Talk:South Korea national football team/Archive 1

POV
Hmm.. they won AFC twice. The last won AFC they won was back in 1960! So saying that they are most successful asian team is a POV --Deepak|वार्ता 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The South Korea national football team has not only won the AFC Championship twice, but has also qualified for seven World Cup finals (far more than any other Asian team). And they even reached the semi-finals in 2002. They are consistently ranked one of the top teams in Asia by FIFA and have the undisputed reputation of having the best record. Please remove tag.--Sir Edgar 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge the fact that South Korea is one of the most formidable football teams in Asia but saying that they are the best is a POV. If it was the best, then it should have won the AFC atleast once in the past two decades. Saying that Brazil is currently the world's best football team makes sense as it has won the world cup 5 times. As far as I know, Japan won the last AFC cup. Also, Iran, KSA and Japan have won more Asian cup titles than South Korea. --Deepak|वार्ता 17:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Many teams do not field their best players for the AFC, including South Korea. Anyhow, you are focusing too much on the AFC, while I am talking from a historical perspective which is inclusive of the World Cup, Olympics, other international tournaments, friendlies, and yes, the AFC. It is not based on current ranking or simply on performance in Asian competitions. The highest-ranking Asian football team, according to FIFA, is currently Japan.

And, of course, almost any football fan would agree that Brazil "has been the world's most successful football team". In fact, the Brazil national football team article says just that: "The Brazilian national football team is the most successful national football team in the world, with five FIFA World Cup victories..." Brazil has only won two World Cup tournaments since 1970. ;)--Sir Edgar 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe me.. I am a big fan of the South Korean team but saying that they are best is a POV. You've gotta understand that this is an encyclopedia and making such claims is not appreciated (atleast in my eyes). How about changing the sentence to South Korea has been one of the most successful Asian teams. --Deepak|वार्ता 17:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

good point deepak, though your claims have certain flaws... it's true south korea have only won 2 Asian cups in the past, but their national team is the strongest team from AFC, judging by their WC and many other performances. if you are to label teams good or bad by solely looking at their regional performances and FIFA rankings, you can also say Mexico and Costa Rica are World's top teams.(believe me, they're good teams but up against other european nations? i don't think so) FIFA rankings are one of the most dubious ways to rank teams since if a team plays against likes of Nepal, Luxembourg, Cook Islands and Puerto Rico etc, surely they would register easy wins and gain many points, however, if you look at most strong teams from around the world, they tend to play against strong opponents who can match their standards so the wins don't come so easy. 210.55.227.202 02:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I said it twice and I say it again "South Korea is one of the best Asian teams" but on what basis can one say they have been the most successful Asian teams. The South Korean team made headlines only during the previous World Cup after beating Italy and Spain. Saying that the South Korean team doesn't field all of its top players for the Asian cup is no excuse. During the world cup, Spain and Italy didn't field many of their top players due to injury problems. I read an article in the Daily Mirror according to which the actual reason for Spain and Italy's loss to South Korea was the fact that these teams were playing too many regional matches hampering their players' performance level. But according to me, South Korea played really well and even though luck favoured them, I don't wanna take any credit away from them. All I am saying is to make the 1st para more encyclopedic. Thanks --Deepak|वार्ता 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you question the Brazilian team's article, too, then?--Sir Edgar 01:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

on what basis you say deepak? the fact that south korea is the only asian team to have made it to WC finals 7 times (6 consecutive since 1986) and hence, their success of last WC was bound to happen, after so many attempts in the past - you say they only played well in 2002, but if you watched them in the past, particularly 86,90 and 94 WC, they were unlucky to have not won any game during those tournaments but they came so close (2-2 draw with spain, 2-3 loss to germany, 2-3 loss to italy, 1-1 draw with bulgaria) i think koreans traditionally have had bad luck with their group draws, hence, maybe their not-so-impressive WC results prior to 2002. but lets go back to original discussion, its true you can't field top teams every match, but atleast you can enter them for tournaments, thats not the case for asian cups- koreans have always undervalued the significance of asian cups, thats why they don't bother entering their top players unlike iran, japan and saudi who enter their full-strength teams- it has nothing to do with injuries, italy and spain did have full-strengh squads for 2002 WC eventhough some didn't play in every game due to injuries etc - missing a few games due to injury is different to not entering at all well, all i can say is like you said, wiki is an encyclopedia and i think its important to state the facts - that the south korean football team is indeed the best in asia thank you very much, (eventhough i support iran) you see bahrain and kuwait doing well in asian cups, are they really that good? and just for fact, eventhough korea only won asian cup 2 times, they have reached finals more than any other team (5 times), iran 3, saudi 3, and japan 3. Luckyj 10:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you really wanna look at facts then Japan is ranked higher than Korea in FIFA rankings. Anyway, I think this is becoming more of an one man battle and I feel that arguing is one of the most unproductive thing man can ever do. So from my side, this discussion is over. I guess Wikipedia can never gain the reputation of being a reliable source. Thanks --Deepak|वार्ता 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not really arguing but keeping up the debate. It's been fairly professional and respectful so far, but stating that "...Wikipedia can never gain the reputation of being a reliable source." weakens your position. If you are indeed correct, then the only way to correct the situation is to come to a consensus rather then get up and quit. So on a personal level, I urge you to continue with your points - this section is a very interesting part of the article. --Sqrfrk 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is just a complete mess, needs to be completely rewritten. The page was written as if this were the media guide for the Korean national side. At least the author mentions that there have been past controversies involving Korea benefitting from then - something that appears lost on all the Korea-supporters complaining about the referee in the Switzerland match.

dear deepak
Lets make this very clear for Soccer Fans. FIFA ranking 1-30 ranking. ( Brazil to Ireland) is accurate ranking. The rest are money bribe or political involvement. For example, from 2002-2007 Japan rank higher than Korea. Korea outperform Japan many times including 2002 Korea Japan world cup. Korea is only asian team to rank 4th place in Asia and Asian soccer history. Champio: Brazil, Second: Germany, Third: Turkey, Fourth: Korea ( Representing Asia). Recent Asian Cup 2007 Korea beat Iran and Japan which both teams rank higher than Korea. Korea even beat Greece even rank higher than Iran and Japan. FIFA ranking below 30-50 is inaccurate. I honestly believe Japan isn't better than Korea. Japan is all money. Last minute big battle Korea always win Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea4one (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

i understand what you mean but bringing up FIFA rankings? i explained to you how unreliable FIFA rankings are...Mexico is ranked 6th... FIFA ranking is not a good indicator of how a team performs at world stage...you see, mexico and USA are ranked higher than england, italy, portugal, germany etc and just for fact, that highly ranked japan team lost to team USA 2-3 last week, the US team that was well-beaten by koreans 1-2 just 5 days earlier and just because majority of ppl have different opinion to yours doesnt mean its biased and unreliable... - btw you started this argument and others r just stating their different views...just trying to state the facts, thats what encyclopedias do :) Luckyj 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And South Korea beat Mexico 1-0 just last week.--Sir Edgar 06:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in this argument, but you just said , "because majority of ppl have different opinion to yours doesnt mean its biased and unreliable", you yourself are admitting that it is an opinion. Whether or not it is the most popular opinion is beside the point; the fact remains that it is an opinion and should not be presented as a fact. You could probably say, "Many people believe that South Korea is the most successful team in Asia". 195.93.21.105 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

