# Talk:Thomas Tuchel

Bold textEMO DAMAGE HE SUCKS IMAGINE MANAGING THAT BAD

Thomas tuchel manager 2.126.83.245 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Speculation is not added to BLP articles, if it is confirmed by reliable sources then it will be added. FozzieHey (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Tuchel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 10:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I'll be picking this one up. I'll get a review going as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, great! Best regards, Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Initial review


### Lead
Generally, refs are only required in the lead if the information is potentially controversial or not sourced in the main text. As such, are all the refs necessary here?  Done
"following a successful one-year period at FC Augsburg II", why was the spell successful? There seems to be no mention of this in the main text.  Done


### Playing career
The Schumann quote needs a closing quotation mark.  Done
First paragraph ends without a source.  Done
"granted the opportunity", seems like an unusual way to describe it. Why not simply "signed for" or something similar?  Done
Ref 11 doesn't appear to support his 69 appearances for Ulm  Done
According to the sources, his career actually ended in 1998. The wording is a little confusing; the source mentions May 1999 but then adds "the 24-year-old defender's semi-professional career had prematurely come to an end a year earlier". Ref 3 seems to support this.  Not done
The above also affects the age of his retirement, ref 3 mentions he was 24, not 26.  Not done
Ref 8 directly contradicts the sentence it's supposed to be referencing. It says that he had retired a year prior to May 1999 and also gives his age as 24 or possibly younger. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


### Early career
Holger Badstuber is repeat linked here. Generally, a link should only appear once in the main body.  Done
Ref 3 mentions that he led the Stuttgart team to the under-18 title in 2005 was not retained as the club "tired of his personality". Both points worth mentioning I would say.  Done
"led him to being appointed youth team co-ordinator" > led to him...perhaps? Reads a little oddly to me as it is.  Done
Perhaps a mention of how Augsburg performed in his single season there? Especially as the next section begins with how he impressed Bundesliga sides.  Done


### Mainz 05
"following in the footsteps of Jürgen Klopp", I'm not sure this is relevant and seems to be intimating a link that doesn't seem to exist.  Done
I think it also needs to be made clearer that his initial role was as a youth coach earlier in the text. For example, it reads "Tuchel was promoted into the role" but doesn't mention what role that was.  Done
The opening sentence of the second paragraph is very heavily opinionated and, as far as I can see, not backed up by the source provided (ref 16)? If a source can't be found, that needs to be toned down.  Done
"to a respectable ninth-place finish", respectable is a little pov. Stating the position is more than sufficient.  Done
Ref 20 also doesn't seem to support any of the information that precedes it. Done
Ref 18 also doesn't seem to promising from what I can see. I can't see any mention of Tuchel's transfer market business or a mention of Christian Fuchs for example?  Done
Ref 21 is a match report so doesn't appear to support Fuchs' and Holtby's assists for the season?  Done
The fourth and fifth paragraphs have major sourcing issues. The fourth, for example, contains three refs (22, 23 and 24), but none of these have any mention of the players and playing style referred to in the paragraph. The fifth has similar issues.  Done
"but they eventually allowed him to leave on 11 May 2014", does ref 27 support this? It seems to me they were refusing at this point judging by the article?  Done


### Borussia Dortmund
"Klopp felt his position at the club had become untenable, and he sought change after a disappointing 7th-placed league finish to the campaign", this sentence is going into too much detail I feel, Klopp's reasons for leaving are not really relevant to Tuchel.  Done
"whom Tuchel replaced for a second time", he didn't replace Klopp at Mainz so this can't be a second time.  Done
"returning to the game after over a year out of management", the previous section states he left on 11 May so it's slightly less than a year.  Done
Last sentence of the first paragraph needs a source.  Done
"Tuchel quickly set to revitalizing the team, a task made easier as Dortmund's financial situation and player ability contrasted Mainz's", I'm not seeing anything relating to that in the source?  Done
Ref 33 also seems to have little to do with the text it's partnering. I'm guessing much of this paragraph is coming from the Tifo football video, but some information is still seemingly unsupported (The Gonzalo Castro info example).  Done
Refs 36, 37 and 38 have the same issue, they seem to support very little, if any, of the information here.  Done
All comments here have been addressed although I would advise mentioning his 14 game unbeaten start to his Dortmund career. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


