Talk:Treble (association football)/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Treble (association football). 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/20090721080543/http://www.celticfc.net/home/aboutCeltic.aspx to http://www.celticfc.net/home/aboutCeltic.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906133958/http://www.thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=%2F2008%2F8%2F24%2Fsports%2F22162062&sec=sports to http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=%2F2008%2F8%2F24%2Fsports%2F22162062&sec=sports

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

MAN UNITEDS 1999

WHY NO MENTION OF MAN UNITEDS 1999 TREBLE, LEAGUE, FA CUP AND EUROPEAN CUP?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.209.70 (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation

The Treble or The treble? Discuss. At the moment the article uses one in the title and the other in the first line, which doesn't look great, plus it means that [[the treble]] gets redirected. Which one do you think we should use? File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The distinction is very simple. Liverpool won "a" treble, Man Utd won "the" treble.

Please explain where the different articles can be found. If winning 3 trophies is a treble, but there is a "THE" treble, why don't we have separate articles? I feel certain that if Manchester United would of won the UEFA cup instead, that would of been THE treble!

"The Treble" was always the domestic treble until the media spunked their pants for ManYoo in 1999. -- LondonStatto (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Domestic trebles

It would be nice to explain for each of the teams listed as to what their trebles actually consisted of. I've done this for Bayern München (even though I hate them). For example, I couldn't find any information what the Maltese club actually won to earn their trebles, and for the trebles of Shamrock FC, it says in the footnote that "it consisted of league, cup, and shield". There are articles on the Irish leage and cup, but there is no mention of any shield whatsoever. Also, if this Irish shield bears any resemblance to the English FA Community Shield, this wouldn't qualify as actually winning the treble. Pls. advise. Crix 03:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I finished filling in the domestic table. There were two removals I made. I removed the Malta team because Malta appears to only have one cup competition. The other isn't a competition, it's a supercup that I could find no info on. I also removed the Israeli team as at the time of their treble, they won the league, state cup and Uefa intertoto group stage. First they don't belong in the domestic table because at that time, 1978, Israel didn't have two cups like it does today. Second, I'm not sure this is a treble at all because the third "win" was winning the Intertoto group stage at a time when the Intertoto didn't declare a winner at all. Just letting you know.... Nygoodliving 06:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Levski Sofia treble

I suggest adding Levski Sofia because in 1984 they won the bulgarian trebla winning the championship, the cup and the soviet army cup becoming the only team in Bulgaria winning three cups in one season. Although by that time the Soviet army cup didn't give a Uefa or CWC place it was still higly valued. What do you think?

Chelsea (NEW)or other Charity shield victories

Chelsea - The 2005 team won the English Premier League, League Cup and the FA Community Shield

I don't think anyone can seriously consider this a treble. I've removed it from the list.212.140.167.99 14:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that trebles involving the European Supercup or Intercontinental cup should be listed but I haven't removed them because that is more subjective. 212.140.167.99 14:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the Charity shield or any single match trophy should count towards a Treble (or a 3 trophy haul for that matter.) I don't think any fans of Manchester United are calling 2008 a Treble season after winning League, European cup and Charity shield.

Including the charity shield would lengthen the list in an unnecessary and quite meaningless way. Off the Top of my head you would then have to consider 1977, 1986 as "3 trophy seasons" for liverpool (making 1984 a "4 Trophy season) or 1994 2008 for Mancheseter United or as pointed out above 2005 for chelsea. (Statto999 (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

In general, no one counts the charity shield in trophies won at the end of a season - definitely not as part of a treble or double. the charity shield and european supercups are one off games less for the clubs and more for the associations/charities - they shouldn't really be considered a part of the regular seasonJw2034 (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

International trebles

I don´think Brazil 94-97 qualifies in here, cause before the 1997 Copa America, there was the 1995 Copa America won by Uruguay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.55.202 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Brazil held the three trophies at the same time - the 1997 copa america, 1994 world cup and 1997 confederations cup making it a trebleJw2034 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying a team that wins the misses out on the League, then wins the FA Cup the next Saturday and the Champions League just after that has won The Treble if they win the following season's League just because they hold all 3 at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.107.222 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I've sectioned The Treble and The Double catagories to Domestic, International, European, etc... and tidied them up a bit. I've also added some explanation with regards to usage of 'The Treble' as opposed to 'a treble'; anything that is not either a European, Continental, International or Domestic Treble should not be referred to as 'The Treble'; notably references to Liverpool's 2001 3 trophies should be 'a treble' (at a push) - it keeps ending up listed under European Treble which it is not! I've also aded Career treble - a list of players here would be good (dont think it's too many).Jw2034 (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

European Triple Crown???

I know that this was not obtained in a single season, but surely it deserves a mention that Ajax,Juve and Bayern Munich have done this feat?

