Jump to content

Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.172.11.144 (talk) at 12:11, 15 July 2014 (→‎Assists? Or "assists made by goalscorers"?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Livescores and live updates

Consensus is not to update results during matches and not to update final standings before tournament is over even if such information is published by FIFA before that time. Soerfm (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Note to whoever edits this- the Netherlands is not champion, Germany is. See the box to the right with the flags. This is why you shouldn't limit editing to people within the corporation, Wikipedia! Sorry, but the corporate articles are often inaccurate.... -thanks for correcting that so quickly! I hope I haven't hurt any feelings in the company.

Read discussion

Hi everyone.

As I believe we will have a lot of problems with livescores and live updating I thought I should bring it up here so everyone knows about it.

Based on Wikipedia policies and guidlines we should not provide livescores and live updates. This is according to WP:LIVESCORES and WT:FOOTY consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live scoring and it has also been discussed at other time periods. This also applies to live updates to tables and list such as top goalscorers, squad statistics and other match info, which you can also read about at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live updates (again). Please wait until matches are finished before adding the scores and statistics. Wikipedia is not for livescoring and should wait for update until sources are updated.

I intend to fight against livescores/live updating and I am hoping for everyones help (at 2013–14 Champions League it worked fairly well. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a good chance of lots of it going on, so I'll keep a lookout. It might be worth putting an edit notice up on all the pages in order to at least try and deter people, as well as the high chance of having to put this and the related articles into semi-protected once the livescores start coming in. - 97rob (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll watch as well and an edit notice might be a good idea. @Qed237: would you like to make an effort to craft a notice? If not, let me know and I'll see what I can come up with. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have started adding hidden comments as some editors (including me) have done to other football articles. I have no idea how one can create an edit notice, but if you want to I can take a look at it later (when I have the time, which might take a while). QED237 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Editnotice Let me know if you want help requesting one here and on the group articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something along the lines of Template:Editnotices/Page/2011–12 La Liga would be a good starting point, but changing the text to fit this article better. Might also be worth creating a template to be used, as this sort of edit notice can be applied to a lot of football tournament templates. (Or there might already be one). - 97rob (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I wanted to make this page/thread clean from discussion how the edit notice should look like, and focus on the livscoring info/problem I went to User talk:Walter Görlitz (he seemed/semms to know how to do), to discuss my idea and my plan. I am planning to make a template to be used on many pages as none seem to exist. Thanks for the link to that older template notice, it is worth taking a look at. I have looked at other editnotices for inspiration and I will most likely create the template tomorrow (when I have the time) and see what response it gets before putting it up for use. QED237 (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea to let folks joining in know why this is a bad idea per the notice recommendation (I just joined in, apparently from my understanding, it's because of edit conflicts and what not creating incorrect scores.) If you just revert without letting folks know why, they might just keep on doing it, alienating those people who might be helpful elsewhere. Busy Moose (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Busy Moose:, that is a good idea to inform why in the edit notice. However I am a bit torn since as soon as the information gets just a few rows to long people stop reading so it has to be really short. The information can always be read at the consensus pages. The are several minor issues with livescores and live updates depending on who you ask. Edit conflicts with many editors updating score is one, secondly one editor can start updating then leave and articles display a score of example 2-1 for several days when match has ended and readers may think that is final score. Thirdly matches could be interupted during the game and current score will be invalid and all goalscorers added are suddenly wrong. There are more minor things all related to livescoring which could lead to problems, livescoring also often attracts vandals trying to edit other things then score hoping other editors will miss their edits, or they just keep edit wrong scores. QED237 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anyone here who wants to contribute to the discussion on edit noitices for live scores, there's a discussion ongoing at WT:FOOTY#Live scores, the next step?. - 97rob (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Qed237: Is there a way to put a link to something (WP:LIVESCORES or something else) in like a little asterisk next to the score once the game starts? I think it's definitely important to explain why this is the way it is in a logical and friendly way, but you're right, we don't want it to look ugly. Busy Moose (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Busy Moose:. There are hidden comment when editing not to add livescores and to go to this talkpage for info. Other than that and a editnotice, I dont know what we can do. But you are right it is good to explain why. QED237 (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz:, @97rob:, @Busy Moose: (I ping everyone in this discussion): I have now created {{Livescores editnotice}} and updated {{Livescores editnotice/sandbox}}, with difference to current version is to be seen at {{Livescores editnotice/testcases}}. The changes was made after input from a user at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football‎#Live_scores.2C_the_next_step.3F, please join discussion there and voice your opinions. As I said please comment, I would like to have it finished to the matches on thursday. QED237 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to verify consensus regarding subarticles, what is your say on using this template on all subarticles such as group A-H, squads, statistics, the group templates and so on? I believe it is needed on all since all have great potential of being subject of live updates (they have all scores and statistics, appearances in squad article). @Walter Görlitz:, @97rob:, @Busy Moose:, you have all contributed in this discussion before, what do you say? QED237 (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with adding them to all the 2014 FIFA World Cup articles except for the squad article. The squads article, as far as I can tell, doesn't actually include the data for the players during the world cup, but instead has stats up to the start of the competition (I could be wrong). The rest of the articles though, definitely. - 97rob (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, not all of them. Just the group table templates, groups A-H, the main article and statistics. - 97rob (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except not statistics because that page hasn't been created yet. - 97rob (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course but the statistics when that article has been created. And I did not know squad was until world cup only but is sound reasonable. QED237 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had the opportunity to look at the notice recently, but I think it should be added to those, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reguest has been made at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/2014 FIFA World Cup so lets see what happens. QED237 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine. Adding a "Thanks!" or something in there couldn't hurt. Busy Moose (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next day scenarios