clever argument...however in this case, the 'opinion' stems from the fact - this is not a matter of debate, we're here to talk about the facts, who would deny that the brazillian football team is the most succesful team in the world? same goes for south korea, their achievement is the best in asia, hence making them the most succesful team in asia. and the opinion that was talked about, doesnt mean opinion on whther south korea is the most succesful in asia or not, it was opinion on how deepaks argument was invalid 202.37.167.156 04:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with many of you in that we need to look beyond Korea's Asian Cup records and its FIFA rankings. For example, by looking at the Copa América records, one might be inclined to think that Brazil is the 3rd best team in South America (it has 7 championships compared to 14 for both Uruguay and Argentina). But I do agree that implying Korea has been the most successful Asian team is a POV, seeing their combined performances in the Olympics, Asian Cup, and the World Cup. The only things that really stick out in my mind are their 7 appearances (6 straight) in the WC (compared to 4/3 for KSA/Japan) and the '02 WC performance (1 round better than North Korea). Not too convincing imo. 35.9.42.226 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Best team in Asia
Korea: Current FIFA ranking is 51. Does FIFA ranking matter?? Answer is No. Current Coach: Dutchman was Assistant Coach. His weakpoint: Does not have indepth coaching experience. Current Korean National Football Lineup: Weak and Spoiled. The fame has got into the head of many Korean soccer players. They seem like " Superstar" instead of      soccer players. ( Long hair and Tattooes, Models etc) Korea's weakest point. Simply, undiscipline and unorganize team. ( Korean disease).

Tournament: Korea take World Cup most seriously. Korea have out perform Japan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Bahrain etc. In Asian Cup these teams might fly. In real tournament Koreans tend to out perform them many times. Simply World Cup record shows.

Asian Cup Tournament: Korean practice tournament for World Cup or Olympic. Koreans always choke in Asian Cup against Middle Eastern or South East Asian. But Koreans always get thier revenge by winning World Cup ticket from Asia. Its keep repeating history for Korea. Korea receives ass blow in Asian Cup and Korea wins World Cup ticket.

Strong Point: Korea has indepth experience playing with World Class football teams. In World Cup. Korean soccer team are persistent. They tend to suprise the world by winning big gun teams like Italy, Germany, England, Spain, Portugal, etc.

Weak Point: Korea football team are inconsistent about winning. Typical Korean soccer disease they tend to play well and at the end they tend to choke big time at the end.

Coach: Is it Coach fault Korean soccer team losing?? Answer is No. Players: Is it players fault Korean soccer team losing??? Answer is Yes.

Korean Media: Korean sport Announcers and Korean Sport Newspapper are two biggest Korean soccer killers. Both of them tend to glorify Korean soccer players. It makes Korean soccer players to be greeding about money and corruption. It bring social illness to Korean soccer players. In the end it brings biggest downfall to Korean soccer.

Since there is no clear way to state that SK is the best team in Asia, why not mitigate the sentence and say it is one of the best? The reader that will find that SK has the best asian record of World Cup partecipations, while has lagged behind other countries in recent AFCs.

Saying that SK has rivals (Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran) is not a shame, it is just the truth.--Panairjdde 08:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no statement saying "best team in Asia". It says "most successful national team in Asia". Entering the World Cup finals more than any other country and reaching the semi-finals in 2002 as well as performing well in regional tournaments and having good records against Japan, China, etc. makes South Korea the most successful in football.--Sir Edgar 08:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if success is measured only on numebr of WC partecipations, what about the other reverts?--Panairjdde 09:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept a large part of your edits. I still think you need to get over the Italian team's defeat in 2002. Even Sepp Blatter, who you like to quote so much, said that team didn't play that well.--Sir Edgar 23:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. But when an incompetent refree send your best player away, and stops a man in front of the keeper with the possibility of a golden goal for a non-existen off-side (after many others in the qualification matches) you get pissed.
 * And futhermore, I am not against South Korea, but againt all those (including the Turkey national football team article editors) that make weasel claims for their teams.
 * I am readding the bit about the Asian cup. I also kindly ask you to provide a reference for the claim about the first professional league of Asia, since I found that Saudi Arabia first league is older.--Panairjdde 09:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference Sir Edgar provided for the claim says: "Korea was the first country in Asia to field a professional team. The professional league, first established in 1983,..." It does not say that the professional league was the first, it says that the first professional team was Korean, and that the professional league started in 1983. Any reference that it was the first profesional league?--Panairjdde 10:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake with the bad link. I've put in a reference to another article that states the following:
 * "Korea was the first to start the league in the year 1982 and it was only in the 90's that Japan and China have started professional leagues to take their football into new heights."
 * If you have evidence that Saudi Arabia's professional football league was first in Asia, then provide it.
 * Back to what you were talking about with the Italian team... The player in question, Totti, was sent off for alleged diving. It is difficult to determine whether he really dived or not. That depends on the angle of the camera. Regardless, even if it was a bad call, it's one of many during the tournament and the history of the game. Panairjdde, do you bother to mention how a Spanish player punched a goal in during the Paraguay game? Or how an American player used his hand to block a goal during the quarterfinal game against Mexico?http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2002/world_cup/news/2002/06/16/us_mexico_gamer/
 * Mexico's coach Javier Aguirre: "There was a hand in the air, the referee didn't see it but it was on the big screen and 40,00 spectators saw it."
 * The 1986 FIFA World Cup barely mentions Maradona's infamous "Hand of God". Yet, you seem to focus on getting any possible dirt against the South Korean team in the 2002 FIFA World Cup (match reports) article. Yet, all you can state are inferences.
 * Anyhow, I've heard Totti has a reputation for diving. Wasn't he recently banned by the UEFA for three games for something like that?
 * The fact of the matter is Italy played poorly. Most people, except Italian fans, think they deserved to lose. And what makes you think Italy would have beat South Korea on penalties? South Korea beat Spain on penalties 5-3 in the quarterfinal of 2002.--Sir Edgar 07:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for discussing relative merits of South Korean and Italian football. That said, I simply wrote that the yellow card was not correct, that Blatter said so too, and that for his poor direction Moreno was sent home. Everything I wrote is backed by references, so it is not "dirt" but facts.
 * As regards the first Asian professional league, notice that:
 * This discussion should go to K-League (if you agree, please feel free to move it there)
 * Your reference http://www.longlivesoccer.com/asianfootball.htm does not say KFA was the first professional league in Asia, but that it was the first among Japan, South Korea and China:
 * "Japan, South Korea and China has progressed in the last few years due to their youth development programme and start of professional leagues in their respective countries. Korea was the first to start the league in the year 1982 and it was only in the 90's that Japan and China have started professional leagues to take their football into new heights."
 * The Saudi Arabian Football Federation has a page in which it claims Saudi Premier League to have been created in 1959 and reconstituted in 1971/1974. If you check in Talk:K-League, I asked if there is any reference that SAFF was not professional before 1983, when KFA started.
 * Please notice how I always tried to be detached and professional in editing the articles: I do 'not "focus on getting any possible dirt against the South Korean team", so please hold back your attacks. Thanks. --Panairjdde 11:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your self-commentary that you try to be detached and professional in your editing. You have yet to deny an anti-Korean stance (see User talk:Panairjdde). Regardless, I don't see any problem with editing it to "East Asia" for the first professional football league.--Sir Edgar 04:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not care about your opinion on me, and for this reason I shall not defend myself from your attacks — and please notice, you should prove I am wrong, not pretending I should prove I am right!.
 * As regards Wikipedia, do you agree that the reference to the lead on professional league institution should go to Korean Football Association or in K-League, instead of inside South Korea national football team article?--Panairjdde 08:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay because the Japan national football team page also mentions its J. League. Each article should be consistent in format.--Sir Edgar 00:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, removed from both.--Panairjdde 09:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Panairjdde - I think you missed the context for mentioning the J. League in the Japanese national team article. Professionalization was arguably the single most important development in Japanese soccer, and a reason why the qualification for the 1994 World Cup was significant.


