Talk:2014 FFA Cup

Move to 2014 FFA Cup
Should this be moved to 2014 FFA Cup? (ie. remove the 2015 from the title) My belief is that FFA was aiming to run the entire comp within one calendar year with: A-League teams joining in september and a final in December?--TinTin (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅--2nyte (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) --TinTin (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I object to this. It's not a calendar year that the competition runs in, but a football season. While it will be done before the end of 2014, it still takes place within the 2014/15 football season (as shown on the info box below), and when the next season edition (and so on) takes place with a January final, will create an odd situation where there is a 2014 FFA Cup article, then 2015/16, and ongoing 20xx/xx article titles. It is better to standardise them now to a full seasonal date. There is also the possibility that a shift in competition dates over multiple seasons could see a competition run entirely in the first half of the year, followed by another edition of the tournament that starts and finishes in the second half of the year, which would lead to a very odd title situation if we go by a 'calendar year' article title process, eg we could end up with a hypothetical situation of having to disambiguate two editions of the tournament played in the same calendar year despite being in different football seasons. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So 2014 A-League Grand Final should be renamed 2013-2014 A-League Grand Final? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.146.12 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that change were it proposed. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I initially created the article under 2014–15 FFA Cup, though it was moved when the competition was announced by FFA, see 2014 FFA Cup FAQs. 2014–15 FFA Cup still links to this article and I think it should stay that way. I would expect the following FFA Cup seasons articles to be titled 2015–16 FFA Cup, 2016–17 FFA Cup, 2017–18 FFA Cup, etc. But I think this article should stay at 2014 FFA Cup; despite my desire for consistency and despite the tournament running in the 2014–15 football season, it is only refereed to as the "2014 FFA Cup" and I think naming it differently would be confusing. This season's FFA Cup should be the only exception to the standardised "20XX–XX FFA Cup" title.--2nyte (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wellington Phoenix Participation
I've seen inconsistent references to say whether they are or are not participating in the FFA Cup. Does anyone have anything conclusive from the FFA? --TinTin (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FFA haven't released any info on the cup as of yet. So I think we should wait for an official announcement by FFA before making that addition, most reports are just speculation and can not whether Wellington Phoenix will participate in the cup.--2nyte (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅--Official now! --Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Referencing
Now that FFA have released several documents, the references to 'speculative' documentation from 2013 - e.g. reference 1 from Football West should be updated. There are many small differences between what was anticipated in July 2013, and what has just been released (e.g. Wellington Phoenix participation). Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅--2nyte (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Table for Qualifiers
I think it is worthwhile to change the format of the table to highlight each qualification competition, and add the expected data of qualification. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I quite like the current format. It is quite brief, but I think that works. If people want additional information they can go into the Qualification Page to get more detail.--TinTin (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with TinTin, the current format works and additional detail is available, linked and explained in this article.
