Talk:Korea Republic national football team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Korea Republic national football team article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject on Football The article on Korea Republic national football team is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football (soccer) related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Map of Korea WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea.


Contents

[edit] POV

Hmm.. they won AFC twice. The last won AFC they won was back in 1960! So saying that they are most successful asian team is a POV --Deepak|वार्ता 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The South Korea national football team has not only won the AFC Championship twice, but has also qualified for seven World Cup finals (far more than any other Asian team). And they even reached the semi-finals in 2002. They are consistently ranked one of the top teams in Asia by FIFA and have the undisputed reputation of having the best record. Please remove tag.--Sir Edgar 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I acknowledge the fact that South Korea is one of the most formidable football teams in Asia but saying that they are the best is a POV. If it was the best, then it should have won the AFC atleast once in the past two decades. Saying that Brazil is currently the world's best football team makes sense as it has won the world cup 5 times. As far as I know, Japan won the last AFC cup. Also, Iran, KSA and Japan have won more Asian cup titles than South Korea. --Deepak|वार्ता 17:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Many teams do not field their best players for the AFC, including South Korea. Anyhow, you are focusing too much on the AFC, while I am talking from a historical perspective which is inclusive of the World Cup, Olympics, other international tournaments, friendlies, and yes, the AFC. It is not based on current ranking or simply on performance in Asian competitions. The highest-ranking Asian football team, according to FIFA, is currently Japan.

And, of course, almost any football fan would agree that Brazil "has been the world's most successful football team". In fact, the Brazil national football team article says just that: "The Brazilian national football team is the most successful national football team in the world, with five FIFA World Cup victories..." Brazil has only won two World Cup tournaments since 1970. ;)--Sir Edgar 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Believe me.. I am a big fan of the South Korean team but saying that they are best is a POV. You've gotta understand that this is an encyclopedia and making such claims is not appreciated (atleast in my eyes). How about changing the sentence to South Korea has been one of the most successful Asian teams. --Deepak|वार्ता 17:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

good point deepak, though your claims have certain flaws... it's true south korea have only won 2 Asian cups in the past, but their national team is the strongest team from AFC, judging by their WC and many other performances. if you are to label teams good or bad by solely looking at their regional performances and FIFA rankings, you can also say Mexico and Costa Rica are World's top teams.(believe me, they're good teams but up against other european nations? i don't think so) FIFA rankings are one of the most dubious ways to rank teams since if a team plays against likes of Nepal, Luxembourg, Cook Islands and Puerto Rico etc, surely they would register easy wins and gain many points, however, if you look at most strong teams from around the world, they tend to play against strong opponents who can match their standards so the wins don't come so easy. 210.55.227.202 02:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I said it twice and I say it again "South Korea is one of the best Asian teams" but on what basis can one say they have been the most successful Asian teams. The South Korean team made headlines only during the previous World Cup after beating Italy and Spain. Saying that the South Korean team doesn't field all of its top players for the Asian cup is no excuse. During the world cup, Spain and Italy didn't field many of their top players due to injury problems. I read an article in the Daily Mirror according to which the actual reason for Spain and Italy's loss to South Korea was the fact that these teams were playing too many regional matches hampering their players' performance level. But according to me, South Korea played really well and even though luck favoured them, I don't wanna take any credit away from them. All I am saying is to make the 1st para more encyclopedic. Thanks --Deepak|वार्ता 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you question the Brazilian team's article, too, then?--Sir Edgar 01:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

on what basis you say deepak? the fact that south korea is the only asian team to have made it to WC finals 7 times (6 consecutive since 1986) and hence, their success of last WC was bound to happen, after so many attempts in the past - you say they only played well in 2002, but if you watched them in the past, particularly 86,90 and 94 WC, they were unlucky to have not won any game during those tournaments but they came so close (2-2 draw with spain, 2-3 loss to germany, 2-3 loss to italy, 1-1 draw with bulgaria) i think koreans traditionally have had bad luck with their group draws, hence, maybe their not-so-impressive WC results prior to 2002. but lets go back to original discussion, its true you can't field top teams every match, but atleast you can enter them for tournaments, thats not the case for asian cups- koreans have always undervalued the significance of asian cups, thats why they don't bother entering their top players unlike iran, japan and saudi who enter their full-strength teams- it has nothing to do with injuries, italy and spain did have full-strengh squads for 2002 WC eventhough some didn't play in every game due to injuries etc - missing a few games due to injury is different to not entering at all well, all i can say is like you said, wiki is an encyclopedia and i think its important to state the facts - that the south korean football team is indeed the best in asia thank you very much, (eventhough i support iran) you see bahrain and kuwait doing well in asian cups, are they really that good? and just for fact, eventhough korea only won asian cup 2 times, they have reached finals more than any other team (5 times), iran 3, saudi 3, and japan 3. Luckyj 10:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If you really wanna look at facts then Japan is ranked higher than Korea in FIFA rankings. Anyway, I think this is becoming more of an one man battle and I feel that arguing is one of the most unproductive thing man can ever do. So from my side, this discussion is over. I guess Wikipedia can never gain the reputation of being a reliable source. Thanks --Deepak|वार्ता 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You're not really arguing but keeping up the debate. It's been fairly professional and respectful so far, but stating that "...Wikipedia can never gain the reputation of being a reliable source." weakens your position. If you are indeed correct, then the only way to correct the situation is to come to a consensus rather then get up and quit. So on a personal level, I urge you to continue with your points - this section is a very interesting part of the article. --Sqrfrk 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