The "next day scenarios" are not to be inluded after consensus at WP:FOOTY. The consensus can be read at WT:FOOTY Archieve 82 (link to section) and the consensus was confirmed afterwards at WP:ANI after a editor still continued with the edit, which can bee seen at WP:ANI archieve 821 (link to section). The insertion of these scenarios has also been at Dispute resolution noticeboard where it was decided "Resolved against inclusion of the material" which you can read at DRN archieve 54 (link to section). So as I said no "next day scenarios" unless new consensus at WT:FOOTY. Older discussions like this discussion follow the same line. QED237 (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no consensus. I just read about you bullying everybody. Correctron (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium names

Now that the Estádio do Maracanã article has been renamed Maracanã Stadium, should we change all instances of this stadium to "Maracanã Stadium" in all 2014 World Cup articles? Also, should we change "Estádio Castelão" to just "Castelão"? There might be other stadiums too, but I'm wondering whether we should use the stadiums' article names or their official names. Heymid (contribs) 14:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that refer to events that happened under the old name, should use that old name. No need to rewrite history.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think @Heymid: is talking about rewriting history, simply noting that the Wikipedia articles for the stadiums have been renamed to use the English name rather than the Portuguese (in accordance with WP:ENG). In my opinion, it would be proper to update the links in this article as well. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica has 0 losses under "Tournament team rankings"

Under Section 8 "Statistics" subcategory 8.4 Tournament team rankings, Costa Rica is listed in the 8th position of the Final Rankings below the subtitle "Eliminated in the quarter-finals" with 5 games played: 2 wins, 3 draws, 0 losses. These statistics are incorrect as Costa Rica truly has 3 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss.


My suspicion is that there is a problem with the algorithm that automatically calculates the wins, losses and draws in the "Tournament team ranking" table. Namely, a knockout stage game that results in a penalty shoot-out (PSO or pen.) is tallied as a draw because the algorithm is using the tied final score after extra time (aet) rather than determining a win based on the larger number of successful penalty kicks by a given team.


Furthermore, Chile -- with a final ranking of 9 -- is listed at 2 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss when, in fact, they never drew and lost twice this tournament to both the Netherlands in Group Stage and Brazil in the Round of 16.

Given these similar errors, I believe my suspicion of the bug in the algorithm is responsible for the error, specifically PSO games being counted as draws.


Upon further review of the 2010 FIFA World Cup page -- a different Wikipedia article altogether -- below section 11.5 Post-tournament team ranking, Japan is also listed in the 9th position with 1 draw when they never drew; rather, they lost for the second time against Paraguay in the Round of 16. It appears the same is true of the statistical errors for Paraguay, Uruguay, and Ghana; along with Japan, the four teams who participated in PSOs throughout the the Knoukout Stage of the 2010 World Cup.

