Talk:FA Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The article on FA Cup is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football (soccer) related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
FA Cup is also supported by the WikiProject on non-League football.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is an outstanding effort - and up to date! - keep it up!

- an impressed user

Thank you 212.67.109.240 for the implicit compliment of removing "this deserves more". I still think that there's quite a lot more to say, though. --rbrwr

Message to 66.9.236.210. I've found no reference to War World Cup of 1940 in which West Ham defeated Blackburn Rovers 1-0, so I have removed it. If you have a source for this information please enlighten us. Mintguy

I'll take you up on that, Mintguy - it was actually the Football League War Cup. Here's a Google search for you. It seems to have been one of a number of wartime competitions: it was played again in 1941 with Preston winning, but after that it seems to have been replaced by regional competitions. It's probably worthy of a little article, but it's not the FA Cup and doesn't belong in the big list. --rbrwr

Well done!! BTW good work on this article. I'd made some half hearted effort on it, but it was a big project and I got bored. Mintguy

---

Why are some of the results in the table in bold type? Bob Palin 00:29, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The winners in those seasons also won the Football League championship (or, in recent years, the FA Premier League) thus completing the Double. I've highlighted the explanation of this in the text of the article. --rbrwrˆ

Thanks, I hadn't realized there were so many doubles in recent years. Wouldn't it be more intuitive to just highlight the winning team's name? I'd be happy to make the edit if you agree. Bob Palin 17:17, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Be bold. If anyone really hates it they can revert it, though I personally think it's a good idea. --rbrwrˆ

Contents 1 Copyright problem 2 Page Length 3 Teams - is vs are 4 Official name 5 Lose a tie? 6 Venues 7 Why doesn't one put up an article with the FA Cup results this year so far 8 Arsenal/Sheffield United 9 Giant Killing and Shock results 10 Yeading vs Newcastle not historic 11 Current final 11.1 Other Finals 11.2 Sunderland v Leeds '73 12 Scottish cup 13 Famous Shock Results 14 Welsh league teams??? 15 Argument made by the Arse, Wenger - Should replay be abolished 16 USA comparsion, there is the NCAA tourney

[edit] Copyright problem

Some material added to today was copied from The FA's website. I've reverted it and pointed out the faux pas to the anon involved. --rbrwr^± 12:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Other countries also have their own FA Cup, but they are obliged to make reference to exactly which Football Association the tournament is run by, for example the Scottish FA Cup.

This sentence is actually wrong, it is the "Scottish Football Association Cup" (organised by the Scottish Football Association or the SFA) not the Scottish "Football Association Cup". The English "Football Association Cup" is also obliged to make reference to the football association it is run by, the English "Football Association" (just so happens that the FA doesn’t have the country's name in it). Sounds like nitpicking but the Scottish in "Scottish FA Cup" isn’t an adjective describing the FA it is organised by or what FA Cup it is, it is the actual name of the organisation who runs it. Also, in practice it is very rarely described as either the "Scottish FA Cup" or the "SFA Cup" it is almost universally known in Scotland as the Scottish Cup or (obviously) "the Cup". Although I can see why this sentence is here, I think it is unnecessary and doesn’t really add to the other points in the article show that it is a legendary tournament.

[edit] Page Length

This page is longer than Wikipedia's recommended page length. How about the winner's section be put into a new article, along the line of 'FA Cup Finals'? This seems a pretty standard thing to do: see Superbowl. I'll do this, presuming that no-one will have any real problem with it? Robdurbar 09:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teams - is vs are

Team is a collective noun, in American English it is usually treated as singular - "the team is playing" - in British English it is usually plural "the team are playing", since this article is about a British subject please use British English. collective nouns Bob Palin 01:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official name

As far as I know, the full name of the competition is Football Association Challenge Cup Trophy--Nitsansh 00:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the FA 'The Cup shall be called "The Football Association Challenge Cup".' Matthewmayer 01:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There are 207 associations in FIFA today. FIFA is The Association in football. England, like 206 other nations, has an association. England has the special place of being the first FA, of having invented the game. And, rightly so, I think the article should mention this, if desired. However, England's FA is not FIFA and so referring to it as "The Association" I think is highly misleading and should be avoided.

