Talk:UEFA Euro 2008 knockout stage

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UEFA Euro 2008 knockout stage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

It is not guaranteed that Portugal will be the winner of Group A (although it is unlikely that they won't be). If they lose to Switzerland, and Turkey beats the Czech Republic by a wide enough margin, they might be the winners, which would make Portugal runner-up.

It is guaranteed as the first tiebreaker is head-to-head results, and Portugal has beaten both Turkey and the Czech Republic. – Pee Jay 21:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't 100% sure, it doesn't matter how small the chance is that it won't happen, it should be 100% correct instead. However, Portugal is guaranteed?. --212.247.27.77 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal is guaranteed to be the winner of Group A, for the reasons I stated above. – Pee Jay 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CROATIA

CROATIA IS NOT GUARANTEED IN THE KNOCKOUT ROUND YET!!!

If Poland wins all 2 remaining games and Germany wins against Austria, that means all 3 teams have 6 points and thus ahve to count goal difference between these 3 teams!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doraemon2151 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal-Germany tactical line-ups

Actually, Germany did not play Podolski up front. Maybe it would be helpful to have a look at this document from the UEFA website, providing the "actual" tactical line-ups and change the image accordingly. Madcynic (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this several times with several other teams' lineups. The lineup image shows the teams as they are at the start of the game, as defined by the official lineups press release from UEFA. In this case, the press release ([1]) clearly shows Podolski and Klose playing up front together, with Schweinsteiger, Rolfes, Ballack and Hitzlsperger in a four-man midfield. Hope that's cleared things up for you =) – Pee Jay 12:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This maybe shows germanys official lineup, however it was an intentional trick by the trainer to confuse the portugese team. Not even one second of the game was played this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.171.122 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the German coach? Did he tell you that's what he was doing? If not, then I don't believe you're really in a position to comment on what the German coach's plan was. – Pee Jay 19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He stated it after the game in the national televison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.216.212.146 (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. – Pee Jay 23:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the question previously posed, and unanswered, remains: what do we do when empirical evidence shows the verifiable source to be wrong? Kevin McE (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I've never had any problems like this before. Why can't people just accept the lineups the way the official press release showed them to be? – Pee Jay 08:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they prefer to trust the evidence of their own eyes? Kevin McE (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well… hmm, how do I put this? Because they are both official press releases, I think. If it helps, the timestamp on the one provided by User:Madcynic is three hours later (19 Jun 2008 22:45:18) than the one you provided (19 Jun 2008 19:49:57) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now look, I was asking a question and I got to say I am a bit...irritated at the tone of the discussion here.

Please don't assume I was saying that first bit in a negative tone. Read it as if it was was meant to be whimsical. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the purpose of the tactical line-up in a match report? Is it to show something that was predicted prior to the game (even if it is UEFA official. I don't know how they arrive at their pre-match tactical lineups.) or is it to show what actually happened in-game? I myself believe the latter to be true and would thus include the version provided in the document I linked to. Madcynic (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the tactical lineup in a match report varies depending on who is doing the match report. Obviously, UEFA have provided us with two sets for each game: one based on the lineups given to them an hour before kickoff, and another based on their own statistical analysis of where on the pitch the players actually moved. Since there is rarely a structure given to where players actually played, it is infinitely simpler (and often easier to reference) to use pre-match lineups to create the lineup graphic for these articles. – Pee Jay 14:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: what is the benefit to Wikipedia of showing a prediction, even one made by UEFA, that did not come true? If, after the match, a reputable newspaper journalist writes, or quotes the team manager as saying, "The team played four-four-two", that is as verifiable as, and much more useful than, a press release produced before the match showing four-three-three. jnestorius^(talk) 15:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that UEFA creates the lineup images itself. I think they must get the teams to provide position details along with the list of players who will be playing. – Pee Jay 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actual line-ups are more useful and desirable than preliminary ones. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I know this is somewhat unrelated but I did want to tell you guys the tactical lineups look excellent. I think this is an outstanding resource and I really appreciate everyone's effort in this regard. Liioadin

