Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football Mid‑importance This 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany and Russia are indicated as 'qualified' as of 9/9/09. That is obviousy incorrect. california viola Wow! Someone fixed the mistake while I was typing!

Can people wait until full time to change standings? Tunisa and Nigeria is incorrect because someone couldn't wait 3 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.138.19 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that "the six FIFA confederations were allocated a share of the 31 remaining spots on the basis of the strength of their teams." You've got to be kidding! Spots in the World Cup are assigned according to FIFA politics, not 'strength.' South America has won nine world cups, while Asia has never had a team in the final, yet they get the same number of teams in South Africa. Europe has 21 of the top 32 teams in the FIFA rankings (not to mention the other nine world cups and all the four semifinalists at the last World Cup) but only gets 13 spots at the finals. African teams have never qualified for a semifinal and have only three teams in the top 32 in the FIFA rankings, yet they get six spots at the finals. Someone must be very naive to think strength has anything to do with the way spots are distributed. 209.247.23.92 (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the line that FIFA give out so that's the one the article has to go with. And TBH I can see a lot of people disagreeing that the spots aren't mostly in proportion to strength, or that they should be given out on the basis of statistical history. Aheyfromhome (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good old 'reliable sources'..... For the record, my preferred approach would be for 28 places to be given out based on how many of the top 28 countries (other than the hosts) come from each continent, and the last three places involve playoffs between the continents with teams ranked 29-34th. Unfortunately, FIFA are desperate for an African or Asian nation to succeed, and has continually given them preferential treatment, despite Africa never getting more than one side out of the group stages of a World Cup, and Asia usually not having any there. The system is highly unfair on the likes of Croatia and the Ukraine, who are now fighting for a 4/9 chance of qualifying despite both being proven excellent teams. Having a weaker group with Greece, Switzerland and Israel doesn't help matters though--MartinUK (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA assigns spots in the World Cup according to politics. There is no basis whatsover to say that spots are assigned according to strength. Which ranking does FIFA use? Which point system does FIFA use? Is there a link, any link, to any ranking, standings, table, cocktail napkin, ever used by FIFA to decide the number of teams in a World Cup? Of course not. A wikipedia article should be based on verifiable facts not hearsay. 207.233.69.249 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, its not hearsay - FIFA say it is on 'strength', therefore it is on 'strength' (it is, after all, their World Cup). I think it is possible you could be misunderstanding the word 'strength' here. Strength is not the same as 'quality' alone, but is a relationship between size and quality. So CONMEBOL has 4.5 places between 10 nations; AFC has 4.5 between 46. Which seems quite fair given the relative quality of each region whilst also accounting for size. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply trusting what every big organisation says about themselves is not a way to produce an unbiased, accurate, fair encyclopaedia. The number of nations is irrelevent when most of them are of poor quality. If the places are assigned based on strength (quality mixed with size) a competition featuring the next best 13 European sides, the next best 4.5 South American sides etc would be as likely to produce winners from each continent. If you think the 7th best African team are as good as the 14th best European team, you're deluded - and you certainly don't trust FIFA's own world rankings.--MartinUK (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) If it's a widely-held criticism of the system, then sports experts have probably made these same criticisms before. In that case, we leave in the description that the allocation is based on strength, but we then add a sentence or two with a very brief summary of the criticism. Now both bases are covered: we've described the methodology accurately per FIFA, and we've pointed out what experts have identified as its major flaws. —C.Fred (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points; I was merely playing devil's advocate above and pointing out what FIFA's points would be. By all means, if there is criticism of the system out there, a line or two is worth inserting. Though in response to MartinUK - I do think Mali - with Kanoute, Diarra, Sissoko, the Keitas and Sidibe - could give Switzerland a good game. And no, I don't especially trust those rankings! --Pretty Green (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will happen, it's just a question of how (and when) the events unfold. There's nothing to hurt by setting up the stub and then, as the numbers of slots are announced, etc., starting to populate the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it, it's just pointless and perdantic to do so, it will just be re-created. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel the same about the continental qualification pages? Kingjeff 22:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: When are the qualifying draws to be made for each of these competitions? 07:48, June 23, 2006 84.12.116.197