Other nations have open cups for their football associations, England is not the only one. I don't know about other countries, but the USA has one. I added links to/from England's open cup and the USA's. Suggestion: why not a separate page with a list of all the open cup tournaments in the world? If so, why not have that link replace my link to the US Open Cup. --da bum 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• See the template at the bottom of the page. The name of the F.A. Cup is the "F.A. Cup". I'm reverting again. - fchd 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, I see the links. Under "National Football Cups." This is good. It links your FA Cup to similar competitions around the world. That's part of what I was talking about. Thank you. But, as for the name. The name is "FA Cup." Sure. But, it is England's "FA Cup." It is not the world's FA Cup. This distinction is important and needs to be made clear.da bum 18:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The Football Association - whose cup it is - is not called the "English" Football Association. --Robdurbar 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely, to every person born and raised in England it's obvious that "The FA" is in England. But, this is an online encyclopedia. Used, potentially, by people from around the world. People of different cultures. By people who are new to the sport. And young school children doing research for a short paper for school. A lot of different people use the encyclopedia. You can't assume that the reader knows anything at all about soccer or the history of the game. So, the article must be written in very plain terms: "In England, there is this thing called a 'football association' and it has this very big tournament called the FA Cup." In Kicker Magazine, sure, it would be safe to assume everyone already knows. But, this isn't Kicker Magazine, it's an online encyclopedia and so my main point is we can't assume the readers will already come here knowing anything at alll about the sport.

[edit] Lose a tie?

I'm no football expert, but the line "Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic who beat Wolves and Tottenham Hotspur in 1957, before losing to Manchester United in a closely fought quarter-final tie." doesn't make any sense to me. How do you lose a tie? Or do they play a few games each, so it's based on goal differential. Thanks. Awiseman 02:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I think this is Enlgish/American differences. In British English a 'tie' is a synonym for a round or a match in a cup competion. A 'draw' would be the equivalent of the american 'tie'. Robdurbar 09:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, weird. Must be. Maybe we should change tie to match then, so it's clear to everybody. Awiseman 18:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I made that change as I guess we should try and avoide these words that mean different in both Robdurbar 20:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venues

The first finals (up to around 1914) were indeed played at the Crystal Palace, but not at the National Sport and Recreation Centre which was established after WWII. I think they were played on the cricket ground.Bebofpenge 02:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why doesn't one put up an article with the FA Cup results this year so far

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John wesley (talk • contribs).

One did. (FA Cup 2005-06)
Slumgum 23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John wesley 17:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arsenal/Sheffield United

Wasn't there an incident a few years agon in the FA Cup where Arsenal beat Sheffield Wednesday on a disputed goal and then offered to replay the game because of it? I'm sorry, I am just a Yank and don't know the details, but I would think it would be a good addition to the Notable Events section.--Gangster Octopus 23:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was Arsenal vs Sheffield United in 1999.[1]. As I can recall it: United played the ball out because one of their players got injured. From the throw-in, Nwankwo Kanu (on his Arsenal debut) received the ball and ran through the Sheff U defence before crossing for Marc Overmars to tap it in. Sheff U manager Steve Bruce got upset and ordered his players off (an act which should have been severely punished). Somehow the players came back and played the remainder of the match, which Arsenal won 2-1. Afterwards, Kanu was upset as he was unaware of the custom in England to return the ball to the team that played it out (if they played the ball out in order for an injured player to receive treatment). Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger generously offered to replay the match. Steve Bruce wanted the replay in Sheffield, but it had to take place at Arsenal. The home team won 2-1. Again.[2]
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giant Killing and Shock results

What? No mention of Tranmeres giant killing and shock results?

What about the 3-0 defeat of Everton at Goodison Park, or the 4-3 comeback against Southhampton? There are more, but not having them to hand prevents me from elaborating....

[edit] Yeading vs Newcastle not historic

I removed the section about the Yeading vs Newcastle tie being historic because it was the first time two teams six levels apart had played each other. This is certainly not true. To give one example, in January 1992, Lincoln United, then playing in the Central Midlands League Supreme Division faced Huddersfield Town in the first round, losing 7-0. [[3]] The gap between the teams at the time would have been as below

Division 3 (Huddersfield Town)

Division 4

Football Conference

Northern Premier League Premier Division

Northern Premier League Division One

Northern Counties East League Premier Division

Northern Counties East League Division One

Central Midlands League Supreme Division (Lincoln United)

Making 7 levels apart. Valenciano 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but it was the first time that a Premiership team had faced opposition seven levels below them in the pyramid, and the first time such a gap had been represented in the third round. --Stevefarrell 17:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either of those distinctions make it any more "notable" in their own right - they are both subjective qualifications. - fchd 11:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current final

RobD is right, a final should ultimately stand the test of time. Steves reasons are wrong - the recent final wasn't the first time in 53 years six goals had been scored - ManUtd Palace 1990 finished 3-3, it also wasn't 1st time since 1966 that a team had come back from two down as ManUtd came back from 2 down in 1979. Why include the 2006 final but not include finals like 1979, 1981, 1983, 1989 or 1990? All of those were described at the time as one of the most exciting ever. If we include all such finals the list would be impossibly long. Valenciano 05:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

agree with above. Even if it had been factually correct, coming from 2-0 behind or scoring 6 goals is not at all notable in the greater scheme of things. I inserted Sunderland 1973 victory over Leeds (first time in over 40 years a 2nd Div. side had won the cup) and it was removed. If that is not notable I don't know what is. Since it already had it's own reference in Giantkilling I didn't force the issue - but I still maintain it was "a notable event" - and much more so than a 6 goal final or coming back from 2-0 down leaky_caldron 07:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I removed it because it was mentioned twice, though you're probably right. In fact, it could be moved from giant killing to notable event, where it would probably fit better anyway. --Robdurbar 07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, we'll re-add it in a year or so when people are still talking about it. Lists like this do tend to get ludicrously long though. (And United v Palace was a semi final, if I recall). --Stevefarrell 09:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

there is nothing notable about it now so I can't see it being notable in a year. I'd be surprised if people outside of Liverpool are still talking about it next year. I think there is a tendency to confuse a notable event with one that sticks in the memory as being particularly exciting or of special personal interest. As a neutral it was an exciting game – was it notable for the reasons given (or any other reason)? – definitely not. leaky_caldron 09:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

fine, but why be nasty about it? --Stevefarrell 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve, if you mean me, I wasn’t being nasty and I cannot see anything in the other views that would qualify as “nasty” either.

You may be reading too much personal meaning into a basic statement about your intended edit. Looking at WP:EQ I cannot see that there has been incivility in the comments. leaky_caldron 10:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I felt there was an unnecessary ganging up on me because of my edits being 'wrong' (which I merely improved; I did not introduce them). Not nastiness per se, but a concerted group effort to show how wrong I am, while at the same time allowing trivial finals such as the 2005 one (only a year ago) to remain and be considered 'notable'. --Stevefarrell 11:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I know how you feel, having experienced a similar situation recently. Don’t let it worry you – there is no evidence at all of a personal or concerted attack on your contributions. It’s just they way things go sometimes leaky_caldron 11:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No United Palace was the final, finishing in a 3-3 draw. The semis that year were also high scoring ManUtd 3-3 Oldham and C.Palace 4-3 Liverpool which may be where the confusion comes in. Valenciano 09:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that notable does not mean 'interesting' - for example, for 2005, the first use of penalities and a record number of appearances (Roy Keane) is a more notable fact than 'that was a bloody good game'. Besdides, Steve, no one mentioned anything about your edits; they felt that the includsion was wrong. --Robdurbar 11:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve there's no personal offence meant to you at all in the editing process and I hope you continue to edit here. Valenciano 12:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Finals

Further finals: The 1999 and 2001 ones. I don't think that 'first under a roof' is notable; 'last in the old wembly' im less sure. Thoughts? --Robdurbar 13:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first under roof would be notable - further covered events surely wouldn't be?

Last at old Wembley is presumably as notable as the first. leaky_caldron 13:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunderland v Leeds '73

Continuing the debate started above – was Sunderland’s victory in 1973 a “notable event” or only giant killing?

It’s noteworthiness stems from it being the first time since 1931 that a Second Div. Team had won the cup. There is no doubt that it was giant killing.

Should it be left where it is, moved to “notable events” or duplicated in notable events with a link to it’s own article FA Cup Final 1973? leaky_caldron 13:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd move it to notable events, I don't think a top division losing to second division is ever really 'giant killing' propoer is it? --Robdurbar 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd already placed it there under the "orange ball" notable event. I agree with your general sentiment about giant killing D1 v D2. However, the event at the time was so momentous because of Leeds stature as the pre-eminent team in England. I suppose the modern day equivalent would be Chelsea or Liverpool being defeated by Coventry or Stoke leaky_caldron 14:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish cup

why is it relevant when the scottish cup started?

Musungu jim 06:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not, really --Robdurbar 09:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - leave it out. leaky_caldron 10:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Shock Results

We need some sort of policy on this section to avoid it balooning. For example, two more results have been added from this Saturday's matches, the Burton 1 Peterbrough 0 game and Hartlepool 1 Tamworth 2 game. These results are notable in the context of one season, but also occur every year.

I would suggest the following needs to occur for a result to be 'famous':

• The teams need to have two spereate leagues between them (e.g. level 2 club v level 5 club)
• Where the result occurs in a later round, this rule could be relaxed (e.g. a level 3 club beating a level 1 club in a quarter or semi final)
• Other results might be notable if the team who loses in particualrly well known, or the team who wins is particularly obsucre

Thoughts? Robdurbar 10:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the particulars, but there needs to be some criteria applied when choosing which shock results to include. We need to deal with fact, not opinion as to what is and isn't a shock. Looking at the list, some giant-killing acts are by clubs who have been in the Premier League in the last few years. For example, a loss by a top flight club to Wimbledon in 1975 would be a huge difference to a loss by a top flight club to Wimbledon in 1995. Losing to a top-flight club in the final eg. 1987 or 1988- can that ever be a true shock? (Coventry finished above Spurs in 1987 and it's still on the shock list). Therefore, some context needs to be applied, i.e. Why was it a shock and which divisions were the two clubs in? Did the 'big' club field a weak XI or were all their superstars humbled?

Also, should we look at the clubs' status, either at the time of the shock (hard to find out) or at the end of that season? Or at the end of the previous season? eg. Wrexham-Arsenal 1992 as it was 1991's 92nd vs 1st.

Here's three examples for one shock result:

• Shrewsbury Town 2 Everton 1 (2003, Round 3)
  • In 2003, Shrewsbury were relegated from the Football League and Everton finished fourth in the Premiership.
  • In 2002, Shrewsbury finished 9th in Div. 3 and Everton finished 9th in the Premiership.
  • Emerging England starlet Wayne Rooney and his Champions-League-chasing teammates were humbled by Shrewsbury, a third division club struggling to retain their league status.

Maybe a statistical approach could enable us to choose the top 20 shocks, to prevent the list from growing exponentially.

Slumgum 01:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar - you're right about this list getting out of hand. Brentford 2 Sunderland 1 today was hardly a shock at all. And surely getting a replay can't really count, can it?