 * Here is a different format for the table that I think works better, as it links directly to each State's competition, as the Qualifying Rounds page is now enormous. And the timeline of qualification is clearer. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the table above doesn't really provide much additional information to the current format. It's just bigger. I agree the current Qualifying article is massive and a bit sillily long and I think it's important that the yearly article doesn't become so. And to do this minor information (like the date of qualification) should be kept to the qualification article. So I am still in favour of the current table format. --TinTin (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Round and dates table
On another note, should we change the start of the Qualifying rounds in the table (currently 16 February) to 6 April 2013 as per the ACT Qualifying?--2nyte (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Table could look something like this : Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have adjusted the rounds and dates table, changing the start date of the QR to represent the ACT. I have also added some info in the QR section about the dates. I wanted to keep it brief so that the majority of the info on the QR is on its own article (as it currently is). I'm pretty happy with how the article looks and how it reads - all we need now is some games!--2nyte (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Bracket Table
the 32 team bracket table is not relevent, as there is a draw each round. Similar competitions such as FA Cup omit this. However, as it is not a random draw, the mechanics of the other rounds are known, and can be populated by a separate table. Thoughts ?? Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the brackets in general. Brackets are very easy to follow and see a whole lot of information in a very summarised format.--TinTin (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the brackets and they will work. We can just change teams positions on it it to suit the following rounds/draws if necessary.--2nyte (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree and disagree. The bracket that you have here is fine as the FFA has already announced the exact path of each team to the final - there will not be a draw each round as the winner of each game has already been predetermined as to who they will face in the next game. The bracket on this article seems to be accurate in that regard. However, as a general rule - and forgive me if I'm misreading what you (TinTin and 2nyte) are implying here - but if the draw really was random each round, a la the FA Cup, then a bracket should not under any circumstances be inserted until the semi-finals. To insert a bracket when you don't know the path each team will take to the final is simply misleading for any reader of the article who doesn't understand the format of the competition, and it's a weird combination of Crystal-balling and straight up un-truth. Anyway, you're all doing a sterling job so keep up the good work. I just wanted to step in in case you got the idea between you all that brackets should be inserted into any cup article and simply amended every time a draw is made.  Falastur2  Talk 13:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, there will definitely be a draw each round. The mechanics of the draw has been predetermined as to which groups of teams will be in each 'pot', and then the order that each team is drawn corresponds to predetermined positions (who's playing an A-League team, who's not, who's Home, who's Away). I think a bracket format is misleading as it implies there's some knowledge of whom a team might possibly be playing in a future round. In other competitions - e.g. the world cup, a bracket system is fine, as there is predetermination of each match throughout the knockout stage {A1 vs B2, and beyond}, so you can predict in advance that "we wont play Brazil until the semi-finals". However, this competition is essentially similar to the English FA Cup, where there are draws up to and including for the semi-finals round. To reconstruct the bracket each round after the event does not reflect what actually happened, and this method is not done retrospectively for other competitions such as UEFA Champions League or English FA Cup who do not use brackets. I think that a better format would be one that mirrors the reasonably well formatted Tables from the FFA announcements. I will try to create a table in the next few days and post it on this Talk page for review. Reference: How-the-FFA-Cup-draw-works : Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On second thought maybe the brackets should be added after the semi-finals draw, but remove them for now.--2nyte (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If what you're saying is true, about the draws every round, then the bracket shouldn't be used until the semi-final draw has been made. Falastur2  Talk 09:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I attempted a table to show the Round of 32 draw, but it doesn't really add much compared to if you just click on the link to the external reference. There will be more interest in the draw mechanics (for all the remaining rounds) closer to the draw, so such a table could be included for each round from Rd32 onwards - even if temporarily - in June. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Total Number of Teams
there have been several forfeits in initial matches. Does the team that didn't play still get counted as being part of the competition ? And for the table of number of fixtures, do these walkovers get counted there too, or is it only for number of matches actually played ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The total number might also change when the WA draw is known (draw is 14/3).