For those who dont know about it, The Triple crown was never a real award, but it so called as a team who has won all 3 european contests at any time during the instinction. Only a handful of clubs can win it, and some of the big teams will never do it as they never won the CWC(Real Madrid and Liverpool the main examples)

Heyesy (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

never heard of that described as a 'triple crown'. citation? Jw2034 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just local slang i guess, but in other sports winning the major contests at any time is known a s a triple crown or grand slam. Also i cant think of a better name, but it should be noted on here that they won the 3 cups, its a impossible feat nowadays!212.219.76.100 (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool 1986

Liverpool won the Championship & FA Cup in 85/86, so that's a double. They also won the ill-fated Screen Sport Super Cup of 85/86 (although the final wasn't played until the start of the next season). This wasn't a one match trophy like the Charity Shield so although it's not as prestigious, it's still a Treble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.107.222 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

a) not in a single season, b) the screen sports cup doesnt count, c) even if it did it's not part of any variant of The Treble. dream on koppite! Jw2034 (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

'fraid it does son, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.35.50 (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

beg to differ. not in a season - not a treble Jw2034 (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

only due to fixture congestion. a treble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.35.50 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

not in a season, not a major trophy, super cups don't count (see the absence of entries for the spanish,italian and euro variants...). that's why trebles of charity shield/pre-season emirates cup/Mickey Mouse cup, league and cup arn't here. read 'Chelsea (NEW)or other Charity shield victories' above before editing again Jw2034 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a Super Cup in the sense that it was a one match cup. That's the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.35.50 (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

yes it was a super cup, see its article Super Cup (English football)Jw2034 (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Read this carefully to avoid any more confusion, because you clearly don't understand what I'm saying. You're definiton of a Super Cup is those Spanish/Italian equivalents to the Charity Shield. Now, consider that at the time there was no Europe. What else would you have wanted them to call the tournament then? League Cup? No, there already was one. Shield? Nope, there was one of those too. Fact is, to win that, you'd to play 8 games, which was more than the FA Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.35.50 (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So you've toned down the abusive language on my user page now then? Its a super cup. It was even called the Screen Sports Super Cup. end of.

In the words of Howard Kendall on the topic 'What a waste of time this is...'Jw2034 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll tone it down when you stop the patronising. So anything called 'Super Cup' is automatically exactly like the Italian and Spanish versions? THE CHARITY SHIELD IS THE ENGLISH EQUIVALENT. I'm starting to wonder whether you understand English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.35.50 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC) In fact, let's take Porto out considering the league they won has the word 'Super' in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.35.50 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

..and the banhammer comes down...Jw2034 (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

World Cup, Ballack and Euros

Please not that comments on Germany's (or Ballack's) success\failure in international football has no relevance in this artice which is on the Treble in club football. This page is not to comment on the luck (even though it is exceptionally bad) of various players - I'm sure Johan Cruyff after winning the Treble in 1972 and back to back European Cups in 1973 was pretty gutted to lose the 1974 World Cup final, but since these were different, unrelated tournaments in a different form of football they have no place in this article. And what about those players like Lucio who went on after Leverkusen had lost and won the World Cup with Brazil?

If you wish to add comment on Ballack, use his page.Jw2034 (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Trebles

Would Manchester United's current season already have an "other treble" counted with it (Community Shield, Club World Cup and League Cup already)?
Ը२ձւե๓ձռ¹⁷ 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Supercups don't usually count, one could argue that even the Club World Cup is sort of a Supercup but, the Cummunity shield is not counted in trebles. (Plus some might also argue that the community shield and perhaps the world club cup as well are part of the last season not the current one.) chandler · 12:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not incredibly keen on putting anything in until the season's finished, but can I just ask how some might argue that those cups could be considered as part of the previous season? I thought that the Charity Shield was traditionally considered as the start of the season? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I would say it has much more to do with the last season, it's just a small competition you have to win the last seasons league/cup to get into. It's also the last year. As in, Man Utd's treble is more often referred to as "the 99 Treble", not "the 98-99 Treble", as all trophies were won in 1999. And let's say Liverpool's treble in 2001, they won 5 trophies in 2001, with sounds better(?) than "they won 5 trophies in 2008-2009" chandler · 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd never really thought about the trophy wins coming in the same season! The manner of qualification for the C Shield is irrelevant though, placement in any certain league/cup/tournament is inextricably linked to the previous season(s)'s performance. Either way, I'd leave it till the end of the season. I'd be surprised if any readers came looking for Man United's mid-season trophy progress here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish trebles

Why does a user keep trying to remove these? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Near Trebles

AZ Alkmaar also had some kind of 'Treble Horror' in the 2006-07 Eredivisie season. They were standing at first place at the start of the last matchday in the Eredivisie, but lost to SBV Excelsior thus being passed by PSV Eindhoven and AFC Ajax on the league table. They were also runners up in the KNVB Beker (Dutch Cup) and they lost the final of the Eredivisie Play-offs to AFC Ajax.