Moreover, in the 2006 FIFA World Cup page, -- perhaps the most egregious statistical error so far -- France is listed as attaining 0 losses when, in fact, they lost to Italy in the final.

After inspecting other FIFA World Cup articles, the same or similar errors can be found in "Final Standings" tables of most all World Cups dating back to 1934 when Italy and Spain played a rematch after drawing 1-1 in the Quarter-finals; in this case, the games played (P) column is also incorrect. Interestingly, the inaugural 1930 World Cup contained not a single draw, match with extra time, nor penalty shoot-out.

Ok, so this rabbit hole goes even deeper! After checking the 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup statistics page, the same error appears for Spain in the Overall Statistics Table; Spain is listed as having drawn once in five games played, when, in fact, they won 4 times and lost to Brazil in the final -- the error derived from the PSO against Italy in the semi-final match after ending 0-0 after extra time.

My guess is that this algorithm is ubiquitous and rampant for most all statistical tables of football/soccer tournaments in the Wikipedia archives. It will have to be corrected for all articles beyond FIFA World Cup and Confederations Cup pages.


So noticing one small statistical error turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. Hopefully, this won't be too painstaking to fix :)

Best,
Jholter (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be mean but did it ever occur to you that losing in penalty kicks is counted as a draw?Correctron (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an error. A penalty shoot out is used to decide which team progresses to the next round. It doesn't alter the fact that the game before it ended in a draw. Valenciano (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I find that surprising. So in 2006, Italy beat France on a penalty shootout to win the World Cup Final, but it's incorrect to say that Italy won the match? I always considered the PSO to be wholly tied to the match, not a separate entity.
Are there any other examples in other sports where the tie-breaking mechanism determines a winner, but the match is still considered a draw? Jholter (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it would be correct to say that Italy won the match vs. France in the 2006 final (just as the winner of a PSO advances to the next game). But they received points only for the draw, and that is what counts toward the ranking. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jholter, Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football)#Win_or_draw.3F is worth a read. It seems to depend on the competition, but certainly in most of those organised by UEFA and FIFA, the penalty shoot out doesn't count. Valenciano (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Valenciano, thank you for the forwarded info -- very interesting indeed. Among all the confusion, the one thing that seems certain is that the PSO remains a contentious issue in the world of football (since it's adoption by FIFA in 1970s and first use in a World Cup Finals Tournament in 1982), and that the consequences of its implementation are no simple matter. This doesn't seem likely to change any time soon. Determining a winner and loser, and/or counting the result as a draw has historically not been treated consistently with a range of opinions and the institutionalization of various systems over time -- even dating back as recently as 2006, when a win in penalty shootouts was awarded 3 points by FIFA on the world stage. Given this insight, I would like to point out to @Hoof Hearted that your previous statement, therefore, needs revision since, in 2006, FIFA would have awarded Italy 3 "points" for their win over France in the final counting towards their ranking. Since 2007, however, FIFA now awards 2 points for a win on penalties and 1 point for a loss on penalties. Jholter (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

Netherlands vs. Argentina score 0-0 108.20.74.207 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)ESPN.com[reply]

Already done Chris1834 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

remove Match 62 on and replace with 0-0 on Argentina vs. Netherlands 108.20.74.207 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)ESPN.com[reply]

Repeated request Chris1834 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

remove Match 62 on and replace with 0-0 on Argentina vs. Netherlands 108.20.74.207 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)ESPN.com[reply]

Repeated yet again Chris1834 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

overtime / extra time

in the graphic / table some games are annotated with "aet" the abbreviation is explained as "overtime" a phrase related to the workplace it should correctly be called "extra-time" or "added extra-time" "aet" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.194.140 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the link it leads to the article: overtime (sports) which can also be called extra time as stated in the first line of the article. There is no article entitled extra time (related to sports) as that redirects to the overtime article Chris1834 (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor nitpicking here, but doesn't the "a" in "aet" stand for "after" and not "added"? "Added extra-time" sounds rather redundant. AhBengI (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil defeat

Please add in the opening, after "The title holders, Spain, were eliminated at the group stage after losses in the first two matches. ", the line "The hosts were eliminated in the semi-finals, after a shock 7-1 defeat to Germany." MarkBM (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modified but added. Chris1834 (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point was to link to the match article...but on second thoughts, don't bother, there's so much resistance there to giving it an engaging but summarizing opening explaining why it has its own article, people are probably better off not seeing it anyway. The only use the opening has now is to tell people who the referee was and the half-time score. Which is nice. MarkBM (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Format be damned. This should be mentioned in this article, the event was monumental.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth place background color in Tournament team rankings

I think we should remove the beige color from the background of the fourth ranked team in the 'Tournament team rankings' table .. after all the fourth placed team won't receive a medal to get a background color like the other three awarded teams.--AhMeD BoSS (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then we should add it to the 2002 page seeing that South Korea got fourth place medals back then. AhBengI (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica not up to date!

