Talk:1999 UEFA Champions League final

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Max Mayr 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the table is incomplete ? are you shying to show who better played in that match ?--Max Mayr 09:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The table is incomplete because we do not have the data available to complete it. -

PeeJay 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I mean, seriously. For one thing, quotes from a commentator, no matter how much Man United fans like them, have no place here. The injury time section, in particular, is both a huge send-up of Man Utd and disrespectful to Bayern. This really, really needs to be cleaned up by someone who is a fan of neither team. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rubbish. read the 2005 article. sounds like a love letter to Rafa. 81.96.242.64 (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how the article is biased, altough I'm a Munich supporter. The only sentence I could see as insulting is the comment about Matthäus at the end of the match report. Otherwise there probably should be something to contrast the comments of the Manchester reporter. This also shows that the article was probably written by a Manchester supporter. I don't know if there were any memorable comments by German commentators, though. In the end this makes the article incomplete in my opinion, but not intentionally biased. A little more about the other perspective should be added, but I don't think the article would get better if any of the stuff was removed, that is in there right now. OdinFK (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment about Matthäus should be removed, tbh, and I'm a Man Utd fan! The comment is not encyclopaedic, since it comes from the UK television match commentary, and it is pretty biased. It's an interesting soundbite, but definitely not worthy of inclusion here. –

Jay 15:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This article is very biased indeed...but I love it. Leemorrison (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support Man Utd so this was an amazing occurence for me. This does sound a bit like it's written by a mad man u fan talking to their mates to some degree. I do think in describing things that happened in the game it's fair enough. Also saying about the 'can man utd score they always score' is fair enough as it's become famous. What I don't like is the 'what must lothar matthaus be thinking, with the deepest respect who cares'. That's something me and my man utd supporting mates quote and laugh about together but probably doesnt have a place in this and is somewhat disrespectful. I'm not sure also about him saying after the game 'the best team didnt win but the luckiest' . I remember something more like that 'Bayern munich had controlled the entire game' (which wasn't true either). Putting either of these in doesnt look good. Why don't you put in something like that although Bayern did play well and on a par with man utd for much of the game Franz Beckenbauer their presisent very sportingly said how Man Utd deserved their victory. I'm pretty sure that's the case (quoting Alex Fergusons autobiography there). I think he actually said that he thought Man Utd had played the more positive football (again Alex ferguson's book). Whether you agree or disagree with that (I actually thought it was an even match with both teams not playing great) it seems like a better ending and encompassing the good of the game for everyone. Also like the comments above here say sighting a bit more from the other side and how it was recieved etc. All a bit too english really.Also it starts out by saying utd scored 2 goals in the last minute in injury time. that doesnt make sense. they scored two goals in injury time. that's it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.239.153 (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As people have been saying for some time (including a number of United supporters), the article sounds biased and should be rewritten. The overall tone of the article makes it sound like it was written from a pro-United or pro-English perspective. The same is true of the 2005 final article. Actually I've noticed this is a problem on Wikipedia, many of the articles on former Liverpool players sound like they belong on Liverpool FC fan websites, they are full of the sort of glowing praise and adulation that only fans of the club would write and they actually sound as though they were written especially for other Liverpool supporters to read. Football articles on here should be neutral. The first thing that should be done to this article is the removal of Tyldsley's comment about Matthaus which tells the reader nothing useful and just reinforces the pro-United tone. 92.9.16.127 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, the last part of this sentence is pointless: "Manchester United became the first team to win the European Cup or Champions League having failed to be either the champions of Europe, champions of their country, or the winners of their country's domestic cup the preceding season." Since when did winning your domestic cup competition qualify you for the European Cup and give you a chance of becoming champion of Europe? If a team won their domestic cup, they played in the European Cup Winners' Cup, they did not get the opportunity to contest the main competition. Plenty of teams might have won the European Cup the year after winning the domestic cup, but only because they also won the league title, winning the domestic cup is irrelevant here. 92.9.16.127 (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes the "old chestnut" that Manchester United won the first English treble. This of course is not true. See the Wiki page "Treble (association football)" which defines the treble, and shows Liverpool's treble in 1984 in the table of treble winners. (Yes I am a Liverpool fan but I also love Manchester United. I have to because I married a Man U fan and all my children are Man U fans!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onehung (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that Liverpool won a treble in 1984, but it was not the same treble as the one United won. United's treble is considered to be of greater worth than Liverpool's because the League Cup sucks. –

Jay 23:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Celtic won the league trophy, the SFA cup, the league cup, and the european cup in 1967. They were therefore not the first team to win this treble. I am editing the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.191.246 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong to do so. The statement in the article says that United were the first team to win the

Jay 02:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The specific league is irrelevant, all that matters is that a top flight league was won. The article will be re-edited. Cheers :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.191.246 (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what colour they were? The ribbons are usually in the club colours, even if a change kit was worn (1994, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2007; 1996 featured both teams' colours), so chances are the trophy would have ultimately been dressed in red and white ones regardless. 86.8.146.245 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayern's home kit that season was predominantly blue and red. Besides, there must have been some distinction between the ribbons or whoever made the quote would not have noticed any difference. –