Bayern Munich 2011-12 Campaign should be considered as 'Treble Horror'. They finished 2nd in Bundesliga to Borussia Dortmund as well as Runners-up to them in DFB-Pokal. In Champions League they lost at Home to Chelsea in the Final and finished as Runners-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.58.183 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed this on the basis that Alkmaar weren't runners up in their League. I don't suppose many have objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statto999 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A New Lead

I have rewritten the lead to be more concise, better reflect the topic matter and focus upon the major aspects. I have moved the long-winded and unverified "Manchester United/Liverpool conflict" info away to the other trebles section. I believe that the focus of the article should primarily be the four achievements listed.

I realise stating that these four competitions alone are "The Treble" is contentious, but I have done so as I believe that this is the de facto usage in the media and currently on Wikipedia. There has been a little lack of consistency around other articles for a while and I believe that the new lead emphasises current usage. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also done further restructuring to order the material in connected sequences. A reliable citation is needed for the terms of a "Treble Horror" and a "Career Treble". Otherwise, the latter information should be moved within "Near Trebles", and the latter should be removed as off-topic as the article is dealing with teams, not players. I also propose the following tabulation for the near misses:

Club	Nation	Year	Results			Notes
			League	Cup	European
Real Madrid	Spain	1958	La Liga	Copa del Rey	European Cup	Lost 2–0 to Athletic Bilbao in the Copa del Rey Final
Inter	Italy	1965	Serie A	Coppa Italia	European Cup	Lost 1–0 to Juventus in the Coppa Italia Final

To be honest I can't believe I just made this because I've never tried html before and these tables always cause me trouble! Maybe we could link the year too if that club's season has an article? Actually, this table could be easily modified for use with the other treble and treble horror info too. Also, I think the colours may need toning down a little so could some techie-type person help me with that? What do others think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Woooah there! you've practically rewritten the article without consultation. you've made the header worse, using poorer grammar and removing several key points as to the definition of the Treble, why super cups dont count and added a random floating sentence on Celtic's quadruple. it doesnt read any better and it adds nothing. you've also arbitrarily decided what counts as near-Trebles and Treble Horror going against consensus and a large number of edits*. from past experience, not defining The Treble and it's variants from 'a treble' in the header simply invites vandalism to the list of Treble winners. the united/liverpool aspect is heavily heavily ref'd and verified. the header as it is emphasises what types of treble there are and explains them in continuous prose, rather than confusingly stating them in bullet points with no context or explanation.

'*in fact, only the leverkusen loss was ever defined as 'Treble Horror' (and even then it's a dodgy transliteration from the original German), the chelsea bit is blatant OR but i've found if you try removing it (or the Ballack bit) it's back a day later in another form!

on the upside, the table idea is a good one; as it is, the info is very hard to read. if you dont know how to do something, place a request on the football project talk page, or use preview to practice. Jw2035 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to consult everyone over every edit I make. The page is open to anyone to edit. Here are numerous problems which my edits fixed. (see current and my edits)

