Talk:Germany national football team/Archive 1

Away shirts in the 2000's
Shouldn't away shirt be grey rather than black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.219.52 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2004 (UTC)

Answer: The color has changed from green to grey in 2000 (?), and from grey to black in 2003. On November 16, 2004, adidas presented the new red away shirts used first in the friendly match against Cameroon in Leipzig on November 17, 2004 (a 3-0 win). Germany already played in red shirts in the 1930's; two matches against England. Neither of them could be won (3-3 in 1930, 3-6 in 1938). The new color is supposed to underline German Kampfgeist (fighting spirit) and aggressiveness &mdash; two attributes Germany's national teams have always been known for. If the red away shirts are going to be used regularly is yet to be determined. Kiwiwiki, edited by Kiwisimi on Dec 7, 2004

Germany's Green Away Jersey History
I have heard a lot of rumours surrounding the German National Team's Green Away Jersey's and the history of it all. I've heard it has something to do with the Republic of Ireland being the first team to play West Germany after WW2. Is this just a myth or is it true?


 * The first team to play West Germany after WW2 were the Swiss, first in 1950 and then again in 1951. (By the way, the Swiss were the first team ever to play Germany in 1908 and the first team to play the reunited Germany in 1990.) Ireland was the fourth team in the fifth match. See the Rec Sports Soccer Statistics Foundation page on Germany. Also, as a German follower of football I have never heard of this rumour before. I would believe this is a myth. Spike 18:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The green jerseys probably come from green being the main colour in the coat of arms of the German football association (DFB - Deutscher Fussball Bund). 84.180.54.42 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The rumour, I have heard is that the West German team arrived in Ireland, with no kit. The Irish team gave theirs to Germany, who then adopted the green jersey as their away kit.

Why isn't the article "German national football team". Better grammar.


 * Probably to make Template:Nft work.  But I know that United States national football team was redirected to United States men's national soccer team so if you feel compelled to make a similar move, I see no reason why you couldn't be bold as long as you live the redirect in place. - PhilipR 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's because it isn't better grammer, its worse, German is an adjective, where as Germany is a noun. German national football team is simply describing a national team (any team) as german. whereas as Germany national football team is the correct term. Philc  TECI 00:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Green away strip revisited (consistency)
I noticed that the text still said, "As token of respect, [West] Germany's away strip has been green to this day – representing a united Germany." Since the red strip is right there in the diagram, I found that a bit odd, but in light of the above discussion I found it odder still! I changed the date to 2000, cited as the date for most recent abandonment of green in Kiwiwiki's post above. Regardless, it's a bit funny to mention their symbol affection for Ireland that supposedly lives on to the present juxtaposed with visual evidence that said symbol has fallen by the boards! -- PhilipR 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Mannschaft
It's interesting that it has the English direct article, because AFAICT this is a nickname used exclusively by English-language association football writers, not Germans. Everything German I've ever read (admittedly, I'm not a native speaker) calls it the Nationalelf. Yes, Mannschaft means team in German, but to my understanding it's just a generic term. Can someone set me straight by showing me where the German NT is called merely Die Mannschaft (no, not Die deutsche Mannschaft)? Or do we need to go edit England to say "The side", and United States to say "The team", and Brazil to say "O time", and so on? - PhilipR 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In German, "die Mannschaft" ("Man ship") is not a nickname, just a very common terms for any team, even if female or mixed. "Die Nationalelf" usually refers to Klinsmann's boys if not stated otherwise, as the DFB also fields the various younger male teams (U21, Olympic team etc.) and of course the successful female team, but I would not consider this a nickname, as it is not "nick" enough. The terms "the Nationalelf" and "the Mannschaft" might be used by English speakers in regard to the German team, though, which makes sense then. Besides, "O Selecao" is used for the Brazilian team, in Brazil and elsewhere, isn't it? --Matthead 00:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, the words for selection are used in Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries because that implies the national team, as opposed to any generic team.  But I don't believe you could call Real Madrid or Corinthians a selección or seleção.  You might call them un equipo or um time, among other terms.   So that's my point -- that it's mixing the common German word for team in as a nickname.   If English-speaking writers do, ignorantly (?), call it the Mannschaft is that sufficient to make it a nickname?   Not in my view.... I'll let others opine. - PhilipR 04:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Mannschaft" should be removed as nickname. It just means "team" and is a totally common term for any side ("die englische Mannschaft" = "the Englisch team"). Even "Nationalelf" isn't a nickname really, though it might be a bit more specific than "Mannschaft". -- EnemyOfTheState 21:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Recently, one can hear Klinsmannschaft sometimes. Also, "die Auswahl" (selection) is used as an alternative term. Or just wait two weeks and then use "Weltmeister" for the next 4 years. :-D --Matthead 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think Germany will be calling itself "Weltmeister" in my lifetime. And I'm 17. Yes, that's exactly how much I faith I have in that team. The Frederick 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm afraid to say that I disagree with calling Die Mannschaft just a nickname. The official name of the German football team is Die deutsche Nationalmannschaft (The German national team), therefore Die Mannschaft sounds like a proper short form to me. Because the DFB is using Die Nationalmannschaft in it's publications, even the term Die Nationalelf sounds more colloquial to me. MikeZ 17:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On a second thought, I just changed the infobox, if that's ok with you guys. MikeZ 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The word "Mannschaft" just means "team" and does not refer in any way to the German National Football Team. And it sounds quite strange to me, i think it would be the same if you would call the english squad "the team". "Nationalelf" does refer to the German National Football Team. The correct name is "die Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft". The word "Nationalmannschaft" is not really a synonym, because it could also refer to the bowling-team.