This page is just a complete mess, needs to be completely rewritten. The page was written as if this were the media guide for the Korean national side. At least the author mentions that there have been past controversies involving Korea benefitting from then - something that appears lost on all the Korea-supporters complaining about the referee in the Switzerland match.

[edit] dear deepak

i understand what you mean but bringing up FIFA rankings? i explained to you how unreliable FIFA rankings are...Mexico is ranked 6th... FIFA ranking is not a good indicator of how a team performs at world stage...you see, mexico and USA are ranked higher than england, italy, portugal, germany etc and just for fact, that highly ranked japan team lost to team USA 2-3 last week, the US team that was well-beaten by koreans 1-2 just 5 days earlier and just because majority of ppl have different opinion to yours doesnt mean its biased and unreliable... - btw you started this argument and others r just stating their different views...just trying to state the facts, thats what encyclopedias do :) Luckyj 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And South Korea beat Mexico 1-0 just last week.--Sir Edgar 06:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in this argument, but you just said , "because majority of ppl have different opinion to yours doesnt mean its biased and unreliable", you yourself are admitting that it is an opinion. Whether or not it is the most popular opinion is beside the point; the fact remains that it is an opinion and should not be presented as a fact. You could probably say, "Many people believe that South Korea is the most successful team in Asia". 195.93.21.105 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

clever argument...however in this case, the 'opinion' stems from the fact - this is not a matter of debate, we're here to talk about the facts, who would deny that the brazillian football team is the most succesful team in the world? same goes for south korea, their achievement is the best in asia, hence making them the most succesful team in asia. and the opinion that was talked about, doesnt mean opinion on whther south korea is the most succesful in asia or not, it was opinion on how deepaks argument was invalid 202.37.167.156 04:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with many of you in that we need to look beyond Korea's Asian Cup records and its FIFA rankings. For example, by looking at the Copa América records, one might be inclined to think that Brazil is the 3rd best team in South America (it has 7 championships compared to 14 for both Uruguay and Argentina). But I do agree that implying Korea has been the most successful Asian team is a POV, seeing their combined performances in the Olympics, Asian Cup, and the World Cup. The only things that really stick out in my mind are their 7 appearances (6 straight) in the WC (compared to 4/3 for KSA/Japan) and the '02 WC performance (1 round better than North Korea). Not too convincing imo. 35.9.42.226 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best team in Asia

Since there is no clear way to state that SK is the best team in Asia, why not mitigate the sentence and say it is one of the best? The reader that will find that SK has the best asian record of World Cup partecipations, while has lagged behind other countries in recent AFCs.