1. The current page is massively inconsistent. The Domestic Treble and the Continental Treble have clearly also been referred to as "The Treble" – thus this needs to be noted, and the first sentence did not accurately reflect this. I admit that the primary usage of "The Treble" is for the European Treble, but this is reflected in that it is placed first in both the bullet points and the body.
2. The second paragraph goes into minutiae about what isn't a treble. A better way to do this is to first clearly state what is. In my version this info was summarised as "no single match or two-leg competitions" this quickly summarises all these competitions.
3. The Quadruple had an even worst position in the previous version (3rd para). We don't need to know this so early, we need to clearly define usage of "The Treble" and "the treble" first.
4. The International Treble is separated from the other types. Why do this? The bullet points clearly define the types of victories known as "Trebles". This is shown by the usage of "International Treble. Also, I fixed the corresponding information into a useful and informative table. You have undone this (adds nothing? Get real!)
5. I know that the Man U/ Liverpool info is heavily reffed. In fact, if you look at the history, it was me that added the references! However, that has no bearing on is justification for the lead. This information is excessive here and the Man U/Liverpool discussion is a merely footnote in the history of trebles. I moved it to a more appropriate place in the "other trebles" section.
6. I removed OR that the European Treble is "the most prestigious"
7. My grammar was not poor. I ask you point out one major grammatical problem in my edits. I really do.
8. I did define what a "treble" consists of in the new lead. And the differences between the two. You obviously did not read it.
9. We should not write our articles to "prevent vandalism". We should write them in the way that is easiest to understand for the reader. Clearly listing the four types of Treble does this better than current version.
10. The prose was not continuous in describing the Treble. The International Treble was separate.
11. Another useful edit i made was that I moved the "Career Treble" to the end of the page and suggested removal as it is unreferenced and goes off-topic. Did this also "add nothing"?
12. "Confusingly stated with no context"? The bullet points give the context—they state what competitions need to be won to achieve the Trebles and furthermore they state that "The Treble" is limited to these four types, something not previously stated.
13. How is the "Chelsea bit" OR? I removed the OR that the loss was "A lesser 'treble horror'". BTW I did not add that information. I merely moved it out of the Treble Horror section and into an "other treble horrors" section which more accurately reflects the content.
14. If Leverkusen was the only Treble Horror then why did you revert to a version which notes three other Treble Horrors, and includes two other horrors under the "Treble Horror" header? This is lazy editing at best and disruptive at worst.
15. I have not arbitrarily defined what constitutes a near treble. This is an entirely false accusation. I did not touch the Near Treble information. I merely moved the information to another section. (see current and my edits). The version you reverted to includes "near trebles" (as previously defined) under a section about "Near Trebles". This information is best kept under a header along with its related "Other treble".
16. Just because people continue to put the information on Chelsea and Ballack doesn't mean we have to accept it. Our articles are meaningfully constructed and should not be swayed by off topic additions. I would support removal of this whole section of the article to be honest.
17. Furthermore I made plenty of useful edits, including: adding hyperlinked footnotes, copyediting, referencing, and wikifying.

I'm reverting back to the version by Grant.Alpaugh. Reverting someone's edits (which often take a long time) and then giving little reason for your actions is disruptive. Many of your reasons were entirely false and you did not state why the current version is superior. Indeed, many of your described "problems", which you say that I added, had nothing to do with my additions; they concern the article as a whole and reverting back merely moved them around the article agani. The only real issue which concerns my edits is that you think the Trebles are better defined in prose in the lead. I think this is the only argument with merit here and I am fully willing to discuss/revert this as long as it is made clear that a Treble is either a European/Domestic/Continental/International one. Your reverted version, starting "The Treble is a term in football that refers to a club winning their country's top tier league, primary domestic cup and continental level cup", clearly does not accurately represent the article or the term in its entirety. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources for "The Treble"

After doing some searching, it is beginning to become apparent that the term "The Treble" (proper noun) was only used to refer to Manchester United's 1999 treble victory. Otherwise it is not a proper noun. The article should be moved to a different title because other team's victories were simply called trebles (no caps), and not "The Treble". Here are a list of sources which verify its usage:

Sources

• PSV Eindhoven's 1988 treble victory (no caps):UEFAThe TelegraphThe GuardianMetroTelegraphDaily Star

• Manchester United's 1999 treble victory (no caps):The IndependentIndependent (2)The TimesScotsmanIndependet (3)BBC (1)The Times (2)

• Manchester United's 1999 Treble victory (with caps):GuardianDaily MailMirror (mixed usage)Manchester Evening NewsThe TimesMirror (2)Metro

• The book The Global Art of Soccer describes Ajax and Man United's achievements as a treble and "the treble", respectively. Google books link

• Hearts of Oak 2000 treble (no caps): Ghana FAGhana Web

• A Sky Sports news source states various successful seasons: It describes Ajax's 1972 victory, Al Ahly's 2005/06 victories, and various other trebles without capitals Top ten successful seasons. Furthermore, it says Celtic won "an unprecedented quadruple" (no caps).

• An in-depth review of all the trebles from The Guardian[1] also has a noticeable absence of capitals.

Other trebles

• ESPN: Bayern Munich chasing treble (regarding treble with UEFA cup)
• Liverpool's 2001 treble The FA
• Ajax 1991/92 (Having won each of the European cups at some stage) UEFA
• Boca Juniors 2000 treble, which include the World Club Championship The Independent

Proposal

These sources represent a mere part of what can be found but it is obvious that usage of "The Treble" relates only to the 1999 victory of Manchester United.