Of course the german coaches and players use the word "Mannschaft" very often in interviews, but every basketball or hockey coach would use it as well. Thats why "Mannschaft" is no proper short form.

On the hother hand i think that if this word has become a synonym in foreign languages, one could mention it as a nickname with the remark that it's only used outside of germany. i know that french people use it too.

I agree with your openion!

Die Mannschaft (???)

In Germany the national football team is never called "The Mannschaft". I´m from Germany, so I must know it ;-). We call the team "Nationalelf" or "Deutsche Nationalmannschaft", but NEVER "Die Mannschaft" (that´s to easy :-D)!!! I´ve never heard that a German person said "Die Mannschaft"!

I will edit it...

--91.15.210.162 09:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

national stadium
"Germany does not have a national stadium, and rotate their home matches among various stadiums across the country." Never heard that any country got a "national stadium" where all matches are played. But you can call the "Olympiastadion" in Berlin as Germanys "national stadium", in short: the sentence is useless.


 * "Never heard that any country got a "national stadium" where all matches are played." Never heard of Wembley? Hampden Park? Or simply this article? In short, the sentence is quite useful. --84.57.85.251 01:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quote: "Never heard that any country got a "national stadium" where all matches are played. But you can call the "Olympiastadion" in Berlin as Germanys "national stadium" "" Ahm, you never heard that any country got a national stadium, but you can call the "Olympiastadion" in Berlin as Germanys "national stadium" ? That is contradiction, isn't it? 62.143.76.189 01:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "you can call the "Olympiastadion" in Berlin as Germanys "national stadium""
 * This is nonsense. There is no "national stadium" in Germany. The "Berliner Olympiastadion" has never been called like this.
 * Being from Germany, I can confirm that there is no national stadium in Germany. Any suggestion to call the Olympiastadion in Berlin a national stadium is nonsense, Germans do not reckon the Berlin stadium as a national venue. Of course, the World Cup final 2006 was held in Berlin, as Berlin is the capital, but there were other cities (in particular Munich (as there was the WC final 1974 and Munich hosts the most successful football club in Germany)) that competed for being the WC Final venue, hence it was not a matter of course (it was political will, Berlin as the biggest city, the reunited capital, it lies in East Germany asf.). In my opinion, the statement that Germany does not have a national stadium is very useful, in contrast to other nations (as mentioned above, England with the Wembley Stadium or France (Parc des Princes or now the Stade de France)), Germans are reluctant to the idea of a national stadium. This is partly due to historical reasons (I think, I do not have to explain that), but mainly due to the federal history of Germany which led the federal structure of the country today. My suggestion would be to add this to the article. Germans view themselves as one nation consisting of very diverse and distinctive areas (and if you will tribes), combined by common values and virtues (eg. for anybody who does not know that, you will not find lederhosen outside Southern Bavaria, and that is a very small portion of the county). Matches of the U21 squad are even held "on the countryside", ie in smaller cities where local clubs have a long second or third league history (and currently play in the second or third division). The rationale behind that is to have a "good" audience in terms of a relative high appearance (a U21 match is a big event in a smaller city) and that spectators have a good knowledge of football.62.143.76.189 19:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag Removed
I removed the POV tag since I couldn't see any discussion on this page that referred to any neutrality dispute. Would anyone like to point out how this article might not be neutral? --die Baumfabrik 02:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone does keep changing the 2006 world cup section to feature the phrase an "unprecedented eighth chance at the cup", which is clearly a P.O.V. I've removed the word several times, not only because it is not a neutral statement, but also because it's incorrect to say the chance was unprecedented. I would think defeating and replacing the former favourites (Argentina), in addition to making it though to the semi-finals creates a suitable precedent. Not to mention the seven other chances they've had: that's also called precedent! --Gunray

I have reworded the section to say "unprecendeted eight trip to the Final Match" (which is what I thought the original phrase meant anyway). It is factually accurate that no country has ever appeared in the Final Match eight times. 68.48.174.174 14:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but the way it was written implied it would be unprecedented for Germany to be there (which isn't true). I've altered it to read 'previously unimagined', which works however you care to take the phrase. --Gunray

