Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group Stage (2nd place)

Guaranteed Playoff spot

hi would it not be a good idea at some stage to indicate how many points is needed to guarantee a playoff spot. At the moment group 9 is the only group which can be clearly used to calculate this as they only have 5 teams. however it will become very important in the later stages.Gero13 (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the highest points total any 2nd place team in group 9 can finish with is 17pts (Norway), Therefore if any team can Guarantee 2nd place and achieve 18pts (minus pts Vs 6th place team) they will be guaranteed a play-off placeGero13 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious (!) but I don't understand Note B ("Sixth-placed team in group may change (so ranking of second-placed team may improve or worsen even if they do not play"). Maybe if I don't, others don't? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.192.198.10 (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The runner-up teams are ranked, not on their actual results, but their results EXCLUDING matches against the team coming 6th. If (say) the 6th placed team played the 5th placed team tomorrow and beat them, then the results that are excluding from this table might change and hence your team might suddenly find itself ranked 9th (which you don't want) rather than say 5th. The note is really to let you know that just because your team has a certain ranking now, it is not just their own results that are used to determine this, it is dependant on other results in the group as well. Jlsa (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In group 3, all teams have dropped at least 8pts (1D, 2L) except slovakia (1L)... Assuming San Marino get less than 8pts from their last 4 games they will finish in 6th place... This means that the highest pts total a team who finishes in 2nd can receive is 22pts. And when you minus the 6pts gained from San Marino it will be down to 16pts, so that means the guarranteed pts needed to get a play-off place will drop to 17pts....that is of course assuming San Marino finish 6th.Gero13 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Expanded" option

I think that the non-expanded version of this table is quite confusing. Would it be possible, rather than having the compressed table as the default and "expanded" only as an option, to change it so that the "expanded" version is the default, and the "compressed" version is an option? The only page I know of that references this table, 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification (UEFA), uses the expanded version anyway. It seems that this usage makes more sense and allows for a greater understanding of why the teams are ranked the way they are in this table. Tjtenor4 (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Omitting results against 6th place team

Please check your math when editing the table - just because a team has the second most points in the group does not mean they should be in this table. There are several teams who fall out of second place when results against the 6th place team are omitted, yet have been incorrectly added to this table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.249.50.105 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, a closer reading shows that the results against the 6th place team are omitted when ranking the second place teams, not determining them. Maybe the language about the omission rule should be clarified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.249.50.105 (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This table is not actually ommiting the results against the 6th place team. For example, Northern Ireland has won twice against the 6th place team in their group (San Marino) so they should only have 7 points not 13 when comparing to other 2nd place teams. This is also true for other 2nd place teams in the other groups. I'm not sure how to fix this but am just pointing it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.194.76 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The template had been edited by an ill-informed editor. Large mistakes like this usually are. You can identify the mistake by looking at the page history and comparing the last (usually) user-name edited version with the current version. If the changes highlighted are the problem, you can revert the change. Feel very free to learn about wikipedia editing and take part in the process. After all, we're all just normal people like you. ;) Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Update the list of second-place teams

People keep reversing the updated standings. The list of second-place teams does not reflect the games played in the last week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.6.137 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No they keep reversing edits that are incorrect. Are you aware of the rules for this table? Matches are against 6th placed teams are excluded - as it notes in the page itself, the start of the template and on every single line of the table (where it notes which matches are excluded) - so if ANY TEAM (except group 9) has as many matches here as in the normal standings then there has been an error made. Jlsa (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created an editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Group Stage (2nd place). It's displayed when people try to edit the template. Let's see if that finally stops the addition of results against the sixth team. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Table

Someone had started to update the table with Sweden as new second instead of Hungary after the games today. I changed their game results and goal difference to that of Sweden's, but I didn't know what the factor (a "2") between goal difference and points obtained meant, so I didn't change that. Is that the disciplinary record? Any idea where a listing of that can be found? Lejman (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Its away goals, which is the last ranking factor. Thanks for fixing it. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense :P Thanks, fixed. Lejman (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes

There's been some edit warring regarding the notes section today. We've for a long time had a and b notes marking which teams that are not certain of finshing second, and which teams whose group's 6th team may change, respectively. Now someone has changed those to "team may finish 1st", "team may finish 3rd or worse" and "6th ranked team in group may change".

From the point of this page, I don't see why it matters if the team may finish better or worse. I do see the point in seeing that the team itself may change though, because that means the score of that row may change. Thus I recommend we keep the old a and b notes. As far as showing if a team has already reached playoff, there was a note for "runner up from this group will qualify for play-off" earlier today, which I thought was good, and would recommend re-adding. (Russia's and Croatia's groups' runner ups will reach play-off.) As far as colorizing goes, there's now a green background on Russia. I'd recommend sticking to the yellow background, and only add it to a team that is certain to finish 2nd. As Russia may still be replaced by Germany in this table, I'd prefer leaving it uncolored for now.(Edit: See below)

Let's discuss this and reach a consensus instead, changing the notes heavily without discussion after they'd been the same for months isn't a good way of solving this.Lejman (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the green color wasn't a good idea, but it's important to mark somehow which teams have guarantied at least a playoff berth. As one runner-up doesn't make the playoff, it's not obvious that a team which guarantied second place is secured of a playoff berth as well. It should also be marked for teams currently placed first.--Nitsansh (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing which teams that have at least a play-off berth is always done in the respective group pages, and it's also a lot clearer there. It's interesting information, but I think it'll just make this page more messy if we try to put that information into the table. Edit: The current system with highlighted group numbers works very well, I support that change. We could change it to highlight the entire line when the team is certain to take the playoff spot of that group.Lejman (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that putting the info of the condition of the current 2nd placed teams will be putting too much information in the table. Therefore I'm in favour of the old (a,b) notes. I think users who are interested in group changes can look at the group page just a click away. I also think colours should be limited to only when groups/teams are definately in the playoffs. (Highlighting group numbers was a cracking idea). Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Disciplinary record

Should there not be a column for disciplinary record? As it is the fifth way of ranking teams? MGSpiller (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a very long odd that we'll get to decision by disciplinary record... there are away goals first... I suggest that we wait until after the penultimate round and do the disciplinary math only for the teams that could need this tie-breaker to get into the playoffs...--Nitsansh (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Norway

Just a note - there's still a possibility that Sweden or Hungary will finish second in Group 1 without getting a good enough goal difference to beat Norway in this ranking. It's not likely - it relies on Portugal losing to Malta (the sixth placed team in that group) - but stranger things have happened. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we shouldn't declare Norway as being bottom until it is mathematically impossible for them to be anywhere else. Pfainuk talk 15:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rank column

Since FIFA rank plays a role in the pots, according to the Wikipedia article, I put it back in, but left it blank as it's based on the rankings for Fri 16 October. That OK? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)