### Paris Saint-Germain
"He reportedly rejected Bayern Munich", reportedly seems to be adding unnecessary doubt here as the source seems pretty sure it happened.  Done
"Tuchel's first foray into the transfer market at a heavyweight", too journalistic I would say.  Done
Ref 50 only states the cub were prepared to pay a €135m fee, not that they actually did. Could do with a later source when the transfer actually went through.  Done
"Mbappé shone as a member of the team the previous campaign", a bit too journalistic again. Also, ref 49 doesn't mention anything about Mbappe.  Done
"including perceived first-team players", can probably drop perceived here.  Done
Second paragraph ends without a source.  Done
The Guingamp info at the start of the third paragraph appears to be unsourced.  Done
"which featured after a stretch", I'm not sure featured is the right word here. Occurred, perhaps?  Done
There are a number of repeat links as the section goes on, Mbappe, Champion's League, Real Madrid, Neymar.  Done
Does ref 88 support all the preceding info?
This is mentioned in the pick-up. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
"On August 12" and "on August 23", date format prior to this has been day/month so stay consistent and avoid changing formats.  Done
More repeat links again; Icardi, Mbappe, Cavani, Navas, Bayern Munich, .Paredes  Done
Ref 113 doesn't seem to support Leonardo's retorts.  Done
"with the coach requesting a central defender; in response, Tuchel often fielded Pereira as a central defender", ref 114 only appears to mention Danilo once and doesn't really support this.  Done Kosack (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paul, I'm going to pause here for now as there seems to be some serious sourcing issues here. A lot of the information doesn't seem to match up with the sources that it appears to be attributed to which is a cause for concern. Perhaps it's a simple fix or I'm not seeing how the layout is being presented? Kosack (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I nominated the article because I thought that it could meet the requiremenets for GA, but clearly not yet. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you wish to proceed with the nomination? Kosack (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: Responding to your request on the talk page, sure I can leave this open for a while. We'll see how we go. Kosack (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kosack: Quick question, where does it say Stuttgart was "tired of his personality" in the early career references? I watched the How Thomas Tuchel Can Turn Chelsea Around video, but I didn't see it/hear it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: The line is in The Guardian's obsessive mind piece which has moved to ref #9 now with the recent changes. Kosack (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 @Kosack: Hello Kosack. I am moving slowly but progressively on the editing. I have fixed all issues for the lead, playing career, early managerial career, and the first two paragraphs of his Mainz spell. Could you look over that and confirm that the edits I made are acceptable?My second request is that you point out which ref is called "ref 20" and "ref 21" - for me, it's confusing, since I added references since. Could you say for example "the Tifo Football video" or "the ESPN article", for example. It would help me a lot. Could you just go over the review and edit the refs number and add what the refs are called? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the alterations as soon as I can. The version I reviewed is available here so you can see exactly which refs are mentioned. Kosack (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paul, sorry for the delayed response. The changes so far are looking good as far as I can see. Kosack (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Kosack: Sorry for the delayed response too. Thanks for that. I will keep working gradually on this GA review. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Had a spare 5 minutes so I've added in the PSG section now as well. Kosack (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kosack: Hello Kosack! I have almost finished the PSG section. Could you please specify what you refer to when you say source 88? The "version" you linked above has weird reference numbers and they didn't match with your review. Also, can you get ahead on the Chelsea section and other sections? Thanks! Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


### Pick-up by REDMAN 2019
@Paul Vaurie: I will be taking up this review. I will be having a look at the previous comments over the next few days. Below are my comments on the sections that weren't covered in the initial review. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have become very busy over the last week and, as a result, may take longer then anticipated to complete this review. Feel free to work on the comments I have made so far. if you would prefer this review to be finished quicker, please don't hesitate to contact me and I will see if anyone else can assist. Sorry about this, especially since you had to wait a while for me to take this up in the first place. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@REDMAN 2019: Hello! That's absolutely not an issue! We are all busy people doing this on our own time. Take your time and come back to this review when you can/want. No rush. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@REDMAN 2019: Hello REDMAN 2019! It's been a little while. Could you please go over the review or find someone else to do so? Thanks! Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: So sorry! I had forgotten about it. I will go over Kosack's comments ASAP. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I have gone over the first few sections. I will look at the Dortmund and PSG sections later. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@REDMAN 2019: I have addressed your comments in the playing career, and I added the Borussia Dortmund unbeaten start statistic. I also removed another duplink in the PSG section. What is the next step? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
We are nearly done here. There is just one comment left to address and then we should be done. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 @REDMAN 2019: Done! Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Well done! In my opinion this article now meets GA standard. Passing. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