Saying that SK has rivals (Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran) is not a shame, it is just the truth.--Panairjdde 08:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no statement saying "best team in Asia". It says "most successful national team in Asia". Entering the World Cup finals more than any other country and reaching the semi-finals in 2002 as well as performing well in regional tournaments and having good records against Japan, China, etc. makes South Korea the most successful in football.--Sir Edgar 08:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Even if success is measured only on numebr of WC partecipations, what about the other reverts?--Panairjdde 09:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept a large part of your edits. I still think you need to get over the Italian team's defeat in 2002. Even Sepp Blatter, who you like to quote so much, said that team didn't play that well.--Sir Edgar 23:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But when an incompetent refree send your best player away, and stops a man in front of the keeper with the possibility of a golden goal for a non-existen off-side (after many others in the qualification matches) you get pissed.
And futhermore, I am not against South Korea, but againt all those (including the Turkey national football team article editors) that make weasel claims for their teams.
I am readding the bit about the Asian cup. I also kindly ask you to provide a reference for the claim about the first professional league of Asia, since I found that Saudi Arabia first league is older.--Panairjdde 09:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The reference Sir Edgar provided for the claim says: "Korea was the first country in Asia to field a professional team. The professional league, first established in 1983,..." It does not say that the professional league was the first, it says that the first professional team was Korean, and that the professional league started in 1983. Any reference that it was the first profesional league?--Panairjdde 10:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
My mistake with the bad link. I've put in a reference to another article that states the following:
"Korea was the first to start the league in the year 1982 and it was only in the 90's that Japan and China have started professional leagues to take their football into new heights."
If you have evidence that Saudi Arabia's professional football league was first in Asia, then provide it.
Back to what you were talking about with the Italian team... The player in question, Totti, was sent off for alleged diving. It is difficult to determine whether he really dived or not. That depends on the angle of the camera. Regardless, even if it was a bad call, it's one of many during the tournament and the history of the game. Panairjdde, do you bother to mention how a Spanish player punched a goal in during the Paraguay game? Or how an American player used his hand to block a goal during the quarterfinal game against Mexico?http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2002/world_cup/news/2002/06/16/us_mexico_gamer/
Mexico's coach Javier Aguirre: "There was a hand in the air, the referee didn't see it but it was on the big screen and 40,00 spectators saw it."
The 1986 FIFA World Cup barely mentions Maradona's infamous "Hand of God". Yet, you seem to focus on getting any possible dirt against the South Korean team in the 2002 FIFA World Cup (match reports) article. Yet, all you can state are inferences.
Anyhow, I've heard Totti has a reputation for diving. Wasn't he recently banned by the UEFA for three games for something like that?
The fact of the matter is Italy played poorly. Most people, except Italian fans, think they deserved to lose. And what makes you think Italy would have beat South Korea on penalties? South Korea beat Spain on penalties 5-3 in the quarterfinal of 2002.--Sir Edgar 07:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not the place for discussing relative merits of South Korean and Italian football. That said, I simply wrote that the yellow card was not correct, that Blatter said so too, and that for his poor direction Moreno was sent home. Everything I wrote is backed by references, so it is not "dirt" but facts.
As regards the first Asian professional league, notice that:
  1. This discussion should go to K-League (if you agree, please feel free to move it there)
  2. Your reference http://www.longlivesoccer.com/asianfootball.htm does not say KFA was the first professional league in Asia, but that it was the first among Japan, South Korea and China:
    "Japan, South Korea and China has progressed in the last few years due to their youth development programme and start of professional leagues in their respective countries. Korea was the first to start the league in the year 1982 and it was only in the 90's that Japan and China have started professional leagues to take their football into new heights."
  3. The Saudi Arabian Football Federation has a page [1] in which it claims Saudi Premier League to have been created in 1959 and reconstituted in 1971/1974. If you check in Talk:K-League, I asked if there is any reference that SAFF was not professional before 1983, when KFA started.
Please notice how I always tried to be detached and professional in editing the articles: I do 'not "focus on getting any possible dirt against the South Korean team", so please hold back your attacks. Thanks. --Panairjdde 11:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your self-commentary that you try to be detached and professional in your editing. You have yet to deny an anti-Korean stance (see User talk:Panairjdde). Regardless, I don't see any problem with editing it to "East Asia" for the first professional football league.--Sir Edgar 04:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not care about your opinion on me, and for this reason I shall not defend myself from your attacks — and please notice, you should prove I am wrong, not pretending I should prove I am right!.
As regards Wikipedia, do you agree that the reference to the lead on professional league institution should go to Korean Football Association or in K-League, instead of inside South Korea national football team article?--Panairjdde 08:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it should stay because the Japan national football team page also mentions its J. League. Each article should be consistent in format.--Sir Edgar 00:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, removed from both.--Panairjdde 09:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Panairjdde - I think you missed the context for mentioning the J. League in the Japanese national team article. Professionalization was arguably the single most important development in Japanese soccer, and a reason why the qualification for the 1994 World Cup was significant.
Now, I don't know the context for mentioning the K. League in the South Korea article, but I imagine there was some context to it. Either way, I disagree with editing other articles for the sake of maintaining some arbitrary standard set for this article. Ytny 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in, but Japan didn't make it to US 94 WC, they made their WC debut in 1998. 202.37.68.100 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for barging in, but I was aware that Japan didn't qualify in '94 - I of course meant the qualification campaign. My mistake. Ytny 06:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panairjdde

please explain it to us the significance of having the paragraph; In the last six editions of Asia Cup, however, South Korea lagged behind other teams, such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and China?

it seems to me, that you are not being very fair on this particular article - perhaps you're personally not happy with South Korean Soccer team?

