Talk:UEFA Euro 2012 Group A

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Original research[edit]

Next match day scenarios are not referenced and are a violation of WP:NOR. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? Isn't it under Routine calculations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR#Routine_calculations

Kiwi8 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll just give one example of this and you tell me if the calculation is an obvious and meaningful reflection of the sources, and what you need to do to check if it's correct without proper references.

On the next matchday (1 February):

  • Ghana
    • will win the group if:
      • they do not lose to Guinea, or
      • they lose to Guinea by only 1 goal and Mali defeat Botswana.
    • will advance to the quarterfinals as the second-placed team in the group if:
      • they lose to Guinea by 2 or 3 goals, or
      • they lose to Guinea and Mali fail to defeat Botswana
  • Mali will advance to the quarterfinals as the second-placed team in the group if:
    • they defeat Botswana and Ghana defeat or draw with Guinea.
    • they draw with Botswana and Ghana defeat Guinea.
  • Guinea
    • will win the group if:
      • they defeat Ghana by at least 2 goals, or
      • they defeat Ghana and Mali fail to defeat Botswana.
    • will advance to the quarterfinals as the second-placed team in the group if:
      • they defeat Ghana by only 1 goal and Mali defeat Botswana, or
      • they draw against Ghana and Botswana defeat Mali, or
      • they lose to Ghana and Botswana defeat Mali by at most 8 goals.
  • Botswana will advance to the quarterfinals as the second-placed team in the group if they defeat Mali by at least 9 goals and Ghana defeat Guinea. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's obvious and meaningful. Kiwi8 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The formula for these results is rigid, so indirectly, this information still comes from the source. 84.86.56.119 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So why keeping deleting the scenarios? These have been inserted for ages in WP without anyone complaining about before. It's obvious and meaningful. Schnapper (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

They are not referenced and certainly are not routine calculations. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the very complex calculations you are using as a not routine calculations, I am sure that is why not all these pages have next matchday scenarios. But for both this group right now (and for the group B) it is very routine calculations, very very routine calculations. So putting a tag on a page where the contents will be changed in two hours are in my opionon very much overkill and nitpicking. A general debate about when and when not to would be very useful. But not to be put here for the next two hours. It would be a very useful debate at WikiProject Football. On this talkpage it would be interesting to have many different editors to contributed to change or make a policy on this subject - a policy needed at most football articles. But for now I am removing this tag. Tagging something that are obsolete in a few hours are not the right use of tags. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Nitpicking is the only way to stop this. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that while it might be obvious and meaningful, it isn't sourced or reliable (the best example: the scenario now displayed isn't true either), so it can be a source of argument. Another problem: is it relevant? I mean, would you keep the scenario on this page for 10 years? Have you often seen "team X would have qualified if had won match Y"? While it surely is a piece of interesting information now, for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, it becomes pretty useless after a certain period of time. Zokniaw (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It's deleted/renewed after the matchday is completed or a part of it so after the group stage is over the scenarios aren't there anymore... Kante4 (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
And this is a updated relevant encyclopedia, maybe a little different than the 100 year old 100 volumes kind that we had 20 years ago. This one is updated after each match, not just after each match day. Your made up scenario full of speculation might not be correct, and I would agree with you if the scenarios was full of such almost speculations that takes many calculations to check. But there is a long way from your example to the scenario of this matchday: If Russia wins the match they win the group! It takes a glance to see that is correct. You ask if I have often seen such scenarios where team X ect. YES! In every final tournament I have used the Wikipedia to be updated on. This is common pracis, maybe it should be so but that is a broader discussion and should take place on the Projects talkpage.Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
If it takes a glance and it's so obvious, there's no point to include it. Anyway, I started a section at WikiProject Football so you can provide your opinion there. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I found a reference. [1] --LukeSurl t c 21:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

QF qualification[edit]

Hi Jack, and others. First of all, these are the criteria.

  1. Higher number of points obtained in the matches played between the teams in question;
  2. Superior goal difference resulting from the matches played between the teams in question (if more than two teams finish equal on points);
  3. Higher number of goals scored in the matches played between the teams in question (if more than two teams finish equal on points);
  4. If, after having applied criteria 1) to 3), two teams still have an equal ranking, criteria 1) to 3) are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the two teams in question to determine the final rankings of the two teams. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria 5) to 9) apply in the order given;[40]
  5. superior goal difference in all group matches;
  6. higher number of goals scored in all group matches;
  7. position in the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system
  8. fair play conduct of the teams (final tournament);
  9. drawing of lots

Number 2 means that Greece is guaranteed to qualify if they win and the Czech draw, since Greece already has better goal difference than the Czech. Skrofler (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's my version of a correct analysis. Let's use it for starters, and discuss what's wrong with it 'here' before we make the final edit in the article.

