Jump to content

Talk:2015 AFC Asian Cup

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 116.212.247.8 (talk) at 05:16, 18 January 2015 (→‎Ri Sang-chol suspension: Possible explanation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I think the logo on the page should be removed. The AFC have not made a logo for the 2015 Asian Cup. Roo101 (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Roo101[reply]

Why would the AFC make a logo when it's the organizing commitee who decide? Druryfire (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no one has made an offical logo for the 2015 Asian Cup

Docklands Stadium

The picture of Docklands Stadium is actually in fact Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium.

It is Docklands Stadium. You can see the Coventry Stand clearly signed. Marngrook (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)MarngrookMarngrook (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robina stadium

The picture for the Robina stadium currently shows a game of rugby. Not ideal for this article. Can we find one with association football being played? LukeSurl t c 00:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that 2015 AFC Asian cup National Anthems performances be merged into 2015 AFC Asian Cup. I think that the content in the 2015 AFC Asian cup National Anthems performances article can easily be explained in the context of 2015 AFC Asian Cup, and the 2015 AFC Asian Cup article is of a reasonable size that the merging of 2015 AFC Asian cup National Anthems performances will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Oddbodz (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterfinal Draw

The current presentation in the article and as supported by:

http://www.afcasiancup.com/i/AsianCup/img/pdfs/AFC_Asian_Cup_2015_Ticketing_Guide.pdf (page 12)

shows that the quarterfinals 3 and 4 are in Canberra and Sydney respectively.

However the following documentation:

http://www.the-afc.com/en/component/jdownloads/finish/75-asian-cup/94-australia-2015-match-schedule.html

http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/site/_content/document/00001214-source.pdf (page 15)

shows the inverse being that the quarterfinals 3 and 4 are in Sydney and Canberra respectively.

So the question is does anyone know which quarterfinal draw format is the correct one? The official website doesn't appear to show anything directly other than the aforementioned press releases.

Transaction Go (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version is correct, as shown in the ticketing info: http://tickets.afcasiancup.com/individual-prices/. --2nyte (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Sang-chol suspension

Does anyone know why Ri Sang-chol of North Korea recieved a three match suspension for this tournament? Supposedly he has only made two appearances for North Korea, both in the 2015 EAFF East Asian Cup Preliminary round 2, and he was not formally cautioned in any of the two matches he played in. Does anyone know?--2nyte (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find a number of articles that confirm his suspension, but none list a reason. — Jkudlick tcs 15:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I added a ref saying Sang-chol was suspended for the three group stage matches but I can't find out why either.--2nyte (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was reported that a player was suspended for failing to complete (though not failing) a drug test but I can't remember if this was Ri Sang-chol. A suspension for 3 games sounds to me like a drugs thing that has yet to be decided. He may be contesting the results or providing reasons for his refusal. However, with North Korea, it could be something truly bizarre like him trying to defect, which might explain why there are no reasons given. 116.212.247.8 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove superfluous info