why don't you go and add similar paragraphs to other articles such as; Italian National Soccer team's recent struggle (failed to progress past group stage in EURO 2004 etc)

I'm sure if you put more effort into other articles, you can achieve similar feat - however i think you are too busy trying to show the negative sides of South Korean Soccer team.

funny thing is, since when was the AFC asian cup such a BIG tournament? i mean, it is a continental championship, but it lacks the intensity and standards of European championships or African cup of nations

202.37.68.100 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was odd too. While the AFC has certainly made an effort to raise the Asian Cup's profile (with some success), qualification for the World Cup and performance at the Finals is (and perhaps always will be) the measuring stick for Asian teams.
And the term "lagged behind" seems inappropriate for a tournament held only every four years, when Korea is trailing the co-leaders by a whopping one championship. You can't "lag behind" in something that isn't tracked with a reasonably degree of continuity.
It's also worth pointing out that even Euro was not considered an important tournament until the mid-80s, and outside of Europe, continental tournaments are generally taken with varying degrees of seriousness. Ytny 06:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with Ytny, so I changed that particular phrase.
139.80.55.27 12:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I thank all of my South Korean friends for giving me the honour of a section with my name in SKnft talk page.
The significance of that particular sentence, which is a footnote, can be understood only within its context. The sentence is:
"Since the 1950s, South Korea has emerged as a major football power in Asia, winning several prestigious Asian football championships, including the first two Asian Cup tournaments."
What does this sentence mean? That SK has been "winning several prestigious Asian football championships" since 1950s. Now, what are these "prestigious Asian football championships, including the first two Asian Cup tournaments"? They are exactly the "the first two Asian Cup tournaments", no more, no less. So a footnote reporting SK peformance in the most important continental competition is important to give the reader an objective view of the matter. Am I wrong?
Now, the matter seems to be: are the words "South Korea lagged behind other teams, such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and China" a correct statement to show the performance of SKnft in Asia Cup? In Asian Cup article is reported that, in the last six competitions, the positions are:
1) Saudi Arabia - 1st x 3 2nd x 2
2) Japan - 1st x 3
3) China - 2nd x 2 3rd x 1 4th x 2
4) South Korea - 2nd x 1 3rd x 1
Despite the fact that the difference between China nft and South Korea nft is small, is this charter wrong?
Thanks for discussing this matter with civility.--Panairjdde 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's the phrasing "lagged behind", not the actual content of your edit, that's problematic. You can state the facts without using the phrase, which isn't well defined and not appropriate for describing performance in a quadrennial event, in my opinion. The way you write it, it's easy for the reader to infer that the performance at the Asian Cup is a key factor in comparing Asian national teams and that there is any kind of continuity from tournament to tournament.
A simple "South Korea has not performed as well as its continental rivals at the Asian Cup" with context, i.e. the first two Asian Cups and their World Cup appearances should be fine. Ytny 06:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the lagged behind, that seems to hurt many people beyond my will. How is it, now?--Panairjdde 08:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Facts vs. Opinion

LOL, The Czechs are ranked 2nd and USA is ranked 4th. HAH, and USA is expected to end last in their group. Yes, FIFA rankings are quite reliable. Sarcasm aside, the Elo ratings are much more reliable. So please, if we're going to argue which side is the better Asian team, don't use a ratings system as dubious as Fifa. Let's look at the results and facts, not opinions.

Fact: Korea has made it to its sixth consecutive World Cup, yes, SIXTH. Hell, even Team USA is at its fifth. Japan is at its third. Yes, Korea has been dominating Asian football longer than Japan has.

Fact: Korea is the only Asian team to make it to the semifinals.

Fact: Whether or not Korea shows its best team in the Asian Cup, Korea still finishes strong.

--Nissi Kim 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change the Jerseys

They aren't orange, they're red. Nike Korea 2006 World Cup Red Official Soccer Jersey http://www.footballfanatics.com/htmlpages/root/WorldCup/Korea/Jerseys/Korea112790.html

[edit] Compromise over Panair's Statements

I doubt this is compromise since there was an argument over fact and assumption.. Because Korea hasn't performed "strong" in the previous Asian cups, you can't assume that Korea has "lagged behind". In fact, on the world stage, Korea has better odds than the rest of the Asian continent in World Cup Germany. For example, you can't say that because that it's night time and assume that the Sun has died.

Therefore, I decided to input a statement. Please, lets drop the Edit wars and quit inputting biased opinions. If this continues, I might have the urge to go to the Italian article and write assumptions and call them facts. --Nissi Kim 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korea’s World Cup qualification record

Korea has been consistently qualifying for the World Cup and that has to be given to them. However, it is worth clearly looking at some stats behind those appearances.

First of all, Korea only started qualifying for the World Cup after the number of spots for Asia was increased. Had the allocation remained at one, Korea would’ve failed to qualify for a number of the World Cups. For example Saudi Arabia was ahead of Korea twice in 1994 and 2006.

Let’s take a look.

1986 – Asia was divided into two zones for the first time. Iraq won the western zone, Korea won the eastern zone. Asia was divided like that because of FIFA’s strong desire to finally see a team from the far east at the World Cup (North Korea being the last qualifier from the region in 1966). Best Asian team in qualifiers: unclear.

1990 – This time around the two zones were merged and it is clear that Korea was the best team in the qualifications.

1994 – Format same as in 1990 but this time Saudi Arabia was the top team in the qualifiers.

1998 – There were two final groups. Saudi Arabia won one group, South Korea won the other group. Best Asian team in qualifiers: unclear.

2002 – Korea qualified as hosts.

2006 – Saudi Arabia and Japan won the two final groups. Korea qualified as one of the runners-up.

Korea was clearly the best team in the qualifiers twice, in 1990 qualifiers (and in 1954 when only two teams from Asia took part). Jirongi 01:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (1) Korea’s performance at the World Cup finals.

With the exception of the 2002, Korea’s performances at the World Cup have been very poor. They won their first match in 2002.

Here is a comparison of Asia’s top qualifiers.

  • Team Played W – D – L GF:GA -/+GD Points %
  • South Korea 21 3- 6 -12 19:49 -30 15 23.8
  • Japan 7 2-1-4 6:7 -1 7 33.3
  • Saudi Arabia 10 2-1-7 7:25 -18 7 23.3
  • North Korea 4 1-1-2 5:9 -4 4 33.3
  • Iran 6 1-1-4 4:12 -8 4 22.2

Those records above include Korea’s performance at the 2002 WC. Yes, Korea has been a consistent qualifier but frequently the teams performances at the top stage were very poor. South Korea had to wait longer for a win than Japan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran. South Korea is yet to win away from home, something that the North, Saudia Arabia and Iran have achieved (though this should change after the Togo match).

Saudia Arabia and North Korea managed to make the second round at the finals, as did Japan at home in 2002.

In terms of % success rate, Korea is behind Japan and North Korea and has a very similar record to Saudi Arabia and Iran. Jirongi 02:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (2) Asian Championship

It is true that this tournament is not of huge significance. However if Korea were to be called Asia’s best team, they ought to have won it at least once in the last twenty years. Instead their two wins came during the first two editions when a handful of teams participated in 1956 and 1960. For example they only played three matches in 1960, all at home, beating Taiwan, Israel and South Vietnam.

  • team winners finalists semifinalists
  • Saudi Arabia 3 | 5 | 5
  • Iran 3 | 3 | 8
  • Japan 3 | 3 | 3
  • South Korea 2 | 5 | 7
  • Israel 1 | 3 | 4
  • Kuwait 1 | 2 | 4

[edit] (3) Korea at the Olympics

It is often said that South Korea takes Olympics more seriously than the Asian championship. However, South Korea is not Asia’s top performer at the Olympics, Japan is.

Finals:

  • Japan 7 |23| |10-3-10| |34:51| |-17| |23| |50%|
  • S Korea 7 |21| |5-8-8| |21:52| |-31| |18| |43%|

Qualifiers:

  • South Korea |100| |61-19-20| |209:101| |202|
  • Japan |107| |65-11-31| |283:124| |206|

Medals:

  • Japan – Bronze in 1968
  • Korea – none

Korea at the Olympics:

  • 1948: 5-3 win v Mexico, 0-12 loss to Sweden: Korea Asia’s top performer
  • 1952: India plays at the finals, S Korea did not enter (Korean War)
  • 1956: S Korea eliminated by Japan in qualifiers, India comes 4th in the finals
  • 1960: Korea eliminated by Taiwan. Taiwan and India qual for the finals
  • 1964: Korea qualifies for the finals but losses all three matches with a 1:20 goal record. Japan makes the quarter finals.
  • 1968: Korea eliminated by Japan in qualifiers. Japan wins bronze medal.
  • 1972: Korea eliminated by Malaysia in qualifiers. Iran, Burma and Malaysia qualify.
  • 1976: Korea eliminated by Israel. Iran and North Korea make the quarter-finals at the finals.
  • 1980: Korea eliminated by Malaysia. Kuwait and Iraq make the quarter-finals at the finals.
  • 1984: Korea eliminated by Iraq. Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia qualify.
  • 1988: Korea hosts the Olympics. Korea wins 2 points at the finals, Iraq 3 and China 1.
  • 1992: Korea qualifies but goes out in the first round. Qatar make the quarter-finals.
  • 1996: Korea qualifies. Wins 4 points in the first round. Japan wins six points while Saudi Arabia losses all their matches.
  • 2000: Korea qualifies. Despite winning six points they are eliminated. Japan make quarter-finals where they lose on penalties.
  • 2004: Korea qualifies and makes the quarter-finals. Iraq finishes 4th.