  • Russia will advance to the quarter-finals if they defeat or draw with Greece.
    • or if they lose to Greece, the Czech Republic draw with Poland, and Russia does not have a worse goal differential than both Greece & the Czech Republic.
  • The Czech Republic will advance to the quarter-finals if they defeat Poland.
    • or if they draw with Poland and Greece does not defeat Russia .
    • or if they draw with Poland, Russia loses to Greece, and the Czech Republic does not have a worse goal differential than Russia.
  • Poland will advance to the quarter-finals if they defeat the Czech Republic.
  • Greece will advance to the quarter-finals if they defeat Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrofler (talkcontribs) 21:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • You are wrong. If Greece defeat Russia and the Czech Republic draws with Poland, the three teams Russia, Greece and the Czech Republic will tie on 4 points. The points among their matches will be 3 points for each team, so the first tiebreaker fails. The second tiebreaker comes to the goal difference among teams in question. Note that Russia defeat the Czech Republic by 4:1, the Czech Republic defeat Greece by 2:1 and we assume Greece defeat Russia. The goal difference of the Czech Republic among teams in question is -1. Since we assume Greece to defeat Russia while their goal difference among teams in question is -1 before their last group match, they must be the one of the top 2 teams. The goal difference among teams in question of Russia before their last group match is +3, so if they lose not more than 4 goals, their goal difference among teams in question is higher than -2, which makes them rank higher than the Czech Republic. In other words, Greece and Russia will qualify (in some order).
      • If Russia lose by 5 goals, they tie with the Czech Republic on this tiebreaker. Because Greece have left the tiebreaker at this point, we come to the first tiebreaker among Russia and the Czech Republic again, which is their match result. Since Russia defeat the Czech Republic, Russia come second in the group. Again, Greece and Russia will qualify.Ckhandy (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


Wouldnt it be more logical to say:

On the next match day (16 June):

  • All teams can advance to the quarter-finals if they win their next match. If loosing:
  • Russia will advance to the quarter-finals if they draw with Greece.
    • or if they lose to Greece with less than three goals and the Czech Republic draw with Poland.
  • The Czech Republic will advance to the quarter-finals if they draw with Poland
    • and Greece does not defeat Russia .
    • or Russia loses to Greece with more than two goals

It highlights more how open the group really are right now. All four teams can qualify by themselve, that is remarkable. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, only that the spread between the Czech and Russia is 5 goals. Since Czech would stay at -2 GF that means Greece must win by at least 5 goals (depending on the total number of scored goals from Russia and the Czech) for the Czech to get ahead of Russia. Skrofler (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
They must win by 6 since Russia has already scored more goals than Czech in the three way tiebreaker (4 vs. 3) and the Czech have played both their matches against Russia and Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.42.145 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
True! I was factoring in the goals scored between the Czech and Poland but of course that's irrelevant. So just edit the number of goals between Greece and Russia to 6 and we're done? Skrofler (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Skrofler, please just revert to my last change.Ckhandy (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't revert to that because of conflicting intermediate edits. It has to be done manually. Skrofler (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The current version looks fine.Ckhandy (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
      • User:Strafpeloton2 added a long and convoluted explanation which basically said exactly the same as what was already there, that "The Czech Republic will also advance to the quarter-finals if they draw with Poland and Greece does not defeat Russia by fewer than six goals." I think just having that one sentence there is better, but I also think it might be a bit difficult to grasp just what it means, so I've reverted it but also reworded it a bit. How does it look now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.42.145 (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why has the red shading on the Russia and Poland columns been removed? It looked better with the shading? Jas39 (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

After all matches are played those red columns are deleted. Kante4 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Color-coded table[edit]

I added the color-coded table before the standings table (which appears on the main UEFA Euro 2012 page), and it was removed. I put it back, and it should remain since it is necessary to read the standings table below it. Dar5995 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Minus sign vs. other dash[edit]

I made an edit to correct the dashes to minus signs in the standings for goal difference, and it was removed twice. This should be put back, because in accordance with Wikipedia's style, "& minus;" (without a space in between the "&" and "minus;") is the correct script for a minus sign. Dar5995 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)