Cheers very much, mate. If you want to get involved in making the lineup images, download a free program called Inkscape. Then save one of the pre-existing lineup images to your computer, and use Inkscape to change the colours, move the players around and change the names. – Pee Jay 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Are there any plans to include prose in this article? In particular, a verbal summary of each match, including injuries, significant fouls, questionable calls (as long as each can be referenced). Right now it is just a boxscore for the games, which is not enough. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the 2006 FIFA World Cup article, a summary of each stage of the tournament was included in the appropriate sections of the main article. However, now that we have added a summary of each group in each group's own article, I would say that we should do a summary of the entire knockout stage (final included) in the lead of this article. – Pee Jay 21:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The description of the match should be under the relevant section header. Why has the Dutch black armbands been relegated to a footnote? This is not RSSSF; we don't restrict ourselves to statistics, we cover all encyclopaedic material and we group related material together. OTOH, this is not sports journalism: we don't have to concoct some overreaching story to weave together the different results into a coherent narrative. jnestorius^(talk) 13:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism prevention better than cure

I have reverted an early bit of vandalism. The IP address is one of a series that were active towards the end of the match last night. A quick lookup suggested they were emanating from for example a Cuban Educational institution User talk:201.220.222.140 and other addresses registered in Cuba. e.g. 201.220.222.158, 201.220.222.145, is it worth putting on a semi protect ahead of the likely spate of vandalism tonight? Save you guys who are running at full pace as the game comes to a climax also dealing with these distractions as well. Just a thought Tmol42 (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected since your post until the end of the finals. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Line-up Picture

Quick thing, I'm not sure how fussy you're being with the images but Casillas is wearing black. PN 57 20:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upload a new version in a bit. I was going by the MatchCentre graphic when I made the image, so don't hold it against me :D – Pee Jay 20:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spain won their first quarterfinal in an European Championship Final?

"Spain won their first competetive match against Italy since 1920 and their first quarter-final in a World Cup or European Championship final."

I believed that Spain had won the European Championship in 1964 and played the final against France in 1984.

And as I have said, there weren't any quarter finals played in those final tournaments, nor in the World Cup of 1950 — chan dler — 09:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And because there were no quarter-finals in any of those previous tournaments, there should be no need to mention that fact. I have moved all the prose from underneath each game to the top of the quarter-finals section now, and expanded to give a proper account of each match. – Pee Jay 10:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The account for each match should be under the section for the corresponding match. There is no need for a summary paragraph for the quarter-final section unless there is information relevant to multiple matches or to none in particular. Also, there is no need for a prose sentence which simply repeats what is stated in the box score; it's pointless repetition.
There should be no need to mention the Spain quarter final fact because it's so trivial. It's not their first time reaching the semifinal, it's their first time doing so in a particular way. Why not mention it's their fourth time having a shootout on June 22, or all the other trivia commentators come out with to pass the boring bits of the match?
If you are going to mention it you at least need to explain how restricted it is. Saying there is "no need to mention" 1950/64/84 has been disproven buy the number of editors questioning the fact: true-but-misleading is not good enough.
Spain didn't win the match, which is regarded as a draw; they won the fixture.

jnestorius^(talk) 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, the shoot-out is part of the match, so they did win the match. Second, it's hardly misleading. You say that Spain has reached semi-finals before, which no one is disputing. The fact is that this was the first major quarter-final that they have ever won. The fact that there were no quarter-finals the last time they reached the semi-finals is purely incidental. Third, unlike winning their first quarter-final, the fact that it was their fourth penalty shootout on 22 June is a worthless fact. The date has no effect on the result of the game. Finally, I don't see why the summary shouldn't go at the top of the section. The summary of each group went in the lead of the individual group articles. I considered putting the summary of the quarter-finals in the lead of the knockout stage article, but then I realised it would have been much too long when the semi-final and final summaries went in. – Pee Jay 11:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a report that mentions "first major quarter final win"? Several mention June 22, which we agree is trivial, so not mentioning the other suggests they think it's even more trivial. --jnestorius^(talk) 13:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is with the frequent changes as to what constitutes the European championship final and what doesn't. Hence it takes an excessive amount of description to make clear what's going on. Madcynic (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

turks got more yellow cards

they got at least 2, maybe even 3. that needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.236.144 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which match? If you mean the semi-final against Germany, then they got two yellows. – Pee Jay 22:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, in today's match

Man of the match

Who decides who he is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.23.179 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsberg — chan dler — 22:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In conjunction with a public vote. – Pee Jay 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final

The .jpg for the final is incorrect as Frings started instead of Rolfes. LeoDaVinci (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made the image before the final so as to save some time. I'll change it now. – Pee Jay 19:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Pee Jay 19:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! LeoDaVinci (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what my girlfriend said last night! =( – Pee Jay 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]