Germany as Best European Side or only Second Best?
Frequent edits to this page have tried to change the statement that Germany is the strongest European football side to indicate that Italy is better. While Italy has won more World Cups, the statement is not based on counting World Cup Championships, but rather on the total historical record of the team. Italy has won four World Cups, one European Championship, and one Olympic Gold (total of six major awards), and Germany has won three World Cups and three European Championships (and one Olympic Gold if you count East Germany, that's at least six major awards). Furthermore, Germany has been by far the more consistent team. Germany has never failed to qualify for a World Cup (although Germany was banned in 1950 for political reasons), but Italy did fail to qualify once (consequently they have both participated in 16 cups). Germany has reached the World Cup semi-finals eleven times (more than any other country) and the finals seven times (a record shared with Brazil), compared with Italy's eight and six respectively. Since Germany's first appearance in the European Championship, it has participated in every succeeding championship for a total of nine appearances (more than any other country and more than Italy's six). If there is a comprehensive analytic argument to show that some other European side has been more successful in international competition please bring it up so we can discuss. 68.48.174.174 20:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless it is useless to count who is "the best". By the way my edit did not say that Italy is better it said that Germany and Italy are the most succseful teams, nothing more - and I think this is much better than to say the best, because this is always a point of view- for example in the FIFA World Rankings Germany is not "the best" European tema. By the way - the World Cup is much more important than the European Cup and if it is right to count the East German titel for the German national football team is also disputable. Maybe if you count all together many (or the most) would say Germany is the most succesful, but speakign about "The best" is at least in my opinion out of place. But if you only feel good when the article says Germany is the best European team - I don't care so much, but because the Best is not countable is this case (how many points a team get for World Cup, how much for European Cup?) I would never say someone is the best. --Knarf-bz 09:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It really does come down to weighing the cups against each other. I'd argue that the Euro Cup is worth more, just because a team is more likely to come up against very powerful opposition. Sure, the World Cup is nice, but can a tournament claim to showcase the best of the best with teams like T&T, S&M and Saudi Arabi competing? No offence to those countries, but they're not exactly the best in the world. The World Cup is just more hyped. The Frederick 11:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "The World Cup is just more hyped"??? Maybe we can disagree on the fact if ranking should be done according to number of WCs or number of titles, but for sure a World Cup is worth more than a European Cup. At least because in WC a European team can meet Brazil and Argentina, which do not appear in a EC. It is true that in WC you meet T&T and SA, but you will agree that in a EC you can meet even worse teams. Consider also that in WC, in the last editions, only major teams won, while in EC you have also victories of Denmark and Greece.--BaldClarke 10:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * please do not add successes of Olympic Games to the record, for footballers, the Olympics are a joke, no big nation that I am aware of takes that competition seriously. It is simply not comparable, as you never have the top selection, it is only a U23 squad!! No footballer takes the Olympics for serious. And when it comes to the question which is the "best" European team, the only point that Italy has is WC titles. That's fine, but what about all the others factors? Germany: Second in the all-time world cup table, World champion 3 out of 16 (18,75%), WC final appearances 7 out of 16 (43,75%), semi final appearances 11 out of 16 (68,75%), three EC titles (33,3%), five EC final appearances (55,6%). Sorry, but the main thing that is disputable here is to count pre-war World Cups fully, these World Cups were nice, but not comparable. So simply deduct two Italian titles, and where do you get? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.143.76.189 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Agreed. In terms of pure silverware and records, Germany is still better than Italy, or at least equal. Three World Cups, three Euro Cups, a FIFA World Youth Championship, all sorts of qualification and appearance records, and if you want to count it, DDR's Olympic gold. Discussion over. The Frederick 10:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I forgot to mention another important stat, just for your info: Germany, together with Brasil, holds the record for the longest WC final appearance streak (as Americans would probably call it), 3 times in a row (1982 - 1990, Brasil 1994 - 2002). How many consececutive WC final appearances can Italy bring forward?62.143.76.189 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer is: "who cares?" Do you think England would exchange their world cup title for all of the second places and the records of Germany? If you don't think so, you are smart, and should be able to understand that coming first once is better than coming second eighteen times. Have a nice weekend.--Uyet Ustranimii 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. I agree, coming first is definitely better than being a runner-up. But you reduce the evaluation of the overall success of a team simply to the number of titles, but you might also consider the constancy of team performance. Which team is better, I ask you, a team that won the World Cup once and in the other world cups never made it to the second round (or did not even qualify), or the team that made it to the WC final 18 times but lost all of them?62.143.76.189 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The first is "more successful".--Uyet Ustranimii 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that a team that makes it once to a major tournament and wins it is better than a team that is an 18-times runner-up. Interesting point. That means, regarding European level, that Greece is among the top teams, although they made it only twice to the European Championship. They failed to qualify ten times (!) and in their first tournament 1960, they went out in the first round, losing 7:1 against France. Yeah, I agree, that is top performance evaluated over the long-term of the competition. England and Portugal will be delighted. 62.143.76.189 00:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Are you saying that a Greek fan would exchange Greek team's victory in EC with Portugal record in the same competition?--Uyet Ustranimii 02:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you entirely neglect the fact that Greece failed to qualify ten times. 62.143.76.189 10:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not want to neglect that Greece has only one noteworthy championship, but, as long as "success" is what matters, they have been champions once, and Portugale never. Therefore Greece is more successful (as regards EC) than Portugal.--Uyet Ustranimii 21:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You miss the point again. I understand that you do want not neglect the Greece EC title (I do not either), but you do neglect the ten time EC qualification misery of Greece. You have not referred to that, that is very weak. In order to shorten the discussion, the point here is if you evaluate success on absolute terms or on relative terms. You argue on absolute terms, I refer to relative terms, that means what is the overall record in the competition. Greece had twelve chances, failed ten times, went out in the first round once and won the title once. The point I am making here is that if you fail many times to qualify, that should be considered, nothing else. 62.143.76.189 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, it's weighing who's more successful and consistant: the team who's reached the semi final in almost every tournament, or the team who won because all the major countries boycotted the tournament (these are hypothetical). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Frederick (talk • contribs) 09:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC). Can I ask anybody a question. If you could, would you exchange Germanys two extra finals and semi finals in the WC over Italy, for Italys extra World cup? I would suggest most people would not.In the end it comes down to how many World cups you have won.If you have won the same ammount, then more second place finishes come into the equation.
 * Germany: three Euro Cups. Italy: one. Who's stronger now? The Frederick 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Italy were stronger. Only most people would take the extra WC. Germany have been more successful in the euro,which is a secondry tournament. Would you trade 2euros for a WC. I would. 4WC 1e is better than 3WC 3e. Germany has been more consistant but Italy more successful.Strength is something else,that's opinion.
 * To call the European Championship a secondary tournament is very debatable. Certainly, it sounds better to be called World Champion than a European Champion, however from a quality point of view, the European Championship is harder to win. Certainly, the WC gets more attention, but you should not forget what teams play in the first round in the World Cup, I doubt that Germany would be able to win a match in the EC by 8-0 as they did in 2002 against Saudi Arabia, it is much harder to reach the quarter final of the EC than to get to the quarter final in the World Cup. If you really look at it, the World Cup is nothing else than a European Championship plus Brasil and Argentina, despite the good performances of African teams in the nineties and South Korea in 2002. But these performances were not sustainable, South Korea did not even qualify for the WC 2006. 62.143.76.84 19:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you not answer my question. Would you trade 2euros for a world cup? You play an extra game in the world cup. You are World champions as opposed to euro champs[I continent]. Brazil and Argentina are big obstacles.[7WCS].If the euro is so strong how come Denmark and Greece can win it?

