Talk:FA Community Shield
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Inconsistency
[edit]There seems to be an inconsistency. In the History section:
"The match was drawn 1-1, so the game was replayed when Manchester United won 4-1. This is the only Charity Shield game to go to a replay. Both games were played at Stamford Bridge."
But in the table (Winners By year), it says the score of the Replay was 4-0. Can anyone please verify?--Moonlover dl (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed according to FA.com - the result was 4–0 to Manchester United. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Number of wins (Club Only)
[edit]I just made a factual change. Somebody had listed five titles for Chelsea (none shared), even though the club total (in the same table) clearly says 3. The titles listed were: 1955, 2000, 2005,2007,2009. But Chelsea did not win in 2007. And as for 2009, since it won' be played until August 9, we don't know, do we? AlistairLW (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
There have been several edits in the past few days, some putting Manchester United at the top of the table, others putting Liverpool. It is my belief that as teams with equal number of wins are sorted alphabetically in the rest table, this should be the same for the top and that Liverpool should be placed ahead of Manchester United.
Dukeseee 16:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree on the basis that United have won eleven outright (eleven not shared) in comparison to Liverpool's ten. For consistency I'll adjust the rest of the table accordingly. I haven't moved Liverpool below Arsenal on the basis that Liverpool have obtained the trophy more times. Please explain reasons if reverting.
BeL1EveR 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
1971 Shield
[edit]Being a Leicester fan I have always been curious as to how we won the shield in 1971 having never won the League or FA Cup in our history. Checking on here I can't see why we even contested this final. We didn't finish second behind a double winner, we won division two. And Liverpool won nothing, they we're FA Cup runners-up yet that who we played. The next season is just as baffling with Man City playing Villa. Can anyone with some knowledge of this let me know why these games where played between seemingly random teams. Jimmmmmmmmm 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The FA website lists the 1946 and 1947 games which according to this page did't happen
1946 Derby 4 Charlton 1 (aet) 1947 Charlton 1 Burnley 0
- As regards the non-winning sides contesting the shield, it appears that participation was not compulsory, and some clubs for whatever reason did not wish to contest it. The FA website says, "Prior to 1974, with the Shield a less prestigious fixture, the match was played at various club grounds and often involved teams who had won nothing at all." - I would guess the FA invited teams, on the basis that they had done something of note (eg Leicester winning Div 2). When Villa played in 1972 they had just won Div 3 with an all-time record number of points. I think it's as simple as that.
- Regarding the 1946 and 1947 games, I'll add them in. There were no league champions in 1946, as the season did not recommence until that point, so the game has a minor place in league history, marking the start of resumption of normal play after the war. There had, however been an FA Cup contested and won (by Derby) in the first half 1946. Charlton were losing finalists, which explains why they lined up against Derby for the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Charity Shield
[edit]Does anyone know when the competition went from being named the "Charity Shield" to the "FA Charity Shield"? I know it was renamed as the FA Community Shield in 2002, but I'd really like to know when its name changed to reflect its endorsement by the FA. - PeeJay 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Competition status
[edit]While watching the Man. Unt. Chelsea game last Sunday, I heard the commentator saying the yellow cards were not counted for future competitions because FA Community Shield is not considered a competition. Is that true, FA Community Shield is not a competition?--ClaudioMB 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
As a reader of the football magazine When Saturday Comes, which I would thoroughly reccomend, I recall a fairly recent article that builds upon the format of the competition as detailed on here. The article in WSC discussed the status of the Charity Shield as being the unofficial champions of England game, at a time when the gulf between the Football League and the Southern League was at its narrowest (Southern League doing well enough to have a professional, competitive top division but before it's top clubs began a sudden exodus to the Football League as a result of the later's expansion). Could someone with encyclopaedic aptitude please look into this and perhaps comment on the erosion of the competition's status following the decline if the Southern League from the 1910s onwards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.224.222 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Curse?