I don't know. Kingjeff 12:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the draw will be about two years before the end of qualifying. The qualifying draw will be about Dec. 2007 and the Finals draw will be in Dec. 2009. (I'm pretty sure.) 130.91.147.151 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think because qualification is continental, there will be a few draws. 1 for each confederation. Kingjeff 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time all the draws were made at once, about 1 year after the previous World Cup, it will likely have been made before September 2007, as that is when the first matches will probably be (2006 qualifying started in September 2003) - MTC 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Draws is on November 23

There is currently a table listing the currently qualified teams for the 2010 World Cup, but it's my understanding that qualification hasn't even begun yet. It seems most qualification processes do not start until 2007 and even then the team has to make it through the confederation's qualification process before it can be "qualified". The idea of a qualified team table that can change seems rather askew. --Rballou 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone is already working on that... so nevermind :) --Rballou 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, the table should be for teams that are already qualified...meaning their spot is clinched and nothing short of sanctions from FIFA will take it away. That would be...well, only the hosts right now. Everybody else is still pending their confederation qualifying...and in some cases, a playoff game even beyond that (see OFC). So, setting the table up to be ready is okay, but I think there will only be one team in it for another two to three years. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few issues: If South Africa have been in the finals twice before, how come they only have one 'previous appearance'? And I like the recently reverted idea of having a 'best result' column. It fills out the page more and gives relevant info. I'm going to go ahead and add their 1998 appearance, but I'll wait for a response concerning why the revert happened before I do anything else. - Aheyfromhome 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the table, 'Previous Appearance' is a very misleading title for that column. Surely there should be something else which is less confusable? How do you feel about 'Latest Appearance'? - Aheyfromhome 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. I was merely following precedent set by previous FWC qualification articles. If you would change this one, and previous ones, that'd be fantastic. Thanks in advance! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other item -- it would seem better to list countries in the order that they qualified. South Africa, first as host. Japan, second by just a couple hours over Australia, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.34.118 (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a nice feature. Or maybe it would be best to make a sortable table and include order qualified.Alanmjohnson (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Previous Best" column necessary? It'll be redundant for future qualification tables. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When will FIFA announce the distributions of berths —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Going by IanManka's edits, they just have. [1]. Although I don't think the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) etc. articles need to be linked yet - not until there is more detail, so much detail that this page is overcrowded. -- Chuq 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article at FIFA.com says the African qualifying starts 13/14 October 2007. To me it looks like they mean the 2010 Cup of Nations qualifying will be linked to the World Cup qualifying, as by then the 2008 Cup of Nations Quailfuing will be finished. If it was linked to the 2008 Cup of Nations then the teams that didn't enter the 2008 Cup of Nations will not be given a chance to qualify for the World Cup, it doesn't seem logical for FIFA to do that.

In short, the article doesn't state which Cup of Nations qualifying will be linked to the 2010 World Cup qualifying, and it would be more logical to assume it means the 2010 Cup of Nations quailfying.I'm not sure what the article should say to reflect this though. - MTC 06:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Angola? As host of 2010 African Cup, they qualify automatically to the finals. How will they play the qualifying to the World Cup then?--Nitsansh 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the same it worked for Egypt in 2006: they'll play just like everybody else, and if they finish in the top three of their World Cup qualifying group, the fourth-place team gets their African Cup of Nations slot. I.e. the qualifying tournament is for the World Cup, and ACoN berths are a side effect. The converse of the question is the more interesting one: since South Africa has a slot into the World Cup already, how will they qualify for ACoN? —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar way, South Africa will probably play in the qualifiers anyway, and if they win their group the team who came 2nd will quailfy for the WC. - MTC 06:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that view. Because of the dual purpose of African qualifying, the tradition is that everybody is included and then qualifiers are taken from the top of the groups as required (host teams are therefore passed by, and the team below them in the group gets a place) - aheyfromhome 12:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its possible that the CAF will automatically grant South Africa a place in the tournament. Granted the South Africans might want to have competitive football, but surely this would contravene any Fifa rules regarding their participation? It would seem slightly harsh for a team who has already qualified for the World Cup to inflict results on teams and thus put them out of another competition with greater significance. This conflict of interests would surely mean that South Africa would be given an automatic spot for the CAN in 2010 and won't have to go through the qualification process. Gaijin84 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally FIFA was unfair with the berth distribution. I would give

UEFA-13.5

AFC-4

CONCACAF - 3

OFC-1.

