Talk:2009–10 Football League Cup

Second Round

Under an olf revision of the page we had 49 teams in round 2. 70 teams in Round one means 35 winners, plus 12 premier plus Newcastle and Middlesbrough equals 49 - which doesn't divide by two. Now the intro says that the winners will go into the third round if not already in Europe. Since Man United (last years winners) are in europe, then presumably the winners spot is not used, so only 7 teams go into round three - thus there is one other team for round 2. This makes up 50 teams - which does divide by two. 86.131.237.120 (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Scores

Is there a reason why there is a scoreline for the score after 90 minutes and a scoreline for extra-time? Kingjeff (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember what the reason for this is, but that's just the way it's always been done. Maybe someone with a better memory will be able to remember, but whatever the reason is, I'm sure it's a good one. – PeeJay 10:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's to do with the way that the FA records scores. Something like according to the FA records of games, the game's actual score is the score after 90 minutes. The extra time and penalties etc are considered as extension to the game, almost like a rematch with different time conditions and held immediately after the game, therefore the score after 90 minutes is statistically significant. Or...something. Not sure if that helped, but maybe it did. Falastur2 ^Talk 13:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

top scorers?

Any reason for not listing the top scorers in the tournament for this year? It is posted for every other league cup season so why is that not the case this year? I don't have the time to do this myself or I would. (Weather130 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009–10 Football League Cup. 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/20090814174109/http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/CarlingCupNews/0%2C%2C10794~1597362%2C00.html to http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/CarlingCupNews/0%2C%2C10794~1597362%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317095927/http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/KeyDates/0%2C%2C10794~1357319%2C00.html to http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/KeyDates/0%2C%2C10794~1357319%2C00.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)