Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the fact that team X is playing team Y, whether team Z will advance. etc. etc.. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the fact that team X is playing team Y, whether team Z will advance. etc. etc. at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on June 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Notes on the tie-breaking situation

This section on the pages for each group has no place in the article. It is not factual encyclopaedic information. It is simply what will happen, IF the results of the next matches turn out go one way or the other, i.e., the outcome which depends on other things happening in a certain way. I recommend deletion of all of the "Notes on the tie-breaking situation" sections in all of the separate group pages.Colin marks (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "on the next matchday". The section is factual but yes, it is a little unencylopedic. However I think the section does explain how close teams are to qualification/eliminated and only adds to the value of the page. I'm therefore in favour of it's inclusion, even applying the rules of wikipedia as a whole. Aheyfromhome (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that this section is factual - it is conditional - what will happen IF certain things turn out one way or another. It's like saying "IF my grandma had a beard, she'd be my grandpa!!!" I vote for deletion. Colin marks (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings note

The rankings may or may not change significantly from month to month even without games being played. The reason is not really (as often described) "devaluation" of the results, it is more the "re-averaging" of results based on the changing number of matches played in each of the last four years (which can rise or fall without much rhyme nor reason). For example, Germany's results will be significantly affected by whether the 15 November 2006 result against Cyprus (a ranking limiting 1-1 draw) counts to the latest year or the year before. If it moves back a year, Germany's ranking will jump up, but if it doesn't then there will be little change. See a BigSoccer post (by me) for an even more drawn out explanation. Jlsa 12:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: November rankings will be released on November 23, not 21 (see [1]). I corrected the article about FIFA World Rankings, but I'm not sure if results from Euro 2008 qualifying matches on November 17 will be included or not, so the information on this article might need a little revising. Artyom (talk • contribs) 14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logical assumption is that the delay in one is related to the desire to include the Euro results in the rankings. I wonder if the reason the draw itself has been delayed is related. Jlsa 02:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the draw in Durban has been delayed, as well? Artyom (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago now the date was changed from 23 November to 25 November - at least that's what I remember Jlsa 20:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeding

Do the Defending Champions automatically get in the first Pot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.234.148 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they will be there based on the FIFA rankings estimates I've seen Jlsa (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the prospective seeding working in some press reports (which are based on the Lucruri neinteresante blog) we would have (numbers in brackets are possible FIFA ranks).

Pot A	Pot B	Pot C	Pot D	Pot E	Pot F
Italy 1498 Spain 1349 Germany 1296 Czech Republic 1290 France 1243 Portugal 1241 Netherlands 1170 Croatia 1129 Greece 1114	England 1113 Romania 1088 Scotland 990 Turkey 924 Bulgaria 877 Russia 861 Poland 855 Sweden 853 Israel 852	Norway 827 Ukraine 824 Serbia 820 Denmark 797 Northern Ireland 780 Republic of Ireland 731 Finland 695 Switzerland 657 Belgium 600	Slovakia 590 Bosnia and Herzegovina 585 Hungary 581 Moldova 579 Wales 560 Macedonia 556 Belarus 552 Lithuania 549 Cyprus 493	Georgia 414 Albania 407 Slovenia 403 Latvia 383 Iceland 380 Armenia 367 Austria 366 Kazakhstan 297 Azerbaijan 274	Liechtenstein 260 Estonia 223 Malta 183 Luxembourg 127 Montenegro 65 Andorra 57 Faroe Islands 12 San Marino 6

Jlsa (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is miles too early to say this though, the next ranking comes out tommorrow, re-do the table then. Thank you please - F9 T 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's here and not on the article. It is being referred to in the press. Jlsa (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected numbers (Oct 2007 UEFA ranking). Kahkonen (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Articles

Surely these should all have (UEFA) in the name. I mean its not a worldwide qualifying campaign is it? Thank you please - F9 T 18:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which main articles do you refer to? This article is about the European (UEFA) qualifying section for the FIFA World Cup. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that i removed saying 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification Group A F9 T 16:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results tables

I would like to propose a slightly new design here the flags are for the benefit of those who do not know the FIFA Codes. Feel free to add your thoughts below, or on the Sandbox talk page - F9 T 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you there. Definitely clearer, especially to readers with less knowledge of the codes. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more pratic...Aritajustino (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One reason for the proposal was montenegros code is MNE Bosnia-Herz. is BIH, so some very confusing ones. F9 T 19:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar proposal was made by me at Talk:UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying#Suggestion: Final table of results, but there were no responses to it... I personally think this way is better than the way it is currently on the UEFA Euro 2008 article. Artyom (talk • contribs) 07:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the results not be coloured Red, Green or White based on the outcome, like here.Darryl.matheson 19:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Results tables should not be coloured, as the colouration is subjective in most cases. – Pee Jay 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Colors are not needed. Artyom (talk • contribs) 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the flags and agree on not using colors. I'm thinking it would be an improvement to remove the XXX, which is very visually distracting, in favor of a dash and darker shaded rectangle, like the results tables used at this year's Champions League article. —Ed Cormany (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, they really are distracting. Artyom (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree too. There's no need for the XXXs at all. – Pee Jay 00:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Group templates