Why do we need the A, H and E Designations in the group tables? They seem totally unnecessary. We all know Australia is the host it is detailed a number of times throughout the article so you don't need the H. The green background colour highlights that the team has qualified for the knockout stage so you don't need the A and the background of the lower two teams could be coloured red to indicate the team has been eliminated. Does anyone have any issues changing this? Anderch (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly it's the new format, but I don't mind it's removal and just keeping the green highlight.--2nyte (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A and E will go, once the group stage is finished. -Koppapa (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine with me.--2nyte (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine but I still don't see the logic of even having it now.Anderch (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have the A and E during group stage to visually indicate definite advancement or mathematical elimination. After group stage is complete, those letters are moot. — Jkudlick tcs 08:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's face it - the section in the box - QUALIFICATION is just stupid, I don't know why people decided to change these boxes from last years, they were great. Now there is information that country "Advance to knockout stage" which is usually untrue since they have matches to play, the same is on Euro 2016 qualification. But still the most stupid is A and E in brackets, since there is ADCANCE TO KNOCKOUT STAGE" info why we need another one? And what was wrong with the system that RED is eliminated, GREEN advenced and when team still has got hope it's WHITE. Why someone changed a very good system??? Moreover this new system has got mistakes - how can country advance before start of the tournament? - In conclusion we have reduplications with logical mistakes and boxes are unreadable because some strange people have changed something which was very good. And one last thing - if we can't use colors because of colourblind people I am voting for deleting A MAP (there are many colours on the wualification maps) because it is unreadable for blindcolour people!!! If you disagree it means that you are hypocrite and I will write a formal complaint to Wikipedia. User:TigerTatoo 13:23, 16 January 2015
Yeah. The usual green and red was better. And that "Advance to knockout stage" is not necessary. The second sentence in Group stage is enough, it says everything needed.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about in leagues: like the Premier League, you hate box there too? Change was made to have not two different systems. I can understand your points though. -Koppapa (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This system would be great in all kind of tournaments but only when the box "Qualification or relegation" will be added after the qualifications not when there are 0, 1 or 2 matches. User:TigerTatoo 15:00, 16 January 2015
What textual changes would you suggest that would clarify this in your opinion? CRwikiCA talk 15:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete "qualification" box and "qualification or relegation box" and use onlu colours like it was in the past and after all qualifying matches put these boxes back because only then they will be logical. User:TigerTatoo 17:50, 16 January 2015
That wont happen as colors should not be used without text. And you say "as in the past", well it has never been like that for league tables and we should really have consistency. You dont seem to understand that the colors/qualification text shows what happens on those positions and the statusletters tells if the team has qualified or not. QED237 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really do understand the interest of keeping the old format, I am also often reluctant to changes, but in this case we wont go back because we need to follow the guidelines and this new format has recieved much good response due to the fact that it is easy to update and makes consistency between all tables and is spreading outside football into other sports. However if you have good constructive things you want to change, perhaps other wording?, you are more than welcome to suggest changes. When you do please keep a good tone, not calling others "hypocrite" (as I have told you before), and discuss. QED237 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this style either. Exactly who made these changes? Smarkflea (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These changes were made after various discussions over several months at WT:FOOTY. All of the pertinent discussions have been archived. — Jkudlick tcs 03:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would instead of qualification "on completion of group stage", "after group stage", "eventual result", be any better? -Koppapa (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
<QED237 you are the only person who likes these changes! On every discussion there are only your positive opinions about changes, none of us likes it and since I am a teacher I see a luck of logic and sense in it. It's amazing that you still can't see this. Info in these boxes is a lie - Poland didn't qualify yet in Euro 2016 neither Irak in AFC 2015 so there can't be such information. Moreover the guidelines is the same for years so what happened that during 1 month someone suddenly decided that we have to start followng it? Why hadn't been it followed till December 2014? User:TigerTatoo 11:47, 17 January 2015
As said several times, this was not my idea and has gone through voting, discussions and consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football with several users agreeing to the new format (actually noone opposed at "the vote"). I have not even touched the coding and I am only one of several users converting articles. I am actually a mathmatician (who have sideworked a bit as teacher) and I have no problem seeing logic. The text says what happens on those positions and statusletters say if team has secured any of those positions. It is very clear , but as we said do you have any proposed changes that may help improve the new format, feel free to letting us know but stop blaiming individual users, it is project consensus. QED237 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not logical it is confusing because when I am opening webside and see green it means for me and not only for me that these countries qualified so if the box with QUALIFICATION is necessary I think that green colour should be aded after the team qualifies not from the beginning. Letters could be also added. I think that such a consensus would be very good for people who are used to the old system. User:TigerTatoo 17:27, 17 January 2015

