Talk:2009 UEFA Champions League final

Idiot

I deleted the comment "Last years runners up Chelsea F.C will be determined to win the trophy and get revenge on Manchester united F.C" which was left by a idiot. Y2J RKO (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Nostradamus denied by poor refereeing?--EchetusXe (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 UEFA Champions League final logo

Instead of a picture of the Stadio Olimpico, there should be a logo for the final like the one I found here:

• 2009 UEFA Champions League final logo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.67.200 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. – PeeJay 18:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. 76.111.67.200 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

'Home' and 'Away' Teams

Have UEFA indicated which team will be the "home" team. As the United kit will clash with the Barca kit one team will obviously have to wear an alternate kit. Couldnt see anything in the article about it. You'd think Barca would have to wear the away kit with United being defending Champions and all? Ck786 (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The draw for the quarter-finals, semi-finals and final indicated that the winners of semi-final 2 (Barcelona v Chelsea) would be considered the "home" team. And according to article 18.03 of the UEFA Champions League regulations, both teams wear their home colours, unless there is a clash, in which case the "away" team has to wear alternate colours. – PeeJay 12:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do they have to wear their home colors though? I may be wrong, but I thought AC Milan chose to wear their alternate whites in 2007 against Liverpool, despite being the designated home team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackk6784 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes the home team gets to choose which kit they want, Milan wanted white (because they had pre-2005 never lost a final with white kits, but twice with red-black kits) and Liverpool wanted red (for similar reasons), the same scenario in both 2005 and 2007 chandler ··· 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

UEFA regulation 18.03 reads "For the final, both teams may wear their home colours. However, if there is a clash, the team designated as the “away” team must wear alternative colours. If a clash still exists and the team officials are unable to agree, the UEFA administration will decide on the colours." That seems to indicate that Barcelona do have a choice, but there is no suggestion that they will opt to wear yellow (especially since they wore yellow the last time they lost a final to Manchester United). Manchester United will therefore wear white, as their first choice away kit for European competition would also clash with Barcelona's home kit. – PeeJay 21:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doubting Barcelona will wear their home kit, though they have won European Cups with yellow kits :) I think Milan is sort of a special case just because they have this good run in white, plus it does look very good (I love the 94 one personally [1], almost cocky without the club crest on the shirt, just the scudetto :D) while the current lime yellow doesnt. chandler ··· 22:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Knockout stage table

Does anyone think that the knockout stage table in the "Road to the final" section is actually of any use? Both teams' routes to the final are given in fairly substantial detail above, so the table adds very little. – PeeJay 22:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What if they just need the basic match facts (scorers, times)? Then the table's perfect, rather than having to read through a block of text... Ը२ձւե๓ձռ¹⁷ 08:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If they wanted basic match facts then that's what UEFA Champions League 2008–09, UEFA Champions League 2008–09 group stage and UEFA Champions League 2008–09 knockout stage are for. – PeeJay 10:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want the article into a feature article, then add it. Raymond Giggs 11:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that not having this table will prevent this article from reaching FA status. – PeeJay 12:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole "route to the final" section is much too long. This has come up before; see Talk:2007 UEFA Champions League Final#Featured article?? and subsequent sections of that Talk: page, and Wikipedia:Featured article review/2007 UEFA Champions League Final/archive1, and the current 2007 UEFA Champions League Final#Route to the final. This article should be changed to be like that. Some others are similar, e.g. 2005 UEFA Champions League Final#Route to the final and 2006 UEFA Champions League Final#Route to the final. Some are not, e.g. 2004 UEFA Champions League Final#Route to the final and 2008 UEFA Champions League Final#Route to the final. If extra detail about earlier matches is worth adding, add it to the article about the earlier matches, not the article about this match. jnestorius^(talk)

I don't entirely disagree with that, tbh. The description after the group stage is probably a bit too in-detail, but I just started writing and couldn't stop. Seemed like a reasonable level of detail at the time, tbh. – PeeJay 10:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a natural tendency to write differently about future events, such as in the buildup to a match. Encyclopedias [like most things] work best from hindsight, where the style of presentation is quite different. Now that this event is past rather than future, this becomes more obvious. jnestorius^(talk) 13:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

here comes the stab

• Inquiry into fan stabbing report "The Foreign Office has said it is investigating reports that a Manchester United fan has been stabbed in Rome ahead of the Champions League final."
• Why is there buttock stabbing in Rome? "A rival fan is stabbed at nearly every Roma game but it only hits the headlines when foreign fans are attacked at a game like the Champions League final." Nanonic (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Post-match?