[edit]Shouldn't it be noted that only Man Utd (1993/94,1996/97) and Chelsea (2005/06) have gone on to win the premier league after winning the shield? 89.243.24.157 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds weird for me a curse that fail 3 times in the last 14 years (21%). Also, considering that to win both titles is not a simple task. But, if that is notable in England (lost of people know about it as a curse) and there are reliable sources of it, maybe could mention. I don't know in which section.--ClaudioMB 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure of any reliable sources, I usually hear of it in each match report each year. Maybe it can me put in the trivia.89.241.215.57 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's worth a mention. It's not a curse - it's just very difficult for any club to win the league title, and the conicidence of them having contested, and won, the Charity Shield the previous summer is just that - coincidence. It will happen from time to time, but is hardly to be expected as the norm.
- You could devise any other 'curse' - how many clubs who won the League Cup went on to win the Premiership the following season? How many clubs who lost the League Cup final went on to win the FA Cup? You can just make them up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Winners table
[edit]I propose that the order of the winner's table be reversed to show oldest first. Most football articles seem to follow this and I think it reads better this way. --Jameboy (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This Is How It Should Be
[edit]This should be the properway of the Shield the League Champions and the FA Cup Winners but if a team wins the 'Double' the runners-up in the League get the nod. Also on this list is the Champions of England and Winners of the FA Cup from 1889.
- Wikipedia deals with what actually happened, not how it "should" have been, so I fail to see your point. --Jameboy (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is how the Shield would be if it was League Champions and FA Cup Winners.
- No, because in 1999 for example, it would have been league champions Manchester United v FA Cup winners Manchester United. Even so, I still don't see the point of collating a list of how things could have turned out, when Wikipedia covers what actually happened. --Jameboy (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
No if you think about it the runners-up in the League take the FA Cup spot if a team wins the Double or Triple
Instead of neutral venues if they were at Wembley from 1923 not 1974 this is how it would be like.
- All very interesting, but how things "should" have been is purely your point of view. West Bromwich Albion "should" have won the double in 1954 but they didn't. You can't change history so all this is of no relevance to the article. --Jameboy (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Floodlights
[edit]According to my source (Gillatt, Peter (30 November 2009). Blackpool FC on This Day: History, Facts and Figures from Every Day of the Year. Pitch Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1905411502.), the 1953 Charity Shield was the first to be played under floodlights. I doubt it's notable enough for inclusion in the article, but just putting it out there. - Dudesleeper talk 00:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sir Alex Misquote?
[edit]"It's always a game we never quite use of a do or die thing" doesn't make grammatical sense. It's found in a few places, linking back to the same AP story or tacitly citing the Wikipedia entry -- the current link is broken -- but I suspect it's a bad transcription of "we never quite view as a do or die thing". Except that there's no written source to back that up. The press conference itself is available to MUTV subscribers. Anyone want to check? It'd be nice to clear it up. Holgate (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Requested move of interest
[edit]There is currently a discussion at Talk:Charity Shield (disambiguation) about moving that page to Charity Shield (disambiguation) to Charity Shield. As Charity Shield currently redirects here this is likely to be of interest to editors of this page. Please comment on Talk:Charity Shield (disambiguation) rather than here so discussion is in one place. Dpmuk (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on FA Community Shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080813113120/http://canadianpress.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5jPX7BZK3glaCaTldgAxzq9AoaDfw to http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPX7BZK3glaCaTldgAxzq9AoaDfw
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
FA comment
[edit]I noticed that in a recent clean up of the article, the sourced statement of the FA holding the competition in high regard was deleted. This shouldnt have been done as it is well sourced straight off the FA website (http://www.thefa.com/fa-community-shield/more/history) and it presents the opposite argument to the views of pundits that its a glorified friendly. Davefelmer (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- You say the statement was sourced from the FA website like that's a good thing... Of course the FA hold the competition in high regard - they organise the bloody thing! – PeeJay 01:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that it matters here. I am not generalising or saying something like "many view it as very important" with that source. I am merely stating that the FA do, which is a fact. In any case, the flip side of the coin to the argument that some view it as a glorified friendly has to be addressed. Very few see it as that, as it is in fact an official competition, with most media, clubs and players recognising it as the first trophy and game of the season. (http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/595646/Chelsea-John-Terry-Community-Shield-Arsenal-Petr-Cech) (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/02/football/football-arsenal-chelsea-community-shield/) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/11773513/Community-Shield-2015-Why-winning-would-give-Chelsea-or-Arsenal-an-early-edge-in-Premier-League-title-race.html) (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/02/football/football-arsenal-chelsea-community-shield/) (http://www.cityam.com/1407685653/arsenal-3-0-manchester-city-does-winning-community-shield-mean-successful-season). Davefelmer (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on FA Community Shield. 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/20110903075518/http://www.adifferentleague.co.uk/default.aspx?Tab=1&page=6&article=161 to http://www.adifferentleague.co.uk/default.aspx?Tab=1&page=6&article=161