You can cite every RS you want, but simply calling it the "best" team would be a peacock term. There are various ways of measuring this, and none is universally accepted as the "real" one. Even if there was, statistics can't tell who is "the best", only "most successful" "winningest" or something like that. Malc82 20:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Im brazilian born living in the united states. ill solve this now. italy 4 world cups, germany 3. there! get used to it! germany and italy are almost the same in tropies and whatnot but germany has never beaten italy face-to-face. the most theyve had has been ties. so italy is better Gethomas3 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe you're an Italian trying to evade a ban. Kingjeff 04:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This talk is also in the same article of the German Wiki. The FIFA World Ranking has not a relevance, because on other mainlands there are not as mightful alliances as in europe. Germany was more often in World-Cup-Finals than Italy. So Germany ist more succefull than Italy.

Sorry for my bad English, I´m from Germany.

--91.15.245.238 14:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue with war on adding some players on list
I see a war with an issue about adding players on the list. However, the edit war must be reduced into haltation before it gets any worse, like temporarily banning IP addresses for making any further disruptions to harmless pages and/or creating useless articles. One of the questions I have to ask: why does Robert Huth not belong to this article? --Gh87 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How likely is he to return to the squad? Kingjeff 09:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Huth on the national team
How likely is he going to return to the national team anytime soon? I don't see him returning anytime soon. Did he even make an appearance at the 2006 FIFA World Cup? If he's kept on any of the current or recent lists, then it's a clear case of crystal balling. Kingjeff 11:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He had played against Ecuador. He should play against Portugal around the third place, too, but became injured when heating up . Phoe 15:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Mertesacker on the national team
The only thing preventing him from playing internationals since the world cup is because he was injured. Unlike Robert Huth, He was a regular up until the injury and to assume otherwise would be crystal balling. Kingjeff 11:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

all i want is fair treatment to all the players, anyway what do you have against huth? or do you love mertesacker that bad? you say world cup is not recent but you still put mertesacker on the list, isnt that unfair for huth? do you know that huth also suffer injury in pre-season that keep him out of german squad until october match? regular or not is not your call, its low's call, all i know is mertesacker recover before october internationals but still not called up yet, you call this a regular? also no harm in putting huth on the list, or also no harm could be done by deleteting both, as people could access them from the world cup squad. but to put just mertesacker is a biased opinion and i dont think this is what wiki about. anyway take a look on other national team page, they even put players that retired fully from football (Zidane) in the recent call up list, just for respect for them who played in the world cup User:59.167.35.128

