Talk:2006–07 Football League Cup

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Funkyduncan in topic Semi-finals

Construction notes edit

  • This link shows the seedings in order, prior to the draw.
  • I suggest that a format similar to FA Cup 2005-06 be used for the notation of results.
  1. 20 Chesterfield 1-2 Wolverhampton Wanderers 4 Att. 34,567
  2. 5 Stoke City 1-2 Darlington 28 34,567 (2006-08-23)
  1. 7 Cardiff City 1-2 Barnet 33 34,567 2006-08-24
  2. 25 Milton Keynes Dons 1-2 Colchester United 13 34,5670

 SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  04:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Suggested move to League Cup 2006-07 edit

Shouldn't this article be moved to the above page in order to minimize confusion and standardize results pages for this competition? In the future, if someone goes back and creates articles from previous seasons it seems like it would be quite messy (and confusing) to jump from "Coca-Cola Cup 1997–98" to "Worthington Cup 2002–03" to "Carling Cup 2006-07". Similarly, past Premier League articles are always labelled "FA Premier League XXXX-XX", not "Barclays Premiership XXXX-XX". And the FA Cup 2006-07 isn't called the "FA Cup sponsored by E.ON 2006-07". I say we leave the sponsors out of the title, but mention that it is also known as the Carling Cup in the introduction. - Pal 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't really mind, but I should mention that it hasn't been called the League Cup since 1981, and that other countries and sports have a competition called League Cup, not just English football. See Talk:League Cup for the two issues.  Slumgum T. C.   19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, perhaps that issuse needs to be settled first. If League Cup was moved to "English League Cup" or "English Football League Cup" then it would make more sense to have an "English League Cup 2006-07" page. I'll bring it up on the WikiProject Football page- Pal 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Semi-finals edit

I have come across the problem that the semi-finals are two legged, how should I express the results? Funkyduncan 22:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply