Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Japan[edit]

Japanese goalkeeper's jersey in the match against Paraguay is grey, not purple. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuaa (talkcontribs) 02:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands...[edit]

It's not fact that Netherlands will finish first in their Group, so that it doesn't make sence to put Netherlands into the match E1-F2 --95.112.4.245 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Why the insistence on calling the first knockout round "the round of 16"? What's wrong with the perfectly good (and used by the BBC, among others http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/groups_and_teams) "last 16"?Sameoldcabbage (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbered Games?[edit]

It isn't very helpful to write Winner of Game number 61 against Winner of Game number 63, if we don't label the games with their numbers.--137.82.36.209 (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they're numbered: Match nn. Are you looking at the same article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In the tree says that the final is match 64. Down in the match description, it says the final game is 63. kcmooooo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.40.144 (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No. The game for third place is 63 and the final is 64. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we even need this article???[edit]

I ask this because all of this information can already be found at 2010 FIFA World Cup. So I am going to nominate this article for deletion, with this as my justification.--Subman758 (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It can be found there, but so is a LOT of other information. There's a reason the whole encyclopedia isn't in one article ;) I suggest moving that information to this page, to enable easier access (and finding of) the information. (2010_FIFA_World_Cup#Knockout_stage is halfway down the page!) 74.221.129.52 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Things like starting lineups and formations, which appear in the eight articles about the group stages, as well as further officiating information, etc. would only be included if this article exists. The main article is long enough already without needing to include all of this extra information. The main article should only be used for summary information. So, I think this article will absolutely prove valuable once the knockout stage begins. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Obviously we need this article. The summary about the matches of group stage are also in main 2010 FIFA World Cup article. But we have pages on each group. Why? Because we can't put detail about all the 48 matches in a single article. And rest of the matches (up to final) are in the knockout stage. It will far more lengthy too, if we add the match details in the main article.
It's true, that the information here seems repetitive now. But when the matches of knockout stage are going to run, it won't be the same. That's why it is created. :) — Tanvir 17:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right it's all duplicated on 2010 FIFA World Cup. We should remove the details from there and simply direct them to here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, correct it![edit]

I can see that the article is messed up, and I do not know how to return it to previous correct one. Please, someone do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farid2053 (talkcontribs) 01:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to revert it to previous form. This article needs an attention. There has been many vandalisms. Farid2053 (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Perhaps you could explain what some of the problems are. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
It is fine now. Thanks. Before there used to be some scores even though games haven't been played yet. Especially, lots of corrections came from the IP address 82.43.152.22. I don't know if the problem has been existed even before this corrections. Now it looks pretty good! Farid2053 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Korea wearing red in match image[edit]

Perhaps we should insert the image and request that the image be corrected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Flags[edit]

Sorry, I thought flags were needed for everyone. I won't add them again. It was Good Faith. Nineko (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It´s no problem. We add a flag just when the manager isn´t from that country (Capello e.g.). :-) Kante4 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Argentina blue shorts...[edit]

I cannot watch the match live on television but is Argentina really wearing blue shorts like the article suggests? Aren't they wearing their normal black shorts? The blue shorts are part of the second kit! This is confusing! --83.128.68.213 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they are. It does not look good but it is what it is. Kante4 (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Argentina vs México[edit]

The picture of the scheme and the starter players of this match says Gutiérrez instead of Otamendi. That needs to be fixed. --Andres arg (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wingers in Netherlands vs. Slovakia[edit]

In the line-ups for the last 16 match between Netherlands and Slovakia both team's wingers are given on a different wing than they actually played. I guess this is done by the coach to confuse the opponents? Should we follow the tactical line-up or is there a way to determine the actual places the players mostly played in? In the tactical for NED line-up it says Kuyt played on the right wing and Robben on the left, while it was actually the other way around. Also the official SVK left-winger Stoch was mostly playing on the right with Weiss mostly on the left. --83.128.68.213 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed it at the Line-ups. The pic needs to change then, too i guess... Kante4 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

USA-Ghana a.e.t[edit]

In the bracket, the USA-Ghana match does not include the a.e.t. designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.40.244 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see it in the table, but that was reverted and removed when I added it last. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This is being discussed at Template talk:2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage bracket. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why it should be included. Bazonka (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to see an argument as to why you own the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Please be civil. If I "owned" the article, I wouldn't be raising things for discussion. Bazonka (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Please be reasonable. It went into extra time and that information makes sense to add to the table as in previous competitions. Please be logical. Since the game was not settled in ninety minutes, the way most of the other matches were, it's important to indicate that in the table somehow. If only there were an established way to do so. Please understand that several editors consider that adding a.e.t. is important and only one editor opposes so that feels like ownership. If it's not, how would you describe your reluctance to accept an "argument" to apply the traditional formatting? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Walter, I'm sorry you feel that way. I will copy your post above to Template talk:2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage bracket and discuss the points you raised there. Bazonka (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Prose[edit]