Kingjeff 14:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is not about being fair.
 * 2) I do despite the team he plays for.
 * 3) But it didn't impact my decision.
 * 4) That's not true about his recovery time.
 * 5) Germany is not other national team.

tell me again about his recovery time? you seems to know everything... http://soccernet.espn.go.com/match?id=205465&cc=3436 bremen vs barcelona 27 september http://soccernet.espn.go.com/match?id=199808&cc=3436 bremen vs gladbach 30 september FFS do research before talking User:59.167.35.128

Here's what the official DFB website says about this. "14 players of the squad formed part of the team, that finished third at the World Cup this summer, only keeper internationally retired keeper Oliver Kahn and the injured Christoph Metzelder, Per Mertesacker, Jens Nowotny, Gerald Asamoah, Tim Borowski, Marcell Jansen and Sebastian Kehl are missing." Kingjeff 15:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

wow you know EVERYTHING, by the way i found the article from dfb official website:

14 players of the squad formed part of the team, that finished third at the World Cup this summer, only keeper internationally retired keeper Oliver Kahn and the injured Christoph Metzelder, Per Mertesacker, Jens Nowotny, Robert Huth, Gerald Asamoah, Tim Borowski, Marcell Jansen and Sebastian Kehl are missing. Reference:http://www.dfb.de/news/display.php?id=9771&lang=E&anfrage=&kat=news&navig=&seitentitel=News

hey wait...., i see ROBERT HUTH in the article.... maybe those damn english translator add him, lemme check the original version

''Im Aufgebot stehen dieses Mal noch 15 Spieler, die im Sommer zum deutschen WM-Kader zählten. Neben dem nach der Weltmeisterschaft zurückgetretenen Torhüter Oliver Kahn fehlen die verletzten oder derzeit ein Aufbautraining absolvierenden Christoph Metzelder, Per Mertesacker, Jens Nowotny, Robert Huth, Gerald Asamoah, Tim Borowski und Sebastian Kehl. Somit muss Joachim Löw erneut auf alle vier bei der WM eingesetzten Innenverteidiger verzichten. In einem Gespräch mit Bremens Trainer Thomas Schaaf am Donnerstagmorgen entschied der Bundestrainer, dass ein Einsatz in den beiden Länderspielen für Per Mertesacker nach dessen langer Verletzungspause noch zu früh kommt. Gleiches gilt für Jens Nowotny und Robert Huth, die sich erst im Aufbautraining befinden.'' Reference:http://www.dfb.de/news/display.php?id=9771&lang=D&anfrage=&kat=news&navig=&seitentitel=News

errr still there and mentioned twice... how come?? i thought you always right User:59.167.35.128

I am always right. I'm not allowing him back in until the next time he's in the squad. Kingjeff 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, now you're the one taking charge over this article?? can't you just admit that YOU MADE MISTAKE, YOU MADE THINGS UP TO MAKE YOU LOOK RIGHT, YOU PUT FAKE QUOTE FROM DFB, how sad are you pretending to be right when your mistake has been exposed User:59.167.35.128

I didn't make any mistake. He'll be in the list if he's ever called up again. Kingjeff 16:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

okay you win, you are the most experienced wiki editor that never made any mistake, just fake reference is enough to ensure that you always correct User:59.167.35.128

If my reference is fake then your reference is fake. Kingjeff 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, then you're calling DFB is fake, CHECK MY REFERENCE LINK IF YOU THINK I MADE THINGS UP User:59.167.35.128

I didn't call DFB fake. You did. Both of our quotes came from the exact same article and you know it. Kingjeff 17:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

well just one click on the link i posted and everyone will see who's faking. http://www.dfb.de/news/display.php?id=9771&lang=E&anfrage=&kat=news&navig=&seitentitel=News User:59.167.35.128

Either both of us are fake or none of us are. I took the relevent paragraph and you took the entire article. Kingjeff 17:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ok same paragraph, happy? anyway you didnt mention where you found your article User:59.167.35.128

Yes I did. I said the DFB Official website right before the quote. Kingjeff 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

funny, i cant find your EXACT quote there User:59.167.35.128

That's because you're not looking hard enough. Kingjeff 17:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

wait, i think that's because it's NOT even there User:59.167.35.128

It's right after your soccernet websites. Kingjeff 18:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * None of you is faking. - The English version of the article differs from the much longer German version. The current squad is always available on http://www.dfb.de/dfb-team/nationalteam/spieler/index.html. If changes occur it is updated immediately by DFB. Please let this page be decision maker for current squad! Oldnag85 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with the recent call ups table. Not the current squad. Kingjeff 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

