Talk:2009–10 Manchester United F.C. season

Construction Message Board

This page is very much under construction. Guidelines for editing this page will added to as time goes on.

Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Guidlines

• All Premier League and Football League Cup (Carling Cup) fixtures are copyrighted, so you can't add them to this page until the match has been played.
• ManUtd.com and BBC Sport Football are the preferred source material for this article. Please use them when sourcing material you add (which should be always).
  • Manchester United on BBC Sport

Kick-off times?

Yay or nay? Personally, I don't think they're actually that relevant. Think about it: in 50 years, will people actually care that United's first league game of the season kicked off at 5:15pm instead of 3pm? – PeeJay 06:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I tested with this last season when creating Oldham's article. I eventually got rid of it, as I found it pretty useless and irrelevant, to be honest. –  LATICS  talk  20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Transfers?

WRT the recent transfers of players like Massachi and Pogba. At what point do we include or not include transfers in the Transfer section?? Ck786 (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore - would it be worthwhile to have a "reported" fee column in the transfer section. Obviously it will only be indicative and not 100% factual - which may by definition rule it out of an 'encyclopedia' but if there was a discaimer saying it is an indicative value it may add value? Thoughts? Ck786 (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The "reported" value of the transfer is usually included in the player's article, and the values often vary quite substantially, so I don't believe there would be any point in adding a column for it here. As for the transfers of Pogba, Massacci and even McGinty, since it is fairly obvious that they were not signed to go straight into the first team, I don't think it's appropriate to mention them in a list of first team transfers. After all, they're not listed on the list of transfers that gets shown on the right side of the screen on Sky Sports News every so often. – PeeJay 08:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct grammar

Manchester United should always be referred to as 'it' and not as 'they'.

Incorrect. There are many cases in which "they" is the appropriate pronoun, such as when it is the collective group of players/staff known as "Manchester United" that is being referred to. Only when the club, as a non-corporeal entity, is being referred to should "it" be used. – PeeJay 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. "The Manchester United players are playing Chelsea this weekend" but "Manchester United is playing Chelsea". Pick up any reputable newspaper and see how it refers to the club in match reports. Anyway, I won't bother arguing because I know it will never be changed. Cheers - Jhantor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

"Opponents" should be "Opponent" too. - Jhantor (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume that you are reading "reputable newspapers" written in US English. I'm sure that you will agree that UK English is the appropriate variant for this article. Kevin McE (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Although discretionary plurals are much more common in British English, usually they are used incorrectly. Take the opening sentence for example:

'The 2009–10 season is Manchester United's 18th season in the Premier League, and their 35th consecutive season in the top division of English football.'

Are we referring to the club (singular) or the players (plural) here? Jhantor (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Carrick is the first-choice penalty taker?

Quoted from the article: "(...) Cristiano Ronaldo's replacement as United's first-choice penalty taker, Michael Carrick (...)". Carrick is hardly the first-choice penalty taker, and his taking the penalty against Burnley was quite unexpected. Unless there is a source for this somewhere I think it should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motsjo (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it was unexpected? Carrick often took penalties when Ronaldo wasn't around over the last few seasons... – PeeJay 07:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have expected Rooney or Owen taking it, and the commentators on Setanta were also quite surprised. I guess we won't find out until more penalties are taken, but I still think it should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motsjo (talk • contribs) 10:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right that it should be re-written, but I'm fairly sure that Carrick is a regular penalty-taker. – PeeJay 10:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Arsene Wenger never disagree with the offside decision

Quote from the article:"For his protests against the offside decision – kicking a water bottle down the touchline – Arsène Wenger was sent off." From the source, I can't find a section that Arsene Wenger disagree with the offside decision. He is just express his frustration on the offside only.--Yick50907551 (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it. – PeeJay 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Idea for squad statistics

Seperate off all the registered goalkeepers and instead of having a goals tally with apperances, have clean sheets tally instead. Also in the unlikely event of one of the goalkeepers scoring then put an asterix next to them and state so. I'm new to editing this stuff so if someone could do this it would be great thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.45.125 (talk) 23:11, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Not likely, mate. Clean sheets aren't really a big deal. – PeeJay 07:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Add a goalscorer table?