I propose the following solutions:

1. Move the page to a more accurate description such as, for example, List of football teams with treble wins, or similar
2. Use the current title, "The Treble", to make either a new article describing United's 1999 victory, or simply redirect to Manchester United F.C. season 1998–99 (placing a hatnote link to the new "List of..." article).
3. Describe all trebles as "trebles" (no caps) with the exception of the usage regarding Manchester United.
4. There should be no capitals in referring to the "domestic treble", "continental treble" or "International treble"
5. Merge continental and European trebles as they form very similar achievements and are not unwieldy in size.
6. Remove "Career Treble" section as it does not relate to football teams (which would be outside new title scope) and is entirely unverified.
7. Place table of "other trebles" after the International list and rename to "Alternative trebles"
8. Find an accurate source for Treble Horror or perhaps move that section to the talk page until a good reference is found regarding the term

What do others think? Are there any specific parts of this that anyone disagrees with? Does anyone think the sources I found are not proportionate to the entire body of knowledge? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be a good idea. DeMoN2009 17:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, the media use the term 'treble'/'Treble' more or less interchangeably to mean three trophies in a season, generally League and 2 cups, but more recently, particularly since 1999, to include European trophies. See, as just one example, this source. To try to categorise and label four exclusive types is spurious without very good sources. IMO, compared to the standards of research applied to a lot of other articles, this article is a bit of an embarrassment. As it stands, it should be littered with tags.

I totally disagree with the premise that 'the treble' and 'The Treble' are widely recognised as different concepts. In particular, I think it is ridiculous that we would define 'The Treble' only as Manchester United's 1999 season. Finding and counting examples of usage is not enough, we need sources which actually define 'The Treble' as something distinct from 'the treble'. The contrived definitions used here all look like original research to me. Where are the sources that define the terms 'continental treble', 'domestic treble', 'European treble', 'international treble' or (worst of all, IMO) 'treble horror'? To me, the term 'European treble' is simply the adjective 'European' applied to the concept of a treble - similarly 'European holiday' doesn't need a whole lot of explanation within an article about 'holidays'.

My proposal

1 rename the title something like 'Treble (football)'

2 make the lead a lot less specific, unless very good sources are found. This article is about a term which is widely used in informal contexts, probably more than in solid reliable sources. To try to nail down very specific definitions of 'the treble' and related terms is ridiculous.

3 merge Continental & European trebles, but make it clear that the title is descriptive only, for example 'Treble wins which included a continental trophy' (or something less clunky)

4 Bin the Treble Horror section, unless solid sources can be supplied

5 The current Manchester United/Liverpool paragraph is dreadful, and definitely doesn't belong in the opening section. It gives undue weight to a single rivalry, it is an example of recentism and I'm not convinced by the references - some of them seem to be used to try to prove a negative, ie that Liverpool do not call their 'treble' a 'Treble'. Move it to a later section and clean it up

6 No link from 'The Treble' to Manchester United's 1999 season. --hippo43 (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with you here, and the short-comings of the article was the primary reason why I made a proposal. Simply, something must be done. I think the idea of the domestic treble (League + 2 cups) is clearly established. I think the so-called European Treble (or sometimes The Treble) is also quite well established, principally because it consists of winning the highest calibre league, cup and international cup and thus is easily defined.

I tried to find sources to establish how the terms are used, I thought that this is how things were done and did not realise that without clear explanations then it is OR. Did you find any more links similar to the BBC one? Sadly I think that we'll have to use our own terms such as Continental/International/etc treble for the simple reason that we need to distinguish certain achievements and group them together, using a clear and succinct title. The only other option would be so put all trebles together in one table and list what three honours were won. I think this option would not represent a progression of the article.

I wholly agree with points 1,3,4,5 and believe that they are worth implementing as soon as possible, especially the page move. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

for what its worth I'd support Hippo43's proposal. Skitzo's Answer Machine 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sillyfolkboy, I'm not an expert on sources, so you may well be correct. I just think we need to be clear that these are not specific terms in public use with generally understood meanings, they are just descriptors that we are using. At the moment I think a lot of these labels are framed with a legitimacy that they don't have.

Another issue we need to consider is use of the term in other sports - [2], for example. --hippo43 (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, another example of 'domestic Treble' here. --hippo43 (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am fully aware that other sports have trebles. After all, it's only a word that means three! I think a move to Treble (football) (or maybe even Treble (association football) if absolutely necessary) removes any doubt that "the treble" is not just a footy specific term.

The other link is interesting. I now agree that the Treble in caps is not just MU specific. However, we should state in the article that the term is occasionally capitalised. And perhaps even state in the notes of the continental treble table that some sources describe MU's victory as "The Treble". In fact, now I fully agree with just about all your points and the use of terminology should be corrected. If a couple of other editors also agree then I'll begin to help make the changes. Also, what do you think of the table suggestion in the previous section? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to address the issue of other sports. Create another article which deals with other sports? Or make this article about all sports, with most of the content devoted to football? An article about all sports with a separate article listing football trebles? (Probably my preferred choice) Or something else?

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of tables and lists except where absolutely necessary. I like the look of the table above, but I'm really not sure we need an attempt at an exhaustive list of near-trebles (or even trebles). Others will probably disgree.