True - but it is related with the current squad. The current squad is what counts, the recent call ups are just call ups. The call ups table is therefore redundant. Oldnag85 19:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Recent call-up
To solve a lot of problems I suggest to either remove this section or to find rules for addition and removal of players in this list. The actual removal due to injuries should be neglected - instead a mark currently injured should be added. If the section remains e.g. only player called up within a 3 to 6 months period should be mentioned and afterwards deleted. Oldnag85 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. How about we delete all the recent call up sections. Kingjeff 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. If this removal can solve the problem here, fine, but do not export it elsewhere without discussion.--Panarjedde 14:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything I claim to be a good idea is a bad idea to you. Kingjeff 18:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mixed results in the 1990s - Vogts stepping down
There is a small mistake in this paragraph. Vogts did not stepp down after the Worldcup 1998. He resigned on 07.07.1998 after 2 bad matches against Malta und Romenia

source: http://www.wdr.de/radio/wdr2/westzeit/stichtag/175822.phtml

--172.176.172.188 18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Green Away Kit
I have also heard rumors about the green being from Ireland.Being from Ireland many people say it was when playing here after the war.When they arrived they had no kit so the irish gave them one.this lead to the germans keeping the green as their away colour.
 * Up until no references are provided, this is just a rumor.--BaldClarke 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

German FA legal successor to West Germany
Why is there a "first international" for reunited Germay (Germany - Switzerland in 1990)? With the reunification the football federation of East Germany simply ceased to exist. So from the foundation of the German FA until now it has been the same federation and all achievements under the name "West Germany" are equally acccountable to "Germany".

As far as I'm aware there has never been a team that has offically played under the name "west Germany" or its german spelling, ever! The two German states translated in English were the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. East and West were just lazy cold war terms used to differenciate the two states, so I find this argument utterly pointless!

Federal Republic of Germany = West Germany German Democratic Republic = East Germany Kingjeff 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

merge with West German Team
The German team of today is the official successor of the West German Team. I think the page should be merged, because in the German wikipedia exists also only one article. Yoda1893 21:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm kind of surprised that there are still two articles. Besides, it is not the successor, it is the same team, always representing DFB. It was only called "West Germany" during the time the Saarland and/or East Germany fielded teams of their own. -- Matthead discuß!    O       05:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How much of the West German team article is already in this article. Wouldn't it make more sense just to redirect it instead of going through the entire merging process? Kingjeff 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the pages are merged Yoda1893 01:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where exactly has the debate been over merging the German and West German team pages? Has anyone actually been given a chance to prevent an alternate view before simply going ahead? I don't think so, and so the pages should be returned to their former state to allow for a real debate to take place, and for an opposing position to be put. Unless of course Wikipedia is now becoming a dictatorship. Hammersfan 08/01/07, 22.10 GMT

Here it was possible to discuss. But nobody, even you did try to prevent the merge. But when i see your spliting, i believe wikipedia is becoming a dictatorship. Yoda1893 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK to merge but re-structure sections

 * I don't necessarily oppose the merger but I strongly believe the article sections need to be presented in a way to clearly distinguish the three major eras (Pre-WWII, 1954-1990, and After the Reunification), which I think should be main sections within the article. I can think of encyclopedic and technical reasons for this: The article would look in agreement with those related to the History of Germany, and when linking to West Germany national football team, the links can be approximated/piped to the corresponding section. --ChaChaFut 04:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is probably less case for a separate West Germany article than the separation of Ireland national football team (IFA) from Northern Ireland national football team. I don't mind either way. BTW prewar and 1954 are not appropriate era dates; Germany played friendlies till 1942 and  from 1950, and unofficial matches in between. jnestorius(talk) 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Green jersey redux
The article states that the green away jersey coming from a play against Ireland is an urban legend. However, the link given actually supports the claim. -- Zz 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Second best record in WC
It is quite strange to claim that Germany holds the record of second best team in the World Cup, based on a link (provided in an edit summary nonetheless) that creates a ranking giving two points for each victory and one for each draw. Since WC is a cup, the number of cups won is a better indicator than the artifact created by the German Football Federation.--Uyet Ustranimii 14:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