 * The withdrawal? of Prospect Knights from Tasmanian qualifying round gives Nelson E/S a BYE to the First round (Reference: as shown on the foxsportspulse section of the Football Federation of Tasmania website ). Would this reduce the number of clubs that are counted as being part of the competition ? I think withdrawing prior to the competition - if that is what has happened - is different to forfeiting a match and therefore Prospect Knights is not part of the preliminary Tasmanian competition this year. Any experience on how this is usually considered? Matilda Maniac (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think if they are entered into the competition at the time of the draw they should be included as a walkover not a bye and included in the statistics as participating. This clarifies the difference between drawing a bye and the opposition not rocking up, which I think is important. --TinTin (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Club tiers in article
User:TheSelectFew recently undid an edit of mine here, adding club tiers to matches and in the table of A-League clubs in the Teams section. He said to refer to FA Cup as the model. The reason I disagree with this edit is because the FA Cup season articles do not have a table of participating teams, with this addition (showing the clubs and their tiers in a table), it's not necessary to repeat this info through the whole article. We already specifying club tiers unlike the FA Cup season articles. Also, as the table of teams splits A-League club and state league clubs, we don't need to add the tier of A-League clubs; they are all Level 1 clubs in a specific/different table.--2nyte (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a previous edit that I made which introduced the tiers into the Qualification Table. However I did not add the tier of A-League clubs. I am half-way between the edits of User:TheSelectFew and 2nyte because it will certainly be relevant and discussed in the media that there are teams below the NPL tier that will be playing in the Round of 32 (at least 3 of them). Similar to the FA Cup pages - which appear to be the most common template being used for the format of these pages - there should be a sentence for each round mentioning the League/division/Tier that the lowest team still remaining relates to. e.g see this section from the most recent FA Cup. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is formatted differently to the 2013–14 FA Cup article, so we shouldn't attempt to copy it; the 2013–14 FA Cup article has Round-by-round summaries and Club tiers in matches, where as this article has a Format section (explaining the Round-by-round summaries) and Teams section (showing Club tiers).--2nyte (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reorganized the article so it better represent the format on the 2013–14 FA Cup article. In terms of club tiers, I have removed them from the A-League clubs in the Teams table, but I have kept it everywhere else. I have also added info in the Teams section saying, "A-League clubs represent the highest level in the Australian league system, member federation clubs come from Level 2 and below". Hope everyone agrees with the changes, if not I'm happy to discuss and change.--2nyte (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I just am pointing out the structure of most other cup pages. This is the case with the FA Cup, La coupe de France, DFB-Pokal etc User:TheSelectFew — Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What I was pointing out is the 2013–14 FA Cup and 2013–14 La coupe de France articles don't have a table of teams so they have the club tiers in the matches. The 2013–14 DFB-Pokal article (and this article) has a table of participating teams and their tiers so it don't need the club tiers in the matches.--2nyte (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Added Hyperlinks to each bracket to link them to the leagues each team plays in. Figured they'd be useful for readers.--J man708 (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Round 1 venues
Aren't we jumping the gun a bit? The FFA haven't officially announced the venues yet. I think it is a massive assumption to think they will simply be played at the home grounds of participants, particularly the non A-League teams. For example it's more than possible that state league teams drawn against A-League teams will play at other venues (e.g. Adelaide City at Hindmarsh). I think in future it would be better to wait for confirmation of venues before they appear in the article. Tigerman2005 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * agree. dates and venues subject to change (even after the 30th June announcement). Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FFA have now released the draw and some thing are wrong. For starters Adelaide Utd do not appear to be playing at Coopers/Hindmarsh. Some other grounds are still TBD.Tigerman2005 (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * not necessarily wrong - it depends upon ground suitability and availability - therefore Marden Sports Complex.Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Kit Suppliers and Sponsors
Should these be included? I mean, as much as they aren't included in a lot of other pages like the FA Cup and Copa Del Rey, they are mentioned on the page of the A-League. I think this would be a handy inclusion, personally; especially if we can get them positioned onto a table with 16 rows and 2 columns... Thoughts? J man708 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could make the table look similar to the A-League ones. I quickly threw this one together about the first week of the Cup.
 * It doesn't add much to the quality of the article. It is really just advertising. Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Home Grounds and kits

 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: left;"

! Team ! Home Ground ! Kit manufacturer ! Jersey sponsor
 * Brisbane Strikers
 * Perry Park, Brisbane
 * Gorilla Sports
 * Gorilla Sports
 * Broadmeadow Magic
 * Magic Park, Broadmeadow
 * Joma
 * Sharp Copiers
 * Manly United
 * Cromer Park, Sydney
 * Team Rhino
 * Melbourne Knights
 * Knights Stadium, Melbourne
 * Macron
 * Melbourne Croatia Soccer Club1
 * Olympic FC
 * Goodwin Park, Brisbane
 * Uhlsport
 * The Coffee Club
 * South Cardiff
 * Jack Neave Field, Newcastle
 * Kappa
 * Cardiff RSL
 * South Springvale
 * Kingston Heath Soccer Complex, Melbourne
 * JemSz
 * Delphi Bank/S&J Seafood Supplies
 * Sydney Olympic
 * Belmore Sports Ground, Sydney
 * Adidas
 * Bank of Sydney
 * }
 * 1Melbourne Knights did not wear their sponsor's name on their kits during their match.