We could do with these being made up, similar to the Euro 2008 ones, i.e. Template:UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying Group A. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not be using Results tables like the one here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl.matheson (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Results tables thread above. They would be part of the templates. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if the user that did them for Euro 2008 would kindly provide them again F9 T 18:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the group 1 template. All it needs is dates of matches then it can be moved to a proper name. User:CWY2190/WC2010 UEFA Group 1 ---CWY2190^T^C 20:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well i agree that they should be used here too, its just too copy and remake the ones from Euro 2008, under the same names, example. if the articles for the groups are called "2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) Group A" etc, the template should be on "Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) Group A". Ill do a c/p soon, have to make some food now :D Chandler talk 20:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Group A' or 'Group 1'? ---CWY2190^T^C 21:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they call them Group 1-x in the World Cup but A-x in Euro :) Chandler talk 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will now move that to {{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 1}} F9 T 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 1}}
{{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 2}}
{{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 3}}
{{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 4}}
{{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 5}}
{{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 6}}
{{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 7}}
{{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 8}}
{{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 9}}

Great, though for me, the Swiss flag is too high? if you compare to the other templates. :/ Chandler talk 22:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just the usual size of the flag. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is. Because the Swiss flag is a square and not a rectangle. So to make it the same width, it would need to have a bigger height. ---CWY2190^T^C 22:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes I know, but it looks bad imo :) maybe if the fontsize is at 100% instead of 90% the "problem" might disappear? Chandler talk 23:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find where it is to remove it. but this template {{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 1}} has as category on it Category:2010_UEFA_European_Football_Championship_navigational_boxes , which is wrong, I removed it from the other onces, but cant seem too find it on this one. Chandler talk 11:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was on the documentation inside <includeonly> tags, I have removed it. - MTC (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying, there was the tables in full with tiebreakers. And then show a full list of results, with scorers etc. let me know what you think. F9 T 18:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top 8 Second Placed Table

Would it be possible to have a table ranking the top eight second placed teams, or an extra column in the group tables showing the points gained from only matches against the top five teams in the group? Just a thought! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.232.46 (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably happen once some matches are played. ---CWY2190^T^C 19:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could do that. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible, again after some games F9 T 19:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be possible, because matches against teams that become last in their groups will not be counted in determining the ranking of 2nd placed teams. And we can't know for sure which team will get the last place in the group. However, it can be made with some note like "if qualifying ended today, the order of 2nd placed teams would be this way etc" Artyom (talk • contribs) 07:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. But it wouldn't be too hard to figure out between match days. ---CWY2190^T^C 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi i went along and added the table,i know it looks pretty basic now. i just used the Template from the CAF Qualification, i think its fairly easy to understand so there should be no confusion.Gero13 (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the table in line with WP:OR since it seems to be less straightforward than initially thought, where results now may not count later. Since this information is not published anywhere else (e.g. UEFA website), I have removed it. Please feel free to revert changes if there is a legitimate reference. Cloudz679 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it's "less straightforward than initially thought", it is effectively the same system that was used in the past 2 qualification series. Jlsa (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks like Original Research to me, this is not a UEFA list. Even the references provided do not show this information. So please reference before re-adding. Cloudz679 (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, this is not so clear cut. The qualification rules say that the nine second-placed teams will be ranked, from which 8 will be drawn together. Editors here have taken the existing information and put it into one table. Now I can accept that this appears to be completely against OR, but I hope you can also see how this table is merely showing the next step of the certified and citated qualification process. doktorb _words^deeds 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make this table a template? This is to limit the continual incorrect updating by (hopefully) well-meaning people who don't understand the actual rules for this table. Templates are rarely edited by people unfamiliar with wikipedia, hence this may stop this problem (as putting a note saying that 6th placed matches don't count doesn't seem to have helped at all). Jlsa (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please! A good case could be made for semiprotecting it, too - which isn't necessary for the rest of the article - since it's mainly newbies who seem to be doing the incorrect updating. I realise single-use templates aren't much liked, but in cases like this they make good sense. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have templatised the table - mainly because it's going to get even more incorrectly edited once competition starts up again. The template also includes an indication on each line as to which results are excluded - which you would think might help, but probably won't. This page includes an alternative way of showing now all teams are placed for qualification to the second-placed playoffs (it is based on a similar table that appeared in the CAF qualification stage). At some point a separate page for UEFA playoff stage will probably develop and something like this table might be appropriate. Jlsa (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is editing the second place table is not correctly accounting for the fact that results against the 6th place team does not count. For instance, someone has just reverted my update and put Croatia back in the table - they are indeed second place in the group with 11 points, but 6 of those are against the last placed team, and Ukraine has 8 points without having played the last place team yet. Please check your math! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.249.50.105 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixtures

When will the fixtures be announced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.234.148 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Euro 2008 qualifying, the schedule making dates were between February 9 and March 9, 2006. So probably it's about same time again. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read that the teams in Group 9 are meeting on the 14th December in Holland to decide their fixtures. If the teams cannot agree on a fixture timetable the FIFA computer will be called into action to generate the fixtures on 10th January. Not sure if this will be the day all groups who cannot agree on fixtures will have them decided. This is what happened with the Euro2008 qualifying group B. JieBie (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results tables revisited.

I would like to point out to whoever made the final templates, or to anyone that can work out how to edit them. The team names down the left home column, were intended to be aligned to the right, rather than in the centre, as the origional proposal, I think, looks neater. F9 T 12:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yep, tables do look better this way. Artyom (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if there is a way to un-bold the home teams in the results tables? Because they take up too much space bolded, and tables become ugly sometimes (see 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 7, after fixture dates were added). Artyom (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know who removed the team names from the result tables, I think that they should still be there, because the table will be moving up and down. And with the teams there in alphabetical order. I think the names should be there for reference as well.? F9 T 14:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that team names have been put back up, so I thought I should point you to this discussion: Template talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 7. Artyom (talk • contribs) 17:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the point about being there for reference… I thought that at first, but then I realized that the flags do that just fine, as they are still there in both tables. - MTC (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, although I was the one who put the country names back in, I do believe the flags do the job well enough without the names of the countries. Feel free to remove them again. – Pee Jay 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can use the {{click}} template on the team flags in fixtures tables so that they link to the national football team article. Example:

Artyom (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to use said click function on the flags. // F9 T 20:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied the click function to the Group 9 template Darryl.matheson (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To {{click}} or not to click?

The {{click}} template has been placed on the flags in fixtures table on the Group 9 template for demonstration. Please view the main qualification page or the Group 9 page to view the fixtures table. The idea seems to work fine, except the width and height parameters need to be set to 22 and 17 pixels respectively on all flags to ensure that flags don't get cut off (Switzerland's flag, however, will require 20x20, probably). I need users to give a feedback on this, and if the same should be done to other group templates, or not. Thanks in advance! Artyom (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, probably not a good idea. Artyom (talk • contribs) 12:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results grid

I've added a results grid at the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL) page. One feature I've put in: by clicking on the result, it takes you to the match summary at the same page. See if you guys like it or not, perhaps we can add them to the other WCQ pages too. Chanheigeorge (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying page, the result in the grid liked to the official report but I think it is much better to link to the match summary within the article. Darryl.matheson (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it would be better to go to an official report // F9 T 06:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought of that, but why not link to information within Wikipedia when it's available? The user doesn't need to visit another site, the outside links may change in the future, and we can even click on fixtures when there's no official report yet. The official report is there in the summary too, so users can get more information if they're interested. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I added these links is that it's quite hard to find the relevant information within the Wikipedia page, say, you want to know what happened in that Argentina vs Brazil match. So I think these internal links help tremendously. Plus it's quite easy to implement, easy to verify (God knows how many times people copy and paste the wrong official match reports), plus a good side effect is that once you put all those "Argentina vs Brazil" internal links in the results grid, people won't put the scores in the wrong cell! Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a great idea. To link to the official reports is unnecessary, because: 1.) those can be find at the relevant informations, 2.) those will be always wrapping the articles in 800*600. - Tcziboka (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when you make the browser window smaller, the "arrows" that link to the official reports make the table display very poorly. And I also kind of find those "arrows" in the tables quite distracting. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no need to link them to external match reports, as each match summary on the article has a link to official report on FIFA.com. Artyom (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odds

There are odds available for which team is going to win each group on http://www.betfred.com/ 72.42.134.253 (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff Format