Costa Rica has a different rank now, loses a game and shot 12 goals. Wikuniade (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section 8.2 Assists

I noted the list of assist leaders is not complete. The source referenced only provides the ranking of number of assists for only those who have scored at least once. Philipp lahm has 2 assists. Cobx9 (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC) — [reply]

Participating teams

"Only three top-25 ranked teams did not qualify for the tournament: Ukraine (16), Denmark (23) and Slovenia (25)." Why list only from the top 25? Why not the top 32 as there are 32 teams in the tournament? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the number 25 seems to have been picked at random. Perhaps: best ranking team not to qualify was Ukraine...or: among the 13 best UEFA teams only Ukraine did not qualify (because UEFA has 13 places...but that's more complicated). Soerfm (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think mentioning UEFA would confuse matters. Perhaps we could just narrow it down to "Ukraine (16) were the highest ranking country not to qualify." Then we avoid a slightly irrelevant list of countries that didn't make it. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup Winner?

Current World Cup Winner 2014 stated as Egypt. I dare say that is either a mistake or a placeholder, surely?

Biased article

This article is biased. It is concentrating only on negative stuff, despite worldwide recognition of this world cup as a stupendous success in every way, and mostly due to the hosts Brazil. So tone down the negative stuff and include all the positive stuff as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.64.120 (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to come up with what you feel should be added to the article to make it less "biased" with proper sources and post it here so someone can add it or better yet register and add it yourself. I have not seen any articles personally that have said it was a "stupendous success in every way" and it seems unlikely just thinking about the construction of the stadiums but if you can support it... Chris1834 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it discusses the "negative stuff", but that's part of what makes any article interesting. Please do as Chris1834 suggested and make suggestions for concrete and specific changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already making a contribution by highlighting this issue. There's no shortage of praise for this tournament out there, so if some people here continue to post only negative stuff, there's a case to call their bias out as nothing short of an intention to denigrate the event. This is not what Wikipedia is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.78.101 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 WC in a row for a continent

This factoid has been added and removed from the lead. I'm not sure it's relevant in the lead. It is probably relevant (meaning the sources are talking about this) for the body. This hasn't gained a lot of traction from the sources I'm familiar with to be in the lead. To compare , the sources have made a BIG deal about no European team having won in South America. To me, that is lead worthy. Thoughts?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I haven't seen the "3 in a row" record noted outside the two given sources yet. And in some sense, this record already follows from the latter, more notable, fact: There's never been three consecutive World Cups all in or all outside of Europe; and Germany is the second consecutive European team to have won the World Cup outside of Europe, which hasn't happened a single time before. Similarly, only one South American team has ever won in Europe (1958; but WC 1954 was in Europe too); so 3 WC in a row could never have happened before given this strong "home continent advantage".
Actually, no European team has won in America before, so we could remove the "South" qualifier, making the record even more notable: only 4 previous WC were in South America, while 3 more were in North America.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Americas. Not "America".Correctron (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to America, "America usually refers to: [The U.S. or] The Americas, a landmass comprising North and South America". So "America" is correct, though ambiguous. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Could we agree on reducing the Statistics-section, maybe just:...

Main article: 2014 FIFA World Cup statistics
See also: FIFA World Cup records
Goals and assists

Most goals : 6 by Colombia James Rodríguez (Goals scored from penalty shoot-outs are not counted.)

Most assists: 4 by Colombia Juan Guillermo Cuadrado and Germany Toni Kroos

Discipline
Main article: 2014 FIFA World Cup disciplinary record

The most notable disciplinary case was that of Uruguayan striker Luis Suárez, who was suspended for nine international matches and banned from taking part in any football-related activity (including entering any stadium) for four months, following a biting incident on Italian defender Giorgio Chiellini. He was also fined CHF100,000.

