Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA second round

Guaranteed Playoff spot

hi would it not be a good idea at some stage to indicate how many points is needed to guarantee a playoff spot. At the moment group 9 is the only group which can be clearly used to calculate this as they only have 5 teams. however it will become very important in the later stages.Gero13 (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the highest points total any 2nd place team in group 9 can finish with is 17pts (Norway), Therefore if any team can Guarantee 2nd place and achieve 18pts (minus pts Vs 6th place team) they will be guaranteed a play-off placeGero13 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today there was a note indicating which pools were guaranteed to have their #2 team finish in the top 8 (though at the time, the note only referred to Russia). I think that would be a great addition. Presently, at least 3 pools are "safe".76.175.153.230 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

France and Slovenia should be shaded as well, since their point totals are higher than Norway's can become. Norway can't gain any more points (done with playing) and are already ahead of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.28.160 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is possible for the second-place finisher in those groups not to have more than 10 adjusted points. For instance, if Slovenia lose both remaining games, Northern Ireland draw with Czech Republic, and Poland lose to Slovakia but at least draw with Czech Republic, Northern Ireland finishes second with 15 points overall (ahead of Slovenia's 14) but just 9 adjusted points. Similarly, if France lose twice and Austria draw with Lithuania, Austria would finish ahead of France on goal difference at 15 points and again have just 9 adjusted points. PiGuy314 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely the "Sweden will finish second but fail to qualify if they draw with Albania AND..." line is wrong because if Sweden draw, they'll finish with 16 points (10 points against the non-6th placed teams) and +5 goal difference. Norway only has 10 points and +2 goal difference, so Sweden would still go through to the play-offs. I also can't see how Hungary can finish second and not get to the play-offs because even if they only win 1-0, they'll have an equal goal difference to Norway but a higher number of goals scored. I assume I'm missing something here? DragonQ (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweden would also lose the +5 goals against Malta - taking them to 0 GD.Jlsa (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah of course, thanks. DragonQ (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Misleading?

The page at present is somewhat misleading because it concentrates only on those sides that are currently 2nd - rather than all those sides that could be finishing second (it might be possible to see a situation where the team shown here actually has no chance of finishing 2nd in their group - which would be a bit silly then to have them listed for their group but not teams who actually could be 2nd). A similar situation was seen in CAF (where a table shownig all possible runners-up was created). A current version exists on my page. It is fairly long tho. Jlsa (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To see a calculation of how the Play-Off could be if all teams in second place and below are considered see:

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.154.63 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also an error in the number of away goals for Croatia. Croatia have only 2 away goals, both against the bottom placed side Andorra, so the AG total should in fact be 0.

How will pairs be formed?

Who knows, when 8 teams for play-offs are identified, how pairs will be formed? 1 with 8; 2 with 7; etc? Or according to the FIFA ranking? Or randomly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickalex79 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Portugal being grouped again to tough teams. 2010 WC is really challenging them. ^__^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.218.181 (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

introduction of seeding

The article should mention the fact that Fifa originaly indicated that there would be no seeding and that only in Sep 2009 when France, Portugal and Germany were struggling to qualify did they change their mind and introduce seeding, helping the bigger teams avoid eachother. It seems that Fifa were motivated by the fact that they could get more money from TV rights if Germany and France qualified and they wanted to do all they could to ensure that Portugal qualify so that the world's most marketable player, Ronaldo, would be at the world cup.
Pnelnik (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for your claim? The last qualification used exactly this procedure (and the FIFA World Cup regulations say that draws should be seeded using FIFA ranks). Jlsa (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple of references from The Irish Times:

• Fifa to seed countries for play-offs
• Given frustrated by Fifa seeding

Pnelnik (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've only read the first one (internet problems) but it's still just a claim (although by a newspaper, not just by you). Is there a FIFA document that says "we won't seed"? The official regs say nothing - although you could argue that they suggest they should seed - and they did seed afterwards. A lot of what you say is probably true, but I suspect it's more likely that they didn't think about it until recently and then decided to just do what they did last time. However, if you can find something concrete that would be interesting. Jlsa (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources:

• RTE have an article which quotes Kevin Kilbane as saying: It is a joke, let's be honest, because they always seem to bend rules and change things. Little things like this come out over time.
• The Telegraph also has an article quoting Shay Given
• Sports Illustrated has an article which mentions: that FIFA is pretty much changing the rules halfway through the qualifying tournament.