How many times was Korea Asia’s top performer? Once, in 1948. Jirongi 02:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

Okay, [based on my arguments] I think it fair to say that South Korea is one of Asia’s top performers but calling Korea the best team is clearly POV as it depends on the weightings you give each achievement. Weightings given to different competitions can be highly subjective. Some countries used to take some competitions seriously, some don’t. “How seriously?” is something that is difficult to measure.

If we look at the 2002 World Cup, we have to say this was greatest ever achievement by an Asian team. However, historically Korea is not the superpower people make it out to be. Korea’s record at the finals was terrible prior to 2002 and they hold the record for the greatest number of matches without a win. I think there is a lot at stake for them right now, in 2006 in terms of reputation. If they can get couple wins, then the debate should swing in their favour. However, at the moment the jury is still out. Jirongi 03:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jirongi, while it's very nice to have all that information for everyone to read and understand, it is somewhat cluttered in here as a result. In the future, why not just provide links to the articles from where you actually got this information and then, you know, just maybe, this page won't be so cluttered. Heaven knows it's already cluttered up thanks to the others. I understand that you want to bring attention to only certain bits of info but that unfortunately is selective referencing. I formatted your contributions on your behalf so it doesn't look so messy in the table of contents.
As well, you should refrain from making comments like "though this should change after the Togo match" because 1) the match hasn't commenced yet and 2) it's quite rude to assume one team will automatically lose to another. Togo, like Angola, is enjoying their first time show at the world cup stage and I'm sure they would not appreciate your attitude. And who's to say that they will lose, despite your wisdom? After all, Japan seemed to be winning until half time today.
As well, Austrailia's induction into AFC should prove to be quite interesting. Whichever country maintains its WC qualifications for 2010 should provide more insight into this matter. --Jayohz 15:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [2006 World Cup] Information

Firstly, the article does not need information regarding how you thought South Korea played as it becomes POV.

Secondly, the article does not need references to other games ie. Trinidad and Tobago. I'm PRETTY sure that people will understand that a Togo player was sent off for receiving two yellow cards without that bit concerning Trinidad and Tobago.

Thirdly, the article does not need to remind readers about Ahn and his goal during the Italien game. Just provide the information as it is without externalities or extras. --Sazabel 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are you addressing?--Panairjdde 16:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoever wrote that section. As a side note (To: Panairjdde), why did you remove that section anyhow? You say that "are we gonna add all current information to all teams" as your justification but then only go about removing this section from this article but not from England's or Australia's or Sweden's (and list goes on). I'm returning that section back into the article. --Sazabel 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If it is a matter between you and someone in particular, you should write in that person talkpage, otherwise, please be more clear about the matter you are writing about. As regards my edit, I deleted the section because this is not the place to write match-by-match performance of KRnft in WC2006. And I am watching this article, not England one.--Panairjdde 16:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Um.. I was pointing out the changes made to that section and while I should have indicated who added that section in and corrected that person, I don't think it's that much of an issue that I put this on the discussion page. I was pointing out the bloody issues in the original section so I do not see the problem.
And the fact that you're not watching the England, Sweden, Australia, Japan and etc but watching this one doesn't change the idea that this article should follow example as the majority of the articles as they all contain current information regarding their play history at Germany.--Sazabel 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll repeat the question, which you subtly avoided, are you going to add each WC 2006 match to Korea (and England, Sweden, Australia, Japan...) in this page? And what about the matches of previous editions of World Cup?
The point is not what others are doing, but if this information should be here or not.--Panairjdde 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe that I should not add to each WC 2006 match to each respective article because it is already there as I've insinuated in my posts. If you require me to directly answer your question then the answer is no because I do not want to do useless things as it is already there. Obviously when the WC 2006 series is over then you may remove the match-by-match reports because there is no need for it there.
I'm curious to as why you are so keen on watching this article but clearly, not on the others. --Sazabel 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean that you are adding informations that you think will be useless in a month? This means that you are writing a newspaper, not an encyclopedia! Look here.--Panairjdde 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean that bit that you wrote at the very end? Yes, that is very helpful considering that the addition was clearly quite recent. I would ask that you refrain from making bloody obvious insults to my intelligence. Honestly, why would you try to refer to a section about guides for writing football articles that you JUST wrote a second ago. --Sazabel 17:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote it few moments ago (and I even put the time of the edit, clearly), because it was a proposal for a discussion. If you relax and "assume good faith", you'll understand I am trying to avoid a stupid edit war.--Panairjdde 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'm not trying to start a war with you either, so sorry I took your words a bit offensively. Plus, no offense, you've got quite a penchant for edit wars. Again, bit of bad blood there, so my apologies. Anyhow, if you feel that match-by-match reports are useless, then feel free to remove them after a month, as I will be watching the England article to do the same to sum up the information and adding a permanent section. For now, I suggest leaving it because it does have the merit of providing users information while during the 2006 series. --Sazabel 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you try to find an agreement in the appropriate (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams, I suggest) page?--Panairjdde 17:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll use the korea article to provide a sample format for that section. Give me a moment. --Sazabel 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that Panairjdde seems obsessed with finding any kind of fault or alleged misconduct involving the Korean team. This is while keeping the Italian team's page squeaky clean (even though it has a team riddle with controversy and scandal). I wish he would use equal application in his descriptions and content decisions.--Sir Edgar 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion counts nothing, if not backed by proofs, since this is not a forum. And whatever you think is my purpose, you can always show proofs againsts my edits.--Panairjdde 22:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Panairjidde, fuck off you Italian. It's time to invade Italy's page I think.

