Talk:2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup

Toronto

I have heard that Toronto will be a host city, at BMO field. That comes directly from Kevin Pipe, at a press conference last year. However, I think it's much more likely that the USA and Canada will co-host. --Scaryice 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess Kevin Pipe doesn't know what he's talking about. Sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.149.144.34 (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Guadeloupe

I have reverted the flag of Guadeloupe to the French flag since Guadeloupe is a French colony. The local flag is unofficial and here WP we have to be neutral and attempt to be precise. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but the CONCACAF website clearly uses the French tricolour to represent Guadeloupe. Interestingly, the local flag for the Martinique team is used, but the tricolour is used for all other French dependencies (French Guyana, Guadeloupe, and Saint-Martin). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes use what the CONCACAF uses. –Howard the Duck 08:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This debate was had previously, in 2007. A local flag was agreed upon, NOT the tricolor. --74.192.30.231 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, now that I go over to 2007 to make sure it's still there, apparently someone (completely disregarding the discussion on THAT page that went on forever) has changed the Guadeloupe flag to the tricolor. So apparently some user decided that days of discussion trying to find a compromise acceptable to everyone should be overturned on a whim. How...stupid. --74.192.30.231 (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Local flag for the Guadeloupe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.28.36 (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The debate in 2007 was over whether to use the French tricolor or a local flag. It was decided that while the tricolor was indeed the "official" flag, a local flag should be used, as Guadeloupe was representing itself (not France) in the Gold Cup. The compromise solution was a white regional flag. That seems to be no longer available, so I propose using the black flag with the sheaf and fleur-de-lis on it, to achieve the same purpose that was already previously agreed upon. Or, if someone wants to restore the white regional flag image, I'd be fine with that too. The tricolor, however, is not the right flag to use, as was previously determined in 2007. --74.192.30.231 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The official flag for this and for all CONCACAF competitions Guadaloupe participates is the French tricolor. –Howard the Duck 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Spoken like someone who has completely missed the point of the 2007 discussion. Or, more likely, hasn't read it. Is Guadeloupe representing France in this tournament, or are they representing Guadeloupe? --74.192.30.231 (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The local flag is not the official flag. The tricolor in this case not only represents France, but Guadaloupe. We solely rely on what CONCACAF uses, any other reference is not reliable or worse, original research. –Howard the Duck 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Which was NOT the decision reached in 2007 by a lot of users (including at least two who are participating in this discussion), the reasons for which are still present. People seemed to think it plenty reliable back then And your charge of (possible) original research fails to hit the mark. In this context, wouldn't that mean designing a NEW flag to represent Guadeloupe? No one is proposing that. --74.192.30.231 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change. Plus, the use of any other flag to represent Guadaloupe in CONCACAF competitions is OR. –Howard the Duck 14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Code for "Now we're doing what I want to do." Well, as long as we're clear... Nor is it OR, prima facie, to use a flag that does indeed represent Guadeloupe. --74.192.30.231 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We should use a local flag. Everyone agreed on it before, so why should it be different now? The local white flag can be found on Guadeloupe's page. MxcnKing926 (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? I can't see no white flag - or even the local flag on Guadeloupe's page. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Realy? Then you aren't looking at the regional standard which is RIGHT THERE at the top of Guadeloupe's page, and which was previously selected in 2007 as the proper flag to represent Guadeloupe in these articles... --74.192.30.231 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Guadeloupe is not represented by a Region standard flag but as an associate member of CONCACAF which happens to be an overseas department of France!!!! This is not a regional tournament of France - but of CONCACAF. So in international events Guadeloupe represents France whether you like it or not! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Guadeloupe is not representing France. Duh. And nice job not spotting what was in front of you. --74.192.30.231 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Guadeloupean football players carry French passports and are citizens of France. Once again you missed spotting that out. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand that perfectly. To repurpose an argument from the 2007 discussion...New York is a state in the U.S., and New Yorkers carry American passports and have seats in the American Congress. If the state of New York were to enter a team in some international tournament (assume for the moment that they would be allowed to do so), would they be more properly represented by the American flag, or by their state flag? --74.192.30.231 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here is not about New York State, but Guadeloupe. If you want to discuss the merits of NY State in an international event wait until that really happens. In such a case I'm not waiting for the date that NY State physically finds itself in Europe or South America. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lemme be clear, Guadaloupe represents themselves. They just use the French tricolor in CONCACAF events because the CONCACAF told them so. –Howard the Duck 01:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