Would it be useful to add a "Post-match" section giving a precis of how the result was reported in both countries, comments from the managers and others on the result and the varying celebrations and incidents that followed? Nanonic (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of writing such a section, but bear with me as I'm trying to revise for my final exam of the year at the same time. – PeeJay 10:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well good luck with both :D Nanonic (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FA?

This looks ready for FA now. Obviously I can't nominate it since I'm not a major contributor. Spiderone 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You can nominate the article if you want. I'll keep an eye on the FAC discussion. I was planning on nominating it myself, but I was waiting until I could afford to buy the DVD of the match, so that I could properly reference the match summary with timestamps. I could also use a bit of a hand with alt text. – PeeJay 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well as the creator and one of the major contributors to this article I dont think its ready yet. Still needs finesse in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Finesse"? How do you mean? – PeeJay 20:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I just seems to have a stutting quality to the prose and lacks a flowing readability. Dont get me wrong the article is technically bang on - there just seems like there is something missing. You own the article anyway so I am sure you know what I mean!--Vintagekits (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Now let's not start saying things we can't take back. I am well aware that no one "owns" the articles on Wikipedia, so that comment was completely unnecessary. Anyway, if you could point out specific examples, maybe we could work together to fix them. – PeeJay 07:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 UEFA Champions League Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead, "...Lionel Messi added another goal 20 minutes from the end to earn Barcelona an historic treble of La Liga", "an" should be replaced with "a". In the Manchester United section, fourth paragraph, how come Mariano's last name is not included? Same section, fifth paragraph, "Meanwhile, a 1–1 draw in Villarreal", the latter is linked to the city, is it supposed to be linked to the city or the team? Same section, same paragraph, what do you mean with this sentence ---> "...firing home a Michael Carrick cross after Arsenal had failed to clear a corner."? Same section, same paragraph, "Park Ji-Sung took advantage of a slip by Kieran Gibbs to double United's aggregate lead in the eighth minute", "slip" like Gibbs tripped? In the First half section, second paragraph, this ---> "having been played the ball by Michael Carrick", what do you mean by "having been played the ball"? That Carrick had the ball? In the Second half, "Manchester United's passes in their attacking third of the field", can you explain? Same section, "A left-wing attack from Ronaldo followed, but after cutting inside, he gave the ball away cheaply", "cheaply"?

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Ticketing section, please link "bank cards" to its correspondence article. In the Manchester United section, please link "Emirates Stadium" once. In the Ticketing section, why is "Fergie's Field" italicized? In the Kits section, why is "Red Devils" italicized?

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Reference 113 is missing Publisher info. There's a dead link.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Is Soccer Bible a reliable source?

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Not very good, per the article's history page.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Cl2009 logo.png is missing its purpose, on the FUR, on why the logo is being used. There seems to be a minor problem with File:2009 Champions League Final opening ceremony.jpg.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Just a suggestion, maybe having File:Official match ball in Rome.jpg on the left, and File:Massimo Busacca.jpg on the right. Again, just a suggestion, and going by the Manual of Style for images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the concerns above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Replies

1A) It seems here that some of these problems stem from the differences between British and American culture. The article is written in British English, and I doubt that someone fluent in British English would find a problem with this criterion.