As for spelling, I think we just say in the first sentence or so, 'The treble (sometimes spelt Treble) is....' I agree re mentioning Man U and 'The Treble' but IMO it should not be especially prominent, and not in the lead. --hippo43 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One other thing - the tenuous photo of the European Cup has to go, surely? --hippo43 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but to be honest I'm not sure why no one has added this picture showing the League trophy, FA Cup, and Champion's league cup from Man United's treble. I think this would be a much better example of a treble than the current "Here is the Euro Cup, one part of a treble" blurb. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd say there's quite a strong demand for a complete list of trebles, there's nothing particularly wrong with providing them. Near trebles also seem useful but I think it's important that we define "a near treble" as 2 wins + runner-up to narrow the scope. I agree with your suggestion of one article for all sports, followed by sub articles by sport, with this article forming the football aspect of sporting trebles. Your lead-in suggestion sounds fine but I would stay away from "The treble..." instead using "A treble..." to reflect the fact that no one singular treble exists. Also, I refer you to my statement that the Man U "The Treble" should only be in the continental treble section. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though with more thought I'd be wary of emphasising 'The Treble' as relating to Man Utd only. Liverpool, for example, released a DVD titled 'The Treble' for their 2001 season, as did Celtic a few years back. A quick search reveals tons of sources referring to Man U's 1999 season as 'the treble' or 'the Treble'. They don't own this term, it is used about other clubs (though probably not as widely) - I think cit would be misleading to include it, as it will suggest that 'The Treble' refers only to Man U in 1999. It is only really called The Treble in the context of Man U's history, not football history in general. For example, the question 'Do you remember when Man U won The Treble?' has an obvious meaning, while 'Do you remember The Treble?' doesn't. It's also recentism. If Chelsea, for example, were to do the same next year, it woould almost certainly be used about them too.

My concern about the lists of trebles is also that they are currently unsourced and we have no way of knowing if they are complete or not. IMO, 'near-trebles' are not very notable. Do they really belong in an encyclopedia? No doubt some editors would restore them if they were binned, so they will probably stay, but to me they are pretty trivial.

Agree that 'A treble ...' is a sensible way to start, but I'd be keen to include the usual usage of 'the treble' early in the article. Although 'treble' has several meanings here, it is normally preceded by 'the'; 'Celtic won the treble in 2001' is a lot more common, for example, than 'Celtic won a treble in 2001'. --hippo43 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think four days without any complaints is enough. I'll start to make the changes suggested now. Should be done in an hour or so. Any help after then will be much appreciated. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Recasting the article

I have refocused the article to it's impending new title Treble (association football). Outstanding issues include:

1. The term to describe the achievement of League/Primary Cup/Primary Continental Cup. There is no basis to call this "The Treble" as many times this achievement is not capitalised, and other achievements have been called "The Treble" which clouds matters. I've stuck with "continental treble" for now but this term has no basis(?) outside of Wikipedia and is only used as a signifier.
2. The international treble needs to be verified in some way.
3. Sources are needed to categorically prove or disprove the importance/notability of a "treble horror"
4. I found no reliable sources to describe a Liverpool/United "treble rivalry". The only source i have found describes how United fans mocked the treble at a single match. The current citations are merely based on the fact that the sources show Liverpool describing a "treble" while United have "Treble". They did not show that any real rivalry existed beyond that one event so I have reduced the information until further verification is provided.
5. An article is needed for the Lewis Cup.
6. We need to find a source giving detail about the fact that the Charity Shield and Super Cup etc tend not to be included as part of a treble.
7. I think that The Quadruple and The Quintuple should be brought into line as Quadruple (association football) and Quintuple (association football) to better represent the body of sources. Here are two quick examples describing Celtic's 1967 achievement as "a quadruple".[3][4]
8. All references need proper formatting, to be done as references 1–7.
9. Some red links need to be made into redirects or given a more appropriate target.
10. "Other near trebles" still need to be put in a table.

That's pretty much me finished for tonight. I'd appreciate it if people took their concerns to the talk page before making any reverts. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Job

been away for a while, the article now looks pretty good - nice job! Jw2035 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Sillyfolkboy, thanks for putting the work in. --hippo43 (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just happy that I could improve things. What do you guys think of my proposals to move The Quadruple/Quintuple to similar titles? After all, the sources seem to have the same mix of capitals/no capitals as the sources for this article does. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --hippo43 (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work SFB. The article looks a lot better. Can I suggest that you update "Honours won" and "honours lost" to something more precise to imply winners and runners up. eg "Winers of competition" "Runners up in competition". I'll leave that decision up to you. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statto999 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, the problem is a couple of then (e.g. Ajax in 1995) didn't finish as runner up. I hummed and harred about putting them in. Should we exclude those he didn't finish as runner-up? Another problem is finishing a close third in the league. Is there a neat phrase we can use to get around this? I agree that honours won/lost is pretty poor. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"The" treble vs "A" treble