I'll second that. Sunderland, rock-bottom of the Prem, away to a decent league one side. We all saw that one coming. Hardly up there with Birmingham v Kidderminster or Shrewsbury v Everton--Ukdan999 01:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that we therefore need either certain criteria, reduce the number on the list dramaticaly to include only the biggest shocks, or ...? Robdurbar 16:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Chester City 0 Ipswich Town 0 (2006-07, Round 3) was placed into this category today but I promptly removed it. I don't see how a draw at this stage between teams 2 leagues apart can be classed as a famous shock result'. TN2006 18:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I also removed todays wins by Forest and Swansea over sides struggling near the bottom of the premier. Third level sides beating first level sides or sides two divisions apart beating each other is not uncommon and if we include all these, then the list would become impossibly long. I would suggest that there should be a gap of three divisions before we include any such results or else there should be a set number of league places - say 50 as a minimum as a struggling league one side beating Chelsea say would be a shock. Valenciano 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed Palace beating Liverpool in 2002 - two teams one level apart - a mild surprise certainly but not a major shock of the sutton beating coventry variety. Similarly I again removed Swansea's win over Sheffield Utd and Forest's win over Charlton. In both cases the winning teams are flying high in League One and the losing teams facing relegation from the Premier so it's not unlikely that both teams involved in each tie will be playing in the same division next season. It's interesting to note that on the football predictions group that I'm on,[[4]] out of 31 people predicting for the Forest game, 13 forecast a Forest win with only 12 predicting a Charlton win. It's a small sample but it does suggest that it was hardly a shock given Charlton's recent dire form. In future I would suggest that we apply RobDurbars criteria above or go with my suggested 50 league places between as a rough guide. Valenciano 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Shock results are so frequent and there are too many to put on this page..

Would it not make more sense to create a new article, 'Famous Shock Results', to link to and save space on this page..?

Alistairlp 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I just added 2 'Division 3' wins over top flight teams this weekend, then discover they had already been previously removed before.Statto74 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of merging both "famous shock results" sections. It would be good if we could get some sort of consensus on what constitutes a shock result so that we would have some sort of guideline in future, otherwise the list will become impossibly long. As for the two that you've added - see my reasoning above. The Forest win wasn't really a shock at all as a lot of people saw it coming. In both cases a third level team chasing promotion beat a first level team facing relegation - in situations like that where both teams are likely to be playing in the same division next season it's dubious. Furthermore, while both results may be notable in the context of this season, such results happen every year and thus they certainly don't meet the "famous" criteria as the average footy fan is likely to have forgotten them by next year. I would suggest that both teams should have either 3 or 2 and a half divisions between them. Exceptions could be made for later rounds ie semis and final which are likely to be remembered or maybe for the top teams like Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool or Arsenal losing to third level opponents. I'll hold off from reverting any more until we get a consensus. Valenciano 12:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll reassert my original proposals:

• That there are two full divisions between the teams. For example, a League Two side would have to beat a Premiership side; or a Conference side beating a Championship sdie; Conference North beating a League One sie
• That at the Quater-Final/Semi-Final stages this be relaxed slightly so that a victory by teams with one division between them be noted (I'm thinking of that painful Leicester loss to Wycombe a few years back)
• That if the losing 'giant' is a Legaue Two or Conference side, the winning team would have to be very obscure
• That either exceptionally heavy defeats (say by four or more goals), or a losing 'giant' who was perhaps the previous season's champions or a top five premiership team, we would relax these regulations

No offence to Swansea fans, but such victories happen every year. If we're listing 'famous' ones, then we need to have a relatively high bar to keep the list from expanding massively.

As for alternative statsitical/top twenty shocks/50 positions between approaches - I'm all ears!

