0 : 0 Sydney FC Etihad Stadium, Melbourne
6:30pm AEDT (UTC+11) Report
Summary		 Attendance: 40,351
8 October 2011 7:45pm, Saturday Brisbane Roar 1 : 0 Central Coast Mariners Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane
7:45pm AEST (UTC+10)
8:45pm AEDT (UTC+11)		 M. Nichols 72' Report
Summary		 Attendance: 13,467
9 October 2011 5:00pm, Sunday Gold Coast United 1 : 1 Wellington Phoenix Skilled Park, Gold Coast
5:00pm AEDT (UTC+11)
7:00pm NZDT (UTC+13)		 J. Brown 88' Report
Summary		 17' C. Greenacre Attendance: 4,113
9 October 2011 4:30pm, Sunday Perth Glory 1 : 0 Adelaide United nib Stadium, Perth
4:30pm AWST (UTC+08)
7:30pm AEDT (UTC+11)		 B. Mehmet 76' Report
Summary		 Attendance: 9.452

There's a few extra details which I reckon should be included in all of the match boxes. Each box will display the kickoff time for the home team followed by kickoff time for away if different; all names should include the first initial to make it clearer (eg. in the Gold Coast v Wellington match, there were two Browns on the field: James Brown for GCU and Tim Brown for WP; referee with nationality (in flag form); the city in which the stadium is in; displaying the time and day under the "round =" line; changing "week #" to "Round #" (in keeping with the other pages); and putting the goal icon before the player name when they have scored for team2. this makes it look cleaner and clearer.

This layout will completely streamline the page and make it much clearer than its current state. (Also, by leaving the "score" line blank, it automatically creates a "v" for games that have not yet been played). O for Awesome (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the standings table Is it possible to indicate(by colour or otherwise) that not only do the first 2 teams on the ladder qualify for the finals series, but that first place team gets the Premiers Plate as well and the 2nd place team joins 1st as Australia's auto entries into the AFC Champions League. I think AFC are looking at allowing 3rd place in(they have this year choosing last seasons 3rd place Adelaide United), but I'm unsure if its a regular thing from now on.

Does who DOESN'T supply the kits really belong in the lead?

[edit]

Well? HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that? Protenpinner (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence of the lead, which is meant to be a summary of detail from further down in the article, says "This will also be the first season that all clubs have branched away from the A-League Reebok deal, signing on with different kit manufacturers." It's NOT a summary of other material, and it's telling us a negative, where the kits won't be from, rather than where they are from. It was obviously put there by someone obsessed with the matter, but in the long term it's a very minor issue, surely. Shouldn't be in the lead, if in the article at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having difficulty raising any interest in this matter. I will boldly delete, and not be offended if that causes a sensible objection to be raised. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can you possibly predict that it was put there by someone 'obsessed' with the matter? I didn't put it there but I feel it should be there because it states a fact, and is something that is relevant with the article, regardless of whether it is explained in more detail or not further down the page.Protenpinner (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is meant to contain a summary of important matter from elsewhere in the article, but it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. And I really cannot see the significance of this material. Never seen anything like it for other sporting codes. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Season International Friendly - not an A-League event

[edit]

So why is it in the article? Totally relevant to the national team, but not here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously someone else thought the same thing, and removed this content during the weekend. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification detail in League Table is incorrect

[edit]

Currently, the ladder has the third club listed as qualifying for "2013 AFC Champions League Qualifying play-off". This is incorrect. It is the champions and premiers that get direct qualification, and the SECOND place getters, not third, that qualify for the "2013 AFC Champions League Qualifying play-off". The play-off spot only goes to the third team by default if the second place getters have already qualified, but that isn't always the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.64.68 (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is due to cutting and pasting teams as they jump up and down the ladder. As it stands, the Roar will jump over the Phoenix, and hopefully that should fix itself after the Adelaide GCU game. As long as we wait until that game's done, we can get three fixes in one stone (two games and a link error) 58.174.148.82 (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attendances

[edit]

People seem to place an inordinate weighting to crowd figures in Australia, so I feel it is important to get things right. Adelaide United currently have a lowest crowd listed for season 2011-12 as 2,363, severely dragging down their average crowd figure. That game was played in Bathurst, NSW, nowhere near Adelaide's regular home ground. I believe that this crowd figure should be excluded from the calculations. I think the new numbers should be: 13 games played(games at Hindmarsh Stadium) for an aggregate of 120,797, giving an average of 9,292.

If other 'regional round' games were played out of state/region, then high or low these numbers should be discounted also as they do not indicate the level of support for each team in its local community. thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.135.251 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2013–14 A-League which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011–12 A-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).

  • 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) 13:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2018–19 A-League which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011–12_A-League&oldid=1196603891"