Pnelnik (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Again - claims - and usually claims from people with a vested interest in the decision. Gabrielle Marcotti (presumably it's him your quoting) is quite knowledgeable, but still - he can be wrong. Something from FIFA would be far more useful. I would also note that you removed the section that noted this was the method used last time around (I also note that the sources you quote also tend to ignore that fact). That seems somewhat deceitful on their part as it changes the tone of the decision significantly. I wouldn't doubt that helping Portugal et al WAS a consideration here, and that Ireland are being unfairly treated, but again - all you have are claims. Don't overstate your case. Jlsa (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Spending a few minutes on google I found plenty of independent news sources all mentioning that FIFA announced a change to the qualification process. If something is mentioned in The Telegraph, Sports Illustrated, RTE, The Irish Time etc and they all concur, then that is sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia. To exclude you'd need some counter evidence. It is not in question that FIFA changed the rules. They are quite open about it themselves. In their news release on 29 Sep, they mention that they have made decisions, including to have seeding. If it had always been their intention, then they would not need to make that decision. In their previous news release, there was no mention of seeding.

On the other hand, I do accept that there is some speculation as to the motivation for their decision.

Jlsa, I took a look at the edits that you've made, I see that they're pretty much all about FIFA. Can I ask if you are a FIFA employee?
Pnelnik (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I have never worked for any football organisation. Can I ask - is your country negatively affected by these decisions? Jlsa (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I should probably add - the key problem for me is the "change" point. I have little doubt that FIFA made the decision to seed this draw quite recently. However, I do doubt that they actually changed any previous decision - I don't think they actually ever decided what they were going to. That is not a good reflection on FIFA - they should have been clear from the start. The reason for this is simple - if the FAI (or someone else) had received an email or a document or anything saying that the draw wouldn't be seeded then we would have seen it in the press. But we haven't. So I really doubt any such communication ever existed. The decision to seed may have been made purely to help France etc, but it also could have been made "because that's what we did last time" - my guess is it was a bit of both. Jlsa (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying that FIFA tried to help Portugal is not extremely obvious as Portugal would not have made it to the seeds if Ukraine didn't defeat England and thereby push Croatia off the play-off spot in group 6, and they wouldn't even have made it to the play-off if Sweden hadn't been defeated by Denmark. France and Germany/Russia did get obvious benefits from it though, but in my eyes it would have been more suprising if FIFA had chosen to let it be a free draw. --Lars Ransborg (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the comments I saw BEFORE the seeding was announced basically were "I assume UEFA will seed the play-offs using FIFA ranks". That's a completely unscientific sample, but everything I had seen before hand assumed that this time would be just like last time. Again, I would probably find the "conspiracy" theory more compelling if its proponents didn't try to airbrush this unfortunate little fact from history (like has been done on the page here). Jlsa (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jlsa, lots of reputable news sites have reported that FIFA moved the goal posts. From my own review of news sites, the score is currently twenty-nil in favour of those who say that FIFA changed the rules against those who say FIFA are consistent. Can you find any reputable sources that disagree? Please leave out any personal research. Pnelnik (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lots of newspapers have "claimed" FIFA moved the goalposts. (But then lots of papers claimed Kaka was going to Man City). They claim that FIFA announced there would be no seeding - but produced no proof. Miraculously, the majority of those up in arms against the seeding are countries negatively affected by the ruling - or selling into those markets. Why could that be? They also hide the fact that, again, this is the same rule that applied last time - a fact you seem unable to admit to. If you were keeping score honestly (obviously a faint hope) that would count for a number of goals - but, you deleted that little fact. You might also try and notice that I haven't ever said that it hasn't been "claimed" that FIFA has changed the rules, or that it hasn't been "claimed" that FIFA are a horrid, venal pack of money-grubbing sods - just that it hasn't been "proved" that FIFA actually ever announced that there would be no seeding. Again, you will provide a whole list of "claims" that the goal posts were moved - but nothing concrete from FIFA (or anyone for that matter) that actually backs it up.

And what does "Can you find any reputable sources that disagree? Please leave out any personal research." mean - how do you find that without doing research?

I'll finish by noting I answered your direct question - you apparently found it too hard to return the favour. Jlsa (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jlsa, do you want to suggest a new wording for the first paragraph? I'd argue that the Sports Illustrated and Shay Given quotes should remain. As for my own personal interest in this, although I'm a Hong Kong resident, I have more than a passing interest in Ireland, as you would see by looking at the list of pages that I've edited. Pnelnik (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

All it needs to do is make clear that it has been claimed that FIFA changed the rules. The line "Previously they had indicated that there would be no seeding" is a claim (from a newspaper) - there is nothing to back this up and it changes the tone of the article from "FIFA are biased and we all know they always help big countries" to "FIFA are lying cheats who change the rules to help big teams and we have documentary proof" which is a few steps beyond what you could justify if you were required to. The deletion of the point that they seeded the last time around is also something that should be reconsidered. That's really all. The quotes are fine (well, they could be punctuated better). I don't even have a strong opinion as to whether seeding is "good" or not. Personally, it would be better for my country if the draw wasn't seeded, because then the chances would be increased of a poor side advancing and then getting drawn with my country in the finals. Jlsa (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Second Round. 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/20091003015843/http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/bodies/media/newsid%3D1109930.html to http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/bodies/media/newsid%3D1109930.html

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) 20:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)