Robdurbar 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Do people think that results where the 'giant' is league one or below (e.g. walsall v slough) should stay? As good an achievment as this is, I'm not sure whether it counts as 'famous' or not? --Robdurbar 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that they are. I think people are missing the point of the section which is for FAMOUS shock results - not just including any old surprise result. Your criteria above are fine as we need a bit of flexibility rather than a rigid statistical cutoff. Wimbledon beating Liverpool and Sunderlands win over Leeds were memorable shocks, games featuring lower league sides are unlikely to be remembered outside of those towns involved. I've therefore removed the following

Chesterfield 0-1 Basingstoke Town Burscough 3-2 Gillingham Slough Town 2-1 Walsall

Also Cardiff City 2-1 Leeds United is dubious as Cardiff missed automatic promotion to Level 2 by just 1 point although Leeds were then a top five club but I've left it there for now. Swindon losing to Stevenage is another borderline case although more notable for being an away win. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valenciano (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. We need to come somewhere in between just using dry and statistics and making reasonable value judgements. Bare in mind the Swindon v Stevanage was a Premiership v Conference game at the time. Leeds being a Champions Leauge club at the time was also my reasoning behind that one.

As for Wimbledon... I kinda know what you mean but can we really label a victory by one club over another in the same league a 'famous shock'? I'm uncertain.

BTW, another way to do this would be to demand sources for each result that back up our 'famous shock claim'... Robdurbar 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this section has sort of lost it's way by being determined solely on the gap between the sides rather than the actual "shock" value of the result. For instance, Wimbledon beating Liverpool would come up more often as a "shock" result rather than Vauxhall Motors beating Queens Park Rangers a few years ago (which isn't in the article either). Was Tottenham's 1901 Final a "Shock" at the time? - fchd 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I asked the question before - was Wimbledon beating Liverpool really a 'shock' or just a memorable final (I ask it in all curiousness - I'm too young to remember it!)? To bring it round, if Reading beat Man U or Chelsea in the cup final - it would be unexpected, a memorable final etc but is one team beating another in the same league a shock? I don't really think so. Certainly, though, the whole shock thing isn't dictated by such rules and whilst I think these should be indicative, they're not meant to be hard and fast exclusive rules. --Robdurbar 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Wimbledon / Liverpool would be one of the exceptions to strict rules. Liverpool were the dominant team of the era and arguably reached their pinnacle that season, stringing together a 29 game unbeaten run consisting of numerous 4 goal wins. A few weeks before the cup final they'd thrashed Forest 5-0. Few people gave Wimbledon any chance and I remember in Match magazine and Shoot magazine at the time a number of pundits suggesting 4-0 or 5-0 wins.

Overall I think such a section is always going to be problematic. Including links to justify results might be one way but the difficulty there is that the sources themselves will often be subjective and/or biased. Valenciano 19:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh league teams???

I changed this sentence The Cup involves English and Welsh league teams, as it sounds like teams from the Welsh leagues enter the competition, which I don't believe is the case. I assume this sentence was referring to the fact that some Welsh clubs play in the English League System, which I think I've now explained more clearly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dave w74 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Welsh teams do enter. Swansea F.C. and Newport County F.C. for example. Jooler 22:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Swansea F.C. and Newport County F.C. both participate in the English league system. Dave w74 was referring to the fact that it could have been misunderstood to mean that teams from the Welsh leagues participate (which they do not).Drc79 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So he was. I misinterpreted his words. Jooler 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argument made by the Arse, Wenger - Should replay be abolished

The arguement should be in the article, but how to write it? kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 06:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't even this it's worth a mention in passing. - fchd 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Replays avoid the travesty of penatly shoutouts in rounds where money is not the porblemo. In the finals when paying fans expect a result one way or the ither we need finalty immdiately, buit in the secind or fourth round, let the League and non league teams play and play. Chivista 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA comparsion, there is the NCAA tourney

It's a mad house. It's got th e underdogs just like FA cup! Where do I make the analogy? Chivista 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a comparison at all? The NCAA Championship tournament is in no way related to the F.A. Cup - fchd 12:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)