CAF-5(-1 Host South Africa automatically qualify)

CONMEBOL -5 —The preceding

FIFA have a complex coefficient ranking system that takes into account confederation performance in the World Cup. All the confederations seem to be happy with this. I don't think these kind of opinions are what the talk page is for, so someone superior will probably delete this anyway. (And since Australia are now part of AFC, I think giving 1.5 berths to OFC is a bit much ;-) ) -aheyfromhome 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no coefficient ranking for World Cup Qualifying. You probably refer to the formula that determines the seeds for the World Cup Finals draw, which is based on World Cup performance combined with FIFA ranking.

Oh yeah. I didn't really think that through. Everyone has their own opinions on this, so the Executive Committee decision was probably a compromise. -aheyfromhome 12:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allocation of berths among the confederations is a matter of wheeling and dealing by FIFA and confederations officials, and has little to do with World Cup performance. There is no sportive reason to reduce Europe's share after the last WC had an all-European semifinal.--Nitsansh 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The berths haven't changed from the last World Cup. The only difference is that the host is now in Africa. I suppose that you can't have too many European teams in the finals or other confederations wouldn't get much of a chance to have a good World Cup! -aheyfromhome 12:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last time Europe had 13 places was 1994, when there were 24 teams in the WC final. Europe's share was increased to 15 in 1998 and 2002, went down to 14 in 2006, and next time it's back to 13. Actually, in 2002 Europe got its 15th team via an inter-continental play-off with Asia, but now they don't even get a chance for a 14th spot. European teams won all play-off matches against other continents with the exception of 1974, when USSR forfited their match against Chile after Pinoxet's revolution.--Nitsansh 22:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Europe hasn't been getting any weaker, but in the last decade-or-so other confederations have improved and been more competitive than they were. There are only a limited number of berths available of course, so the extra places they have earned have to come from somewhere. UEFA is still getting 41% of the qualifying places for 27% of the entrants. -aheyfromhome 13:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about COMNEBOL (South America)? They are guarantied that 40% of its members qualify to the WC Finals, and possibly 50% if its 5th team wins the play off (this time against a CONCACAF team). UEFA's membership has increased by at least 15 members since 1994, but they get the same amount of qualifyers!--Nitsansh 21:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. That is a large proportion of COMNEBOL teams. But then maybe that is because COMNEBOL have a high proportion of teams which have World Cup winning class? Fair enough, it is only Brazil and Argentina that are, but in terms of WC berths COMNEBOL has 2 places for those 2 teams and then 2 places for others. If we look over to Europe there are roughly 8 potential WC winners. They take 8 berths and then 5 extra berths are for the others. It's all very subjective though.--aheyfromhome 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the playoff formats have been altered slightly, with CONCACAF facing off against COMMEBOL for a spot, and the Oceanian qualifier to travel to Asia, where they will compete in the final round of qualification (most likely a League system). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting the 54(montenagro & gilbitar?) into 13 groups some may have 5 . They play home and away and the top team qualifies.

it would cut alot of time and is more effective. It would save alot of time

This page is really for discussion of the article; it isn't a forum. -- Chuq 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do any you know if Gilbitar is a member of fifa?

In Gibraltar national football team, the second sentence states "It is not a member of FIFA or UEFA .. " -- Chuq 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar was voted a provisional member of UEFA on the 8th of December. Gibraltar's application for full membership is set to be discussed at UEFA's Congress in Dusseldorf this month. Search for 'gibraltar' on fifa.com and you'll see the press release. - aheyfromhome 16:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Fifa article]

Nothing really new regarding what we knew before. I am almost certain that the AFC qualifying will follow the same format as the year before, only (as stated in the entry) that there will be two groups of five teams in the last group phase. After the poor showing in the last qualification, this seems most likely. The top 2 of each will qualify directly with the two third teams playing off for the last spot.