 * Now, I don't know the context for mentioning the K. League in the South Korea article, but I imagine there was some context to it. Either way, I disagree with editing other articles for the sake of maintaining some arbitrary standard set for this article. Ytny 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in, but Japan didn't make it to US 94 WC, they made their WC debut in 1998. 202.37.68.100 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for barging in, but I was aware that Japan didn't qualify in '94 - I of course meant the qualification campaign. My mistake. Ytny 06:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde
please explain it to us the significance of having the paragraph; In the last six editions of Asia Cup, however, South Korea lagged behind other teams, such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and China?

it seems to me, that you are not being very fair on this particular article - perhaps you're personally not happy with South Korean Soccer team?

why don't you go and add similar paragraphs to other articles such as; Italian National Soccer team's recent struggle (failed to progress past group stage in EURO 2004 etc)

I'm sure if you put more effort into other articles, you can achieve similar feat - however i think you are too busy trying to show the negative sides of South Korean Soccer team.

funny thing is, since when was the AFC asian cup such a BIG tournament? i mean, it is a continental championship, but it lacks the intensity and standards of European championships or African cup of nations 202.37.68.100 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that was odd too. While the AFC has certainly made an effort to raise the Asian Cup's profile (with some success), qualification for the World Cup and performance at the Finals is (and perhaps always will be) the measuring stick for Asian teams.


 * And the term "lagged behind" seems inappropriate for a tournament held only every four years, when Korea is trailing the co-leaders by a whopping one championship. You can't "lag behind" in something that isn't tracked with a reasonably degree of continuity.


 * It's also worth pointing out that even Euro was not considered an important tournament until the mid-80s, and outside of Europe, continental tournaments are generally taken with varying degrees of seriousness. Ytny 06:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I agree with Ytny, so I changed that particular phrase.
 * 139.80.55.27 12:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I thank all of my South Korean friends for giving me the honour of a section with my name in SKnft talk page.
 * The significance of that particular sentence, which is a footnote, can be understood only within its context. The sentence is:
 * "Since the 1950s, South Korea has emerged as a major football power in Asia, winning several prestigious Asian football championships, including the first two Asian Cup tournaments."
 * What does this sentence mean? That SK has been "winning several prestigious Asian football championships" since 1950s. Now, what are these "prestigious Asian football championships, including the first two Asian Cup tournaments"? They are exactly the "the first two Asian Cup tournaments", no more, no less. So a footnote reporting SK peformance in the most important continental competition is important to give the reader an objective view of the matter. Am I wrong?
 * Now, the matter seems to be: are the words "South Korea lagged behind other teams, such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and China" a correct statement to show the performance of SKnft in Asia Cup? In Asian Cup article is reported that, in the last six competitions, the positions are:
 * 1) Saudi Arabia - 1st x 3 2nd x 2
 * 2) Japan - 1st x 3
 * 3) China - 2nd x 2  3rd x 1   4th x 2
 * 4) South Korea - 2nd x 1 3rd x 1
 * Despite the fact that the difference between China nft and South Korea nft is small, is this charter wrong?
 * Thanks for discussing this matter with civility.--Panairjdde 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's the phrasing "lagged behind", not the actual content of your edit, that's problematic. You can state the facts without using the phrase, which isn't well defined and not appropriate for describing performance in a quadrennial event, in my opinion. The way you write it, it's easy for the reader to infer that the performance at the Asian Cup is a key factor in comparing Asian national teams and that there is any kind of continuity from tournament to tournament.
 * A simple "South Korea has not performed as well as its continental rivals at the Asian Cup" with context, i.e. the first two Asian Cups and their World Cup appearances should be fine. Ytny 06:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the lagged behind, that seems to hurt many people beyond my will. How is it, now?--Panairjdde 08:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Facts vs. Opinion
LOL, The Czechs are ranked 2nd and USA is ranked 4th. HAH, and USA is expected to end last in their group. Yes, FIFA rankings are quite reliable. Sarcasm aside, the Elo ratings are much more reliable. So please, if we're going to argue which side is the better Asian team, don't use a ratings system as dubious as Fifa. Let's look at the results and facts, not opinions.

Fact: Korea has made it to its sixth consecutive World Cup, yes, SIXTH. Hell, even Team USA is at its fifth. Japan is at its third. Yes, Korea has been dominating Asian football longer than Japan has.

Fact: Korea is the only Asian team to make it to the semifinals.

Fact: Whether or not Korea shows its best team in the Asian Cup, Korea still finishes strong.

--Nissi Kim 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Change the Jerseys
They aren't orange, they're red. Nike Korea 2006 World Cup Red Official Soccer Jersey http://www.footballfanatics.com/htmlpages/root/WorldCup/Korea/Jerseys/Korea112790.html

Compromise over Panair's Statements
I doubt this is compromise since there was an argument over fact and assumption.. Because Korea hasn't performed "strong" in the previous Asian cups, you can't assume that Korea has "lagged behind". In fact, on the world stage, Korea has better odds than the rest of the Asian continent in World Cup Germany. For example, you can't say that because that it's night time and assume that the Sun has died.

Therefore, I decided to input a statement. Please, lets drop the Edit wars and quit inputting biased opinions. If this continues, I might have the urge to go to the Italian article and write assumptions and call them facts. --Nissi Kim 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Korea’s World Cup qualification record
Korea has been consistently qualifying for the World Cup and that has to be given to them. However, it is worth clearly looking at some stats behind those appearances.

First of all, Korea only started qualifying for the World Cup after the number of spots for Asia was increased. Had the allocation remained at one, Korea would’ve failed to qualify for a number of the World Cups. For example Saudi Arabia was ahead of Korea twice in 1994 and 2006.

Let’s take a look.

1986 – Asia was divided into two zones for the first time. Iraq won the western zone, Korea won the eastern zone. Asia was divided like that because of FIFA’s strong desire to finally see a team from the far east at the World Cup (North Korea being the last qualifier from the region in 1966). Best Asian team in qualifiers: unclear.

1990 – This time around the two zones were merged and it is clear that Korea was the best team in the qualifications.

1994 – Format same as in 1990 but this time Saudi Arabia was the top team in the qualifiers.

1998 – There were two final groups. Saudi Arabia won one group, South Korea won the other group. Best Asian team in qualifiers: unclear.

2002 – Korea qualified as hosts.

2006 – Saudi Arabia and Japan won the two final groups. Korea qualified as one of the runners-up.

Korea was clearly the best team in the qualifiers twice, in 1990 qualifiers (and in 1954 when only two teams from Asia took part). Jirongi 01:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Korea’s performance at the World Cup finals.
With the exception of the 2002, Korea’s performances at the World Cup have been very poor. They won their first match in 2002.

