Talk:2011 Copa Libertadores

Can you guys please show which berths are direct-to-Group-Stage and which ones are Preliminary Round?

In the UEFA Champions League, AFC Champions League and CONCACAF Champions League wikipedia pages, it shows which berths are for the Preliminary Round and which ones are for the Group Stage. Those berths are explained well ahead of when the competition begins. More than a year ahead of time. Yet this wikipedia entry is lackluster with that information. Can you guys please specify the nature of the berths for this tournament? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.44.209 (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

An extra berth was added starting in this tournament. Without knowing how all 39 berths will be allocated in the rounds, its safe not to mention that yet. Digirami (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is correct. You might also want to note that the AFC Champions League page for 2011 does not have the information you suggest, as it is not even known which countries will be involved! Jlsa (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reword a sentence

Can we reword this sentence:

This means the defending Copa Libertadores champion will take its berth from the lowest-placed team of its own country which would have qualified for the tournament.

...considering the Copa Liberadores defending champ takes the highest berth of its association and the remaining berths are deferred by 1; if it were to take the lowest berth, then it would start in the first phase and we know CONMEBOL isn't going to throw the defending champ in the first phase. --MicroX (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Copa Sudamericana - double qualification - mistake

If the 2010 Copa Sudamericana is won by a team from this country, they will take this position

So a team which is originally qualified for Copa Libertadores Second Stage start in the first stage just because they win the Copa Sudamericana e.g.

LDU Quito win their domestic league - they get ECU-1 berth LDU Quito win their domestic league AND 2010 Copa Sudamericana - they get ECU-3 berth --92.248.108.92 (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The CONMEBOL has not made it clear whether the 2010 Copa Sudamericana champion enters in the first stage or second stage of the 2011 Copa Libertadores regardless of the teams placing in their domestic league. If the case be that the 2010 Copa Sudamericana champion enter through the first stage (though I highly doubt it) and also win the domestic league for a place in the second stage, they will probably be allowed to choose where to enter. Only time will tell. --MicroX (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

2011 qualifications

2010 Copa Sudamericana Champions qualified for 2011 Copa Libertadores and 2011 Copa Sudamericana ?? --92.248.108.92 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Most likey. --MicroX (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding city

Adding the city that the clubs provenes from are important as well; after all, club teams largely represent their city, not nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.37.250.190 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that. Some countries that have never won an international tournament or have won very few like Peru, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador are likely to support all of its participating teams, regardless of the city of origin. --MicroX (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Teams are selected to represent according to country (association) - their city is irrelevant. Teams represent their supporters - which may be a region, a city or a part of a city. I don't think you'd get much agreement between Penarol and Nacional supporters about who "represents" Montevideo. Jlsa (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the countries are there because the berths are distributed among the countries through their respective qualification system. Adding the cities would not anything on how the teams qualified, which is the main purpose of the section. Digirami (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Match reports

Ladies and gents,

I believe CONMEBOL has now published official match report! Go here and click on the little white rectangle on the right side of the scores. Digirami (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Playoff rounds format / points system

This was the discussion at last years page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Copa_Libertadores#3.E2.80.933_.282.E2.80.933_gd.29 The outcome was to stick to the official method with points, as CONMEBOL lists those two-legged-ties as 2 team groups. But that's just weird, most sports web sites just use the aggregate score, which effectively is the exact same system and always gives the correct winner of the tie. Wikipedia doesn't have to follow official names, but common names. I believe the same is true about this system. What if CONMEBOL would award smileys, red smileys for home team goals and blue smileys for away-team goals. CONMEBOL would then advance the team: 1. with most smileys, 2. with more blue smileys, 3. use a penatly shootout. Same system again, but would we use the smileys on this page? I guess not. -Koppapa (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It'll breed confusion since it is a system that CONMEBOL never acknowledges or uses (good luck trying to find it on their website). The points system is part of the history of the tournament. Just look at how the ties were decided in the 1960s, where wins mattered, not goals scored (at until after the additional extra playoff). The 1965 Copa Libertadores Finals is the best example of that. But the points system has always been there and CONMEBOL seemingly never abandoned it because goals do not really matter if you win both games or win one and tie the other. It's only after a tie in points, say after both teams win a leg, does it really matter. And for a while, CONMEBOL's site reflected that when they published standings for ties like this:

Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Independiente	2	1	0	1	2	1	+1	3
Deportivo Quito	2	1	0	1	1	2	−1	3

Aggregate score for CONMEBOL competition is an outside, imposed fabrication that has no official standing. For the sake of being accurate, I would prefer it not be used. Digirami (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Team 1

Before it gets any worse with the edit warring....

Team 1 will always be the higher seeded team. It doesn't matter who advances, their position in the table with be rearranged so that the higher seeded team will be Team 1. Digirami (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Will be", only after we reorder the teams after the completion of the previous round. Team 1 and Team 2 are only conventions used by Wikipedia (not officially by CONMEBOL). So I do not see why we have to stress that "Team 1 is higher-seeded team" even when it is not true AS OF NOW. Somebody has now added a very long note, basically saying that "Team 1 is higher-seeded team except that it is not necessarily true", which means we have to delete the note after we have made the re-ordering, then why we don't just add "Team 1 is higher-seeded team" only when it becomes true? Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The placement of teams (Winner of ##) in the tables is based on CONMEBOL's rule. And their placement of "Winner ##" is based on the "ideal" condition that the higher seed will always advance. But, we know the higher seed doesn't always advance. So, keeping the higher seed in Team 1 (per CONMEBOL's ideal) keeps the scorelines consistent. Having Team 1 as the higher seed lets us know that the scorelines under "1st leg" read "away v home" and under the "2nd leg" as "home v away". If not, then its not as clear cut. Digirami (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 Copa Libertadores. 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/20101024025555/http://www.conmebol.com/conmebol/mainMedia.html?id=15171&viewpage=%27full%27 to http://www.conmebol.com/conmebol/mainMedia.html?id=15171&viewpage=%27full%27
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101025000019/http://www.conmebol.com/conmebol/mainMedia.html?id=17102&viewpage=%27full%27 to http://www.conmebol.com/conmebol/mainMedia.html?id=17102&viewpage=%27full%27
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110630042950/http://www.conmebol.com/copasantanderlibertadores/Estelar-Sorteo-de-la-Copa-Santander-Libertadores-de-America-2011-20110401-0020.html to http://www.conmebol.com/copasantanderlibertadores/Estelar-Sorteo-de-la-Copa-Santander-Libertadores-de-America-2011-20110401-0020.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910043725/http://df1.conmebol.com/libertadores/fichas/ficha102835.html to http://df1.conmebol.com/libertadores/fichas/ficha102835.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909073827/http://df1.conmebol.com/libertadores/fichas/ficha102836.html to http://df1.conmebol.com/libertadores/fichas/ficha102836.html

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) 06:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)