Talk:2006 UEFA Champions League Final

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 UEFA Champions League Final article.
Article policies
France Portal
2006 UEFA Champions League Final is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
WikiProject on Football
English football Portal
The article on 2006 UEFA Champions League Final is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the England task force.
This article is supported by the Spanish football task force.
2006 UEFA Champions League Final was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 2, 2007

Shoudn't more information be put in? Such as: 'The referee's sending off of Lehmann is disputable, as he could have given advantage to the attacking team, discarded the foul and let the goal stand.' Isn't it disputable that the referee made a bad call? Coudn't it be argued that in the end, it is football that lost that night as the sending off clearly made Barca champions as soon as it happended? An allowed goal would have not only given Arsenal a real chance to get back and Barca the deserved lead, it would also have produced an even, beautiful game that we saw in the first 20 minutes.--DragonFly31 14:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

DragonFly31, the referee isnt there to produce beautiful game but to ensure it is fair. Lehmann did desearve to be sent off. The sending off isnt what made barca champions but Lehmanns decision to to grab the foot. I suppose it could be put in there but unfair decisions are too common to include in football articles. Arsenals free kick wasnt a foul...wolfie 15:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I doubt at any point in the game Lehmann made the descision to grab the foot; he went for the ball, and his bad judgement led to the fact that he missed it and got the striker's foot. The referee himself, after the game, admitted he'd made a mistake by blowing the whistle right after Lehmann's undisputable foul; he, too, acknowledged the fact that he should have waited for the action to finish (ie. for the goal to be scored) and then taken a descision. Advantage should have been given to the attacking team. Let's think about this practically -- a red card is given to the keeper in these situations when he deliberatly stops a goal scoring action by commiting a voluntary foul. Not only did Lehmann's intervention not stop the ball from going in, but it is very much disputable as to whether the foul was volontary (watching the replay images). --DragonFly31 13:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


I wouldn't say it was a bad call. It definitely was a correct decision, you can argue whether it would have better to give that goal but I wouldn't say it's clear cut because the game was quite good anyway and far from unbalanced. For a long time it looked like the red card was better for Arsenal than a Barca goal (especially as the referee overcompensated and helped Arsenal to their first goal by two wrong decisions within a few seconds). It wasn't the best night for UEFA officiating but in the end it evened out and after that few minutes with the three "fouls" (two of them weren't, therefore the quotes) it had no decisive influence on the game. 82.135.8.226 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia with a NPOV stance. Anything that is opinion should not be in there, it should concentrate on factual parts instead, i.e "Lehmann was sent off and the subsequent "goal" by Barcelona did not stand".
But isnt it fact that the referee himself admitted he made a mistake by showing the red card before the action finished? I havent time to look for sources now, but I clearly remember it. Surely that 'fact' provides a different view on the final -- and what could have happened. At least it provides a strong basis for the controversy the call made.--DragonFly31 18:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Maybe it should be mentioned that the original assistant referee Ole Hermann Borgan was replaced with Arild Sundet because Borgan had posed with a Barcelona kit in a local Norwegian newspaper. I think the squads should be included as well. Arnemann 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please add who is MOTM with a reference if possible. Sasank 07:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The decision was controversial. You can claim it was right or wrong all you want but it is your opinion, the fact is that it was controversial seeing how even FIFA president criticized it along with half of the footballing world. Yonatanh 22:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] News item?

This article looks like too much like something that should be placed in WikiNews. --Cryout 15:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


"but the goal was defenitely scored from offside, a fact which was excepted by the referee after the match"

any evidence of this?

No, and I've removed this statement. Rodvand 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

This article has a lot of problems in my opinion

  • Undue weight. A large section of the lead is about administrative stuff and the player uniforms. What is important is the result of the match and the controversies, like the Lehmann red card and some other controversial things I remember like Henry saying something that the players "went down like Women"
    • The road to the final is longer than the final itself. This needs to be addressed by improving the describtion of the final, which is not so comprehensive.
  • Missing parts
    • Reaction - There is always lots of discussion after a final. Here there is none.
    • More info needed about the actual match. Barca and Arsenal made subs. These need to be discussed. What is the tactical purpose of these things. because in some cases a midfielder came on and replaced a defender, so this implies a change in straegy
    • Other controversy - Something I found while checking bbc to refresh my memory. [1]. Here's a link with lots of info., [2]. Is there a archived log of internet text commentary somewhere?