How are the matches for the playoff round determined? Is it random draw or is some sort of seeding used? Schoop (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the same format as previous years is used, the second-placed teams are ranked by the number of points earned against teams in the top five of their group (since some groups have six teams, it would be unfair to include the sixth placed team for some teams). The top-ranked team then plays against the bottom-ranked team in the playoff, the second-ranked team plays against second-bottom, and so on. – Pee Jay 15:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When was that used? Jlsa (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I'm sure that was the format used in 1998 and 2002. Not sure about 2006 though. – Pee Jay 23:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 was 8 runners-up ranked by results excluding 6th placed teams. Top 2 to WCF, 6 to playoffs. Seeding was two pots (3 each) based on FIFA ranks. 2002 was 9 runners-up in a fully random draw (no ranking of second places/seeding at all) with Ireland (group 2) drawn to play Iran, other 8 no seeding. 1998 was 9 runners-up ranked by results excluding 5th placed teams. Top 1 (Scotland) to WCF, 8 to playoffs. No seeding at all in these play-offs (based on ranking the 8 involved it was 1v3, 2v6, 4v7 and 5v8). Jlsa (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously remembering incorrectly then. Ignore me. – Pee Jay 09:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know whether UEFA plan to seed the playoffs this time around? I'm curious myself, and it could be explained on the page if anyone knows the answer.70.22.116.215 (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time they announced the seeding pretty close to the actual draw (maybe even after the last group matches and once the teams involved were known) - so it may be a while before we known. Jlsa (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Wouldn't put it past them to base it on which teams are in it. If something like Germany, Italy and France are all in the playoffs, they'll probably seed them...70.22.116.215 (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group 5

Just wondering i saw the Turkey Spain match and it looked like it was Serigo Ramos who got the goal? so how is that Pique got credit for the goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.183 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA says that Pique got the goal, so that's what we put down here. – Pee Jay 21:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking of 2nd Place Teams Chart is Incorrect

It's including the games played vs. the 6th placed team... Thus the rankings are not correct. I don't know how to deal with the code for it, but can anyone fix it? Scotland should not be in last. --BignBad (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. And thanks for noticing. For reference, if it happens again, you can just go to the page (click on the little 'e' link of the table) and revert the last edit (or edits) until it returns to the correct version (from page history). Alternatively, add the template page to your watchlist and undo from there. The problem is (almost invariably) caused by someone ignorant altering the table (why this is still happening I don't know - we have tried many ways to make it clear that not all the matches are considered) - so you can just revert back to a correct version. Jlsa (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A related question that struck me while reading this, and is probably blindingly obvious... I take it that "second placed teams" actually refers to those that finish second in the six-team groups, and not those that would be second if results against the sixth-placed teams are ignored? (For example, at the moment, if you ignored all the matches against Georgia, Bulgaria would second in their group, not Ireland). Grutness...wha? 05:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a ranking of the second place teams (hence the name). That is, we rank the teams that are actually second in their groups - otherwise it would presumably be called ranking to determine second-place teams rather than ranking of second place teams Jlsa (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense...

...to simply add a sentence under the main Group 1 (or 2, etc) heading saying "Where teams are level on points, goal difference is used to determine which team is ranked higher; if teams are level on both points and goal difference, order is determined by goals scored." - rather that basically giving this information in every group where this situation occurs ("Sweden is ranked higher than Portugal since it has a higher goal differential", etc)? Grutness...wha? 01:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Go ahead!--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norway worst 2nd

This article http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/0,1518,650829,00.html (in German) claims that Norway will definitely be the worst of the nine 2nd-placed teams. If that is correct, it should be added to the article.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized it's NOT correct - Ireland might finish 2nd with 10 "valid" points and a worse goal difference. So no need to add.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My German's not that good, but isn't the article just saying that Norway definitely have less points then Germany, so Germany are guaranteed not to be the worst second place team? If that is the case, it's already indicated by the shading of the group number in the second-place table. However, maybe something from the article you reference should be added to the last paragraph of the section about the second round concerning seeding.-- Yamor2 (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely the case now. Only Sweden can end up on 10 counting points, but they would still have a better goal difference than Norway. Here it's confirmed in an article from Norwegian Verdens Gang: in Norwegian and in Google translation. I guess this means that Norway's colour should be changed. Lampman (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the theoretical chance is still there, though it involves Malta beating Portugal 4-0...([2]) Lampman (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal already has 13 points, more than Norway's 10. I'm not sure how Portugal losing 4-0 would allow Norway to qualify for the play-offs, since Norway has no more matches left to play. 198.53.106.84 (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, I just figured it out. It would also involve Sweden tying against Albania. Well, good luck with that happening... 198.53.106.84 (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to FIFA's site for the Match Reports

These are all broken, FIFA does not have these anymore, 404 pages. There are other websites that have this information, though I don't know how authoritative or official the information is. Two that I am aware of are football-lineups.com and scoreshelf.com (I have no affiliation to either). Would it be appropriate to change the links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.152.244 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the links haven't just been redirected? FIFA always archives stuff to different URLs, so it may just be a case of having to find the new paths on their website. – Pee Jay 19:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090316095411/http://www.uefa.com:80/uefa/keytopics/kind=64/newsid=554858.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=64/newsid=554858.html

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609044247/http://www.fifa.com:80/worldcup/preliminarydraw/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminarydraw/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

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 10:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]