 * JemSz
 * Delphi Bank/S&J Seafood Supplies
 * Sydney Olympic
 * Belmore Sports Ground, Sydney
 * Adidas
 * Bank of Sydney
 * }
 * 1Melbourne Knights did not wear their sponsor's name on their kits during their match.
 * 1Melbourne Knights did not wear their sponsor's name on their kits during their match.

Crowd attendance
It would be best to wait until official figures have been either released or shown on the TV Coverage over the official figures. The Manly Utd - Sydney Oly games attendance is still just an estimate at the moment. It will only take 48 hours tops to wait for an official and accurate figure on this. J man708 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're assuming they will release an official figure. Hack (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to keep track, overall attendance according to the article has been 30,945 for the first round's 16 games, an average of 1,934. J man708 (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A couple of those crowd numbers look to be estimates. Hack (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately... I wish this weren't the case, as numbers like 750 and 1,650 suggest you're right and actually look kinda poor and inaccurate. I don't think there is much that can be done about this at this stage. J man708 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Player Stats
Are there any plans to include a player stats section? At the very least, surely we should be tracking goals scored and cards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.0.5 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this sounds like a decent idea. Let's wait until the end of the first round of fixtures before placing a table of goals, cards and stuff. J man708 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of Performances by States/Territories
Do we really need the table of "Performances by States/Territories"? I mean, you don't really see the FA Cup page mentioning the teams from Yorkshire, Kent and Essex. It just seems kinda sundry and obvious info... Remember, this competition is about the clubs, not the State Federation boards and their egos. J man708 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend that this section of the article gets removed on the grounds of relevance to the article and to the competition. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wolves v Mariners attendance
ABC Radio announced the attendance as 6,125; but during the coverage at the 72:20 mark of the game, the ground announcer said audibly over the loudspeaker that the attendance was 5,238. I'm going with this second figure. It seems more likely that they'd have the correct attendance at the ground, as opposed to the ABC Radio amount, mentioned early in the first half. J man708 (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's still impressive ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Positioning of Round by Round sentences (Such as the "Lowest team remaining in the competition")
I copied and reworded a sentence from the 2013-14 FA Cup page a while ago that lists the lowest ranked team still in the competition per round. This sentence is subsequently constantly deleted by IP edits. I've now wrote several times on the edit summary page why I keep replacing this after it is deleted. " "These sentences at each round mirror the sentences at the rounds proper of the 2013–14 FA Cup page. Seeing as the FA Cup style page has been used as a default template, surely this sentence should stay." " While I'm at it, I feel that the article looks a whole lot cleaner with each round's additional information being placed in a paragraph below the name of the round, but above the individual rows for each match. I took the liberty of moving the sentence about WSW's loss to Adelaide City. It looks a lot smoother this way. --J man708 (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the "constantly deleted by IP" point (not me deleting by the way) - while following the broad structure of the FA Cup seems fine, I don't think we have to slavishly follow every single point they make. For the FA Cup, the lowest team remaining has far more "relevance" than in Australia because the whole English system involves an integrated pyramid that has existed for some time - so it's pretty likely that a level 8 team from Kent is "lower" than a level 7 team from Yorkshire, even though they would never play each other.  That isn't the case in Australia - I would hardly be surprised if South Springvale (or any team in its Division) were a far better team than any ACT or Tasmanian team - the "levels" in the Australian context are quite meaningless between States.  Really the only relevant comparison are State League teams v A-League teams (so, to me the WSW loss is a far more relevant point than the fact that South Springvale are the only "Level 4" team left in the comp). 