Here is a comparison of Asia’s top qualifiers.


 * Team         Played  W – D – L    GF:GA    -/+GD   Points   %
 * South Korea     21     3- 6 -12    19:49   -30    15   23.8
 * Japan             7     2-1-4        6:7     -1     7   33.3
 * Saudi Arabia   10     2-1-7        7:25   -18     7   23.3
 * North Korea     4      1-1-2        5:9    -4     4   33.3
 * Iran             6       1-1-4       4:12    -8     4   22.2

Those records above include Korea’s performance at the 2002 WC. Yes, Korea has been a consistent qualifier but frequently the teams performances at the top stage were very poor. South Korea had to wait longer for a win than Japan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran. South Korea is yet to win away from home, something that the North, Saudia Arabia and Iran have achieved (though this should change after the Togo match).

Saudia Arabia and North Korea managed to make the second round at the finals, as did Japan at home in 2002.

In terms of % success rate, Korea is behind Japan and North Korea and has a very similar record to Saudi Arabia and Iran. Jirongi 02:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

(2) Asian Championship
It is true that this tournament is not of huge significance. However if Korea were to be called Asia’s best team, they ought to have won it at least once in the last twenty years. Instead their two wins came during the first two editions when a handful of teams participated in 1956 and 1960. For example they only played three matches in 1960, all at home, beating Taiwan, Israel and South Vietnam.


 * team           winners   finalists   semifinalists
 * Saudi Arabia     3      |    5   |        5
 * Iran             3      |    3   |        8
 * Japan            3      |    3   |        3
 * South Korea      2      |    5   |        7
 * Israel           1      |    3   |        4
 * Kuwait           1      |    2   |        4

(3) Korea at the Olympics
It is often said that South Korea takes Olympics more seriously than the Asian championship. However, South Korea is not Asia’s top performer at the Olympics, Japan is.

Finals:
 * Japan             7   |23|  |10-3-10|   |34:51| |-17|   |23|   |50%|
 * S Korea           7   |21|   |5-8-8|    |21:52| |-31|   |18|   |43%|

Qualifiers:
 * South Korea	|100|	|61-19-20| |209:101|	|202|
 * Japan		|107|	|65-11-31|	|283:124|	|206|

Medals:
 * Japan – Bronze in 1968
 * Korea – none

Korea at the Olympics:
 * 1948: 5-3 win v Mexico, 0-12 loss to Sweden: Korea Asia’s top performer
 * 1952: India plays at the finals, S Korea did not enter (Korean War)
 * 1956: S Korea eliminated by Japan in qualifiers, India comes 4th in the finals
 * 1960: Korea eliminated by Taiwan. Taiwan and India qual for the finals
 * 1964: Korea qualifies for the finals but losses all three matches with a 1:20 goal record. Japan makes the quarter finals.
 * 1968: Korea eliminated by Japan in qualifiers. Japan wins bronze medal.
 * 1972: Korea eliminated by Malaysia in qualifiers. Iran, Burma and Malaysia qualify.
 * 1976: Korea eliminated by Israel. Iran and North Korea make the quarter-finals at the finals.
 * 1980: Korea eliminated by Malaysia. Kuwait and Iraq make the quarter-finals at the finals.
 * 1984: Korea eliminated by Iraq. Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia qualify.
 * 1988: Korea hosts the Olympics. Korea wins 2 points at the finals, Iraq 3 and China 1.
 * 1992: Korea qualifies but goes out in the first round. Qatar make the quarter-finals.
 * 1996: Korea qualifies. Wins 4 points in the first round. Japan wins six points while Saudi Arabia losses all their matches.
 * 2000: Korea qualifies. Despite winning six points they are eliminated. Japan make quarter-finals where they lose on penalties.
 * 2004: Korea qualifies and makes the quarter-finals. Iraq finishes 4th.

How many times was Korea Asia’s top performer? Once, in 1948. Jirongi 02:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary
Okay, [based on my arguments] I think it fair to say that South Korea is one of Asia’s top performers but calling Korea the best team is clearly POV as it depends on the weightings you give each achievement. Weightings given to different competitions can be highly subjective. Some countries used to take some competitions seriously, some don’t. “How seriously?” is something that is difficult to measure.

If we look at the 2002 World Cup, we have to say this was greatest ever achievement by an Asian team. However, historically Korea is not the superpower people make it out to be. Korea’s record at the finals was terrible prior to 2002 and they hold the record for the greatest number of matches without a win. I think there is a lot at stake for them right now, in 2006 in terms of reputation. If they can get couple wins, then the debate should swing in their favour. However, at the moment the jury is still out. Jirongi 03:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jirongi, while it's very nice to have all that information for everyone to read and understand, it is somewhat cluttered in here as a result. In the future, why not just provide links to the articles from where you actually got this information and then, you know, just maybe, this page won't be so cluttered. Heaven knows it's already cluttered up thanks to the others. I understand that you want to bring attention to only certain bits of info but that unfortunately is selective referencing. I formatted your contributions on your behalf so it doesn't look so messy in the table of contents.


 * As well, you should refrain from making comments like "though this should change after the Togo match" because 1) the match hasn't commenced yet and 2) it's quite rude to assume one team will automatically lose to another. Togo, like Angola, is enjoying their first time show at the world cup stage and I'm sure they would not appreciate your attitude. And who's to say that they will lose, despite your wisdom? After all, Japan seemed to be winning until half time today.


 * As well, Austrailia's induction into AFC should prove to be quite interesting. Whichever country maintains its WC qualifications for 2010 should provide more insight into this matter. --Jayohz 15:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[2006 World Cup] Information
Firstly, the article does not need information regarding how you thought South Korea played as it becomes POV.

Secondly, the article does not need references to other games ie. Trinidad and Tobago. I'm PRETTY sure that people will understand that a Togo player was sent off for receiving two yellow cards without that bit concerning Trinidad and Tobago.

Thirdly, the article does not need to remind readers about Ahn and his goal during the Italien game. Just provide the information as it is without externalities or extras. --Sazabel 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Who are you addressing?--Panairjdde 16:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoever wrote that section. As a side note (To: Panairjdde), why did you remove that section anyhow? You say that "are we gonna add all current information to all teams" as your justification but then only go about removing this section from this article but not from England's or Australia's or Sweden's (and list goes on). I'm returning that section back into the article. --Sazabel 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is a matter between you and someone in particular, you should write in that person talkpage, otherwise, please be more clear about the matter you are writing about. As regards my edit, I deleted the section because this is not the place to write match-by-match performance of KRnft in WC2006. And I am watching this article, not England one.--Panairjdde 16:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Um.. I was pointing out the changes made to that section and while I should have indicated who added that section in and corrected that person, I don't think it's that much of an issue that I put this on the discussion page. I was pointing out the bloody issues in the original section so I do not see the problem.


 * And the fact that you're not watching the England, Sweden, Australia, Japan and etc but watching this one doesn't change the idea that this article should follow example as the majority of the articles as they all contain current information regarding their play history at Germany.--Sazabel 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat the question, which you subtly avoided, are you going to add each WC 2006 match to Korea (and England, Sweden, Australia, Japan...) in this page? And what about the matches of previous editions of World Cup?
 * The point is not what others are doing, but if this information should be here or not.--Panairjdde 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that I should not add to each WC 2006 match to each respective article because it is already there as I've insinuated in my posts. If you require me to directly answer your question then the answer is no because I do not want to do useless things as it is already there. Obviously when the WC 2006 series is over then you may remove the match-by-match reports because there is no need for it there.


