Template talk:Liverpool F.C. squad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For all current LFC players, loaned in or out, with a squad number. ArtVandelay13 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Squad numbers only"

I note that some of the other squad templates include players that don't currently have a number (which is why I thought it alright to add Kirkland and Diao, now that they've returned to the club). Is it generally preferred not to do this, hence the removal of my additions? Seb Patrick 10:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to be the norm when the templates began, although a few have taken to adding non-numbered players. Personally, I think it looks neater, and it seems like a good measure of whether a player is in the squad or not - i.e., if you don't have a number, you can't play. So when next season's squad is announced, anyone likely to play will get a number, and the problem will resolve itself. Of course, these are just my thoughts on the matter, it's not set in stone if enough people feel differently. ArtVandelay13 11:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, cool, fair enough. I just wasn't sure what the accepted norm was. As you say, it's not really worth doing anything now until the new season starts and the new numbers are given out... Seb Patrick 11:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that at this pre-season time, it's right to include those without a squad number. Examples I can mention are from Kirkland, Carson and Bellamy, all should be considered part of the current LFC squad, none of whom yet have a squad number.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
PS. Includes loaned-in and loaned-out players. so that means a few players who won't have a Liverpool squad number for some time.

OK, I concede on the squad numbers issue. I guess the longer I kept Bellamy off the list, the longer I could convince myself he hadn't joined. :) Don't forget to add the template to the players' pages though. ArtVandelay13 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think that when the season starts and squad numbers are handed out, we should then remove any players who haven't been given one. Seb Patrick 08:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my mind over including loaned-out players, so I am removing the note. All the players without squad numbers seem to be members of the current squad.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Le Tallec

My view is that he's still number 13. LFC.tv always clears the numbers for players loaned out (see Sinama-Pongolle) and Le Tallec wore 13 in a couple of CL qualifiers last season. I'd say if he hasn't been replaced, then he's still number 13. Obviously as you say, though, this will all be clarified soon enough. ArtVandelay13 08:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 06/07 numbers confirmed

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N152952060721-1137.htm

I've removed (commented out) Idrizaj, as he's a youth player, but I'm not sure what to do with Diao, Le Tallec and Medjani. I suppose we should keep them in untill the season actually starts - presumably Benitez expects them to leave or be loaned out, and if they're not by then they'll be assigned numbers. Barragán is still listed as 36 on the main squad page. ArtVandelay13 11:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Anderson isn't on that list (but is on the main squad list), but Roque is no longer listed as 27 anywhere. I'm not sure what to do as the 27 number has not been replaced. Squad numbers never used to change this much, I'm sure... ArtVandelay13 11:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The actual "Team" page on the website often isn't the most reliable resource to use, though - I mean, it has Idrizaj listed as #50, and some of the other players still in the #80s and #90s from the friendlies. The way I see it is that the list that was announced on the news page is the official first team squad list - and Anderson, Roque, Barragan, Medjani, Diao, Le Tallec etc. aren't in it. If they play a match, they'll get given a number, and they'll be considered part of the squad - but at the moment, they're no higher than reserves. Personally, therefore, I'd remove any players that don't have a number from the list altogether. A crucial point to remember is that numbers like Barragan's #36 could theoretically be given to another player, because he hasn't been officially registered with the FA with it this year (whereas no-one could take, say, Fowler's #9 unless he left). I'm willing to go with consensus, but it's very much a POV matter as to whether to include the numberless players, as who's to say that - for example - Jack Hobbs isn't more likely to get a first team game than Carl Medjani? Certainly, I can't see Medjani, Diao or even possibly Le Tallec getting a game this season, so I don't see the need for their inclusion. Seb Patrick 13:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(what I mean is that as far as I can see, it's an arbitrary decision to include, say, Diao, simply because he USED to have a number, because I don't think he's any more likely to play than any other player in the reserve squad) Seb Patrick 13:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult, isn't it. I take your points, and it should be taken that any 50+ number is for database reasons only, but I wonder why Roque's number was reset when Barragan and Anderson's weren't. I think transfer activity between now and the start of the season will clear a lot of this up. ArtVandelay13 13:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)