CONCACAF is not the ones telling under what flag Guadeloupe competes in. Guadeloupe is a member of the French National Assembly. That is plenty enough to understand to where their allegiance is. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't always work that way. The Philippines sent delegates to the United States House of Representatives when the then U.S. commonwealth first participated in the 1924 Olympics and they used their own flag. –Howard the Duck 11:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm prerry sure The Philippines were not represented in the US Senate and it wasn't a State of the Union. Guadeloupe is regarded by France as - Viva la F r a n c e! Wee Wee! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This line of argument is essentially futile. It is not doubted that Guadeloupe is part of France, nor is it doubted that the Guadeloupe team is a different body of men than the French team. The issue is what flag is being used to represent the Guadeloupe team, and where there is dispute over which flag is relevant, we defer to the relevant authorities for this competition; that flag, at least according to the CONCACAF website, is that of France. Kevin McE (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

--:In football terms, Guadeloupe use their own flag. For national teams, France's flag represents one team - France. This isn't a list of countries/governments but rather football teams. They represent the island, they should have the island's flag. Would Puerto Rico use the American flag on wiki articles about Caribbean World Cup qualifying? themodelcitizen (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is to record the facts, not establish them. The simple fact is that the flag used to represent Guadeloupe in this tournament is the French tricolour. We follow the lead given by that which is authoritative, in this case, CONCACAF. As to TMC's assertion about the French flag only representing one team, he/she has obviously never seen FIFA's pages on New Caledonia. Kevin McE (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This violates the consensus established in 2007. You should know that...you were there. Re-read. --74.192.30.231 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that anything that can be considered a consensus was established in that discussion, then you need to re-read it. What was established there is that the flag that you wish to show is only a flag of Basse-Terre, not of the whole island. Kevin McE (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you'll read above, you'll see that I noted the white regional flag was the one selected in 2007. It, however, does not seem to be available, or I would be advocating its selection instead. Even now, if someone wants to create a small icon version of it, that is the flag I would advocate. It pays to read before you mischaracterize my position. --74.192.30.231 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We should not establish facts; in this case use a flag clearly not intended for official use. I see no reason to use the local flag as a supporter flag but the official flag is to be used in offical documents such as a match report. Why is there such a resentment towards the tricolore? --Ohnder (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about resentment? Don't muddy the issue with loaded words, and read (or re-read) the 2007 discussion. --74.192.30.231 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, guys just put any flag, it doesn't matter, the most important are matches not flags especially that this overseas territory is using both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerTatoo (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, this topic brings up a lot of emotional sentiments. Is there an independence movement in Guadeloupe (similiar to what was in Quebec) that folks come on here with just IP addresses and not their login names that is at odds against the French government. Guadeloupe is represented in the French National Assembly - so what gives? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So if someone comes on with an IP address, even an American one like mine, you think they're advocating Guadeloupe independence? --74.192.30.231 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you've got something to hide.... Too bad! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it obvious that I have something to hide? You've just offered up an ad hominem circumstantial as if it were at all justified. You need a lesson in basic logic, stat. --74.192.30.231 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Logic tells me you've been banished from WP and that this is your only recourse at trying to voice opinion.... Weak opinion that is. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Then again, I say your logic is poor. I'd help you with that, but I don't have the years it would take. --74.192.30.231 (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sad, that a cloaking IP would even consider wasting valuable time. Especially, in a losing cause. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Choose the flag you think is right. It will almost certainly be the tricolor, which I still disagree with, but since no one seems willing to respect the previous consensus, and since that is the basis for my main argument, there doesn't seem to be much point continuing the discussion...especially when I'd just be giving Brudder an excuse to continue displaying his lack of observational and critical thinking skills. Sorry to deprive you all of THAT entertainment... --74.192.30.231 (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Consenus would prevail with enough evidence that on the CONCACAF website Guadeloupe is represented with the tricolor flag to which they are officially represented by. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the flags are brought out and the anthems played before the games. Has anyone checked to see what flag they used at the games for the anthems? That is the flag that should be used on this page. Aardhart (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else find User:74.192.30.231's style of argument, insistence, rudeness to other contributors, and failure to distinguish between his opinion and the concept of consensus curiously familiar to those who have had dealing with one Grant Alpaugh? Just wondering.... Kevin McE (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, not Grant. You and I have indeed crossed paths before, however, and it's been just as pleasant an experience for both of us as it was last time...and for the same reasons... --74.192.30.231 (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But not under your current (obscured) identity. So are you willing to admit which banned user you are, or which user you are being a sockpuppet of? Kevin McE (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please use the local flag. For instance, when the Faeroe Islands compete, they use their local flag, not the Danish flag. Same principle here. ALSO, I have seen an image (which I have to dig up on the internet) where Guadeloupe held the convention for the Caribbean Football Union and the backdrop was the huge local flag of Guadeloupe, not the French flag. The supporters also wave the local flag. French flag looks incredibly awkward for a tournament in the Americas. Thanks for listening. AngeliqueGarneau (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A French flag only looks "awkward" to those who are not aware that this is French territory. The reason why Faroe Islands, constituent countries of the UK, and other non-sovereign national teams use their own flags in these articles is that they use those flags in the authoritative publications and events of the organising bodies: the reason why Guadeloupe and New Caledonia use the French flag, apart from the simple fact that they are part of France, is that their respective confederations and FIFA use their flags, and we, as an encyclopeadia, follow the precedent of the appropriate authority. Kevin McE (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it looks awkward because they are playing for Guadeloupe, not for France. And yes, I am aware that Guadeloupe is an overseas territory of France. That's what this whole discussion is about. But apparently you don't know that the Faeroe Islands are a Danish possession, not British, so I think you lost your license to be condescending and pedantic. Oopla 05:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you ought to learn how to read a comma separated list before you accuse people of ignorance. Kevin McE (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Time

Since all of the games are going to be played in the United States, might I suggest that we express all of the times in terms of Eastern Daylight Time? That's easier to read for everybody (wherever you live) than expressing everything in terms of local time and being forced to perform a time conversion for some of the games and not for others. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed but don't want to change myselfNlsanand (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The times for the semifinals on the current page are wrong, so I'm going to fix them. They are listed as "19:00 UTC-5" and "22:00 UTC-5", whereas they should be either "19:00 UTC-4" and "22:00 UTC-4" or "18:00 UTC-5" and "21:00 UTC-5". For consistency with the rest of the page, I'm going to stay with local time, rather than Eastern Daylight Time, but don't let that stop anyone from changing the whole page (and the Group Stage page) to all be in Eastern Daylight Time instead. Incremental Improvements (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Group Rankings

Group rankings next to the teams in this article is unnecessary, and is rather unclear as to what it means in the form it's being added in. Apstockholm (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: This information of FIFA team rankings belongs up front in the section where teams qualified. Maybe rewritten as a table. The standings table is not the place for this. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ranking of 3rd placed teams

Undoubtedly this will be relevant in due time, but at this stage (each team has played one match) it is entirely meaningless. We do not know who will occupy the third spots (at this moment, every team is a potential occupier), how many points they will amass in doing so (could be anything from 1 to 4). Remove, and return when it has some meaning; I would suggest after the games on 10th July, when the target for groups B and C will have been set. Kevin McE (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly, but want to thank you for bringing this to talk. You could use the same logic for not displaying the group tables, as every team could potentially qualify. In the 2010 World Cup qualifying article, the UEFA section shows the 2nd place teams, and their ranking, and all but one will go through, just like in this tournament. I think that especially since the top two third place teams are differentiated from the other, this table has value. If they were all tied or something, then fine, but as it is, I see no harm in including something that we will absolutely include a few days from now. Anyway, those are my thoughts, but I honestly don't feel all that strongly either way. My point is more than this will certainly be in the article a week from now, and I disagree that it has no value as it currently stands. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Disgaree: Enough information there for it to be acknowledged and displayed. 2010 WC UEFA Qualifiers have had a standings table for 2nd placed teams since day one. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree...why not include? Don't really see what you're saving. Nlsanand (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Scenarios

Okay, are we inserting scenarios for this or no? I would like a group consensus. it is used to be articles put scenarios prior to final matchday. However, there seems to have been elimination of the previosuly agreed consensus that they should be inserted. This was basically by some dillholes who kept reverting it, despite a convention to include them. By the time the edit war was finished, there was no need to keep the scenarios. I would prefer to insert them as it provides timely information on the tournament, but will leave this open til tomorrow, and will insert depending on the reactions we see here. Nlsanand (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say put them in. It doesn't really clutter things up much, and it is useful information (especially when two of the third-place teams will make it, as that makes the scenarios much more complicated with things depending on what happens in other groups). PiGuy314 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Inserted, tried to avoid too much wordiness, concentrating on key issues. Nlsanand (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I don't think we need to repeat that a team has qualified when this would already be indicated in the table. Nlsanand (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiebreaking criteria

Can someone confirm the tiebreak criteria? I used the 2007 one, but I haven't been able to source a new tiebreaker. Would like confirmation if possible. I really want to avoid not having that info in the article, as everyone must realize that it will eventually be important. Nlsanand (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gold Cup site [1] has ties broken by goal differential, contrary to how the comments in the page justify not currently ranking Haiti over Honduras. crynyd (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Check the Gold Cup regulations on this CONCACAF page. crynyd (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job! I've been looking for this info for a while now. I'll add the official tie-breakers to the article. Keep it up! MxcnKing926 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Now the website has been corrected to follow CONCACAF's own rules. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if one team in a three-way tie is eliminated, do the other two start over from the beginning or do they continue from whatever tiebreaker eliminated the previous team? It could make a difference if Jamaica wins 1-0 and Costa Rica loses 2-1 to Canada; in the three-way tie for second Jamaica would be eliminated on head-to-head goals scored. If the two remaining teams start over, El Salvador would get second on head-to-head; if not, Costa Rica would get second on overall goals scored. The regulations cited above aren't clear on this point. PiGuy314 (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

After goals scored head to head, it goes to goal difference in all matches (there's no "reset" after a tiebreaker's applied). So in that case...Costa Rica would eventually advance. However, if they only beat Canada 1-0 then it would go to drawing of lots, as they would be tied on that the last two tiebreakers as well. Nlsanand (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Groups A and B

By my math, if MEX defeats PAN this evening, CAN and USA can be shaded as having clinched Quarterfinal berths; in that case, CAN and USA could do no worse than falling into 3rd place in their respective groups on tiebreakers in a 3-way tie at 6 points, and the 3rd-place team from Group C would have no more than 3 points (winner of PAN/NCA). MrArticleOne (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true even if the match is a draw (third place couldn't be any higher than four points if that happens). Guadeloupe (and Mexico, if they win rather than draw) would also be guaranteed a place in the quarterfinals. PiGuy314 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The other thing to think about is that tonight's result may change the scenarios that have just been put in the article. They may not be accurate as currently stated. Kingnavland (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. If Mexico wins, we can shade Mexico, Guadeloupe, Canada, United States. If it's a draw, Guadeloupe, Canada, and United States all get the shade. If Panama wins, however, nobody's shaded, as 6-6-6-0 will be possible everywhere. (I should know, I've been the one adding the notes of please don't shade Canada and USA.) Wjmorris3 (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mexico v Panama

Please remember WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTOPINION. In other words, I don't care about how awful Mexican fans supposedly are, or whether or not Aguirre was actually trying to stop the ball, or how Panama was supposedly wasting time, except as those topics are relevant to the article. The question is, should there be a section for the Mexico-Panama controversy? It's not every day a manager gets sent off, and this article on the Gold Cup website indicates that the disciplinary committee will be getting involved. Kingnavland (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be a note about it somewhere. Question is, should it be in its own section, or should there be a little note under the match. I think having a little note works best since it doesn't make much sense to have an entire section devoted to one detail. If there were other controversies, then I think there should be a devoted to such controversies. MxcnKing926 (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be included in the Group B summary to be written up as per prior year articles. Nlsanand (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Article with reference source. Go for it! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Is there an example somewhere that I could look at? Kingnavland (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. The 2005 edition has a section you can look at. MxcnKing926 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Scenarios through July 10 games

Here's where teams will finish within Groups B and C, assuming I understand the tiebreakers correctly:

Group B:

• If neither USA nor Honduras lose, the top three will be USA, Honduras, Haiti.
• Honduras lose and USA do not win,: Haiti/USA (Haiti if they win, USA if they draw) followed by Grenada.
• Honduras lose and USA win:
  • Honduras lose by 1: USA, Haiti, Honduras
  • Honduras lose by 2: USA, Haiti, Grenada
  • Honduras lose by 3+: USA, Grenada, Haiti
• USA lose and Honduras draw: Haiti, USA, Honduras
• USA lose and Honduras win:
  • USA lose by 1: USA, Haiti, Honduras
  • USA lose by 2 or 3: Haiti, USA, Honduras
  • USA lose by 4+: Haiti, Honduras, USA

Note that Haiti are guaranteed a top-three spot, so all they have to do to qualify is avoid a three-goal loss (so they stay ahead of Jamaica).

Group C:

• Guadeloupe and Panama win: Guadeloupe, Mexico/Panama (based on goal difference, but both will qualify anyway)
• Otherwise: Mexico and Guadeloupe are #1 and #2 (Mexico #1 if they win, Guadeloupe if they win or draw), Panama is #3 with a win or draw (but qualify only with a win), Nicaragua is #3 with a win.

This should help with figuring out scenarios, which I'm working on in more detail at the moment. PiGuy314 (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For now, I'm not including scenarios for Group B or C that are dependent on results in the other one on the main page (too complicated). But here they are, in case consensus is to include them: Group B:

• Honduras will qualify if:
  • they defeat or draw with Grenada, OR
  • they lose by one goal AND USA defeat Haiti AND:
    • Nicaragua draw with Panama or win by one goal, OR
    • Nicaragua win by two goals AND Honduras score as many goals as Nicaragua. (If they score one fewer, Nicaragua and Honduras will draw lots.)
• Haiti will qualify if:
  • they defeat or draw with USA or lose by one or two goals, OR
  • Grenada defeat Honduras by one or two goals, OR
  • Panama and Nicaragua draw, OR
  • they lose by three goals AND Nicaragua win by one goal, OR
  • they lose by three goals AND Nicaragua win by two goals AND Nicaragua do not score two more goals than Haiti, OR
  • they lose by four goals AND Nicaragua win by one goal AND Nicaragua do not score two more goals than Haiti. (In the last two, if they are outscored by exactly two, Nicaragua and Haiti will draw lots.)
• Grenada will qualify if:
  • they defeat Honduras by at least five goals, OR
  • they win by four goals AND Nicaragua defeat Panama by one goal, OR
  • they win by three or four goals AND:
    • USA defeat Haiti, OR
    • Nicaragua defeat Panama by two fewer goals AND Grenada score more goals than Nicaragua (if equal, draw lots); OR
  • they win by at least two goals AND Nicaragua and Panama draw, OR
  • they win AND Nicaragua and Panama draw AND USA do not defeat Haiti.

Group C:

• Panama will qualify if they defeat Nicaragua.
• Nicaragua will qualify if:
  • they defeat Panama by at least three goals, OR
  • they win by one or two goals AND:
    • Haiti defeat or draw with USA AND:
      • Grenada defeat Honduras by at most one more goal, OR
      • Grenada win by two more goals AND Nicaragua score more goals than Grenada (if equal, draw lots); OR
    • Haiti lose AND:
      • Grenada win by exactly two goals, OR
      • Grenada win by one goal AND Nicaragua win by two goals AND Nicaragua score at least two more goals than Honduras (if one more, draw lots), OR
      • Grenada win by at least three goals, draw, or lose AND:
        • Combined margin of Haiti loss and Nicaragua win is at least six goals, OR
        • Combined margin of Haiti loss and Nicaragua win is five goals AND Nicaragua score at least three more goals than Haiti (if two more, draw lots).

