Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup statistics

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

Suggested addition for this page[edit]

Some of the announcers in the US have mentioned the records of each confederation in this World Cup. Could someone construct a table to represent the statistical performace of each confederation? Just a thought, I figured it might warrant some discussion....24.63.105.208 (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see it. I'm admittedly too lazy to build it. LarryJeff (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a start ...
Confederation Teams Teams to R16
AFC 4 2 (50%)
CAF 6 1 (16%)
CONCACAF 3 2 (66%)
CONMEBOL 5 5 (100%)
OFC 1 0 (0%)
UEFA 13 6 (46%)

And W-D-L records for matches between teams of difference confeds. (note inter-EUFA matches not listed.)

Confederation vs AFC vs CAF vs CONC. vs CONM. vs OFC vs UEFA
AFC - 1-2-1 0 0-0-2 0 3-0-3
CAF 1-2-1 - 0-1-1 0-0-3 0 2-2-4
CONCACAF 0 1-1-0 - 0-0-2 0 1-3-1
CONMEBOL 2-0-0 3-0-0 2-0-0 - 0-1-0 3-3-1
OFC 0 0 0 0-1-0 - 0-2-0
UEFA 3-0-3 4-2-2 1-3-1 3-3-1 0-2-0 -

-- Chuq (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)



Confederation Teams Teams to R16 Teams to QF Teams to SF Teams to F
AFC 4 2 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 0
CAF 6 1 (16%) 1 (16%) 0 0
CONCACAF 3 2 (66%) 0 0 0
CONMEBOL 5 5 (100%) 4 (80% 1 (20%) 0 (0%)
OFC 1 0 (0%) 0 0 0
UEFA 13 6 (46%) 3 (23%) 3 (23%) 2 (15%)

Here is a continued table of the one above72.102.93.191 (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No WP:SYNTH, thanks. Either find a source with that sort of table in and use their data, or leave it out as WP:OR Knepflerle (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I don't see how WP:SYNTH would apply to statistics since the examples seem to focus on synthesizing qualitative statements. Jairuscobb (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It applies just as much to quantitative data: grouping or collecting data in a novel way in order to draw novel conclusions or arguments (such as ranking or comparing teams) is an original synthesis. Of course, if a source can be found doing the same thing is found, then the problem goes away, but we have to use their data and collection, with citation. Knepflerle (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is a similar ranking system based on match wins instead of goals. Maybe this could be adapted to the World Cup for confederation rankings. And yes, I realize this is probably even worse in terms of original research, but maybe there's a better match someone can find on this site: http://www.football-rankings.info/2010/03/fifa-ranking-confederation-weighting.html

Jairuscobb (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Goalscorers...by club?[edit]

In the table of contents it says goalscorers by club, when of course it should say nation/country. I don't know how to edit the table of contents, so can someone more computer literate fix it please?

Cheers

PS Here is a copy and paste of what this wikipedia page says

1 Goalscorers 1.1 By Club 1.2 Own Goals By Club —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

By Club Table[edit]

The By Club table is unintuitive. It has a column number of players by club. Sorting descending by this statistic should show all clubs with competing players, not just the clubs who one player has scored a goal. Of course this can't with the current structure. Don't know how to sort 90.5.201.190 (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Goalscorers[edit]

Uruguay has got to play the 3rd place final, so it's still active in the tournament. 6 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.158.254 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did all the goalscorers go? Now it just says 2010 Fifa World Cup goalscorers and no one can edit it. Zbase4 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Also kalu Uche of Nigeria has scored 2 goals. kindly verify your records. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRAE (talkcontribs) 02:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Landon Donovan scored 3 goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.86.144 (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

yellow card averages[edit]

how is it that one team played 3 games and got 9 yellows = 3.00 while another team that played 3 games and got 8 yellows = 2.00 ??? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.73.99 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

'Positions so far' section[edit]