Jay 18:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Suspension aside, was he an injury doubt for the game? Being taken off in the FA Cup final and missing the start of next season. VEO^onefive 00:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but I haven't seen any evidence for that. He didn't seem to be injured in the post-game footage when he and Scholes picked up the trophy. –

Jay 11:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Having done a bit more research, it seems you were right that the injury suffered by Keane in the FA Cup final did keep him out until the start of the following season, albeit only for one game. See here. –

Jay 11:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I did consider him holding the trophy with Paul Scholes but an ankle injury didn't stop John Terry prancing around with the Europa League trophy last year. VEO^onefive 16:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section doesn't make sense - in the First half it lists "Shots on Goal" and "Wide Shots", but the 2nd half lists "Total Shots" and "Shots on Target". The overall uses the same, but uses the figures for the 1st half to make up the totals, laving it with the stupid thing of Bayern having 7 shots, 8 of which were on target. 86.186.85.154 (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it - feel free to re-add it if you can correct the information. 86.186.85.154 (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information was correct, I just forgot to change the titles of the rows. –

Jay 09:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Reviewer: Quidster4040 (talk · contribs) 19:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be planning to review this article. Quidster4040 (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Update: The wording is misleading, thought if anyone who is autopatrolled can edit, but doesn't look to be the case. I won't be editing due to lack of credentials, if someone else can edit it that would be awesome. Quidster4040 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which wording are you referring to? Is this anything I can fix? –

Jay 08:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Second update: will be reviewing momentarily. Just found out I can continue reviewing the article. Quidster4040 (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It very well-written
2. For the most part it is well sourced, however, the following areas need to be sourced:

   Most of the "Route to the final" section is unsourced

   "Élber's absence resulted in Bayern playing a three-man attack of Mario Basler, Carsten Jancker and Alexander Zickler, while Lizarazu was replaced by Michael Tarnat playing in a wing-back role opposite Markus Babbel on the right. Babbel was originally intended to play a man-marking role on Ryan Giggs, with his defensive abilities earning him selection ahead of the more attack-minded Thomas Strunz;[49] however, this was nullified by Giggs' selection on the right wing, where he would play against Tarnat. The Bayern defence was anchored around sweeper Lothar Matthäus, who played behind Thomas Linke and Ghana international Samuel Kuffour – the only non-German in the Bayern side (by comparison, Manchester United had four Englishmen, one Welshman and one Irishman in their team). Stefan Effenberg and Jens Jeremies played in central midfield for Bayern, with Jeremies man-marking David Beckham. The midfield width was provided by forward runs from Tarnat and Babbel." Needs sourcing

   In the "Summary" section, there are several unsourced paragraphs.

   Second paragraph of "First Half" needs sourcing

   "Second half" section needs sourcing

   First paragraph of "injury time" needs sourcing

3. It is broad in coverage – very well done!
4. It is neutral in point-of-view
5. The article is Stable
6. There is a good amount of relevant images that illustrate the article

Before this can meet GA, there are a few paragraphs that need to be cited. This article is very well-written otherwise, so once these missing citations are addressed, I will be willing to promote this article for GA! Quidster4040 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I will address these issues when I get a chance by the end of the weekend. –

Jay 18:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Been waiting for

PeeJay2K3, but if these items are not addressed, I suppose it will fail nomination. Quidster4040 (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I made this nomination over the Christmas break when I had a lot more time on my hands. Now I'm back at work, I'm struggling. I'll see what I can do this afternoon. Sorry to keep you all waiting! –

Jay 09:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Looked over it, and it looks great! I'm willing to nominate for GA nomination. BlueMoonset. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean it passes? If so we can get the review closed, if there's anything else we can go from there. Wizardman 22:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman, I think Quidster4040 means that it passes. I'd like to be sure, though... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wizardman, that is correct. Quidster4040 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close this as a pass then. Wizardman 21:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311074953/http://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1999.htm to http://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1999.htm

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.

• 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) 20:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should a new section be added to the article about this game?--- Managerarc™ ^talk 11:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you think. Done. –

Jay 19:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Please notice that Lothar Matthaus did not play as a sweeper in this game. Clearly not. He played defensive midfielder of a 433, in the "anchor man" role. You can rewatch the game. Its a central defence of 2 players, Linke and Kuffour. Matthaus play front of those two guys. Sometimes, he come behind, between Linke and Kuffour, in United long balls, but otherwise, he clearly play number 6 behind Jeremies and Effenberg. When Bayern have the ball, yes, Matthaus go back and lead the game, a couple of times, but its exactly what a number 6 could do sometimes nowdays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2FB9:2660:70B6:7BC2:6E09:40E3 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The UEFA graphics on the official match broadcast and press kits all show Matthaus lining up as a sweeper, but yes, he probably did play as more of a "libero" in the Beckenbauer mould. There's no reason to make any changes. Cheers. –

Jay 21:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]