They are the 2nd best team. If you look here, they are the 2nd most successful team. Kingjeff 14:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you counting the points instead of the cups? (It would be nice if you can aslo explain what does "It is also an insult as a German that you would but Italy ahead of Germany" mean) --Uyet Ustranimii 19:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Maybe you meant "you would put Italy ahead of Germany". If that is the case, that it would be stupid nationalism. In any case, we should be coherent with other articles, and since FIFA_World_Cup says Italy is second, don't change it; if you don't agree, have FIFA_World_Cup changed before this article. --Uyet Ustranimii 20:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I backed my claim up with a source in the article. But you have yet to provide a ligitimate source for your claim. and nationalism isnt stupid. Kingjeff 20:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I backed too, with a link to a neutral source. And your nationalism, which is also racist, is stupid. Definitely.--Uyet Ustranimii 20:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the topic here is about the how to determine how Successful Germany and Italy are in the Wold Cup for which ICited my source in the article and not about Racism here. Please keep to the topic at hand and stop yourmanipulation. Kingjeff 20:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is: in any competition that is repeated over time, you order by the number of first places, then second places, than third... Why would you want to change this now?--Uyet Ustranimii 20:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it's technically incorrect. The Final is only one match whereas, my way shows every world cup match. By the way, I've already reworded it showing it as the w-d-l record and not. If you really insist on putting your way in, you could as long as my way is still in there. Kingjeff 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you count Olympic games records by number of total medals or by number of gold-silver-bronze medals? I ask you for a competition like a World Cup or Olympic games in which the ranking over several competitions is made in contrast with my approach.--Uyet Ustranimii 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've only counted wins, draws and losses for the all-time record for the world cup. Nothing else is included. Kingjeff 20:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's try again: why should we present a different way of ranking than the one in FIFA World Cup?--Uyet Ustranimii 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Why are you going from FIFA World Cup to Olympics and back to FIFA World Cup? Are you sure you know what your talking about? It sure doesn't from my stand point. Kingjeff 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You avoided answering, let's try again: why should we present a different way of ranking than the one in FIFA World Cup?--Uyet Ustranimii 21:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't avoid anything. I'll answer as soon as you know what you're talking about. Kingjeff 21:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about me, answer the question: why should we present a different way of ranking than the one in FIFA World Cup?--Uyet Ustranimii 21:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it's incorrect. Kingjeff 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, change that page first.--Uyet Ustranimii 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. I Already started. Kingjeff 22:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion. This is in response to a request for a third opinion. I believe the ranking system here should be the same one used in FIFA World Cup. If Kingjeff can get a consensus on that page that the ranking system it uses should be changed, then it should change for all pages that reference World Cup rankings. Until that happens, ranking on this page should be on the basis of number of cups won. Additionally, the German Football Association is not an independent reliable source for ranking of itself against other national football times when the choice of ranking system impacts on the order. Grouse 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

World Cup qualifying statistic
I have a nice stat, that might be worth to be added to the article. In its WC qualifying history since 1934, Germany has lost only two matches: 1985 in Stuttgart against Portugal (0:1, before the match Germany already had qualified for Mexico 1986) and 2001 in Munich against England (1:5). That means that Germany so far has never lost any away WC qualifying match. That is true, you can look it up! This is probably unique in the world, however this statement has to be doublechecked. I am pretty sure that all the big guns lost at least one away match (both Brasil and Argentina lost presumably once in La Paz or somewhere else on the continent and the European top teams as well (okay, not in La Paz of course ;-)). 62.143.76.189 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can check it against an external reference, it is ok to add it.--Uyet Ustranimii 11:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The DFB is a credible source. Especially against Wikipedia itself. Kingjeff 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They have a slight tendency to twist the data to show what they need. As your "league table" shows clearly.--Uyet Ustranimii 01:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an objective truth, that Germany has never lost any away WC qualifying match so far, there is no way that you can prove me otherwise, just check the www.rsssf.com website, that is mentioned above (if you think that that is not an objective source, please tell me which is one in your opinion). The only thing that has to be checked is if there is any other nation that has never lost an away WC qualifying match (and that I really doubt) 62.143.76.189 00:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge
The result was merge into Germany national football team. -- Agathoclea 09:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The other article is rather pointless. Both articles are dealing with exactly the same team, the point that during 1949-1990 east Germany wasn't included and that the team therefor was called "West German Football Team" in English media is already pointed out in the introduction paragraph of this article. All the necessary information is already included in this article. Having two articles is only causing redundancies, that are hard to maintain.--84.170.232.234 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Even FIFA records consider the West Germany team's achievements to belong to Germany, and there is not much purpose in including pages with overlapping content. One single German team page will be enough.--Kylohk 12:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with both of you. But we have to be careful as this article are becoming really long. Martin tamb 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They should be kept separate. Many people tend to confuse Germany's achievements with West Germany. They are 2 very different tams. The only reason why FIFA granted Germany the 3 World Cups West Germany won is because they didn't want those titles to be wasted. The article right now is very specific oriented and many people are quite pleased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gethomas3 (talk • contribs)