Just to clarify: the article has been down this road and it wasn't pretty. References do not support definition of a clear treble being "The Treble" above all others. To use a previous example, the question "who won the treble?" does not instantly spring to mind any one specific treble. Certainly, fans may reminisce with statements such as "remember when we won the treble?" without meaning to refer to the unverified subject of a "European treble". This idea of which is the "ultimate treble" (i.e. The Treble) simply cannot continue. We all know which is the greatest achievement and there's no need to head towards Original Research to prove that obvious point. Hence the current article title. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

SFB ...Although there is still a need to distinguish between winning the 3 most presigious club trophies and winning 3 club trophies. FC Barcelona could win "the" treble. Manchester United could win "a" treble depending on the outcome of next week's game. The use of the indefinite article in reference to the former possibility seems out of place. Likewise the use of the definite article in the latter possibility also seems out of place. IMO Statto999 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/gabriele_marcotti/article6307664.ece The Times appears to use the same language on this occasion Statto999 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SFB. Of course Barca's treble would be the most prestigious, but insisting on calling it "the European treble" or "the treble" would be OR without good quality sources which define the various trebles. As this is a colloquial term, and as we have seen from the different uses discussed in the earlier debate, we're unlikely to find such authoritative sources. "A treble" seems most correct to me.

I don't agree there is a need to distinguish between types - we can't go inventing/agreeing definitions on WIkipedia just to keep the article neater. The interests of readers (particularly accuracy) have to come before the interests of editors in seeking clarity. --hippo43 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, have a quick look up. I've already spent hours trying to establish common usage but it was a clear failure: there is no one "Treble" as far as the press are concerned. Let's be frank about this: we all know that Manchester United frequently refer to their 1999 achievement as "The Treble" but this is not repeated across historical usage none of the other European trebles were referred to in this manner. Hence, as it stands at the moment, there appears to be no need or basis to establish "The Treble" as League/main cup/CL. "The Treble" is more synonymous with Man United's 1999 victory than it is with the achievement itself. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 00:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. There may well be a stack load more articles in just over a weeks time depending on the outcome of the Champions League Final which may or may not clarify this issue. Hippo I'm not sure quite what the difference between accuracy and clarity is in this context although I understand your other points. Regards Statto999 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't make the distinction very well. By 'accuracy' I meant that the article should reflect reality, however ambiguous and unclear it may be at times. By 'clarity', I meant editors' desire for a neatly categorised article, with universally recognised meanings which don't overlap. --hippo43 (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hippo. That clears it up. Statto999 (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

All trebles are not equal

There must be some way we can mention the enormous difference between the Trebles of Manchester Untied in 98-99 or of Barcelona this year (Visca Barca!) and the Treble of some minor team in some minor league. Just a mention of the difference in class and difficulty of leagues would do it. Trefalcon (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but we need sources which say that. --hippo43 (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just too unwieldy a concept and hardly academic. Sure you could get out the UEFA coefficients and the rankings of leagues but you can only win the competitions you're in and just because an African side in poor economic conditions wins a 'lesser' league doesn't devalue their achievements w/r/t a Barcelona or Man Utd megabucks treble. (sevendaughters 10:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevendaughters (talk • contribs)

Agree, and you hardly need sources - just citing the sheer volume of news coverage Barca or United get, the higher standard of football, the amount of money involved, the TV audiences, etc... compared to the (rather unnoticed) trebles under other confederations shoudl be sufficient. I've split the 'trebles' table by confederation and made a note about the european treble respective to the others. Jw2035 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Near trebles (again)

Can anyone help with sources for this section? To me, it looks a lot like original research. I can't see any of these referenced as "near trebles", and a quick web search (for "near treble" + football) uncovers very little coverage of the concept in reliable sources.

It is also the biggest section of the article, which looks like giving undue weight to something that is specifically not the subject of the article. Would we dedicate the biggest section of horse, for example, to animals that are not horses? It's already tagged as unreferecned, so if nothing appears in another couple of weeks, I'll remove the section. --hippo43 (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hippo. I think the section could be improved and most of the entries are potentially referenceable. I think there are a number of significant events in there to merit its inclusion. Plus history has a habit of remembering only the winners and the section serves to counter balance that. IMHO trebles are relatively rare enough to include a section where teams have narrowly missed out on that achievement.Statto999 (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Statto, I realise some people will find these interesting, but the article has to reflect coverage in reliable sources (per WP:NPOV). It's not for editors to decide to 'counter-balance' what reliable sources cover. Without references, this section amounts to original research, and the size of the section as it stands is surely undue weight. Thoughts? --hippo43 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hippo. The article is essentially a collection of facts and not opinions. Everything in this article including the near trebles section is verifiable as fact. The neutrality viewpoint on something that is objective is therefore not one I accept. The feat of a treble is given sufficient weight by being first on the article, by being the subject of the article. If anything the presence of a list of near trebles gives more weight to the level of achievement a treble is. It also makes much more sense to have a sub section here of "near trebles" than a separate article titled "near trebles". Whilst your google search for "near treble" may not yield much it is not the title of "near treble" that should be in debate but the concept. Type in "Liverpool 1977 treble" or "bayern munich 1999 treble" and there are multiple sources mentioning the fact those teams nearly won 3 trophies. Near treble is a simpler way of saying "teams that nearly won the following 3 trophies." I think your use of "near trebles" as a search term is erronous.

