Talk:Australia men's national soccer team/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

The Name

Clearly the name of this article and the name of the sport in Australia is a complex, controversial, commercial and emotional issue to many. Australia does seem to be unique in the number of different sports known as football to different people at different times and in different parts of the country. Names such as soccer, footy, rugby, union, league, AFL and Aussie Rules are also an important part of the discussion. I reckon Wikipedia needs an article called "The many meanings of and words for football in Australia". All other articles discussing any sport in Australia that's ever been called "football" should link to it. It could also include discussion of terms like aerial pingpong, mobile wrestling and wogball. Might write it when I have the time.HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting comparing the website approaches of the "better" newspapers in Melbourne and Sydney, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Each is from the same publisher - Fairfax. Each has a line of links to different sports at the top of their Sport Section. They look like this:

Age: * Live scores * AFL * Cricket * Soccer * Horseracing * Motorsport * Tennis * Basketball * NRL * Blogs

SMH: * Live scores * NRL * Cricket * A-League * Rugby * Tennis * Football * AFL * Golf * Motorsport

That "Football" link in the SMH is for the round ball game. "Football" isn't used at all in the Melbourne Age. But "Soccer" is. HiLo48 (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Football/Soccer

Overall it's the case of Melbournians here who can't get a grip of the fact that we've moved on it is "football" now here in Australia as it should be and backwater AFL supporters should get over themselves. We went through a period of Americanisms and being laughed at for calling it Soccer, but it's football and most of the better media outlets in Australia are calling it as such.

Player drain to other countries

Is this section of sufficient relevance to the current Australian team? I think it speculative in a lot of player cases noted and unnecessarily bloats an already long entry page. I would like to remove it. Any opinions? (Fußballspielen (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

I personally believe the section is highly relevant to Australian Football. As an Australian it's highly topical, given the quality of teams that Australia could produce IF they could field players such as Christian Vieri, Josip SImunic is another clear cut case for having such a section after training with the AIS before representing Croatia. Until recently with Australia's multicultural background it had become increasingly difficult to field quality players that could have otherwise due to the fact that we went for 32 years without being represented at the world cup due to being in Oceania. It could even be expanded further to include the aforementioned fact

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.219.233 (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Born players

I know that many Australians have chosen to play for other countries and there is a list representing that, but why isn't there a list showing players that were born and lived overseas and chose to play for Australia. I know for a fact throughtout Australia's history there have been many foreign born players play for Australia and the list would be larger then Australian players who played for other countries. Just off the top of my head I know of Paul Wade, Archie Thompson, Francis Awaritefe, Mehmet Durakovic, Peter Wilson, Attila Abonyi and Milan Ivanović. With the a litte research I could find many more. I think its unfair to show the player drain whithout showing the amount of foreign born and raised players that played for Australia throughout the years.

A-League squad v Recent call ups

I would like to propose that the "A-League squad" and "Recent call-ups" sections be merged into a single section titled "Recent call-ups". My rationale is that the notion of a strictly Australian A-League squad is false. It has never been publicly stated by the FFA that such an exclusively A-League team exists in concept or practice (rather a media generated view of recent selection strategies) and perpetuates an incorrect view that there are two separate and distinct national teams. --Fußballspielen 03:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolving the article name once and for all

It is quite simple actually. The article should be called football without the (soccer) brackets. Here is why: NRL=Rugby League AFL=AFL Rugby Union=Rugby Union so Association Football should be Football

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Football_Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufffin man (talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree that the naming debate is at all simple, I think that it might be time for a review of the situation as it has been over 2 years since it has been addressed on this page and a lot of things have happened in Australian football/soccer since our successes in 2006. I support a change to "Australian national football team" for the following reasons:

• While your average mum and dad on a Sunday afternoon might still call the game "soccer", the sport's official body in Australia (FFA) not only use the term "football" in their title but in all press releases / official publications (e.g. the new National Football Curriculum).
• All mainstream media now refer to it as "football" (not just SBS anymore).
• A Wikipedia search for "Australian football team" already returns a (disambiguation) page that clearly addresses the confusion over "football" terminology and directing users on to their intended pages.
• Wikipedia searches for "Australian soccer team" or "Australian national soccer team" already redirect users to this page. Therefore, Wikipedia users who use the term "soccer" will still reach their intended destination.
• International Wikipedia standards indicate that "football" is the correct and preferred usage. Even nations such as England (who also have competing football/soccer, rugby union and rugby league codes) use the term "football" and refer to their rugby codes (in Wikipedia at least) in a way consistent with how the other Australian codes are described on the existing disambiguation page. [[Fußballspielen (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)]]

There was a painful discussion along these lines at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football_(soccer)_in_Australia#User 60.224.0.121 and football (soccer) edits. I ended up leaving the discussion as it was impacting on my enjoyment of spending time here and was going in circles, but have a look and see if you want to restart the discussion. Camw (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! OK, well it seems that there are still vocal supporters for both sides so I think i will leave it for now. Thanks for pointing this out. [[Fußballspielen (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)]]

The claim that "All mainstream media now refer to it as "football" " is just plain rubbish. I suspect the writer lives in Sydney. Almost every newspaper outside NSW and Qld calls it "soccer". Many of these have to be counted as respectable media. That "national" media outlets might use the name "football" is misleading since most are based in Sydney. The name change to "football" was a marketing goal of the new administrators in 2005. It has not succeeded. All Australians know the team as the Socceroos. Nobody calls it the "Australia national association football team". Does Wikipedia reflect marketing goals or reality? HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Viduka

Please stop adding Mark Viduka to the Recent call-ups section. First of all, the phrase "regular squad members" are POV. Secondly, he was available during the 2007-2008 season (he was only injured during October 2007 and February 2008) but was not called up at all , this questions his status as a "regular". And more importantly the latest news and comment from Pim Verbeek himself, please see Goal.com News "Verbeek: Viduka May Retire". Martin tamb (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. In addition to the rationale provided by the nominator and in the support, the purpose of disambiguators in titles is to resolve a conflict in naming between the subject article and others that could cause confusion and make people searching for one topic reach another; there are no such confusingly situated articles here to make the target article title ambiguous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Australia national football (soccer) team → Australia national association football team — Current title's not an obvious search title, and I think avoiding parenthesis would be better. Association football is the name for the sport better known as "football" and "soccer", but which are both quite contentious here. "Australia association football team" could be an alternative move, but it's probably too ambiguous. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - makes the terminology consistent with the main article on the sport on Wikipedia and better fits in with the guidelines on disambiguation and brackets in the title (per the Association football talk page - "On Wikipedia, the placing of a word in parentheses in the title of an article is used as a method of disambiguation, with the parenthesised word usually being a set that the article's subject is a part of. Therefore, the title "Football (soccer)" implies that football is a form of soccer, which is not the case.". As part of this can we include Australia women's national football (soccer) team as there should be consistency between the articles. Camw (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just placed an equivilent move request for the women's team, per your comments. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Camw (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notable Wins

I have removed the Notable Wins section, because it does not have clear inclusion criteria and therefore it's definitely POV. It's also uncited and have no references at all. — Martin tamb (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Camw (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2006 Qualification wording

This idea was rejected by Australia. As a result, Uruguay had announced that they had moved the kick off time back five hours to 9:00 p.m. local time on 12 November

Did they move it backwards or forwards? This is confusing. I believe it was meant to be at 4:00pm (it couldn't be 2:00am), so wouldn't that mean the kickoff time moved forwards? Opinions? JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 14:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How about just "moved"? Leave out the "forwards" or "backwards" entirely.

"Current Ranking" - a big problem

This article seems obsessed with rankings. This leads to the silly situation where the Info Box today tells us the ranking is 24, while the opening part of the article tells us "The team is currently ranked 14th by FIFA...." in a situation where it's messy to edit. Unless those editors keen on rankings are prepared to constantly update every place in the article where the ranking is mentioned, it should probably only be mentioned in the Info Box, if at all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

'player drain' to other countries

90% of the national team through out its history was eligible to play for other countries. This is because of soccer's history in Australia as 'wogball' and there are a hell of alot of 'wogs' in Australia. Almost every player of Croatian descent (Viduka, Culina, Horvat, Kalac etc) could have played for Croatia for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.105.224 (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

completely agree, that new part put in there about playing for youth national teams and eligible for other countries that includes thompson, rukavytsya and co is rubbish and should be deleted.

throughout our history almost all of our players have some sort of overseas heritage, if you're going to include thompson and viduka then you may as well include every single player that has played for australia which is an utter waste of time...just off the top of my head in the current squad....kewell(england), bresciano(croatia/italy), grella(italy), mcdonald(scotland), schwarzer(germany), covic(croatia), neill(ireland), moore(scotland), wilkshire(england), carney(ireland), kisnorbo(italy), culina(croatia), valeri(italy), carle(chile), jedinak(croatia), vidosic(croatia), petkovic(serbia), jones(england), federici(italy), garcia(uruguay), djite(usa)...and that's just SOME of the current socceroos..imagine having to pile up the records for the last 40 years and more???

COMPLETE waste of time. please delete that new subsection adn return it to the way it was before which was perfect in terms of informativeness and was also relative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.110.13 (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)