However the article states that the 5th AFC spot will be available via a play-off with the winners of the OFC qualification round. My former understanding was that the winner of the OFC Nations Cup went into the final round with 9 other pre-qualified AFC sides. If anyone can explicitly confirm the exact qualification process for the OFC that would be great.

Also depending on the number of entrants into the AFC qualification (marginal ones such as Brunei, Bhutan, Guam etc), the specific number of teams who will compete is not exactly definite until all applications have been accepted by Fifa after the 1st of March.

With 53 teams almost certainly in the UEFA section, it seems most likely that it will follow the same rules as 2006 with this time 5 groups of 7 and 3 groups of 6. This means 8 direct group winners, 2 best runners up and 3 playoff winners. Given the exact number of teams and number of spots, this seems the only really logical process. Gaijin84 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are rumours that the OFC nation WILL NOT be entering the AFC group stage. The article referenced here notes that the AFC will have "a fifth berth also available via a play-off with the winners of the Oceania Zone" (the article also notes the OFC group will find a winner and a runner-up, which suggests that the OFC will have an additional phase - a final - like last time. This could, as ever, be the result of someone assuming that what happened last time will happen again). The rumours about the lack of OFC inclusion in the AFC group phase were apparently in Japanese newspapers a couple of weeks ago - but I have not personally seen them or been given a link. 203.194.33.114 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the OFC winner will wind up in the final stage of the AFC. Strangely enough if you look at the calendar on the OFC website ([2]) it has a Preliminary round on the 8th of September with 10 more dates confirmed. I think they initally planned to have a playoff for the 10th member out of the 11 and then have two groups of five with a final playoff. This seems to have been scrapped by converting the Pacific Games into a preliminary stage that is being played weeks beforehand (makes sense.) Well with the AFC entrants confirmed (or at least so far - there are possiblities that more will pull out for whatever reason) it looks as if should the AFC employ the 9 finalists plus OFC winner then they will go with a similar(ish) system as last year. My gut instinct tells me that the AFC do not want a repeat of the last WC, where it turned out to be rather poor (contrast to the previous qualifications with larger groups which were more exciting.) Therefore I would anticipate 9 groups of 4, with a pre-qualifying system. If you check out the calendar of events on the AFC website for 2008 ([3]) you will see that there are 6 dates marked for WC qualifying, which would suggest 6 matches. I reckon these required 36 teams will be slimmed down by 6 playoff matches amongst the weakest 12 teams in the confederation. Should be interesting to see if East Timor and Myanmar can make their World Cup bows. But still, I reckon any info on the process should be taken with a pinch of salt until confirmed by both Fifa or the respective confederation Gaijin84 00:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More press suggesting no Oceania side in AFC group stage. Chinese media reports 8 groups in Asian first stage (dates in 2008 as noted above) after preliminary round to eliminate 10 sides. That would mean no OFC side in the second round (unless they had groups of 3 - which I think is unlikely). Rumours are that the Japanese vetoed groups of 5 in the second phase (not enough match days) and 7 first stage groups few regarded as too few. So, OFC lost out.Jlsa 10:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reports, and I say 'speculative' reports suggest that it will most likely follow the previous format as last time. What strikes me as odd regarding the entry for the OFC entry, is that they will be playing their games over the dates in 2007-2008, and then will have no competitive football for around 10 months before the supposed playoff (which will heavily favour the Asian side.) There was an article I saw in a Japanese magazine, suggesting that New Zealand could be in the final group stage pending AFC approval, however this looks to have been rejected on various grounds. I would be surprised if the AFC did go along with the previous format as last year, because it was a dull, insipid format compared to 2002 and 1998. Nothing will be finalised until after the current Asian Cup however. I wouldn't be too surprised if they crammed in some weed-killer rounds right before the main draw as they did in 2003 (2 days beforehand iirc.) Scheduling for these teams is best left to the imagination however, as the current