 * I'm curious to as why you are so keen on watching this article but clearly, not on the others. --Sazabel 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean that you are adding informations that you think will be useless in a month? This means that you are writing a newspaper, not an encyclopedia! Look here.--Panairjdde 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean that bit that you wrote at the very end? Yes, that is very helpful considering that the addition was clearly quite recent. I would ask that you refrain from making bloody obvious insults to my intelligence. Honestly, why would you try to refer to a section about guides for writing football articles that you JUST wrote a second ago. --Sazabel 17:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wrote it few moments ago (and I even put the time of the edit, clearly), because it was a proposal for a discussion. If you relax and "assume good faith", you'll understand I am trying to avoid a stupid edit war.--Panairjdde 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm not trying to start a war with you either, so sorry I took your words a bit offensively. Plus, no offense, you've got quite a penchant for edit wars. Again, bit of bad blood there, so my apologies. Anyhow, if you feel that match-by-match reports are useless, then feel free to remove them after a month, as I will be watching the England article to do the same to sum up the information and adding a permanent section. For now, I suggest leaving it because it does have the merit of providing users information while during the 2006 series. --Sazabel 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you try to find an agreement in the appropriate (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams, I suggest) page?--Panairjdde 17:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll use the korea article to provide a sample format for that section. Give me a moment. --Sazabel 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that Panairjdde seems obsessed with finding any kind of fault or alleged misconduct involving the Korean team. This is while keeping the Italian team's page squeaky clean (even though it has a team riddle with controversy and scandal). I wish he would use equal application in his descriptions and content decisions.--Sir Edgar 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your opinion counts nothing, if not backed by proofs, since this is not a forum. And whatever you think is my purpose, you can always show proofs againsts my edits.--Panairjdde 22:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Panairjidde, fuck off you Italian. It's time to invade Italy's page I think.

Merge
I think the page South Korea national football team should be merged with Korea Republic national football team page. I don't know either to merge these nor to put merge-suggestion template on it. Help.
 * They are the same article.--Panairjdde 20:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup record format
User with IP number 71.105.100.129 keeps on reverting World Cup record to an extended format, claiming it is "consistent" (but it forget to say to whom and why), "easier to compare to other teams" (again, he has jet to show why), and that it is "more clear to read and matches other teams pages better". The compact format is used, apart than in this article before 71.105.100.129 unilateral decision, in: while his format is nowhere to see. I'm going to revert his edit, until he explains them.--Panairjdde 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Angola
 * 2) Costa Rica
 * 3) Côte d'Ivoire
 * 4) Croatia
 * 5) Czech Republic
 * 6) Ecuador
 * 7) Togo
 * 8) Trinidad and Tobago
 * 9) Tunisia
 * 10) Ukraine
 * 11) Yemen
 * 12) Vietnam
 * 13) Uzbekistan


 * Listen, I don't know why this is hard to understand. You can either keep it fully expanded, which would be format A, lets say.  Or you can fully compact it, which would be format B.  Right now you'd have it set up so that some are compacted and others are not.  As for why it is easier to compare: if it is fully expanded one can open up the Korean page, the German page, etc. and clearly match the page from year to year.  It is NOT a big deal, compact is fine too, as long as it is consistent.  Just because you found other pages that are also inconsistent doesn't mean that it is the correct way to go. This isn't a conspiracy to provoke you.  This is not a global South Korean mission for propoganda.  In fact, it makes South Korean look worse if it is fully expanded because it shows a bad record...*rolls eyes*.  Please, control the paranoia. 71.105.100.129 02:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea Kazuhara. The color is a bit blinding though. :) 71.105.100.129 02:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You're free to change the color, I just thought red would fit but I couldn't really find a red that wasn't hard to readKazuhara 03:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with the previous format, that is used by all pages? Why do you want to change it? The format was (1) clear, (2)compact and therefore efficient, and (3) consistent. Now we have a table, which is long and ugly (why do you want red?). Furthemore, if you push for a new format, at least fill all of the fields; you created this table, but forgot to add all the information it should carry. --Panairjdde 10:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tentative starting line-ups and formations
Someone added two out of three of SK lineups for 2006 WC. The third is missing. Is anyone going to fill it, or we will have this incomplete "feature" in the article permanently? I understand the WC causes many more editors to collaborate, but in the end we should strive for completeness and meaningfulness of the article.--Panairjdde 10:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

'Controversial'
We all know those Italians keep trying to say 'controversial' to the Korean team's victories over Spain and Italy when they infact refuse to use the same standards on their own national site. That is not only idiotic, it is pathetic, and reaks of double-standards and hypocracy. Go away you Italians, unless you want to use the standards on your own national team - which more media outlets around the world clearly see as having more controversial aspects than the Korean team - just go away, and stop destroying fairness on Wikipedia.58.178.54.62 09:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In this moment, the "Italian" article has four "controversial" inside. The Italy and Spain vs SK matches were controversial, you can't deny it. Remember, this is the article of the national football team of South Korea, not an atricle owned by South Koreans.--Panairjdde 08:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the Italian article conveniently forgets many elements that is wrong with Italian football. Not only this, many words called 'controversial' are directed at judgements which are made AGAINST Italy. Hence, again showing your bias, and inability to work for this project. Please, go away. No one wants you here to troll on this page. You are just pathetic, and are symbolic of why so many people have negative views about Italians and the way they play their football.58.178.54.62 09:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is the reference to the controversy over Australia penalty. What are you comlaining about? I'll stay here despite you, who have not even the dignity to have an accout, but hide behind anonimity.--Panairjdde 08:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that the majority of people here do not like you. You use unilateral deletions for other Wikipedians' hard work - you use your own personal bias to influence Wikipedia pages. You are pathetic, engage in double-standards, and is a hypocrite. One only needs to look at this discussion page and your own personal one to see that you are not liked for your frequent clashes with other Wikipedians. If it is your intention to keep editing your personal bias into this page, then the same conditions should be met on your precious Italian website that you guard like the troll you are. Stop using your double-standards, get rid of your bias, or the same conditions should apply for all national football pages. You, however, obviously cannot get past your own judgements and therefore you are handicapped in your ability to produce fair, non-biased articles and/or edits here. Go away. You are a negative influence on this page and Wikipedia as a whole.58.178.54.62 09:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If Panairjdde was atleast compromising, I wouldn't mind him editing the article but wow, seriously.. after watching all these edit wars about something that has nothing to do with an Italian citizen, I find this ridiculous. I've lost respect for wiki to be a credible source.

There is no account of controversy in the 1966 World Cup match between England and Argentina and yet Argentinians aren't scrambling to say anything about it in Wikipedia.. I wonder why that is so? --Nissi Kim 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many articles neading cleanup. Why don't you go and fix them, instead of complaining here?--151.47.126.70 20:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not qualified to be cleaning up the many articles that need to be cleaned up. Stick to a subject you're more familiar with.  I've already tried to compromise with you and yet you stil refuse.  That's okay.  Unilateralism.  Sweet.  Totalitarian?  Maybe.  If it makes you happy, why not have non-Koreans and non-Italians edit this article.  Of course we wouldn't want something like the Japanese changing their own history. --Nissi Kim 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool it, people. There isn't a nation in the world who doesn't "change their own history", North+South Korea and Italy included.  Stop making it a national issue, and stop insulting each other, each other's countrymen and each other's nations.  It's only football for goodness' sake. 82.123.148.189

The first paragraph wasn't Nissi. It was me. I will use sigs from now on. 58.178.54.62 09:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What About the Women's Team?
Shouldn't there be a section on the women's team also?--Jettd42291 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions
I have couple questions regarding the current content. Perhaps someone can explain why certain things are stated the way they are.