PiGuy314 (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, learn math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.33.71 (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

lineup images

Does anyone know how to make .svg images of the starting lineups a la UEFA Euro 2008 knockout stage? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

[bangs head on table] --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Game Reports, CONCACAF, Jack Carter

Readers are invited to check out the game reports. My response is, "What the !@#$%%^&* ?" First, if you use Firefox and deploy cookie control, you'll notice that it takes approximately 13 cookie transactions for the report to appear. Beautiful. The report form is confusing and difficult to navigate. This is unnecessary. The standard FIFA game reports are more than adequate, they're the best sports reports in existence. Warning: from here on this post is speculation, and not friendly speculation. This report smells like it's connected to Jack Carter--it's symptomatic and it doesn't smell good. Did CONCACAF pay too much $ to someone connected to Carter to program this inferior game report? If so it's typical. How did a sleazy entrepreneur from a small economy of our zone get control of our regional soccer confederation? Why doesn't someone get in Uebermandarin Blatter's face and say enough? Tapered (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

....okay.Apstockholm (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

3rd place game?

Will there not be a match between Honduras and Costa Rica for third place? If so why do they not play third place matches anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.133.49 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not a 3rd place match at the Gold Cup. They've played it "off and on" since the Gold Cup started, and eventually got rid of it a few tournaments ago because there was little motivation for the teams to win. Players didn't care because the were out of contention. Fans didn't want to pay for tickets. It was a headache to plan it. They just decided that the result of crowning a third place team just wasn't worth all of the effort. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

8th Title?

Why does it say this is Mexico's eighth title? This is the fifth time they won the CONCACAF Gold Cup. I'm going to correct that. Someone please respond to me explaining why it's the eighth title if you care to change it back. 72.219.227.230 (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gold Cup is just a rebranding of the CONCACAF Championship (as evidenced that the original championship is now just a redirect to Gold Cup): that Mexico have picked up a particular trophy 5 times is considerably less relevant than that they have taken a title 8 times, and so reverted. Kevin McE (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You can also look at the UEFA Champions League article that clearly shows Barcelona with 3 titles, despite winning one when it was still called the "European Cup." This is the same issue and so I'm changing everything back to "8 titles." Mxcn_King_926 20:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but the sentence originally stated that Mexico won its fifth Gold Cup, and eighth overall. Grammatically the sentence is ambiguous as it indicated that they had won five titles AND eight titles. I made a slight edit to the sentence to read that "Mexico won its fifth Gold Cup and eight overall CONCACAF Championship." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.42.247 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Reliant stadium houston.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Reliant stadium houston.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2009 CONCACAF Gold 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_sports?id=161453263
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4657
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626034857/http://www.goldcup.org:80/page/GoldCup/AwardsDetail/0,,12802~1678604,00.html to http://www.goldcup.org/page/GoldCup/AwardsDetail/0,,12802~1678604,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308101315/http://www.concacaf.com:80/competitions/goldcup/2009/ to http://www.concacaf.com/competitions/goldcup/2009/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2009 CONCACAF Gold 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/20090126143544/http://fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/calendar%26live/51/52/61/internationalmc-fifa-dates-2008-2014-updateoctober2008-e.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/calendar%26live/51/52/61/internationalmc-fifa-dates-2008-2014-updateoctober2008-e.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_sports?id=161453263
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090322063013/http://www.concacaf.com/competitions/goldcup/2009/teamDetail.aspx?id=42 to http://www.concacaf.com/competitions/goldcup/2009/teamDetail.aspx?id=42
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4657
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4693
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716055136/http://www.goldcup.org/page/GoldCup/AwardsDetail/0%2C%2C12802~1678601%2C00.html to http://www.goldcup.org/page/GoldCup/AwardsDetail/0%2C%2C12802~1678601%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808053240/http://www.goldcup.org/page/GoldCup/AwardsDetail/0%2C%2C12802~1678600%2C00.html to http://www.goldcup.org/page/GoldCup/AwardsDetail/0%2C%2C12802~1678600%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108131407/http://www.goldcup.org/page/GoldCup/AwardsDetail/0%2C%2C12802~1678602%2C00.html to http://www.goldcup.org/page/GoldCup/AwardsDetail/0%2C%2C12802~1678602%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108131154/http://www.goldcup.org/page/GoldCup/AwardsDetail/0%2C%2C12802~1678603%2C00.html to http://www.goldcup.org/page/GoldCup/AwardsDetail/0%2C%2C12802~1678603%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goldcup.org/page/GoldCup/AwardsDetail/0%2C%2C12802~1678604%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.concacaf.com/competitions/goldcup/2009/

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) 10:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)