President's cup showed. Gaijin84 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, I've shifted the bit about the number of entrants and added some more info from the article - as I think its quite relevant. I think its best to have the introductory blerb and then go into the ins and outs of the actual different stages involving all of those teams. Let me know if it needs changing or more info removed or added. Gaijin84 15:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Tuvalu do get to the semis and beyond in the 2007 Pacfic Games it shouldn't be a problem. Only 3 go through to the next stage anyway, so it will merely be 3 out of those 4 semi-finalists who qualify. Gibraltar have not been accepted as a member of UEFA, let alone FIFA [4] - so that is out of the question regardless. The link provided is too poor to be included and cited. The most they can actually hope for is Euro 2012. This whole blerb is getting deleted due to lack of clarity - the bit about Tuvalu can be stuck in the relevant section and doesn't need to be addressed in the main introduction. Gaijin84 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, except there are only 207 members of FIFA at present, so how it reads is now just factually incorrect.Jlsa 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro will (bar an invasion of Podgorica tonight) will be the 208th member. Right now, they hold provisional status which has allowed them to be considered for entry. It will probably need to be updated after they have been ratitifed. Gaijin84 12:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When The results for the south American qualifiers are avialable do you think that we should create a link so we can see the goal corers.

two questions

1. Why does the south American qualifiers take so long?

2. How does the draw for the world cup qualifiers function?

(1) It doesn't really take any longer than other confederations (Africa, Asia will probably take just as long as CONMEBOL, it's just their qualification takes place in stages and hasn't been announced yet). 18 matches is slightly more than most (most countries will play 12-14 qualifiers if successful, some outsiders would need more, but top CONCACAF countries would play 18 matches as well) - playoffs are extra in all cases. (2) The draw for the qualifiers (in Durban in November) will set the European groups, and first round groups for Asia, Africa and the route to the semi-final stage in Concacaf. It is done separately for each confed. CONMEBOL doesn't need a draw (they play one group), OFC doesn't need another after the one they do now. Each draw will be done according to the seedings the confederation uses.Jlsa 03:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think for a team to go the distance in CONCACAF they could well play 18 games, last time in Asia it was possible to play 18 as well. The main reason for the arduous process of South America, is basically the lack of a continental competition, or should I say lack of teams in that continent. Whereas Europe has 52 teams to form a qualifying tournament for Euro 2008, all South American teams automatically qualify. Therefore due to the lack of competitive games in the region, they tend to play more games to increase the level of international play back home. Gaijin84 14:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further more, Bahrain will have played 20 matches by the end of the qualification programme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.141.26 (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Fifa broadcast the draws, and where can you watch them on TV

It's streamed on the FIFA website, but the connection's usually tempermental. Its a fairly big event so I think most countries will have at least 1 company broadcasting it live. Speaking as a Brit, Sky Sports News will probably show it seeing as they showed the last one. Aheyfromhome 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Steve and I am an accredited member of the World Associaition of soccer statisticians. A friend suggested that we publish the statistics of the qualifying tournament on wikipedia as the fastest source for providing information of goals scored, matches played etc. So when the competition kicked off in Samoa I copied the information to wikipedia under the catagory 'overall statistics.' I must say how saddened I was to see that someone had come in and butchered this information, deleting 90% of it without so much as a by or leave. Needless to say that the WASS has decided not to use wikipedia again. If it is a question of our statistic not being trusted all I can say to that is we are used by FIFA, World Soccer magazine and RSSSF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.77.145 (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to hear that you are leaving. Wikipedia is not a place for

Avoiding trivia sections. I really hope you reconsider your decision to leave Wikipedia, but if you choose to leave, you are welcome to do so. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually to be fair to the guy the World Association of soccer statisticians does exist. They don't have a website of their own but many of their members run the RSSSF website, which is perhaps the most valuable and trusted soccer statistics site on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeecher (talk • contribs) 14:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't change the fact that if they're putting their own data up here, it's original research. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fair to have top goalscorers chart with the mixed of between the regional qualifications. First, the European qualification not even start. Second, the quality of the football between the regional is huge difference. It is very silly to have this, while it is illogical. --Aleenf1 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Whether it's fair or not, it's still a valid statistic based on facts. The major powers play more games while the minnows get to blast more goals in their fewer fixtures so it all works out in the end. And you can always go to the individual continent pages to see more specific goalscoring tallies. I think the chart should remain. -- Chad 12:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.199.138 (talk)

