Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)

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

Untitled[edit]

This does not sound right at all, I cant find any official information from the AFC but Asia has NEVER used Asian Cup results as a basis for WCQ!

Correct, AFC has never used the finishing positions of the previous asian cup as seedings for the world cup (which spoon added that?). In fact, there have been two methods used in determining the AFC seeds in the last 2 WCs. For WC02, they were based on World Rankings. For WC06, they were based on the finishing positions in the previous WC qualifying campaign. Who knows which method will be used? Rankings? Previous WC positions? I have feeling it will be as follows:
  • QR - world rankings (bottom teams in QR, regardless to previous WC position);
  • GS1 - Previous WC positions (Australia number 1 seed!!!);
  • GS2 - Previous WC positions
For previous WC positions, the are teams are place in the following order:
  • Teams that qualified for WCF and those that progessed the furthest;
  • Teams knockout in GS2
  • Teams knockout in GS1
  • Teams knockout in preliminary round
  • Teams that did not enter.
Within each 'group' teams are separated via - points; goal difference; goals for; World ranking
FYI the following is the seedings for the group stage if indeed the seeds are based on previous WC positions: Australia, South Korea, Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, North Korea, China, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Syria, Palestine, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Indonesia, Tajikistan, Hong Kong, Yeman, Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, India, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Taiwan, Laos, Bangladesh, Macao, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, then the others who did not enter the last WC in ranking order...
--Fridge46 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Round display[edit]

I have reverted this section to take out the additoins by Mussav, but I will explain why here. There is no definite position for sides in the second round as yet, so even the position of Indonesia is not definite. However, if (as might be expected) all remaining matches go with seedings then Indonesia will go here. I don't think we can put Winner A v B as an option as the result of the tie will completely alter the result (ie, East Timor cannot ever be Seed 12 and China could never be Seed 19). I hope this is clear. The only options that can reasonably be put in Second Round at this point are this one or just leaving it blank with the seeding numbers.Jlsa 06:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake[edit]

You made a mistake in the final round. if teams are divided into two groups of five then

shouldn't they play 8 games.

Yes they play 8 games. But there are 10 match days, because in each day, 4 teams play and 1 team rest Calapez 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that makes no sense why?

Each team will play 8 games, but in 2 matchday days, the team will have to rest in order to the other 4 teams play each other.. 8 + 2 = 10 matchdays. They choose to have 10 teams in the finals, so they had to split them in 2 groups (5 each) Calapez 03:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Stadium of Myanmar[edit]

Thong Nhat Stadium in Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) will be the home stadium of Myanmar football team.Peanux 09:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goalscorers[edit]

The table is split into rounds (but ordered by total). Some players may score a lot of goals in these initial rounds and that will be noted. There will probably need to be some sort of "code" for teams not playing (a "-" would make sense) and something else for an eliminated team (an "x" or a ".") Jlsa 00:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of draw[edit]

The ordering of the draw by seeding serves no sensible purpose. There are a number of reasons for this. 1 - this is the draw that was made, and published. 2 - if we do it by "seeding" (which is inherently unclear because it is only by the higher seeds anyway, and they appear randomly on each side of the draw) someone will no doubt rearrange it everytime the seeding changes (as it may well do for the second stages and beyond). 3 - why seeding, why not alphabetically, order of first match. If you deviate for one reason, someone will come and reorder by their own whimsical preference.