Awards
Main article: 2014 FIFA World Cup awards

The following awards were given at the conclusion of the tournament:

Award Winner
Golden Ball
Golden Boot
Golden Glove
Best Young Player
FIFA Fair Play Trophy
Prize money

The total prize money on offer for the tournament was confirmed by FIFA as US$576 million (including payments of US$70 million to domestic clubs), a 37 percent increase from the amount allocated in the 2010 tournament. Before the tournament, each of the 32 entrants will receive US$1.5 million for preparation costs. Once at the tournament, the prize money will be distributed as follows:

Tournament team rankings

Note: As per statistical convention in football, matches decided in extra time are counted as wins and losses, while matches decided by penalty shoot-outs are counted as draws.

Result of countries participating in the 2014 FIFA World Cup
Pos. Team G Pld W D L Pts GF GA GD
1  Germany G 7 6 1 0 19 18 4 +14
2  Argentina F 7 5 1 1 16 8 4 +4
3  Netherlands B 7 5 2 0 17 15 4 +11
4  Brazil A 7 3 2 2 11 11 14 −3
Eliminated in the quarter-finals
5  Colombia C 5 4 0 1 12 12 4 +8
6  Belgium H 5 4 0 1 12 6 3 +3
7  France E 5 3 1 1 10 10 3 +7
8  Costa Rica D 5 2 3 0 9 5 2 +3
Eliminated in the round of 16
9  Chile B 4 2 1 1 7 6 4 +2
10  Mexico A 4 2 1 1 7 5 3 +2
11   Switzerland E 4 2 0 2 6 7 7 0
12  Uruguay D 4 2 0 2 6 4 6 −2
13  Greece C 4 1 2 1 5 3 5 −2
14  Algeria H 4 1 1 2 4 7 7 0
15  United States G 4 1 1 2 4 5 6 −1
16  Nigeria F 4 1 1 2 4 3 5 −2
Eliminated in the group stage
17  Ecuador E 3 1 1 1 4 3 3 0
18  Portugal G 3 1 1 1 4 4 7 −3
19  Croatia A 3 1 0 2 3 6 6 0
20  Bosnia and Herzegovina F 3 1 0 2 3 4 4 0
21  Ivory Coast C 3 1 0 2 3 4 5 −1
22  Italy D 3 1 0 2 3 2 3 −1
23  Spain B 3 1 0 2 3 4 7 −3
24  Russia H 3 0 2 1 2 2 3 −1
25  Ghana G 3 0 1 2 1 4 6 −2
26  England D 3 0 1 2 1 2 4 −2
27  South Korea H 3 0 1 2 1 3 6 −3
28  Iran F 3 0 1 2 1 1 4 −3
29  Japan C 3 0 1 2 1 2 6 −4
30  Australia B 3 0 0 3 0 3 9 −6
31  Honduras E 3 0 0 3 0 1 8 −7
32  Cameroon A 3 0 0 3 0 1 9 −8

Soerfm (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Technical Study Group and All Star Team subsection can have it's own section. We can take the Group out of the tournament team rankings table. We can either take the points out the table or replace it place it with winning percentage. Kingjeff (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Could you show it here? Soerfm (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Assists? Or "assists made by goalscorers"?

There is an obvious incorrectness in the "Assists" section of the article as it does not display the assists made by all of the players in the tournament, but rather only shows the assists made by players who also happen to be goalscorers. It should either be removed (it being incorrect) or it should be replaced with correct and sadly unofficial statistics, as FIFA's committee of experts did not make (as far as I know) a proper stats for this category. 83.131.255.213 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is none, as laws of the game do not prescribe a rule for keeping track of that category, but football game in general has a rule that for a player to make an assist, the goalscorer being assisted can make at most two touches on the ball before scoring (kick included, of course). I raised this question because there are players like Danijel Pranjić who made an obvious assist by any standards, being a corner-kick taker for a third goal for Croatia against Cameroon, scored by Mandžukić. It is dubious therefore to cite a source that clearly states it keeps track of goalscorers and not assists, as assists are only there to serve as tie-breakers. 89.172.11.144 (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_FIFA_World_Cup&oldid=617038363"