I think this article needs a bit of prose rather than just information tables. So I'm planning to add a short paragraph or two for each match. Feedback welcome of course. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very good idea. I don't think the text provided by you is optimal, however. The text should (in my opinion) concentrate on describing the match and its events itself, not what was said after it. It would be good if we could tell more than just when the goals were scored and by who, but that would require some journalistic skill. Tropical wind (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback - I'm amending the prose to include more details about the key events of each match. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Match statistics[edit]

Would not improve this article if we provided match statistics for each match, similar to what I just inserted in the Uruguay vs. South-Korea match? They can all be found from the FIFA homepage. Like here: [1]. Tropical wind (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If everyone agrees, I can insert a similar table for the other matches too. Since we do not have good prose descriptions of the matches, it would be very important to at least have basic stats, such as shots on target and possession%, to give the reader a good picture of how the match went. Tropical wind (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not. But maybe directly "into" the matches and not as an extra part or?. Kante4 (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have now provided the stats for the other matches too. Yes, I think it's better not to have a separate section for them. If the length of this article becomes too big, then we can drop some of the stats and just leave the main ones. This should be easy to do, as it only requires deleting a few lines from the table. Tropical wind (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
ARGH! Just what we need. More tables. First, the horizontal rule makes it appear as though it's a separate section. If you're going to include these, they should be above the HR. The information is part of the match report and can be found there since it's linked-to from the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
What horizontal rule? I'm not sure what you mean. Of course this information is available at the source, and we can link to it. But this is WP, which is encyclopedia of information, not just links. Tropical wind (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
These ---- create what is called a horizontal rule in web parlance. This is WP and there's nothing encyclopedic about these stats. There is actually a rule about not including stats. It appears that it has finally drawn some harsh criticism. I won't miss the stats tables. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Where is this rule against stats? Tropical wind (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Try WP:NOTSTATS. – PeeJay 22:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikipedia is not a repository for every little statistic the various organising bodies can compile. These stats should be fine for the final, but not here. – PeeJay 19:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm firmly of the opinion that we should at least the main statistics here, ball possession, shots goal, etc. Can we include at least those? Tropical wind (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are the stats fine for the final, but not here? Tropical wind (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the final article is about a single match. Although they should be accompanied by a little prose, the statistics are appropriate there as a step towards making a fully comprehensive football match article. – PeeJay 19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the stats make an article more comprehensive and give the reader a better picture of how the match went. But why cannot we make this article more comprehensive by providing stats, at least the main ones? It's not like doing this would make the article too big - the increase in size is only few percents at most. Tropical wind (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Which statistics do you want? I'm disappointed that total distance covered by each side is not represented. Throw-ins aren't mentioned. Longest and shortest throws: absent. Fastest shot, total number of successive passes, who was doing the shooting and the range of the shots, I could add another dozen valid statistics of which none are listed. In short, statistics are relative and just because FIFA says these are the ones we should pay attention to, I don't understand why some are not listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Which statistics do I want? Possession%, shots, shots on target, free kicks and corner kicks. These are the main ones and they are presented in almost every match report in the sports media. But I will not push this further unless I get some support (there was one editor who agreed with me). Tropical wind (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Further article separation[edit]

This article is currently at 77KB and we're only one quarter-final down. What do others think of separate articles for the QF, SF and Final stages? I think it makes sense structurally - someone coming to read about a semi-final won't want to scroll down a massive page of Round of 16 matches. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

They don't have to. That's what the TOC is for, isn't it? Regards SoWhy 10:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need separate articles for the different rounds as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
92 kilobytes now and slow to load. At this rate it will well over 120kb by the time the semi-finals are finished. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not the size. Here I'll show you. How lomg does it take to load the following data from the database: edit the article? That's two seconds for me. The rest of load time is Wikipedia converting all of the templates, tables and linked images into an HTML layout that can be sent to your browser. That's the problem. Drop the match statistics and it should speed up a bit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The concerns about the size are not completely unfounded though. I tried to open this article using GPRS on my mobile and it took me ages to load the page. Maybe we can at least transfer the match summaries to another page? Regards SoWhy 20:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Then we'd have a page for stats and a page for prose. I can't think of any good reason to do that. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Or we don't have a page for statistics alone and just don't include them at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
That I would support. This isn't a sports almanac. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Missed penalty kicks[edit]