[1] “Since the 1950s, South Korea has emerged as a major football power in Asia, winning several prestigious Asian football championships, including the first two Asian Cup tournaments.”

Which Asian football championships did Korea win apart from the first two Asian Cup tournaments?

[2] "After the team success, football had an explosion of popularity in the country, where the game had traditionally been less popular than other games, such as baseball, formerly the most popular spectator sport in the country.”

Apart from Baseball, which other games have been more popular in Korea? In addition, didn’t Baseball only overtake football in terms of popularity only in mid 1990s? Perhaps a reference is needed to re: the basball statement.

[3] ''“In the last six editions of Asian Cup, however, South Korea has not peformed as well as other teams, such as Japan and Saudi Arabia. See Asian Cup”''

Why six? In 1988, for example, Korea only lost in the final on penalties. I would suggest changing this to either four (the number of tournament since Korea made the final – they used to qualify for a final roughly once per two editions prior to 1988 OR eleven, the number of editions since Korea actually won the competition). Jirongi 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [1] This does seem a bit off. [2] There's more than basketball, baseball, and golf... [3] I agree. --Nissi Kim 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahn Jung Hwan is no longer in MSV.
Ahn Jung Hwan no longer plays for MSV.

He is currently working out in Korea to get in shape for his next move. 58.224.139.67 14:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Yep. He is currently at Suwon Samsung.

The Colour of uniform
Well.. I was quite surprised that the color of uniform has changed Red to Orange.... Well, there can be some similarities between orange and red, but it's not the same. It looks like the uniform of National Soccer team of Netherlands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.224.139.67 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Roster
Can someone clean up the roster for 2002 and 2006 World Cups? I really don't think these are that important to show on the 'main' article of Korean national team page. Sure, the team had some great performances in those years but, past is past. I think only the most recent call-ups is important to show off. If someone can make separate articles for those rosters, I would be greatly appreciated. I'm sure the 'main' article will look so much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.200.93 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Roster2
I noticed that on the other countries football teams' article pages, they made a box links(I don't know what to call it) that can be either show or hide. The links included all the participants of the each tournament. They look so much cleaner and neat. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.200.93 (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

POV Issues
208.120.136.114, I understand the sections you're deleting are POV. However, I think the History section should be put back in the article, but without the POV because ATM without it, the article is just a long series of lists. I'm not asking you specifically to do that, I'm just letting you know why I reverted your edits. L337 kybldmstr 08:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Olympic Team
I think that this page needs to include the performance of both the olympic and national teams.

While strictly the "national football team" should refer to the team that represents Korea in international "A" matches, for the following reasons the consolidation of the olympic and national team is appropriate:

(i) unlike european national teams, in korea, there is a lot of crossover between the national and olympic teams. many players on the korean olympic team also represent the country in "A" matches (Lee Geun-ho, Park Chu-young, Shin Young-rok, Kim Jin-kyu, Kim Dong-jin, Kim Do-heon, Oh Beom seok, Jeong Sung Yong, et al). therefore, it is hard to differentiate between the two.

(ii) likewise, korean fans do not distinguish the two. while certainly they discount performances of the U-17 team et al., fans take equal pride in the olympic and national team. in fact, the fans and media refer to both teams as the "national team"

Of course, strictly speaking there needs to be a separate olympics page. however, i feel for the purposes of edifying the public about korean performance at international football matches we need to include records of both the olympic and national team on this page.

Buryatrider (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Buryatrider


 * You give good reasons for having an article on the Korean men's Olympic football team, but not for confusing the two teams. Olympic appearances do not add to the generally recognised total of international appearances that a player accrues, results are not considered to be part of the national team's record, games do not affect FIFA rankings, and most tellingly, there is a different coach.  It is a different team.  That many of the players overlap simply reflects the fact that the national team at the moment includes a number of younger players.  This might be due to players who would not otherwise be in the national side joining that side for friendlies that are, in effect, warm-up matches for the Olympics: the analogous situation whereby a national team in a friendly is sometimes essentially a second string does not mean that we integrate the articles for the national team and the B team.  Some linking sentences would be understandable, and a temporary disambiguation line at the top of the Full Team's article sending those interested in the Olympic side to the appropriate article for the duration of the games might be wise, but this article should not list the Olympic squad, results, coach or captain as if it were the national team's squad/results/coach/captain, care should be taken not to increase the number of caps on player articles.  The situation has been well handled in the cases of China, Australia and New Zealand.  A separate article is needed.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable matches section
It would appear that this team has never lost a notable match. This means that either they have won every tournament they have ever played in, or the selection of matches for this section is very biased. On what grounds is a draw against Sweden in an exhibition match notable? This section needs either a clear set of inclusion criteria, justification of the relevance of each match, or deletion. Kevin McE (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Update Roster
The roster should be updated to the players called up for the match versus Korea DPR of 2008-06-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.102.198 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahn Jung Hwan - Date of Birth
In Korea Republic national football team table, Ahn Jung Hwan's date of birth is mentioned as 16 February 1976. In Korea Republic national football team table, his date of birth is mentioned as 27 January 1976. In article Ahn_Jung-Hwan, his date of birth is January 27, 1976. So, his date of birth mentioned in 2002 World Cup Squad table needs to be corrected. Yogesh Sawant 06:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can somebody tell me, is Ahn Jung-Hwan still called for the national team or did they kick him out? He played one match against Jordan in the third round of the qualification. What happened to him? 87.122.138.136 (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)green

2010 WC Quals
This section shouldn't be longer than the other sections about the actual World Cup. "South Korean national team secured a spot in the 2010 World Cup" should be good enough, if necessary at all. --Tk TommyKim (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

MATCH REPORT RULES
It's important to follow FIFA guidelines for each brief match report included in the "Forthcoming/Previous Matches" section of this article. These are just some things I've come up with; would appreciate additions from the community as required. RULES 1. SCORE/GOAL REPORTS i. Goals scored during regular time When a goal is scored during a certain time x'y", then it is officially recorded as having been scored in minute x+1' (Example: If Jisung Park scored a goal at 16'12", then this goal should be recorded to have occurred at 17')

ii. Goals scored during injury time A football match is officially 90' long. The first half begins at 0' and concludes at 45'. The second half begins at 45' and ends at 90'. However, as you are well aware, injury time is added at the end of each half to make up for disruptions that may have occurred during regular time (i.e. yellow cards (30"), red cards (60"), substitutions (30"), injuries (30") etc.). Obviously, the introduction of injury time poses some challenges as the game clock does not stop in football. For instance, one question is how do we differentiate between z' into the first injury time versus z' into the second half as both start counting off from 45'. ''' FIFA distinguishes the two by decomposing injury time as follows: 45'+z', or 90'+z'. '''The first number refers to the relevant injury time, and the z' refers to the minute in injury time in which the goal was scored. (remember, rule 1.i. is applied to calculate z' such that: z'=x+1' if the goal was scored at x'y") (Example: If Chuyoung Park scored a goal 5'39" into FT injury time, then this goal is recorded as having occurred at 90'+6')121.138.140.21 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Korea Republic national kit
The Korea Republic national football team's kit is wrong for this article because the away kit has red shorts instead of blue although blue is the right one. The same goes for the home kit shorts, which are supposed to be white and not blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.206.40.209 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Article title?
Isn't it missing a letter? Shouldn't it be "Korean Republic national football team" or perhaps "Republic of Korea national football team"? —D. Monack talk 23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, strictly speaking, South and North Korea do not exist. Both countries claim total sovereignty over the Korean peninsula and both refer to themselves as "Korea". Therefore, to prevent confusion, FIFA had the two countries add "Republic" and "DPR" to their names. Again, these additions serve so as to differentiate rather than abbreviate their respective official names.