I tend to think this is right. If someone really wants to update this then it is a factual list. Certainly FIFA put out a big list at the end of qualifying last time. The differences between confeds doesn't seem a very strong argument - some Europeans will get matches against San Marino for example. Jlsa 05:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, FIFA World Cup qualification is competing under each confederations, each format is submitted from that to FIFA, and one important point is, they are competing between nations in each confederations, and not between any team in world. It is WORLD CUP, but qualification is still stay in one confederations for each continent until "PLAYOFF". --Aleenf1 11:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about UEFA being in groups implying we shouldn't do a "top scorer in UEFA" table until their playoffs because they compete in groups, not across the confederation.Jlsa 11:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think to make things comparable, you would have to show games played and minutes played. 76.67.61.30 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reintroduction of Table

Sorry, I reintroduced a topscorers table without noticing that there had been a previous discussion on this, a discussion which seemed to peter out without any conclusion. Whilst I understand the arguments that the table is unfair, I think this only works if there is an inherent assumption that 'top goalscorer' = 'best player', which there need not be. All this is is a reporting of an interesting statistic. I don't think its 'non-NPOV': it doesn't put forward a point of view, it merely shows some facts.

An improved table would include a 'number of games played' column, which I'd be happy to enter when I've more time at the weekend: but even then its never going to be an objective comparison of skill or achievment due to the different standards of opposition that players have faced. I don't see why we shouldn't include it really; what harm does it do? --Pretty Green (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a fair point. My only argument to the contrary would be that FIFA themselves do not list the overall top goalscorers for the entire qualification stage, they divide them by confederation. Why they do this, I don't know, but it seems a bit forward of us to tally the overall goals scored ourselves. –

Jay 12:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

We need to either split it by confederation, or list the number of games the player (or at least, the country) have played.--MartinUK (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well there seems to be a general feeling the table isn't needed - fair enough! --Pretty Green (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following the world cup qualification and have a large table on my user page with some useful data. I think it may be a bit large, but if people would like to use it on this or the individual conference qualification pages, feel free to do so. It is located here JedG (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table looks too clumsy to me, but it would be useful if somebody made a section listing all the countries who are definitely knocked out on the road to WC 2010. Timbouctou (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to WC qualifying countries, I gather 'streak' means run of tournaments for which it has qualified - is this right? If not, a definition is needed Given that South Af qualified for 2002 and 1998, I'm changing it's streak from 1 to 3 91.110.117.160 (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. 'Streak' is the number of consecutive tournaments the team has qualified for. As SAfr didn't qualify for Germany 2006, their streak is just '1' (ie, this time). HTH Jlsa (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't strike you from 91.110's comment that the column is very prone to misunderstanding, instead of just reverting? I'm changing the header/

talk) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There are a number of reasons for a simple reversion. First, the information that 91 changed the 'streak' to was already in the table (in the very next column) - suggesting that they hadn't even looked at the table anyway. Second, just because ONE person doesn't understand a fairly common idiom doesn't mean that we should change it. Third, this particular table appears for even single world cup qualification page (and therefore if it is not understandable here it can't be understood in any of them and all the tables should be changed). And, is the new version any clearer than before; "consecutive world cup whats? - attempts to qualify/wins. People could misunderstand that. Jlsa (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I was thinking this was 2006, not 2010, qualification (too much playing old Football Manager games!) Still, I think the streak idiom isn't *that* well known. Sorry to confuse/annoy people though 91.110.123.102 (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the National Team apperances... article there is (and I remember starting it :)) a table on each world cup welcoming at least one association for the first time. Looking at the stats this year, I think 2010 will be the first WC not to have a debut association. Is there room to list all those associations which could still qualify for the first time?

This table has real problems:

• formatting (weird wide column in the middle)
• description (at least 'ticket' is gone, it's not Charlie and the Chocolate Factory)
• teams started is not clear. Did Eritrea start? Do RSA count, they played.
• we would want to add how may had qualified presumably. Where does that go.