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305035734/http://rsssf.com/tablese/engsupcuphist.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engsupcuphist.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
- 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) 04:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- adifferentleague.co.uk archive links to a page headed "an error has occurred"
- rsssf.com original page isn't dead, and the archive page is too early to verify content cited (perhaps because the citeweb accessdate wasn't updated when the source was most recently accessed). Struway2 (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on FA Community Shield. 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/20110903075518/http://www.adifferentleague.co.uk/default.aspx?Tab=1&page=6&article=161 to http://www.adifferentleague.co.uk/default.aspx?Tab=1&page=6&article=161
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610111148/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/england/2009/08/10/community-shield-chelsea-2-manchester-united-2-86908-21586330/ to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/england/2009/08/10/community-shield-chelsea-2-manchester-united-2-86908-21586330/
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) 15:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The Football Association downgraded the Community Shield to a "friendly" from the summer of 2009 onwards
[edit]The Football Association downgraded the Community Shield to a "friendly" from the summer of 2009 onwards. It is also noted as such in the Football Association Handbook and does not appear in the defined competitions list of "First Team Competitive Matches", but explicitly under "Friendly Matches". 2.30.5.0 (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Where is your evidence for this? Do you have an online copy of the FA Handbook you could link to? – PeeJay 13:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
It's a PDF download link of the Handbook (PDF page 274 of 713, document pp 270):- Section G - Appendices / Appendix I: Definitions, "Friendly Match". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.148.134 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Read again carefully - it refers to games where, for example, cautions apply. It means no more, no less, that suspensions do not carry to the Community Shield game. Red Devil (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cautions apply in ALL organised football. As it states, explicitly:
- "Friendly Match means any Match sanctioned or regarded by The Association or an Affiliated Association as a
- friendly Match (including FA Community Shield and Women's FA Community Shield Matches)" 2.30.148.180 (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
No evidence provided that the FA Super Cup is recognised as a competitive match.
[edit]Sources 1-3 and 4-6 are match previews/reviews and do not provide any actual evidence that the community shield is a competitive match or officially recognised super cup.
In English football it is widely regarded by almost all fans and clubs as a friendly and this should be taken into consideration.
I couldn't located any evidence supporting or denying the claim that it is a competitive match but nonetheless the sources provided by the original author supporting the claim, cannot be considered as relevant. Jakey2995 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- The first FA source features a statement from the FA themselves ahead of the 2017 Community Shield where they explicitly refer to it as a competitive game. The second one is from the FA's official website where they refer to Man Utd kicking off the new season with a win in the 2016 Shield, clearly acknowledging it as part of the season proper and not 'the last friendly before the season begins'.
- For UEFA sources, the first one lists club friendlies ahead of the new season with the Shield, or any Domestic Super Cup for that matter, not listed amongst them. It then explicitly discusses, under Leicester City's blurb, that their pre-season began with X game while they "kicked off their campaign in the Community Shield against FA Cup holders Manchester United, losing 2-1 at Wembley on 7 August." It does not get more clear-cut than that.
- Second UEFA source previews the 2019 UEFA Super Cup between Chelsea and Liverpool and where it details Liverpool's fixtures up to that point that season, it clearly distinguishes the Shield alongside their league games away from the pre-season ones. But you get the idea, they all corroborate it. You either didn't read them properly, or are trying to ignore it.
- And "In English football it is widely regarded by almost all fans and clubs as a friendly and this should be taken into consideration"? First, where is the evidence for this? Second, it's just patently false. All clubs recognise it for a start, and even if some fans didn't, the view of these fans has no relevance on an encyclopedia. I mean, I don't even know where to begin with that one. Davefelmer (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- If the fa it self doesn't recognize it as official trophy or super cup than who are you to say it's official trophy Writergg24 (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)