Talk:2009 Copa Libertadores

about argentina's quialification method

for this edition the afa decide that the places will be occuped by the champions of the apertura 2007 (lanus), clausura 2008 (river) and the apertura 2008, the other two spots will be awarded based on an average of this 3 tournaments.

thanks and sorry for my bad english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.71.112 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Estudiantes

If Tigre wins the championship, it will take the "Argentina 3" spot. Boca will be "Argentina 4" and San Lorenzo "Argentina 5". So, Estudiantes haven't qualified yet.--190.7.34.73 (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Renaming certain things

After re-reading the tournament rules, I think it may be possible to rename certain phases/stages. The phases, in Spanish direct from the rule book, is Primera Fase, Segunda Fase, Octavos de Final, Cuartos de Final, Semifinales, y Finales. Translation: First Phase, Second Phase, Round of 16, Quarterfinals, Semifinals, and Finals. So this what I propose: since that is what they called in Spanish, maybe we should change/rename section accordlingly. Preliminary Round becomes the First Phase; Group Stage becomes Second Phase; Knockout stage becomes Knockout phase. This is also reflected in CONMEBOL's website, where so far the Preliminary Round and Group Stage are called First and Second Stage (FYI, "etapa" is stage, but "fase" has two translation: first is phase, second is stage). The current UEFA Champions League and CONCACAF Champions League articles reflect how the stages are called in their tournament rules, so why shouldn't this article be an exception...?

I open it up to comments. Digirami (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have also opened it up on the WikiFootball talkpage because of possible issues with other competitions. Digirami (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We're going to have to rename a lot of things including the main articles of each "phase" and those of past tournaments. --MicroX 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, so be it. I just think we should not be give the stages/phase names that we would be used to or expect. Digirami (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just on the english website of the CONMEBOL and the preliminary round is the "First Stage" and the group stage the "Second Stage". It's right here. --MicroX 04:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's also the same on documents CONMEBOL releases. That's why I think those rounds should be renamed. But I would also like a concensus beyond just two users. Digirami (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

CONMEBOL uses fase on the Spanish website but stage on the English website. Also, these pages are going to make things only harder. Some of it's in English, some of it's in Spanish and some of it is translated differently. On top of that, some of the older pages aren't even translated. South America, what more can you expect? --MicroX 18:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well we can always fix the ones that can be fixed. Let's not change them all without solid basis, but we should correct this one at the least to set a good precedent for future Copa Libertadores tournaments. So if they use "Stage" English (like here), then let's use "Stage". (Reminder to anyone: "fase" means "stage" in English, but it is not the best translation for the word. The best translation for "fase" is "phase".) What i have been able to find out, through locating and viewing the official tournament rules, is that CONMEBOL has been using "Primera Fase" & "Segunda Fase" for the preliminary round and group stage, respectively, since at least 2005. Digirami (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The winner of this tournament does not go to the Club World Cup if it's a Mexican team

So I fixed it. I don't know what they'd do if it's an all-Mexican final. Maybe one of you can find out.

I assume the champion of this will play in the South American Recup, even if it's Mexican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.112.166 (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexican clubs retire from competition?

According to Globo Esporte, both Guadalajara and San Luis have retired from the Copa Libertadores 2009 due to both their adversaries not wanting to compete in Mexican soil fearing the Swine Flu outbreak in Mexico.

http://globoesporte.globo.com/Esportes/Noticias/Futebol/Libertadores/0,,MUL1113988-9851,00.html Lolzzzzzzzz (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we should wait for official word from CONMEBOL first. Digirami (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So far, according to CONMEBOL, just the second leg will be played. Digirami (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually FEMEXFUT has indicated that they do not accept CONMEBOL terms to play only the second leg, but no formal communication has been sent to CONMEBOL. Probably monday or Tuesday something will show up. 68.111.112.184 (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I say keep them out, who do they think they are. We offer them to play and then they leave thinking they are Argentina or Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.228.76 (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Points/Agg?

Why was it changed from Agg to Points in the round of 16 and beyond? Its more descriptive to have agg because thats what they use to decide the winner..not how many points the accumilate on the home and away basis. Anyone have an answer? Birdy (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Points is the first means to decide the winner. Article 4 of the rules, link located at the bottom of the page, says teams will earn three points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. This is for all stages of the tournament. Article 5 section 2 says that if teams are tied on points in the First Stage, Round of 16, QFs, SFs, and Final, then tie breaking criteria 1, 2, & 3 will be used, followed by a penalty shoot-out. But nowhere does it say aggregate score is actually to be taken into account. You can interpret tie breaking criteria 1 & 2 through aggregate (after all, the team with the best aggregate score is the team with the best goal difference and most goals scored), but aggregate is not mentioned in the tournament rules. That's why it was changed. If it is officially not supposed to be used, why mention it. Digirami (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand this is different from other year's tournament, but those same rules are found in the rules of the 2005, 2007, & 2008 rules books (I can't vouch for 2006 since the link to download 2006's is bad, but I bet it is safe to say they are the same as the rest). I guess no really bothered to actually read them and just assumed otherwise. Digirami (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks I started using/editing wikipedia during last years(2008) Copa Libertadores and on that page it shows it as Agg. I assumed wrongly that thats how they decided the winning side. Should it be changed on that page to make it accurate? Birdy (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

But I don't think anyone cares about the "points", and a goal advantage implies a point advantage, so I think it should just list the aggregate. Rodri316 (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But if what officially qualified/advances a team is points, that's all that matter first and primarily. Everything else is a tie-breaker. Digirami (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Officially and formally — yes. But from the point of common sense it looks strange and unnecessary because aggregate score indicates all of the first three criteria: points (you can't win by points w/out scoring more), then goal difference and goals scored (obviously). So it provides enough information and is much easier to follow. Inb4 'read the regulations'—I have read them, and agree that we should obey the formalities, even if they are stupid and unnecessary. 79.171.124.184 (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

But again, aggregate score does not matter/count. So if it doesn't mater, why mention it? (That's a rhetorical question. No need to answer it.) Digirami (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.conmebol.com/index,E.html
  • In 2006 Copa Libertadores on 2011-05-26 01:59:07, 404 Not Found
  • In 2009 Copa Libertadores on 2011-06-17 13:56:52, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 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/20100301074710/http://www.rsssf.com:80/sacups/copa09.html to http://www.rsssf.com/sacups/copa09.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) 06:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2009 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/20090724013110/http://www.conmebol.com/competiciones_evento_reporte.jsp?evento=1081&ano=2009&dv=6&flt=1&id=133&slangab=E to http://www.conmebol.com/competiciones_evento_reporte.jsp?evento=1081&ano=2009&dv=6&flt=1&id=133&slangab=E
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724013226/http://www.conmebol.com/competiciones_evento_reporte.jsp?evento=1081&ano=2009&dv=6&flt=1&id=134&slangab=E to http://www.conmebol.com/competiciones_evento_reporte.jsp?evento=1081&ano=2009&dv=6&flt=1&id=134&slangab=E
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rsssf.com/sacups/copa09.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) 10:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)