Additionally, The rollback occurred because for some reason the order of some matches (Kuwait and Indonesia) had been (haphazardly in formatting) reversed for some obscure reason. The section on "seeding" for the second round was now inconsistent with the first - as it was not updated to reflect "seeding" order. The section on the third round seeding is a) repetitive of results for 2006 WC, b) possibly actually incorrect (no official seeding for the third round has been determined, it may well be based on FIFA ranks in accordance with the new World Cup regulations - ref the UEFA issue) and is c) only partial as it only explains why the 5 bye teams were put in that order, not why the order 38 sides were give their particular ordering (surely, if we are explaining how seeding works we explain the whole thing - not just 5 out of 43).Jlsa 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ordering of the draw by seeding serves no sensible purpose. - Yes it does, it gets the viewer to see who (and how) a team got a 3rd round bye, thus they are put in order of seeding. If a team from a lower seed gets a bye, I as a view would like to see which team from the top 11 lost and gave that lower seed a bye.
That could be true once ties are decided. If, say, KGZ wins then your table is wrong and does not serve its prupose. Are you going to reverse all the names so the winner is first (stuffing everything up again like with IND and KUW which are team #2 not team #1 in the draw). Are you going to reorder the table for every upset - which ordering is it then - ordering of seeding of winners or ordering of seeding at draw. The ranking of the teams who advance will be included in the "Round 2 info" anyway so there is needless repetition of this. Will you change the order in the detail page (to keep it consistent with this page). Are you going to leave IND the wrong way around again.Jlsa 01:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need lines like this

to saperate the qualifying stages, because it looks confusing put all together like that. Chaldean 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korea DPR v Mongolia[edit]

Why was the DPR Korea v Mongolia match stopped? Will there be a replay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.57.176 (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. However, the only reference I've seen to the match (the Guardian) suggests there was no stoppage - only the result was not released. Normally, that would seem stupid, but this is North Korea we're talking about, so you cannot rule that out.Jlsa 13:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results table for Groups[edit]

I have proposed one kind at Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)#Results Tables please see if it is liked, and i will provide them here. F9T 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All goalscorers?[edit]

Is there a reason to list all goalscorers of qualification? I think the table should be cropped up to leave out players with only 1 or 2 goals, because there is no point in having all the goalscorers listed. Artyom (talk • contribs) 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well there obvious is some point in listing all goal scorers, because all goals are equal (and someone obviously thinks it was worth it to create). It is, no doubt, a lot of work. Perhaps the answer will involve a "template" such has been developed for the group tables, which automatically cuts off display at a certain level of goals. Jlsa (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has Saudi Arabia progressed?[edit]

With two matches to go, the worst case scenario for Saudi Arabia is that Lebanon draw level with them on points. But Saudi Arabia has beaten Lebanon twice. Is the first tiebreaker goal difference or head-to-head? Bush shep (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first tiebreaker for (all) of the qualifiers is goal difference, so atm they can get overtaken by Singapore. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Turns out to be a stupid question: I thought it was Lebanon on three points. Erk. Bush shep (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Round Four Seedings[edit]

If Iraq qualify, don't they take the 5th seed, so they would enter Pot 3 and push Bahrain into Pot 4?? This is because, if Iraq qualify they will have their fixtures clash with the FIFA Confederations Cup in 2009

Druryfire (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried deciphering the press release - and there's multiple interpretations (do they do the switch at the point of the draw, or do they do it post-draw, and just switch two teams out to give Iraq the necessary bye [and not advantaging some sides with what is supposedly a weaker side jumping into a higher seeding.]

I suspect we'll know once the draw is done which way they actually go.

Scratch that - they get moved to position 5 in the group (ie. the bottom seed of the group), not fifth overall. This is so they can have a bye in Matchday 10, which is given to the bottom seed of each group. The reason why that's an issue, despite the fact they would be a low seed, is that they might get drawn alongside Syria/UAE into the same group, making them the 'fourth side' of the group. The system would operate to relegate them to fifth side, so they can go play the Confed Cup. 

121.208.19.160 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

goalscorers[edit]

There's a discussion in the CONCACAF section where someone wants to change the format of all goalscorers including this page and other confederations. In case you want to take part in the discussion before the tables here are changed, please have a look. goalscorers Vorlath (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeding details, now deleted[edit]

On September 11 2008, I made a few edits adding information relating seedings, e.g. "Pot A consisted of teams who earned at least five points in the Second Round of the 2006 qualifying competition.", "Palestine were thus the only Pot A team who did not reach the second round, while Singapore were the only Pot B team who did."