• According to English articles, "an may be seen in such phrases as "an historic", "an heroic", "an hôtel of excellence", in both British and American usage", so I think that's fine as it is.
  • You know, that's what I was thinking too, but I just wanted to know, obviously I know now.
• As far as I can tell, the player is commonly known as Mariano. UEFA.com credited the goal to "Mariano" and their entire match report consistently refers to him without his surname, so I thought it would be OK to simply refer to him as Mariano in the article text, especially since the name links to the correct article anyway.
  • Check.
• Since Villarreal CF had already been referred to extensively in the preceding paragraphs, I figured a bit of variation might be nice, so I linked the city instead of the team.
  • Check.
• "...firing home a Michael Carrick cross after Arsenal had failed to clear a corner" means that Manchester United took a corner, which Arsenal could only clear to Michael Carrick. Carrick then crossed the ball, which was then put into the goal by John O'Shea.
  • Oh, okay, I wasn't sure about the sentence; it really odd. Check, I guess.
• No, I actually mean that Gibbs slipped. One of his feet gave way under him, allowing Park the time and space to put the ball past Manuel Almunia and into the goal.
  • Oh, okay.
• Yes, that phrase means that Carrick passed the ball to Ronaldo.
  • Check.
• In football statistics, the pitch is typically divided into thirds. The middle third is always neutral, but the other two thirds can either be one team's attacking third or the other team's defensive third. Therefore, this phrase refers to the passes attempted by Manchester United in the third of the pitch closest to the Barcelona goal.
  • Check.
• "Cheaply" means that he gave the ball away without much harassment from the Barcelona defenders. I can't describe exactly what I meant when I wrote that passage as I can't remember that particular moment of the game, but I think you get the gist.
  • Check.
    • Forgive me, for the terms and stuff, I haven't played the sport in a long, long, long time. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1B)

• I have re-linked bank card to ATM card.
  • Check.
• I have removed the second link to Emirates Stadium.
  • Check.
• I have de-italicised both phrases.
  • Check.

2A)

• I assume you mean Reference 13, not Reference 113, but I'm not sure how to attribute the publisher for that reference. There are no copyright symbols on that site, other than for the Manchester United logo. I think the best thing to do would be to assign publisher credit to the author, Andrew Endlar, but I don't know if that's the correct thing to do.
  • Huh? I must've been imagining things.
• The Wayback Machine doesn't have an archived copy of that page yet, and I can't find a cached copy on Google. The page definitely existed though. I'll try to find an alternate source on UEFA.com with the same info, but if that's not possible you'll just have to assume good faith.
  • I'll assume good faith, I believe you'll take care of this.

2C)

• Soccer Bible is considered to be one of the most reliable sources on the internet regarding new equipment such as boots, balls and goalkeeper gloves. They have a partnership with Pro-Direct Soccer, which is the "World's Largest Online Football Store" according to their website.
  • Just needed to be sure, you know.

5) Stability is a little bit of a problem for this article, but considering that the match was the most-watched global sporting event in 2009 (even ahead of Super Bowl XLIII), I'd say it receives a level of edit warring proportionate to the scale of the event.

• Alright. Go Saints. :)

6A)

• I have fixed the "purpose" issue with File:Cl2009 logo.png.
  • Check.
• I don't see that there's much I can do about the deletion nomination for File:2009 Champions League Final opening ceremony.jpg. I have expressed my objection to the nomination at the deletion discussion page. I just hope that this issue is minor enough for you to ignore it.
  • Yeah, like I said, a minor issue.

6B) If I move File:Official match ball in Rome.jpg to the left, then I will have two consecutive images on the same side of the page in the same Level 2 section. Is that kosher?

• Like I said, just a suggestion. ;)

7) Thanks for the comments, TB. I hope I have responded to your concerns adequately (at least as a starting point anyway!) – PeeJay 01:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome, just doing my job as a reviewer. Yup, you've gotten my concerns. I apologize for taking a bit too long to do the review. Quite a large article. Anyways, thank you to PeeJay for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

world wide more tv-viewers than super bowl

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,688476,00.html

according to Spiegel 2009 Champions league final hab more viewers (world wide) than the super bowl of the same year, and was the most watched single sport event in that year —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.149.150 (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Mr Anonymous :) – PeeJay 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 UEFA Champions League Final. 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/20110604141159/http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/matches/season=2009/round=15280/match=302813/prematch/background/index.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/matches/season=2009/round=15280/match=302813/prematch/background/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2009 UEFA Champions League Final. 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.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/matches/season%3D2009/round%3D15280/match%3D302813/prematch/background/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211153548/http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/supercup/fixturesresults/round%3D2000023/match%3D2001219/report%3Drp.html to http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/supercup/fixturesresults/round%3D2000023/match%3D2001219/report%3Drp.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/events/ticketing/news/newsid%3D800961.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/events/ticketing/news/newsid%3D833522.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/matchorganisation/disciplinary/news/newsid%3D828892.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20090622062959/http%3A//www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season%3D2009/intro.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) 06:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 UEFA Champions League Final. 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/20160120233027/http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind%3D1/newsid%3D464106.html to http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind%3D1/newsid%3D464106.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) 14:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1993 UEFA Champions League Final which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)