#### Paris Saint-Germain
Ref 88 is now ref 99.  Done
2019–20 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season is duplinked in the 7th paragraph.  Done


#### Chelsea
"He is the first German to be appointed as head coach of the club." Should be in past tense.  Done
There are quite a few references needing authors. Same with accessdates.  Done
Ref 134 is missing a publishing date.  Done
Ref 140 needs a title, author and publishing date.  Done
"He was then awarded his first Premier League Manager of the Month." Which month?  Done
"Chelsea would eventually lose the final 1–0 to Leicester City." Needs source.  Done
"On 20 October, Chelsea recorded their highest scoring victory under Tuchel, a 4–0 home victory over Malmö in the UEFA Champions League" I can't find anything about that in the source.  Done


#### Tactics
Seems to skip his time at Dortmund. Some information about that should probably be added.  Not done
There is already some information about his tactics for that period in the Dortmund section. Simply moving it to the tactics section will probably suffice.
The last sentence in the 3rd paragraph is unsourced.  Done
There are some more refs missing dates and authors. Try to make sure that all references are as complete as possible.  Done


#### Personal life
Not really anything wrong here.

@Kosack: Is it possible to just put everything on hold for a week or two? Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Chelsea and also my favorite. I have to add your group because of knows information. 43.245.121.252 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Just so you know, Wikipedia is not social media. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how and when this happened, but I assume it must have happened during an edit.
Currently the penultimate paragraph in the chapter headed "2022–23: Final season with Chelsea", begins with the following sentence: 
"Tuchel, and Boehly was said to have described Tuchel as a "nightmare" to deal with on recruitment to a Premier League executive."
Clearly, some half-sentence either starting or ending in "Tuchel" was removed at the front, leaving the whole sentence as a bit of gibberish. As there is a footnote attached to "Tuchel", I assume that whoever made the edit left the name stranded in order to not delete/destroy the footnote, but then failed to return and amend or rewrite the sentence?
Otto von B. (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

According to the Times, Thomas Tuchel is set to become the England Manager
https://www.thetimes.com/article/a9a95a24-cf72-40dd-bff0-31f94fbdf449
There will be an announcement at Wembley Stadium at 12pm Tomorrow (according to Sky Sports News as Im literally Writing this).
Prep the Editing for Tomorrow Wycombefan (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Announcement made
https://x.com/England/status/1846468663962227053  Curt 内蒙 08:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Tuchel didn't win the bundesliga 2A02:C7C:331F:6100:4F2E:7356:6313:249B (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you'll find he did. PeachyBum07 (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That description at the top, the sentence of him being "forward-thinking tactician" or whatever it exactly says sounds like advertising for him. Sounds biased, and presumably is quoting the cited source (sorry I don't have time to check) but seems like a weird quote or paraphrasing to use from an article to describe a living person? LA1310 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It stems from the prose. It's almost routine now to claim "this is his managerial style, because Brian Johnson at ESPN said it is" and throw a reference in to support it. Seasider53 (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I fail to understand why this part has been removed as the user who removed it did not give a reason as to why they did so. My edit wasn’t vandalism either since I was restoring the claim with the sources used. 31.205.107.91 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It's puffery. Almost all the high-profile footballers and managers get this tag because we think what journalists say is gospel. Wikipedia reports only the facts, sir. Seasider53 (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
So by that logic, this claim needs to be removed from the pages of managers like Jürgen Klopp and Unai Emery or from players like Kylian Mbappe or Erling Haaland. 31.205.107.91 (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
You're making my point. Seasider53 (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
No I am not. If the rules of Wikipedia allow this claim for other managers and players, then it should be no different for this page if the claim is well sourced. My point still stands. 31.205.107.91 (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Seasider53 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Also I am fully aware that wikipedia states facts however being regarded as one of the best can be a fact if it has multiple sources to back it. I’d also kindly ask you to refrain from calling me ‘sir’ in a sarcastic tone. Your condescending comments aren’t what I am here for and am just trying to make sure that what’s written on the page is fair and well sourced. 31.205.107.91 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)