Talk:2009 Canadian Championship
 | Football: American & Canadian Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Standings and Schedule
The page for last years tournament used W-D-L format for the standings as well as listing the home team first in the schedule. Up until just recently no one changed it from WDL and home team first. There was a lengthy discussion at Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season regarding this issue, and the end result was that for MLS pages the WLT format would be used and home team listed second. As far as I understand, there are some editors that feel that this decision now means that a consensus was reached regarding all sports pages that are concerned with US and Canadian leagues/competitions. I do not feel that the discussion that took place there should be of concern to this, a CSA competition. I have reverted the edits that grant made to the 2008 and 2009 articles as they went at least 8 months in the WDL format without anyone objecting. If there is a reason for making all Canada/US sports articles WLT format please point it out.
However, I think that there is ample evidence that the WDL, home team first format should be used for the Canadian Championship articles. First, this is officially a CSA run tournament, and if you look at the way they present the data and schedule it is in congruence with WDL home team first. Here is the link for the 2008 edition http://www.canadasoccer.com/tourney/FIFA_Clubs/2008_Nutrilite_Can_Championship.asp and the link to the 2009 tournament http://www.canadasoccer.com/tourney/FIFA_Clubs/2009_Nutrilite_Can_Championship.asp . I think the article should be reflective of the way the governing body presents the information. NeilCanada (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- As the one that led that argument for WLT on the MLS pages (and, in effect, most other North American pages), I can agree to this. All US leagues and organizations sort in WLT. However, the CSA uses their own standards for their national tournament, and because of this, I agree to leave the Canadian Championship page in WDL/home team listed first. Otav347 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Even if Toronto FC beat Montreal Impact by a large margin, it can only tie Vancouver Whitecaps for points. Vancouver will still be the winners by both rule 2 and 3 of the tie-breaking criteria. Therefore, Vancouver Whitecaps have effectively qualified for the CONCACAF Champions League 2009-10. I have made the edit (green background color on the points table) accordingly.Avman89 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Match Reports
Last year the CSA had links to the match reports on their site, and they were even usually up with starting lineups before the matches started. But I can't find them this year. Anybody know where they are on the CSA site? NeilCanada (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Tiebreaker
Please note that the tiebreaker procedure has changed for the 2009 edition of the tournament. This has now been noted in the page. The first tiebreaker is head to head (points). Tied standings should reflect this as the first tiebreaker, not goal differential or goals scored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.2.82 (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- These tie-breaking rules would actually mean that Vancouver is already through! Toronto can reach no more than 9 points when they beat Montreal. Points between Vancouver and Toronto will still be 3 vs. 3 as well as the goal difference, which Vancouver wins with 2 vs. 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.140.12 (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've looked up the actual rules and have updated the article. So Toronto still has a little chance.
- But the the tie-breaking-rules 2 and 3 make no sense to me, when it is a 3-team-tournament...
- It is indeed non-sensical; I can only assume that the rules are written generically so that there could be more than 4 teams. Nfitz (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is not nonsensical. If two of the teams are tied on points, and have one victory each in the head to head, then rule 2 applies (here, Vancouver leading on goal difference with +1 as opposed to Toronto's -1). Rule 3 is invalid, however, since if the goal difference in matches between the drawn teams are equal, then the number of goals scored by each team would have to be equal too. I think Rule 3 is a garbled version of the away goals rule, expressed incorrectly as most goals scored. Either that, or it is identical to Rule 5, since two teams that are tied on points, head-to-head record and goal difference in matches against each other can only ever be separated by their goal difference overall, or, if that too is tied, then goals scored overall.Avman89 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The tie-breaking criteria is so badly worded! Many leagues use a head to head record to separate two teams tied on points to decide final position (Italian Serie A, Spanish Primera Liga etc). There is nothing in the wording of Rules 2 and 3 to suggest they are only applicable in a three-way tie. If rules 4 and 5 take precedence in the present situation, they should be stated first, as a two-way tie is far more common than a tie between three or more teams. I would propose changing the order of the rules, bringing 4 and 5 to positions 2 and 3, and clearly stating in the wording of the (present) rules 2 and 3 that they only apply in the case of a three-way tie. (Which really makes little sense in a three-team tournament, since goal difference between the three teams will always equal the goal difference overall.Avman89 (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the wording of the tiebreaker situation, but rules 2 and 3 actually do make sense for a three team tournament. Say Vancouver wins two games 5-0, and Toronto and Montreal both win two games by 1-0 scores. Vancouver wins on goal differential. And if all of the games are draws, but Vancouver's games are 2-2 draws and Montreal and Toronto play 0-0 draws, Vancouver would win on goals scored even though the goal differential is the same. VWG (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they do make sense, except they are redundant, because if all three teams are tied in a three-team league, the "Goal differential in matches between the teams that are drawn" is exactly the same as "Goal differential in all group matches" since all group matches will need to be considered as "matches between teams that are drawn".Avman89 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, even the website that is used as a source for the tie-breaking procedures makes it clear that those two rules are de-facto inapplicable for the purposes of this tournament: **Tie-Breaker criteria # 3 & 4 (which are 2 and 3 on here) are not applicable as only two teams are mathematically eligible to win the 2009 Nutrilite Canadian Championship. It seems that those rules are simply the generic Canadian Soccer Association tie-break criteria that would apply for any CSA tournament. I suggest we remove those two steps in order to avoid unnecessarily confusion to the reader. (Note: I can't believe TFC actually has a shot a winning it at this point...) Do U(knome)? yes...or no 01:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they do make sense, except they are redundant, because if all three teams are tied in a three-team league, the "Goal differential in matches between the teams that are drawn" is exactly the same as "Goal differential in all group matches" since all group matches will need to be considered as "matches between teams that are drawn".Avman89 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the wording of the tiebreaker situation, but rules 2 and 3 actually do make sense for a three team tournament. Say Vancouver wins two games 5-0, and Toronto and Montreal both win two games by 1-0 scores. Vancouver wins on goal differential. And if all of the games are draws, but Vancouver's games are 2-2 draws and Montreal and Toronto play 0-0 draws, Vancouver would win on goals scored even though the goal differential is the same. VWG (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- The tie-breaking criteria is so badly worded! Many leagues use a head to head record to separate two teams tied on points to decide final position (Italian Serie A, Spanish Primera Liga etc). There is nothing in the wording of Rules 2 and 3 to suggest they are only applicable in a three-way tie. If rules 4 and 5 take precedence in the present situation, they should be stated first, as a two-way tie is far more common than a tie between three or more teams. I would propose changing the order of the rules, bringing 4 and 5 to positions 2 and 3, and clearly stating in the wording of the (present) rules 2 and 3 that they only apply in the case of a three-way tie. (Which really makes little sense in a three-team tournament, since goal difference between the three teams will always equal the goal difference overall.Avman89 (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is not nonsensical. If two of the teams are tied on points, and have one victory each in the head to head, then rule 2 applies (here, Vancouver leading on goal difference with +1 as opposed to Toronto's -1). Rule 3 is invalid, however, since if the goal difference in matches between the drawn teams are equal, then the number of goals scored by each team would have to be equal too. I think Rule 3 is a garbled version of the away goals rule, expressed incorrectly as most goals scored. Either that, or it is identical to Rule 5, since two teams that are tied on points, head-to-head record and goal difference in matches against each other can only ever be separated by their goal difference overall, or, if that too is tied, then goals scored overall.Avman89 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is indeed non-sensical; I can only assume that the rules are written generically so that there could be more than 4 teams. Nfitz (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)