121.138.140.21 (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"strictly speaking, South and North Korea do not exist. Both countries claim total sovereignty over the Korean peninsula and both refer to themselves as "Korea"." Since when did they not exist? The reason why "South Korea" is called "Korea Republic" is because the official name of South Korea is "Republic of Korea", not "South Korea", while "North Korea" is called "People Democratic Republic of Korea", hence "Korea DPR" for short. It's to make things simpler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.40.52 (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. The argument that we should follow the usage in English language sources (eg news coverage) and understanding by English speakers, even if the team is officially known to FIFA by another title, is more consistent with established guidelines (WP:COMMONNAME) and has consensus support here. Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Korea Republic national football team → South Korea national football team — Regardless of the teams official name, the article title should say South Korea. Korea Republic is inherently unclear and confusing, being located right next to Korea Democratic Republic. The country is almost universally called South Korea, and not Republic of Korea, which is why the article on the country is at South Korea. Finally, it should be South Korea to match the article on the country. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  01:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet the AFC refer to them and Korea Republic, so should stay as it is Druryfire (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The South Korean government refers to the country as Republic of Korea, but we don't call the article that, because it's really unclear. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  13:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But FIFA and the AFC do refer to them as Korea Republic, it's only people who don't understand who the Korea Republic and Korea DPR are who change to call them South and North. Saudi Arabia is called the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, eyt we don't refer to that. Australia is the Commonwelth of Australia, yet we call them Australia. All we are refering to is the name that is recognised world wide in football circles. To change it would just be one persons own agenda. Druryfire (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Saudi Arabia is called the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, eyt we don't refer to that. Australia is the Commonwelth of Australia, yet we call them Australia." South Korea is called the Republic of Korea, but we don't refer to that. BTW, I checked Google South Korea football team, and it's more common than you probably thought. While Korea Republic does seem more common, South Korea maintains consistency with other South Korea related articles, and the country is way better known than its football team. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  02:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The team is referred to by most reliable sources as "Korea Republic", just as the team representing North Korea is known as "Korea DPR". There is no reason why the name of a country and the name of a sporting team must match if they are commonly known by different names. Please see Talk:Côte d'Ivoire national rugby union team for the origins of this move request. The Celestial City (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support; WP:TITLE requires that we use a name that is recognizable to a large proportion of readers. Powers T 16:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; The name is recognizable to a large proportion of readers, just not the the guy who has requested this move. There have been many edits on this page and know one has had a problem, not even a problem on other pages that this team name has been included in. Not an issue really. Stay as it is. Druryfire (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know no one has had a problem? No one uses "Korea Republic" in everyday conversation, because very few people can remember which is North and which is South.  Powers T 17:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you have a problem, but why are you trying to change the name that FIFA, the AFC and the Korean football association use? The problem is trying to change the name to something that nobody in football recognisies. Druryfire (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not written exclusively for an audience familiar with soccer. WP:TITLE requires us to take into account all of our readers, and to use titles that immediately reassure the reader that they've come to the right article.  The current title does not do that.  Powers T 18:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, do what you wish, but if you change the name then please change the name in every article that Korea Republic can be found in rather than just do a divert, this will take a long time to do as Korea Republic have been known since the Korea Republic since they started playing in the AFC way back in 1960, so if you wish to rename them then please do so. It's the same for Burma/Myanmar, Khmer Rogue/Cambodia, Malaya/Malaysia so if you wish just start wikipedia from scratch and from now on I'll refer to nations with whatever name I want to, even if it's incorrect. Druryfire (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Khmer Rouge, really? I think you need to take a step back and calm down.  I'm sorry if my opinion has upset you, but please try to have an adult discussion.  Powers T 21:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't need to take a step back, the fact is they are known as Korea Republic, if they wish to change there name then they will, and then we can change the name of the article, fact is they are called Korea Republic, they have never used South Korea, it's only us English speaking people that use it. If people want to know more about the Korea Republic then they will do there research, they won't fall across the Korea Republic if they aren't interested. I'm not sure why you want to chaneg the course of history and bring a fabricated name you are familiar with. Your familiar with South Korea, I'm familiar with Korea Republic, so what do we call it? Your choice, or my choice? Or the choice of the actual team? Druryfire (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The English wiki has to use the name used by the English-speaking world. Flamarande (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't always use official names, and almost always excludes the "filler" in official names (such as Republic in country names). If official names are confusing, we don't use them. That's why we have South Korea/North Korea. Common use in reliable sources, clarity, and consistency across articles are more important than official names. While it seems that Korea Republic is a common term, it's only common use for this one football team, and for nothing else. In this case, consistency and clarity are at odds with the official name, while reliable sources don't give a clear answer, so we go with consistency and clarity, which both point to "South Korea". D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  22:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "The problem is trying to change the name to something that nobody in football recognisies." - Are you seriously telling me that if the title said "South Korean National Football Team" that there are people who wouldn't know what this means? Seriously? D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  22:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm telling you is that every official tournament uses the term Korea Republic, it's only the English reading media that uses South Korea because they don't know the difference.
 * The same English-using media is watched and read by the English-speaking world. The English-using media more or less defines the name used in the English language. Flamarande (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And not just English. - Not that Süd is the German word meaning south. I'd check other languages if I knew their word for South.  D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What other languages (like German) use or don't use is of precious little concern here. This is the English wiki and what matters here is the English language (and almost nothing else). Flamarande (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. The English wiki should use names used by the majority of English-speakers and English-speaking media. Flamarande (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, so in that case it should stay as Korea Republic as this is used in the English speaking media on such official sites as FIFA and AFC. Other media outlets are simply using an ignorant tone for the ignorant readers who don't have a clue where Korea is anyway. Druryfire (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not our place to assume why sources use the words they do; it is insulting and presumptuous to call such usage "ignorant". Powers T 14:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of South Korea national football team (and of the name South Korea in general) may very well be a indication of ignorance. I must admit that a considerable portion of the English-speaking world probably be hard pressed to locate South Korea in a map (myself not included - I know where it is). To properly identify the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea may very well pose a challenge to many (as the "Democratic only in name"-part creates some confusion). However Wikipedia is not written for specialists and the smart but for lay people, the average ignorant person (i.e.: the ignorant readers who don't have a clue where Korea is anyway). Flamarande (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, we have had our little debate, I am happy if anyone wishes to change the name, but if it is changed, then we cannot let this be reverted back, we must also change Korea DRP to North Korea. If it is changed, how do we go from here? All other articles show Korea Republic or Korea DPR, do all these need to be changed to suit? Druryfire (talk)
 * I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly: The title of the main article is North Korea (there is no article Korea DRP). You can also check the category Category:North Korea which collects all subcategories and articles about North Korea. AFAIK almost all articles already use 'North Korean whatever' or 'whatever of North Korea'. However if you find any article with the name "Democratic People's Republic whatever" (or something similar) please tell us about it. We can always make a proper move-request for that article. We can also collect them all, look at them carefully and propose a move of all these articles. Flamarande (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about football teams, Korea DPR national football team. Druryfire (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment A similar discussion is now underway for North Korea's team. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  17:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the changes for both North and South - articles should be named in such a way that people know what they're talking about.--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image copyright problem with File:Emblem of Korea Football Association.svg
The image File:Emblem of Korea Football Association.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nickname
For nickname, Red Devils is the name for the supporter not the actual team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.48.82 (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Clean up spacing between Table and Matches for 2002 World Cup
There seems to be a big space between the table and match results for the 2002 World Cup. Does someone know how to fix this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.25.54 (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Jung Sung Ryong
If I'm not wrong, Korean keeper Jung Sung Ryong did score a goal against Ivory Coast due to a mistake by the keeper from Ivory Coast. I changed the stat from 0 to 1, but it looks like someone changed it back. Can someone look into it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyeongjae (talk • contribs) 07:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a U-23 match, not a senior one. 211.49.197.186 (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Kits
Hey, somebody draw the kits from 2006 to 2008, 2008 t0 2010, can you put them again , and if someone edit the section of uniform don't do that , OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.236.155 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Pictures
This page has a serious lack of imagery. Some pictures would really help detail the history of the team. I don't really know too much about policies regarding picture copyrights so I'm not sure which pictures would be allowed. 104.34.104.0 (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in South Korea national football team
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South Korea national football team's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Olympics 1992-": From Brazil national football team: Since 1992, squads for Football at the Summer Olympics have been restricted to three players over the age of 23. The achievements of such teams are not usually included in the statistics of the international team. From Spain national football team: Since 1992, squads for Football at the Summer Olympics have been restricted to three players over the age of 23, which Javier will play in 2016. The achievements of such teams are not usually included in the statistics of the international team. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested Move Take 2
South Korea national football team → Korea Republic national football team — Regardless of the teams official name, the article title should say Korea Republic. South Korea is inherently unclear and confusing, being located right next to Korea Democratic Republic. The country is almost universally called Korea Republic, and not South Korea, just ask the AFC and FIFA. Finally, it should be Korea Republic to match all the article's that the name is currently used in, which is hundred,s maybe thousands, far outnumbering the current article name. Druryfire (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Above you say "Ok, we have had our little debate, I am happy if anyone wishes to change the name, but if it is changed, then we cannot let this be reverted back, we must also change Korea DRP to North Korea. If it is changed, how do we go from here? All other articles show Korea Republic or Korea DPR, do all these need to be changed to suit?" And you now want to revert back? Yes we should change as many references as possible to reflect the article move. I've been working on that for the last hour or so (although the job is only part way done). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats fine then, aslong as you change them all, it could take you years!! By the way, you see the tonugue in cheek in what I wrote? Druryfire (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I doubt everything will be caught - I'm just starting with moves of other articles and templates. I might see if I can use AWB to make more minor changes. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm coming late to the party. Having the article title different from all footballing authorities (FIFA, AFC, etc.) seems to create more confusion, on top of just being wrong. A simple solution would be for those searching for "South Korean national football team" to be redirected to the correct page. Anyone that follows international football (or even the once-every-4-years World Cup watcher) only sees "Korea Republic." We don't still call Ghana the "Gold Coast" or Iran "Persia." South Korea is an outdated term that is used by the minority in the footbal world.Spiaggia12 (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy close without moving as this was just decided earlier today, and as I understand, the move remains final for three months (correct me if I'm wrong) D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  05:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment without partiality: Many footballing articles use the shorthand 'fb' to incorporate the flag icon. Those have all changed automatically as the shorthand has been changed from Korea Republic to South Korea. Mjefm (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment For main article, I think it's ok to use "South Korea". But in template 'fb', I prefer "Korea Republic" because the template is usually used more "officially", for example in World Cup or Asian Cup's pages about grouping and results.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on South Korea national football team. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120915193819/http://www.kfa.or.kr/eng_renew/library/history.asp to http://www.kfa.or.kr/eng_renew/library/history.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129061228/http://www.firsttouchonline.com/2014/05/the-story-of-the-world-cup-s-koreajapan-2002/ to http://www.firsttouchonline.com/2014/05/the-story-of-the-world-cup-s-koreajapan-2002/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Kits
Isn't it Red-Blue-Red?--121.145.243.251 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