The next day, Jlsa undid all my changes, writing "(As written, this is too much like editorial content (paragraphs starting with 'So' are never a good idea). Maybe if rewritten, rephrased or something.) " Now, I am reluctant to enter an editing war with Jlsa, who has added many valuable comments to Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I was surprised by this editing. "Editorial content" is usually taken to mean statements of opinion rather than fact: I am of course happy for the removal of any of my statements if they are not correct facts. The statement "paragraphs starting with 'So' are never a good idea" may or may not be a valid opinion, but it is not Wikipedia standard policy.

Jlsa's comment "Maybe if rewritten, rephrased or something" was undoubtedly well-meaning. Nonetheless, it is not clear how the information on seeding could be added to Wikipedia in a way that meets Jlsa's standards. The editing process is most effective when editors take a page forwards, rather than backwards: many editors thus prefer to alter rather than delete. Pete Ridges (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your argument without viewing the situation in detail. I hope that editors always attempt to improve on articles as a work in progress and not omit such that doesn't meet their personal expectations. However I must stress I haven't looked at the edits to gain a complete understanding of this situation. I appreciate your efforts to improve wiki and I hope that you continue to do so and we've all been through something like this. Keep going mate. Lympathy Talk 15:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably "editorial" wasn't the most helpful description - it is a combination of two problems. First, it read like a stream of consciousness monologue, and the information seemed to verge on the trivial (and trivia sections are discouraged). For example, I'm not sure what the import of the "all teams in Pot A got 5 points in 2006 qualifying" comment. So what? Seeding is not tied the idea of 5 points, it is tied to performance, which leads to 5 points (and even then, if this is a hard cut-off it would only be by coincidence). Finally, (and this applies to other similar sections, notably in CONCACAF), it appears to provide some strange analysis of "upsets", which are really saying whether a team in a band determined by performance in 2006 (for AFC) or rankings from mid-2007 (for CONCACAF) outperformed a team in a higher band at that time, regardless of the relative strengths of the sides when the matches were played. This is where the comments veer towards the editorial, it is "personal analysis and comment by inclusion", that is, by adding it, you are in effect commenting (in an editorial sense) on the effectiveness of the original seedings. I hope this clears up my discomfort with the inclusion of these sections. Jlsa (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Jlsa, and apologies for the delay in replying. This may or may not be relevant, but on the wikipedia pages relating to tennis (where seeding is more common than in football), it is highly normal for seedings to be referred to alongside results. For instance, it would be surprising if Boris Becker's page did not mention that his first Wimbledon win came as an unseeded player, or if Goran Ivanisevic's page did not mention that his Wimbledon win came only because he was allowed to enter as a "wildcard". I never intended my edit to be interpreted as any kind of criticism of the effectiveness of the seedings: however, mismatches between seeding and outcome may well be of interest, especially in extreme cases. Lastly, the "5 points in qualifying" comment was intended as further detail (clarifying an existing point, the nature of the seedings) rather than trivia (which generally relates to an unrelated point, e.g. "It rained heavily during Match X". I agree with your "stream of consciousness" point and I will try to avoid that if I have time to take your advice to rewrite. Best wishes and thanks again for all your work.Pete Ridges (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

The Preliminary Draw Information sheet from FIFA named the rounds as Stage One, Two, Three, Four, and Five for First, Second, Third, Fourth Round, and the Play-off Round. I think we should change it back. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 04:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sadly) I think you are right (I'm not sure what the rationale for undoing your changes was as it was not commented on, just done). Note, however, that the interconfed playoff is like a "Stage 6", so it is separate from Stage 5 (which is how you had it before).Jlsa (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia technical note[edit]

Can't seem to find how to edit the note in Group 4 to add that Qiu Li was the player in question which caused Singapore to get punished by FIFA. Icedwater (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC). 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:

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) 20:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(AFC)&oldid=1196565922"