Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup seeding

Likely seeding

Pot A
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
England
Germany
Spain
Italy
France/Portugal

Pot B
Remaining CONMEBOL and CAF members
Pot C
Remaining UEFA members
Pot D
CONCACAF, AFC and OFC members

--Lars Ransborg (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've worked out what the seeding would be if the same method was used as in 2006

Pot
South Africa
Germany
Brazil
Italy
Spain
England
Argentina
France

Pot
Remaining 8 UEFA members
Pot
4 AFC, 1 OFC and (3 CONCACAF or 3 CONMEBOL)
Pot
5 CAF and (3 CONMEBOL or 3 CONCACAF)

Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You two said almost exactly the same thing. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, except mine is more precise :P I was going to overwrite Lars' version but I thought that that would be rude. Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think FIFA will try to avoid seeding France/Portugal (especially France) since they had to go to a playoff to qualify, they'll find a way to seed Netherlands in that last spot instead. 207.61.175.5 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If they just choose the October rankings, it would be a straight swap between France and the Netherlands for seeding. Good point, random IP address. Aheyfromhome (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

NEWS

France and Portugal have missed out of top seeding, due to their involvement in the play offs. Netherlands and England have been seeded above them.Statto74 (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

huh?

Is this a real article yet? With no real substantive news about the 2010 process, it's mostly speculation, despite how obvious or likely the process will look. --125.29.243.30 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By the time an RFD went through, we'd have real knowledge. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, why does seeding merit its own article when no article exists (AFAIK) regarding the draw itself? Perhaps rename this and expand it into a larger article? --125.29.243.30 (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Prior performance in World Cups

Definetely going to be a factor. If people keep deleting that as a factor, they need to be reported as Vandals or 3RR Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not. You are. You are deleting information that is almost certainly true. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you any source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Until I get one, you need to stop deleting my edits, use {{cn}} tags, and for heaven's sakes, use proper English. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Until you get one, shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've already vandalized and 3RRed, now you're going to add incivility to that? If you think something is unsourced, you need to consider {{cn}} instead of just deleting it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ι've been vindicated :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I concede, but would point out that the move was unexpected by many throughout the world, including the above comments. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember who was the actress that presented this. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.95.5 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)