How official is this list? Is it Original research or is there a FIFA source? -- Chuq (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And it's not right. In positions 17-32, it should be firstly the group position, meaning Serbia should be down to 25 and Greece up to 24. At least that's the way it's at previous World Cups. 85.217.23.90 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have the same concerns regarding WP:OR; it's questionable whether competition records from different groups are truly comparable, and there are questions over exactly what criteria should be used for ranking (as in the above comment) - but these aren't questions we should be inventing answers to, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I'm marking the section as oininal research until a source with this particular ranking methodology is indicated. Knepflerle (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The point is not to be 'Truly comparable'. The only way this could be achieved is to every nation play against every other. It's the same way in almost every team championships. 85.217.47.12 (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Not having a perfect method to compare teams is no excuse for inventing methods here. Knepflerle (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
'For inventing methods'? WTF? Isn't that essentially Original research? 85.217.50.155 (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
What source do you have that FIFA have awarded points for knockout matches in this World Cup in the way you suggest? Where is your source for what FIFA use as tie-breaking criteria? Have a close look at WP:SYNTH. Knepflerle (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I understood your message wrong. I thought you were couraging to invent methods. My mistake.
But where did I 'suggest' points for knockout matches? I didn't and wouldn't do that.
And the link to World Cup 2006 standings does not state the criterias how the teams were ranked then, it gives only the list.85.217.35.243 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this is not an official FIFA statistic. So I guess it fails WP:OR. One should search the FIFA website thoroughly to see if they have determined a ranking methology. At least it was not in the main regulations document: [1]. I would advocate removing this material for now, since at this point it looks like some Wikipedian invented the ranking criteria by himself. Tropical wind (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The official statistic would be to pit all eliminated teams into a table and rank them using the usual mehtods: points, goal difference, goals for, and so on. That would make for the bottom half of the teams. Then the top half would rank itself the same way, but teams that are eliminated in R16 fall to places 8-16 and then start over on the QF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.31.82 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That might be a logcial method, but it's an invention. It's not official. Knepflerle (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, in my mind it has to be official numbers that we insert here. Tropical wind (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I still say that the group position is the first tie-breaker. That is, number 3 in any group would be higher that number 4 in any group, regardless of points or goals. 85.217.50.155 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Without a source, it doesn't matter what you think tie-breakers or other ranking criteria should be. Either you have a source that FIFA use this rule, or it's original research - simple. Knepflerle (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's bad since FIFA don't give any rules or criterias how to sort teams.85.217.35.243 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If FIFA does not give rules or criterias for sorting of the teams, then neither should we. Tropical wind (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's FIFA's explanation in 2006: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/germany2006/news/newsid=21411.htmlTimneu22 · talk 19:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The 2006 methodology should not be used here, unless FIFA explicitly confirms that it is also valid for the 2010 tournament. Tropical wind (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That's idiotic. You think the methodology changes every four years? Ridiculous. — Timneu22 · talk 21:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to share the wording of the preceding comment, but I agree that the application of a rule published in 2006, is certainly not OR when used in 2010. Nevertheless, I see the table removed with exactly this claim. Tomeasy T C 22:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
For this tournament it's unsourced. If FIFA want to use this system again, they'll publish a ranking - if they don't want to,then it's unsourced OR. As and when FIFA publish a source for the ranking for this tournament it can be included and everyone's happy; until then it should be clear that this is Wikipedia editors' applying previous FIFA methodology to new data, in a way that FIFA have not yet published. Knepflerle (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As we can see, a little patience goes a long way: FIFA has now published the corresponding ranking. It was unnecessary and wrong to post our own version, based on outdated ranking methods, when we could have simply waited for the official ones. Tropical wind (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I have no feelings about this at all. I don't have a vested interest in FIFA, soccer, this article, or anything else. I simply saw the chart and found it useful. To say that they'd publish a new source for every year... ridiculous. I guess MLB statistics are all invalid because they were only defined one hundred years ago. — Timneu22 · talk 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not the "definitions" that is required and what I was asking for, it's the actual ranking list of teams. They produced one for the 2006 tournament, they haven't yet for the 2010. The 2006 list is fine and not OR, the 2010 one is OR for the time being. Knepflerle (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Now there are the 'Team rankings'. It's from FIFA, the source is the BBC's website (from July 13). I wonder is there a actual FIFA source? I'm ok with this but just wondering. 82.141.67.102 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, actually just so. There reads: Shortly after the final, FIFA issued the following final ranking of every team in the tournament. Then why is the cited source website news.bbc.co.uk? Where exactly FIFA issued the final ranking? Probably not on the BBC website. 85.217.44.99 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
In [2] I added an official FIFA source called Final Ranking. The webpage is dated after the BBC story but it's the same list. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Sort of weird. There reads FIFA issued it 'shortly' after the final, but the date on the FIFA's site is almost a month later than the date on the BBC article. 85.217.41.249 (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sneijder credited with first goal in Dutch quarter-final victory[edit]

so he has 4 goals

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1266860/index.html#sneijder+credited+with+first+goal+dutch+quarter+final+victory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.32.84 (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


Since Sneijder was credited with that goal, Felipe Melo's own goal needs to be taken off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.248.252 (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Most clean sheats[edit]

the article says most clean sheats, but it does not list germany who has three, against austrailia, Ghana, and Argentina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.102.93.191 (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of mistakes[edit]

For example, Thomas Muller has four goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.169.195 (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Games played.[edit]

By now Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Uruguay are qualified to semifinals, and weather they win or lose, they are playing 2 more games each. Shouldn't we already list them as having played 7 games instead of 5? They are playing 7 games nonetheless... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 03:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"are playing" != "played" 24.149.110.44 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that. My point is that it will take extraordinary circumstances for these games not to be played. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
yes, but u cant put wins or losses. leave it till they play75.230.67.181 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Own Goals[edit]

Simon Poulsen of Denmark did not score an own goal against Netherlands according to FIFA - the own goal was scored by Liverpool-defender Daniel Agger (http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=249722/match=300061478/index.html). Who can correct this? Tøndemageren (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall statistics[edit]

the tables have to be modified, the point should be awarded according to the result of the game at the end of 90 min of play, so the final is considered a tie between Spain and Netherlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.118.7.5 (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are we accumulating points that aren't awarded outside the group stage? Is there somewhere on the FIFA website where they do this for example? Seems dubious and OR to me. Tomcrocker (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There are several other editors who (rightly) share your concerns. See the #'Positions so far' section above. Knepflerle (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the discussion. Tomcrocker (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Man of the Match table[edit]

this table is supposed to be sortable, but doesn't work. It does very weird things when you try to sort it, and I don't have the expertise to change it. Can someone help? Mltinus (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2010 (GMT+1)

Good spot, although I'm not sure what the benefit of it being sortable is. Needs fixing one way or the other though (and I can't either). Tomcrocker (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


Results by confederation[edit]

Confederation Teams Matches Matches per team Points Points per match
CONMEBOL 5 25 5 45 1.80
UEFA 13 50 3.85 79 1.58
OFC 1 3 3 3 1.00
AFC 4 14 3.5 15 0.93
CONCACAF 3 11 3.67 10 0.91
CAF 6 20 3.33 18 0.90

Someone else put the table above, but I think that it is worth to be added to the article. Tomeasy T C 19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an WP:OR synthesis of statistics and should certainly not be in article space. Please find a sourced version. Knepflerle (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You need a source for that??!? We know which confederations the nations belonged to, and we know how many matches they played, and we know how many points they've got. Isn't the numbers here only calculation based on known facts? 82.141.67.102 (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)