On a different note take for example the subject of solar eclipse. It's something that's rare. A partial eclipse is not the same and is more commonplace. However if there was an article on eclipses then I wouldn't dispute the need to include "partial eclipses". In this case the number of "near" eclipse examples would be greater due to the obvious smaller number of the former. I think this example is much closer to what we are discussing than your example of Horses.

Finally the article is a presentation of historical fact - I fail to see how that could be considered as OR. It is not primary research but merely a presentation of secondary sources. Your help in referencing would be appreciated.

Statto999 (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found any secondary sources which document near trebles (or similar wording). Without sources to back these facts up, the section is original research. The concept of 'near trebles' is currently given undue weight as it is not in proportion to the coverage given in reliable sources - that issue has nothing to do with the article's title or where the section appears, per WP:UNDUE. I'm not suggesting we have a separate article on near trebles - the concept is definitely not notable enough for that, or, as far as I can tell, notable enough to be included in this article. If the concept (rather than individual examples) is not discussed in reliable secondary sources, then it shouldn't be included at all. --hippo43 (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bayer Leverkusen

They were called "Neverkusen" as a joke following their near-treble. Would you think this minor piece of info can be added to the article? Thanks 217.132.48.176 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Other trebles

Man Utd's League, League Cup and Club World Cup "treble" shouldn't be added. The Club World Cup is not a major trophy, and wouldn't even have been mentioned if it wasn't for the fact United won it. It's a super cup (albeit one with a few more teams that lasts a couple of days extra). All United achieved in 08/09 in terms of trebles should be a mention in the near trebles section as they won the Premiership, League Cup and lost the CL Final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.106.249 (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Man United

Someone needs to put an end to the endless attempts to get their 08/09 accomplishments added on here. The only Treble they nearly completed was one with the Champions League, League, and League Cup. NOT the FA Cup - losing the semis isn't enough to be included here, surely? The World Club Cup isn't a major trophy, so adding that to the trophies they did win can't be counted. You may as well add in the Community Shield and put them on the Quadruple page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.190.229 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Why is Fifa Club World Cup not considered af part of a treble? Its part of a quintible (actually the only way of winning this!) I know its the only tournament, with so few matches, which makes it a bit controversiel, but it IS a tournament with more than one match and it is and is crowing more presticious. Charity Shield and Super cup are not tournaments, only trophies.81.19.246.52 (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

lol... I'm sure the 'endless attempts' will stop as soon as the attempts to put the "plastic treble" of 2001 from a certain other club on here up with United and Barca will! i've reverted at least a dozen of these!

United's 08/09 wins counts firmly under the 'other trebles' section. as does getting past 2nd division Brum on pens, conceding 4 to a Spanish side on the brink of relegation from La Liga then needing an own goal to win in extra time, and requiring the efforts of a United player to win the Cup! Jw2035 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Club World Cup is the most meaningless trophy played for in a season. If that counts as a Treble, so should Liverpool's 85/86 'treble'. After all, they'd to play more than 2 matches to win the Screen Sport Cup. And as for that idiotic comment above - that is a treble because those 3 are major competitions. As was 83/84. If the Club World Cup counts, then so does the Charity Shield, UEFA Super Cup, Emirates Cup, Amsterdam Tournament, etc. No reason why they shouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.85.68 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

World Clup Cup is a official tournament! Screen Sport Cup is not. World Clup Cup is a tournement with more than two teams: Charity Shield and Super Cup are not! World Clup Cup is smaller, but its a real official tournament. So it should be listed under other trebles. If not, why put ligacup victories there? Thats a tournament not even accesible to all teams, and of a lower status than the Major Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.246.52 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've reverted Jw2035's recent edits again. The previous format was discussed here and there has been no consensus for the changes. I don't see any reason to split up a list of about 12 continental trebles into a bunch of smaller mini-lists - one list of 12 is hardly unwieldy. Jw2035's most recent edit summary said "...+see talk", but I can't see any discussion about his changes. --hippo43 (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)