Talk:2008–09 Coppa Italia

Seeding chart

First of all, I do not think we should include a seeding chart until a definitive tournament format has been released. We now know that there must be more entrants than last year, since an extra round has been added. This ensures that all Serie A and Serie B teams will compete, but we do not know at what round they will enter the tournament. Secondly, I propose that we reach a consensus on the format of the seeding chart. The table used in last year's article is rather unwieldy. I propose that we model the section after the lists found at UEFA Champions League 2008-09. I have commented out the current chart for the time being. —Ed Cormany (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Italian Calcio Blog had mentioned the change, but still nothing specific. Also, they also state the final will most likely be in Rome. But I agree Ed, until we know who gets what seedings (which I would assume to be similar to last years' format, champions being first, Serie A's Europe contenders next, then the rest on down) we shouldn't have a section on it. As per the UCL's seeding list, that is much easier on the eyes and way easier to gather information from, so it'd be most beneficial to include it here as well, for sure. --Snojoe (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As Il Corriere dello Sport said in its article on May 29th, Coppa Italia has been re-opened to Serie C and Serie D clubs. These clubs will be chosen by the Lega Professionisti Serie C and the Comitato Interregionale, probably referring to 2007/08 league standings, even if reserving four places for Coppa Italia Serie C and Coppa Italia Serie D finalists. Serie C & D clubs will enter in the first round, Serie B in the second one, non-European Serie A clubs in the third one. 8 seeded Euro-clubs (Inter, Roma, Juve and Fiorentina in UCL, Milan, Samp and Udinese in Uefa cup, Napoli in UIC) will join in the fifth round.--Akrothiri (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Akrothiri, do you have a link to that article online? Even without, I'd say we could go ahead and start the lists including the Serie A and Serie B teams, since we have a better idea of who is qualified, and their placing. —Ed Cormany (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A summary of that article is shown here [1]. Unfortunately, detailed infos were only on paper-version of Il Corriere dello Sport. --Akrothiri (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks great, and is good enough to cite in the article. I'm a little dubious about the statement that only the semifinal will have two legs...that seems to be an extrapolation on the part of Corriere. Based on the dates given, it looks like other rounds are set up for two legs as well. —Ed Cormany (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the official document of Lega Calcio, only semifinals are scheduled of two legs (andata and ritorno) [2]. Round of 16 and quarterfinals have planned in many days because the international calendar doesn't reserve free dates for domestic cups outside January. Lega Calcio's President, Antonio Matarrese, said that Coppa Italia is slowly moving towards the model of the Coupe de France, even if the reform seems to be more similar to the Football League Cup. --Akrothiri (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Last year they announced lists of dates in the same way though, and they were eventually parceled out into andata and ritorno days. I guess we'll just have to wait for absolute confirmation. —Ed Cormany (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, because the link I provided way up above lists dates for two legs of the Quarterfinal, maybe we should probably wait until we're closer to the tournament itself and see the bracket and if it lists multiple dates/fixtures for the Quarterfinal round; it is simple, though, that the Semifinal is definitely on a two-legged basis, and the final is a one-legged affair. --Snojoe (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Final list of teams

I just noticed that the Italian article has a full list of teams and round structure. It would be nice to just copy this information over to the English article and call it a day, but there are no sources cited there. Can anyone else find a source to back up this information? —Ed Cormany (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeds or no seeds?

There was some disagreement over inclusion of seeds in the article (both in the seeding section as well as in the brackets). See the discussion at my talk page and User talk:Juve2000. I'm tempted to remove them from the bracket, and perhaps reformat the seeding section (again). I should have brought this up on the talk page earlier, so I'm at least opening it for discussion before making any further major changes. —Ed Cormany (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Give some thought to re-formatting the seeding section to look more like the the groupings in the UEFA Champions League page. There, the teams are grouped based on which round they enter the tournament and there is no seeding within the group. If that is done, then the seeding number is dropped from the tournament charts. Then what do you put in the "seed" box in front of the team name? If the division and place the team finished in last year is part of the re-formatted "grouping" section, then leave the seed box blank in the tournament chart, or another option is to write the team's division etc in the "seed" box. The latter may not look so great, so maybe leaving the seed box blank is better.AntropovNikki (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I like those tables as well, but I think they might look a little bare without the flag icons. Would we want to adopt team badges like on the Italian version of the article? Also, how about color-coding such a table according to what league the team is in? —Ed Cormany (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the new colors. Any chance the colors could be used in the tournament brackets as well and dropping the seeding numbers? AntropovNikki (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish, but I don't think it's possible without rewriting the bracket template to support custom background colors, which is an undertaking I just don't have time for right now. —Ed Cormany (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Never mind, I was able to do it with some clever template hackery. —Ed Cormany (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I like the colored backgrounds for the table of teams entered, but I'd much rather see a specific team's seeding in the bracket itself, colored background or not, as I had been keeping a personal note of which team(s) were the lowest seeded team(s) remaining throughout each round. The colors in the bracket also seem to be a bit out of place, and especially because the chart signifying which league is represented by which color, scrolling further down the page, one tends to forget or mix up which color was which. If the colors are going to stay, may I at least suggest we use a different color for Serie C1 and C2, since they're too closely related and can easily blend together when not staring directly at the chart? On another note, I do like how the Italian version's page is set up overall, especially with the team's respective flags; I've particularly always enjoyed looking at the Italian's wiki football pages just to see them, and perhaps we should integrate them into the English pages as well (Coppa Italia and otherwise). --Snojoe (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I eventually came around to previous criticism, aired on my talk page, that the seeds weren't very meaningful, since they were assigned at random within each large group of teams. This meant that teams which had performed much better, or were even in higher leagues, could have a seed several places "worse" than a lower team. As for including text or numbers in the colored seeding boxes, that can be done by modifying Template:color fill to take a second parameter which would put text (rather than just a non-breaking space) in those cells. We could then either reinstate the seeds or just label the boxes with A, B, C1, C2, and D. —Ed Cormany (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a colored background, but labeling the cells with A-B-C1/2-D works too; it would remove the hassle of trying to remember which color was which league, for sure. The whole seeding according to team ranking in league argument does make sense, and I hadn't really thought of it too much, I was just going on that in terms of league they belonged too anyway. But however it works out, if it had already been concluded as such elsewhere, then I won't try to re-change the argument. Long as the juicy guts of it is all there (the brackets, who's playing who, and the scorelines) that's all that's really important. :D --Snojoe (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the format. I was thinking of inserting dates somewhere but I'm sure I would end up destroying the charts. Juve2000 (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Goals in the whole cup

• Ok, I tried to sum all the goals, and the result was 233, but not including the Cremonese-Reggina match... should I have counted that match goals?--GNozaki (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008–09 Coppa Italia. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5hgooMmOb?url=http://www.lega-calcio.it/it/Tim-Cup/Match-report.page?idmatch=35221447-9BDB-1803-5DCB-7BF7769C2AE9 to http://www.lega-calcio.it/it/Tim-Cup/Match-report.page?idmatch=35221447-9BDB-1803-5DCB-7BF7769C2AE9

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) 07:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)