Could someone add a table of players who have scored during the season? The Chelsea 2009-10 season page has this done quite nicely. In fact, I'd like to see a lot of the statistics found on that page that we don't have for the Manchester United page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.134.60.180 (talk) 16:40, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Why? The squad stats table shows every player that has player, scored or received a card for the club during the season, so I don't really see the need to add yet more tables. – PeeJay 21:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not easy to find the top goalscorers from a table with all the players. Especially later in the season when more players will have scored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.134.60.180 (talk) 21:44, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? How easy do you need to make it? I mean, you're not an idiot! – PeeJay 23:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Up to scratch?

If anyone has looked at other pages similar to this one (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.C._Internazionale_Milano_season_2009-10#Start_formations) you will find that there's a few things missing on the Man Utd page. I don't mean to be critical but a starting 11 would be a nice touch, (also I'm the guy that suggested the clean sheet thing above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.150 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That sort of thing is original research. The major mainstream football stats sites don't record the formations that teams put out, so there's no reason why we should either. – PeeJay 20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

After adding a section like this to the 2010-11 season page, it was removed again for the same reason as above. In my opinion, the page is poorer for not having the information, so what if 'major football sites' don't record the information, for anyone who follows football, it is not exactly difficult to figure out this information from the team sheet and match report. I would theirfore suggest it is added again, teams such as Barcelona, Inter Milan and Chelsea have this information on their page.(Buc 17 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buc 17 (talk • contribs)

Irrelevant. As I have already stated, that section is tantamount to original research. If you don't understand that, then I suggest you reacquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – PeeJay 22:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Goals from deflections

When United beat Portsmouth 5-0 and in the 59th minute when Carrick's shot hit Hughes and went in, then why is it named an own goal? Valencia scored with a huge deflection against CSKA (he would've missed had it not deflected) and it was named as his goal and of course Carrick's goal against West Ham in the 2007-08 which also took a big deflection. So I'd like to ask, where is the line between an own goal and a deflected goal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matu94 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You would have to ask the individual organisations in charge of administrating each competition; the player to whom a goal is awarded is determined at their discretion. But the general rule for own goals is whether or not the original shot would have been on target. – PeeJay 02:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is too loooooooooooooooong

At least for me, the article is too looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong and make reader lazy to read it (maybe not for United fans). For comparation, look at Blackburn or Spurs page. _{Maglev2 (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)}

I don't see how the article is any longer than the Blackburn one. Each match has a similar amount of coverage, the only difference being that United played in European competitions this season. This is clearly just a matter of personal preference. – PeeJay 12:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Green and Gold

Don't you think we should add a section for this season's G&G campaign? Conay (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a whole section. Mention will certainly be made of it in some match reports though. – PeeJay 22:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben Foster

See Talk:2010–11 Manchester United F.C. season. Ck786 (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2009–10 Manchester United F.C. season. 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/20120306033024/http://www.qpr.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10373~1754286,00.html to http://www.qpr.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10373~1754286,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922182730/http://www.pafc.co.uk:80/page/NewsDetail/0,,10364~1801046,00.html to http://www.pafc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10364~1801046,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723062351/http://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10441~1917247,00.html to http://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10441~1917247,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100128102446/http://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10441~1944299,00.html to http://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10441~1944299,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323063159/http://www.pnefc.net/page/NewsDetail/0,,10362~1996336,00.html to http://www.pnefc.net/page/NewsDetail/0,,10362~1996336,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2009–10 Manchester United F.C. season. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.qpr.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10373~1754286%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.watfordfc.com/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10400~1880013%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pafc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10364~1801046%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10441~1917247%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10441~1944299%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pnefc.net/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10362~1996336%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100311081338/http://www.moldefk.no/index.php?page_id=16634 to http://www.moldefk.no/index.php?page_id=16634

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)