 * The statement above from User:Gethomas3 is either very ignorant, or offensive, or both. "Many people are quite pleased" indeed - those who envy the successes of the German and advocate a split of the 1950 to 1990 period from German football history. User:Matthead 16:28, 27 May 27 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Got so excited you forgot to sign ... ;)
 * Sorry for that. It would be helpful if the Wiki software could sign talk entries automatically. -- Matthead discuß!    O       22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The history is German football is fascinating and unique and closely reflects the difficult history of the country itself. I don't think you can split it up too much without detracting from the overall tale. Separate articles would each need to contain enough information about the various Germanys to provide context and make the whole works hang together.
 * I think East Germany needs its separate article, probably the Saar too, as it was recognized as a distinct entity by FIFA and some notable present-day clubs were exiled there for a while. But both need to be referenced somehow in the main Germany article. Germany and West Germany to my mind are essentially the same thing given that there is a high degree of historical continuity in terms of the league structures, the governing body, and traditional sides, etc. Wiggy! 22:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The historical East Germany national football team and Saarland national football team have and should keep their own articles, of course. It makes absolutely no sense to maintain a separate article under a different name that covers the history of the DFB team from 1949 to 1990, and deal only with 1908-1948 and post-1990 here. It's like introducing separate articles on the British and Argentinian national football teams covering only the time the Falklands were occupied by Argentina.-- Matthead discuß!    O       22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, im not in envy of germany. im pleased that germany has a great history in football. at the same time, i know enough about football to know that west germany and germany are not the same team from the name to the players. history will tell you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gethomas3 (talk • contribs)


 * Apparently you don't know enough about history though. See my comment further down. Germany's official name's "Federal Republic of Germany" and it's been that way since 1949. (West) Germany never ceased to exist, instead East Germany just joined the west. Hell, one look at the badge already tells you the entire story. Jrielaecher 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

But as players get older and retire, then every team changes. Maradona from Argentina, Pele from Brazil, Mitchell from Canada are all retired now. But he teams itself hasn't changed. Kingjeff 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't sweat it as this guy clearly doesn't get it. Sheesh. Wiggy! 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean the unsigned guy? Kingjeff 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. He doesn't apparently get that either ... Wiggy! 23:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stay civil. To the matter: No reason to merge. As mentioned in the AfD, the content is identical. Malc82 10:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, merging the two articles is still better than keeping both. At least the claims made in West Germany national football team would then be subject to WP policies, which means deletion of unreferenced content. So I'm making a complete turnaround to Merge as soon as possible. Malc82 13:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is quite pointless especially when you look at political facts. Germany is still officially known as the "Federal Republic of Germany." It may come as a surprise to some but that's the same name (West) Germany used between 49-90. Ie, East Germany joined the federal republic in 1990, it's not like a new country was created. That's why the argument for a separate article is so incredibly ludicrous. Franz Beckenbauer played for the federal republic, just like Michael Ballack does today. Jrielaecher 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we safely say that the vote is over? Kingjeff 16:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Pretty much. Unless we have to vote on that, too ... Wiggy! 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to vote on that. It's over. I've asked User:Agathoclea to deal with it. Kingjeff 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * just got that message and will have to deal with it tomorow. Not being full up to speed with the content of the two articles I will need to know how much of the westgerman articles needs including here (be generous, as it can be trimmed later). We will need to include that here with the appropriate GDFL-compliant editsummary - see WP:MERGE. Agathoclea 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

 * 1) Kingjeff 14:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Malc82 13:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Chanheigeorge 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Matthead 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Martin tamb 19:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) BSI 20:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Mghamburg 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Wiggy! 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Starting Line Up and Germany II Team
What happen with the original Current squad and Recent call up section? I think the new Starting Line Up and Germany II Team is a bit excessive. Several players name are mentioned twice and there is no clear reference on the team starting line ups. Starting line up will be different from time to time and this section is purely original research. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football for similar issue on this. Moreover, the 11 Starting Line Up players mentioned there never played together in German's last 11 match since Low took over. I'd say we need to delete this, but I don't want to start any dispute so I'm asking for opinions here. Martin tamb 20:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely delete this. Unless Joachim Löw actually posts his starting line-up in this article, it's a worthless part of the article. Jrielaecher 23:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the home stadium of Germany national football team?
Where is the home stadium of Germany national football team? 211.201.165.46 10:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have one. Germany plays its home games at different venues. There also is no clear hierarchy and theoretically no stadium or city is assured to host a specific number of games per year/decade. Malc82 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

European Championship Record
I have put in the European Championship Record section the last tournament Euro 2008 for the Mannschaft as Qualified. I have also noted at the bottom that this tournament is still in the qualification process. If anyone disagrees that this should be there please write to me at the bottom of this comment. Thank you. KoolSoccerKing 12:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)KoolSoccerKing

Germany defeat Cyprus the article need update--Blain Toddi (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Enke
I think the article gives a wrong date of birth for goalkeeper Robert Enke. His correct date of birth is August 24, 1977, not April 5, 1979. Obviously the date of birth of Timo Hildebrand was copied mistakenly .--84.133.29.79 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I corrected it according to http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=128. Oldnag85 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)