China Group B winner

I just wanted to bring this up on the talk page because we keep going back and forth on this. As far as I'm aware China will progress through to the knockout stage as Group B winners, irrespective of the results in the final two games of the group. This is due to the tiebreaker rule, where if tied by points the teams will first be rank according to their head-to-head result. As China has won against both Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan they will stay as group winners, even if they are tied on points (potentially tied on 6 points with either Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan).--2nyte (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This actual page we're commenting on says the tiebreaker rule is goal difference, not head-to-head. Where are you getting this head-to-head stuff?? I mean, not that it's going to matter in twelve hours, but still -- tie-breaker is not head to head, China have not won the group yet. 207.38.251.213 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the tiebreakers section in the article, tiebreaker is head-to-head, and not for the first time at the Asian championship!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhhhhhhhhh... okay, re-reading it and I get it now. It's just... not worded very well -- easy to miss or misunderstand. 207.38.251.213 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. -Koppapa (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about Japan? GTVM92 (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Japan can end up 3rd in the group and be eliminated, e.g. by a 0-2 loss to Jordan and a Iraq win.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine aren't out yet

In the article, the table under "Team Base Camps" shows that Palestine's last match is on the 20th of January but they could still qualify as Iraq and Jordan can both lose their final match, as confirmed by the lack of an elimination "(E)" in the group D table. I realise that the tiebreak rules would require an 11-goal win for Palestine but because it has yet to be confirmed then both tables should reflect this, or at least be consistent in eliminating Palestine. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was just an IP-edit: [1]. I reverted.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe they are out, they cannot get higher than Jordan even if Jordan loses to Japan due to the tie-breaking of number of points obtained between teams concerned, it would still go to Jordan due to their win over Palestine. 24.145.129.38 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Japan beat Jordan and Palestine beat Iraq, then Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine will all be tied on points with 1-0-2 group records. The first tie-breaker is head-to-head record among all teams concerned, but we would have the classic "rock-paper-scissors" circular logic – Palestine beat Iraq who beat Jordan who beat Palestine who beat Iraq who beat Jordan who beat (ad infinitum). Thus, we go to head-to-head goal differential:
  1. Jordan has played both matches that would come in to play, so their total head-to-head goal differential is +3.
  2. Iraq's current head-to-head goal differential is +1. If they lose, that will only go down.
  3. Palestine's current head-to-head goal differential is -4. They need to beat Iraq by 8 in order to pass Jordan in goal differential. If they beat Iraq by 7, then they are tied with Jordan in head-to-head goal differential, in which case we go to tiebreaker #3, which is number of head-to-head goals scored. Since Jordan scored only 5 goals in the matches concerned, Palestine winning by 7 means they scored at least 7 just in the one match.
Therefore, a victory by Japan over Jordan by any amount and a victory by Palestine over Iraq by 7 or more goals means that Palestine will advance. As improbable as that is, it could still happen, thus Palestine is not eliminated from the tournament.
Similarly, Japan are not guaranteed to advance, as a loss to Jordan and a victory by Iraq over Palestine mean all three teams finish even on points. The same process would be followed, and large enough margins of victory by Jordan and Iraq would eliminate Japan. — Jkudlick tcs 04:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC don't use their own rules

AFC don't use their own rules regarding ordering before group play is finished, I already saw it yesterday at the official AFC-page, that they don't use head-to-head in ordering group D. Yesterday I thougt: so what? But today we have a user, who is referring to the off. site, [2] and my talkpage. I want to bring the issue up here.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the rulebook but UEFA in Europe has "when group stage completed" in their rules so while group stage is played sometimes they just order teams alphabetically or by goal differential if two or more teams have the same points. Not sure what AFC rulebook says about this but on wikipedia we usually you the tiebreaker even during the group stage even if rulebook says it is only needed after it is finished. QED237 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They don't follow their own regulation at the moment, that's right. But it doesn't really matter. They'll surely get it right once the group stage is finished. -Koppapa (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_AFC_Asian_Cup&oldid=643007570"