I'm assuming that there's already a discussion somewhere on why we don't include missed penalty kicks in the scoring summary of the games, so instead of arguing about it (I'm obviously pro including them), can someone just direct me to the conversation? Thanks! Bds69 (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason that we don't include the missed corners, free kicks, and shot totals. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting...I can't be the only one that thinks that a missed penalty kick is somewhat more relevant than a missed corner or free kick. As a result, I'm not sure I understand your logic. Is the reason just that a goal is a goal and a shot is a shot? I'd have to disagree with you then - I feel like a rational fan is going to remember the missed PKs in the Spain/Paraguay game more than the corner kicks. Bds69 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree! Check the Ghana-Uruguay game; the missed penalty in the last couple of seconds [after that foul hands by Suarez] is more than worth the mention! Qwrk (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, in game summaries, like on ESPN-http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report?id=264118&cc=5901&ver=us itmentions missed penalties. The reason missed penalty kicks canbe mentioned as opposed to free kicks and corners is that they are much harder to convert because of all the defenders. Thus, I must give my support to that. Soxrox 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxrock24 (talkcontribs)
Mention in the match-specific area, but not the table. Sorry. I misunderstood. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"In a shock result"[edit]

What's so shocking about the Netherlands beating Brazil? It is currently ranked fourth in the FIFA World Rankings and first in the World Football Elo Ratings ... it's not that big of a surprise and makes the winn seem like some freak accident rather than a match between 2 of the best footbal nations in the world... please remove the wording. 77.169.3.175 (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced to here: "seismic World Cup shock" --Mkativerata (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It is not a shock at all. Ashock would be like if Paraguay had beaten Spain, or if Uruguay defeats the Dutch. A win by a team ranked slightly below the other (not to mention in the top three). Soxrock24 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Sourced or not, it's not really neutral in tone and not required to understand the article. Regards SoWhy 19:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands Brazil[edit]

Wasnt there a Felipe Melo own goal? I know it was controversial and couldve gone either way. It seems FIFA has changed its report though. Should we mention that it was originally an own goal, but later changed? Metallurgist (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Every match should have a short prose account of the events. That is where the mention of Felipe Melo's touch on the ball should go. – PeeJay 07:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlock[edit]

We need to unlock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awsomerigs (talkcontribs) 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? I think it will be unrestricted after the tournament has ended. The lock expires 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC). That's only a week away. Is there something that is incorrect that an anonymous editor would like changed? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Match descriptions/POV tag[edit]

The short description of each match is, almost without exception, full of opinions and thoroughly unencyclopaedic in tone. Who determines when a chance is "good", or even "excellent", or whether it is good attacking play or failure to defend effectively that allows a chance? How fast does something have to be to merit description as "swift": how long is a long pass? It looks like the page has been written by frustrated would-be sports journalists, rather than compilers of an encyclopaedic record of fact. Hence the POV tag. Kevin McE (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A good move which I support. It should be noted that this affects the group articles as well, which have similar journalistic reports attached to some of the matches, e.g. 2010 FIFA World Cup Group E#Denmark vs Japan. Knepflerle (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

sry, double post, plz delete[edit]

plz delete

Jonathan0007 (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Jonathan0007

Argentina - Germany >>> game description not neutral >>> suggestion: focus on facts, not evaluations[edit]

I just saw the whole game in replay, and the short description is not only not neutral, it doen't fit the game at all. "Early in the second half, Argentina pressed Germany and came close to scoring on a number of occasions, but..." Sorry, but there was not one good goalscoring chance for Argentina. One long range shot by Angel Di Maria, which wasn't much of a threat. The best chance of the game for Argentinia was probably the situation in the first half in which they equalized, but the goal was ruled out because 4 Argentinians were in offside position.

For everyone who wants to check for themselves, the complete game is online here: http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x1pqai_2010GermanFootball_argentina-germany/1#videoId=xl4nnr

Since football games are highly emotional and often controversial, a consensus between diffrent groups of fans is usually hard to achieve. Even more so, because there is no accepted scientific method to decide what is a good goal chance, what is a esthetic gameplay, what is fair... and so on. My suggestion: Only post facts. Who scored, who got the assist, who got a yellow/red card, who got substituted, who won. Including quotes made by players an coaches regarding the match could be acceptable, but in my opinion not helpful, because these quotes and especially their selection by the author can be used for bias. The best way: post the facts. Cut out everything else, eveything that has the touch of an opinion. Focus on the naked facts, leave the opinions and evaluations to the newspapers an the blogs.

Jonathan0007 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Jonathan0007

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)