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Unfortunately Blnguyen reviewed this article at the same time as me. Rather then waste my efforts I'll list the problems I found with the article. Once these are addressed I recommend re-nominating for GA status. I'll go through the Good Article criteria listing fixes needed as I go.

1. Well written

A few things here. Nothing major:
  • The lead needs to be expanded to say more about the actual events during the 90minutes of the game itself! The info on the shirts and venue is fine, but what about the game!
  • "upended by Vonk" - this needs to be more specific. Not everyone will know what this means. Be more encyclopaedic with the language.
  • "The match was significant for Raul" - mention who Raul plays for.
  • "The second leg was held at Villarreal's ground El Madrigal, the match ended in a 0–0 draw, however Villarreal missed a penalty in the last minute when Jens Lehmann saved from Juan Román Riquelme." run on sentence.
  • "Barca had the chances, hitting the woodwork on numerous occasions." again not encyclopaedic, Barca had the change? the woodwork? How many occasions?
  • 23 May 2007 should be 23 May 2007
  • "and the final returns to that arena after a six-year gap" - poor prose, how about "and the final returned there after a six-year gap"
  • "UEFA Cup Winners' Cup showpieces" is this right? Can it be wiki-linked?
  • "opening minutes" say how many minutes, rather then opening minutes.
  • "The first chance in the third minute fell to Thierry Henry, who got on the end of Emmanuel Eboué's cross, but saw his shot blocked by Víctor Valdés." sentences like that aren't very encyclopaedic. Try rewording.
  • "aftr this" - after
  • "However on the 18th minute Lehmann's game would be over; after Ronaldinho had put Samuel Eto'o through on goal, only for Lehmann to upend him on the edge of the penalty area." - again encyclopaedic, and needs better explanation. Should just state the facts rather then sounds like a news piece. "In the 18th minute Lehmann fouled Ronaldinho after he had passed the ball through to "Samuel Eto'o who was on goal" Something like that? "Upended" is no good, and the introduction of "However on the 18th minute Lehmann's game would be over" is unnecessary.
  • "knocked the ball into the empty net" unencyclopaedic
  • "However Barcelona came close" why all these howevers! No need for it here, drop it.
  • General comment - some wiki-linking is inconsistent. For example "Almunia" is wiki-linked here and there. Please look a this.
  • "An unlikely scorer, Brazilian defender Juliano Belletti, who came into the game as a substitute for Oleguer, gave Barcelona a 2–1 lead in the 81st minute." really strange sentence, try and reword it. Why was Belletti an unlikely scorer?
  • "They have now won a total of nine European trophies." should be "This was their ninth European trophy" That way if they win more there is no need to change the article! :-)
  • The section between "Match summary" and "First Half" should really be it's own subsection called "venue" or "host" or something like that.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it

No problems here. Would be nice if there were a variety of sources rather then just UEFA.com, but it's not a problem.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

I have a couple of issues here.
  • The section "Route to the final" is larger then "Match summary". I know that they each played quite a few games to qualify, but there is a separate article that deals with this. People can always have a look at it to find out more info. I think the "Route to the final" section needs to be reduced in size by ~20%. Especially the first paragraph in each subsection.
  • Conversely the match summary can be larger I believe. Please see if you can add more information. Discussing possession may be useful (seems quite a significant stat). Also there were a total of 26 shots on goal, so I think more info on these could be included.
  • Like I said above, the lead needs to be expanded.
  • In that section that i recommend you call venue or host, can you give info on how many fans were there? How many travelled to attend the match. Things like that.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

No problems here.

5. It is stable

No problems here.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

Am kinda surprised you can't find an image of the game thats free. Not worried about it though.

Ok thats all. I think the article is pretty good, mainly prose issues and a little bit of the content needs to be expanded or summarised. Any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page. - Shudde talk 04:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 players earned man of the match?

Henrik Larsson is listed as the man of the match on the infobox. But but below states that Ronaldinho got man of the match. Who's the one who actually got it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolcott (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catalonia's Flag (Barça)

How come England's flag has been posted to identify Arsenal instead of the British? If that is the case, Barcelona (capital of Catalonia), should also be identified with the Catalan flag, and not the one that represents all of the Spanish state. Please :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.245.6 (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, Arsenal belongs to the English Football Federation; Barcelona is part of the Spanish one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.230.2 (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)