[edit] Merge

I think the page South Korea national football team should be merged with Korea Republic national football team page. I don't know either to merge these nor to put merge-suggestion template on it. Help.

They are the same article.--Panairjdde 20:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] World Cup record format

User with IP number 71.105.100.129 keeps on reverting World Cup record to an extended format, claiming it is "consistent" (but it forget to say to whom and why), "easier to compare to other teams" (again, he has jet to show why), and that it is "more clear to read and matches other teams pages better". The compact format is used, apart than in this article before 71.105.100.129 unilateral decision, in:

  1. Angola
  2. Costa Rica
  3. Côte d'Ivoire
  4. Croatia
  5. Czech Republic
  6. Ecuador
  7. Togo
  8. Trinidad and Tobago
  9. Tunisia
  10. Ukraine
  11. Yemen
  12. Vietnam
  13. Uzbekistan

while his format is nowhere to see. I'm going to revert his edit, until he explains them.--Panairjdde 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I don't know why this is hard to understand. You can either keep it fully expanded, which would be format A, lets say. Or you can fully compact it, which would be format B. Right now you'd have it set up so that some are compacted and others are not. As for why it is easier to compare: if it is fully expanded one can open up the Korean page, the German page, etc. and clearly match the page from year to year. It is NOT a big deal, compact is fine too, as long as it is consistent. Just because you found other pages that are also inconsistent doesn't mean that it is the correct way to go. This isn't a conspiracy to provoke you. This is not a global South Korean mission for propoganda. In fact, it makes South Korean look worse if it is fully expanded because it shows a bad record...*rolls eyes*. Please, control the paranoia. 71.105.100.129 02:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea Kazuhara. The color is a bit blinding though. :) 71.105.100.129 02:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You're free to change the color, I just thought red would fit but I couldn't really find a red that wasn't hard to readKazuhara 03:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with the previous format, that is used by all pages? Why do you want to change it? The format was (1) clear, (2)compact and therefore efficient, and (3) consistent. Now we have a table, which is long and ugly (why do you want red?). Furthemore, if you push for a new format, at least fill all of the fields; you created this table, but forgot to add all the information it should carry. --Panairjdde 10:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tentative starting line-ups and formations

Someone added two out of three of SK lineups for 2006 WC. The third is missing. Is anyone going to fill it, or we will have this incomplete "feature" in the article permanently? I understand the WC causes many more editors to collaborate, but in the end we should strive for completeness and meaningfulness of the article.--Panairjdde 10:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Controversial'