134.159.131.34 (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't compare leagues below the top two levels (A-League and NPL) across states as the league structures are different. Hack (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think my point would be even stronger - that you can't even compare the NPL sides across States. That is NPL - level 2 - in ACT isn't necessarily "better" than NPL1 - level 3 - in NSW or even the State League 1 in Victoria (if that's what Level 4 is called) and that we shouldn't be making any statements (such as "Lowest team remaining in the competition") that imply that a comparison of this type is valid.  You can only compare the A-League against the "Non A-League". 134.159.131.34 (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The FFA consider the top tier NPL leagues as the same level, ie second tier. The rest of the leagues can only be compared within in their own state structures. Hack (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The FFA have created the National Premier Leagues structure for there to inevitably be consistency and a relatively level playing field for all. It's logical that the teams that play in each state's second divisions be counted as third division teams nationally. I agree that South Springvale or Sydney Hakoah could probably beat a team like Launceston City or SWQ Thunder, but is that really our place to say on Wikipedia? The facts are that the NSW IGA Men's 2 is a third division of football in Australia, as are the SA State League and the Victorian NPL 1. They all allow for promotion to and from their state's premier leagues. In the cases of NSW and Victoria, their set ups allow for teams even further down the scale to be promoted after a few promotions into the NPL... As far as South Springvale and Sydney Hakoah are concerned, it is entirely possible for them to gain entry into higher divisions in their state, so showing their division/ranking seems like a pretty good idea........ Unrelated - Sydney Hakoah have announced that they have been promoted into the NPL Men's 2 for 2015 - J man708 (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Teams in the NSW second division play in the second tier of Football NSW competition and the third tier in their own state - there is not a national third tier. Hack (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But there is a direct way of being promoted from the NSW SL2 to the NSW SL1, from the NSW SL1 to the NPL Mens's 2 and from the NPL Men's 2 to the NPL Men's 1. Are you also saying that the Conference North and South in England aren't actually sixth tiers, because they run side by side? I'm pretty sure know where you're coming from, but when relegation from the NPLs is concerned, it's probably pretty safe to call them third tier divisions. - J man708 (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But there is a big difference between listing the tiers (which you can at least pretend are definitive) and claiming that a certain team is "ranked" lowest. After all who ranked them?  And, add the fact that each State's structure varies dramatically, from 8 teams up to 14 in Tier 2 and even larger in others. It would be quite possible for the tiers to say a team is "tier 4" when it is the (say) 17th best in its State and another is "tier 3" when it is the 30th best in its State.  Who is "ranked" lower then? You yourself (J man 708) say "but is that really our place to say on Wikipedia?" but by saying a team is "ranked lowest" aren't we actually saying that there is some ordering of the teams. 134.159.131.34 (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * English football has a formal national structure. The only formalised national structure in Australia is tier 1, A-League, and tier 2, top level NPL. Even at NPL level, there is no consistency in competition formats, promotion/relegation, professional status etc - this difference is more pronounced at lower levels. Hack (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying the ranking system is biased to a degree, but this additional information of "lowest ranked team remaining in the comp" has been in plenty of news sources, usually with a headline of "The Romance of the Cup with South Springvale...", "South Springvale, a fourth tier club...", etc. It's something that a lot of media outlets have paid credit to. I wholeheartedly agree that the overall system has its flaws, I'm completely with you on that. I just figure that this round by round update is something deemed noteworthy enough to be mentioned. I know we don't need to slavishly follow every point made in the FA Cup article, but it seems to be a useful note per round. A bit of additional information never hurt anyone, provided it's neat, factual and consise. - J man708 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Round of 16 venues, times
Just a note to say that venue and timing information for the next round of matches has been removed from the FFA Cup website and the Fox Sports website. This shouldn't be added until it is properly announced by FFA. Hack (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)