2002 World Cup
I think it may be important to add the allegations of cheating in the 2002 World Cup, in order to present a more rounded view of history. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.41.41 (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.26.14 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Controversial matches happen a lot and honestly the only reason it's such a big deal is because Korea was such an unsuccessful team prior. If it had been a higher ranked team, say like Germany or Brazil, there would've been lot less uproar. Italy's game against Croatia was far more questionable but Croatia's page makes no mention of it all. Not to mention the linked article itself is pretty biased, some of its assertions are inaccurate. --98.119.155.199 (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the people who disagree with this haven't seen this video. The South Koreans are clearly committing fouls and the referee is not giving any, even sending off the Italian and Spanish players for diving. I think that it should warrant a mention in the article. BoredomJS (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"as well as the only team outside of Europe and South America to reach the final four." USA 1930? Andreas Kolle (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It was unsourced anyways, and will removed. Jonathansuh (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the people who disagree with this haven't seen this video. The South Koreans are clearly committing fouls and the referee is not giving any, even sending off the Italian and Spanish players for diving. I think that it should warrant a mention in the article.

Quit copying and pasting the same information. I watched all the matches, the only iffy game was the Spanish one. Portugal was outplayed from the beginning and starting committing ridiculous fouls, it baffles me when people say that game was controversial. The only questionable call against Italy was Totti being sent off but Italy wasted chances to win the game before that, they only have themselves to blame. Some of the referee calls definitely went in Korea's favor but it's a stretch to say that was the reason they won their games, it's simply the home field advantage. The controversy is overstated. It's people just trying to come up with excuses for why the underdog won, Brazil got away with a lot in 2014 but people aren't making nearly as big a deal of that. 104.34.104.0 (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you’ve seen all the games as you say then you’re gonna have to know that South Korea cheated their way both through Italy and Spain. BoredomJS’s linked video a great example of the refereeing that took place in the 2002 World Cup in favor of none other than South Korea. There was no home field advantage. Although their national team managed to get some good results against certain teams which has to be mentioned, there needs to be added information about the scandal or maybe just that the tournament was controversial and that South Korea had an unfair advantage. Reus147 (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Korea Football Association logo, 2020.svg

article title
I think all titles should be in accordance with official FIFA names, not british ‘common’ names, please reply by adding ‘aye’ or ‘no’ (in bold) and a reason at the side. Gameshowandsportsfan2007 (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please follow the instructions of Requested moves. Many users will gather. Sawol (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:North Korea national football team which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kit body kor20h.png