We all know those Italians keep trying to say 'controversial' to the Korean team's victories over Spain and Italy when they infact refuse to use the same standards on their own national site. That is not only idiotic, it is pathetic, and reaks of double-standards and hypocracy. Go away you Italians, unless you want to use the standards on your own national team - which more media outlets around the world clearly see as having more controversial aspects than the Korean team - just go away, and stop destroying fairness on Wikipedia.58.178.54.62 09:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In this moment, the "Italian" article has four "controversial" inside. The Italy and Spain vs SK matches were controversial, you can't deny it. Remember, this is the article of the national football team of South Korea, not an atricle owned by South Koreans.--Panairjdde 08:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the Italian article conveniently forgets many elements that is wrong with Italian football. Not only this, many words called 'controversial' are directed at judgements which are made AGAINST Italy. Hence, again showing your bias, and inability to work for this project. Please, go away. No one wants you here to troll on this page. You are just pathetic, and are symbolic of why so many people have negative views about Italians and the way they play their football.58.178.54.62 09:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There is the reference to the controversy over Australia penalty. What are you comlaining about? I'll stay here despite you, who have not even the dignity to have an accout, but hide behind anonimity.--Panairjdde 08:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that the majority of people here do not like you. You use unilateral deletions for other Wikipedians' hard work - you use your own personal bias to influence Wikipedia pages. You are pathetic, engage in double-standards, and is a hypocrite. One only needs to look at this discussion page and your own personal one to see that you are not liked for your frequent clashes with other Wikipedians. If it is your intention to keep editing your personal bias into this page, then the same conditions should be met on your precious Italian website that you guard like the troll you are. Stop using your double-standards, get rid of your bias, or the same conditions should apply for all national football pages. You, however, obviously cannot get past your own judgements and therefore you are handicapped in your ability to produce fair, non-biased articles and/or edits here. Go away. You are a negative influence on this page and Wikipedia as a whole.58.178.54.62 09:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If Panairjdde was atleast compromising, I wouldn't mind him editing the article but wow, seriously.. after watching all these edit wars about something that has nothing to do with an Italian citizen, I find this ridiculous. I've lost respect for wiki to be a credible source.

There is no account of controversy in the 1966 World Cup match between England and Argentina and yet Argentinians aren't scrambling to say anything about it in Wikipedia.. I wonder why that is so? --Nissi Kim 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many articles neading cleanup. Why don't you go and fix them, instead of complaining here?--151.47.126.70 20:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not qualified to be cleaning up the many articles that need to be cleaned up. Stick to a subject you're more familiar with. I've already tried to compromise with you and yet you stil refuse. That's okay. Unilateralism. Sweet. Totalitarian? Maybe. If it makes you happy, why not have non-Koreans and non-Italians edit this article. Of course we wouldn't want something like the Japanese changing their own history. --Nissi Kim 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, cool it, people. There isn't a nation in the world who doesn't "change their own history", North+South Korea and Italy included. Stop making it a national issue, and stop insulting each other, each other's countrymen and each other's nations. It's only football for goodness' sake. 82.123.148.189

The first paragraph wasn't Nissi. It was me. I will use sigs from now on. 58.178.54.62 09:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What About the Women's Team?

Shouldn't there be a section on the women's team also?--Jettd42291 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I have couple questions regarding the current content. Perhaps someone can explain why certain things are stated the way they are.

[1] “Since the 1950s, South Korea has emerged as a major football power in Asia, winning several prestigious Asian football championships, including the first two Asian Cup tournaments.”

Which Asian football championships did Korea win apart from the first two Asian Cup tournaments?

[2] "After the team success, football had an explosion of popularity in the country, where the game had traditionally been less popular than other games, such as baseball, formerly the most popular spectator sport in the country.”

Apart from Baseball, which other games have been more popular in Korea? In addition, didn’t Baseball only overtake football in terms of popularity only in mid 1990s? Perhaps a reference is needed to re: the basball statement.

[3] “In the last six editions of Asian Cup, however, South Korea has not peformed as well as other teams, such as Japan and Saudi Arabia. See Asian Cup”

Why six? In 1988, for example, Korea only lost in the final on penalties. I would suggest changing this to either four (the number of tournament since Korea made the final – they used to qualify for a final roughly once per two editions prior to 1988 OR eleven, the number of editions since Korea actually won the competition). Jirongi 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • [1] This does seem a bit off. [2] There's more than basketball, baseball, and golf... [3] I agree. --Nissi Kim 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahn Jung Hwan is no longer in MSV.

Ahn Jung Hwan no longer plays for MSV.

He is currently working out in Korea to get in shape for his next move. 58.224.139.67 14:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Yep. He is currently at Suwon Samsung.

[edit] The Colour of uniform

Well.. I was quite surprised that the color of uniform has changed Red to Orange.... Well, there can be some similarities between orange and red, but it's not the same. It looks like the uniform of National Soccer team of Netherlands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.224.139.67 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/o/r/Talk%7EKorea_Republic_national_football_team_904a.html"