Overall, seems like this table could do with a re-think. Jlsa (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is incorrect- Kenya, not Uganda, has qualified. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.104.160 (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This table is still a bit weird. OFC is shaded yellow "qualifying is finished", but then the date for the end of qualifying is in a year. Either it's finished or it's not. Jlsa (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mistake in the table below South America's current standings. The fourth team (as explained correctly above and below) does not play in the play-off game but qualifies for the finals directly. California viola (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. Where is the mistake? –

Jay 11:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There was a mistake (in the template qualified teams) up until a few days ago (it was very much like the Concacaf one) but GiggsFT changed on (on 18 Dec). By the way, why on earth are these templates here at all. The text says what the rules are, the tables will indicate that a team has qualified and there is a table of qualified teams (where they will also appear). Do we really need yet another set of tables (which will be empty apart from saying, yet again, what the rules are) that will merely duplicate other - more detailed - information elsewhere in the table. It just looks like pointless busy work. Jlsa (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to revert my edit about the naming of UEFA group stage, playoff round, and AFC play-off round, please argue with FIFA first. According to the latest competition format from FIFA, UEFA rounds would be named in number, i.e. Round 1, 2 and AFC play-off would be named as Stage Five. The latest edit is not my intention but FIFA's. Thank you. Raymond Giggs 11:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there must be no consensus to revert my edit because it is FIFA, the official's decision. Raymond Giggs 11:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we can say now that Australia is likely to be the first team to qualify for the world cup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.80.233 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We probably could have said that before (for the correct level of 'likely'). Should be Australia or the Dutch barring something odd. Still, likely things aren't really relevant for these pages - only definite things. Jlsa (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be interesting to add a final table to the European groups that maintains the current standing of second place teams (to see the 8 that would qualify) - It is not obvious what the standings would be given the rules to calculate it. --83.67.101.185 (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea (imo) I'll add it. I think i'll fix it just to be able not to show all detail. chandler · 13:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done chandler · 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to have a color for those teams (such as Armenia and Estonia at this point) that cannot win their pools but can still finish #2.Alanmjohnson (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't know. Finishing second is just as valid a route for qualifying as finishing first, so adding colour to highlight that seems a little "special" when we're not highlighting all the countries that can finish first too. And the extra colour would look more confusing than helpful to passing readers. Plus Group 9 would be fully coloured up, which I imagine would look odd. Aheyfromhome (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andorra is shown as de facto eliminated in the UEFA tables but it is still blue in the map. what is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.23.2 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should be eliminated. However, because someone decided to move the file (without checking with anybody) to commons, I am unable to edit the file (even though I am listed as the author. LOL) That's just stupid if you ask me, so you'll just have to live with it being wrong. Jlsa (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The teams that have already qualified should be arranged either in alphabetical or in chronological order in the table. As of now, neither of these is observed. If the chronological order is to be kept, then the order is the following: South Africa, Japan, Australia, Korea Republic, the Netherlands. And if we decide to arrange the teams alphabetically, then South Africa should take its place accordingly, as its name begins with an "S". It does not matter that it is the host nation, after all it is just one of the 32 teams that will compete in the World Cup. --212.36.9.140 (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody update the map? (I don't know how). For example, Peru was eliminated on June 10th, but is still marked in blue. 164.77.255.226 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peru need to be put in pink. I'd do it myself but i don't know how to upload the file.Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried but because they moved it to commons I can't update by own created file as I'm not authorised. :-(. I have asked for it to be done. Jlsa (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's updated. It'd be fine if the one who did it explains us how to do it ourselves next time :) 164.77.255.226 (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's that Iceland is eliminated but Norway with one point less is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.23.2 (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norway has played two fewer games, thus they obviously have two more opportunities to make up and exceed the gap in point totals.Alanmjohnson (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Papua New Guinea marked purple in the map? As far as I knnow, they didn't enter the qualification process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.134.159 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They entered the process, but we're effectively eliminated when they missed the deadline for the SouthPac Games (due to a dispute between their fed and national government). Jlsa (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that means they were disqualified, which is a little different from not qualifing. I mean, the red color represents a team that played matches and couldn't qualify, but that is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.134.159 (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no different from not qualifying. It might be a little different from being eliminated by losing, but it's a lot different from not entering. All the red coloured sides have been eliminated in one way or another after entering the tournament. And there are effectively four different ways of being eliminated 1) on the pitch [lots of teams] 2) expelled after playing some games [ethiopia] 3) withdrawing without playing after the draw has been made [guam etc] 4) withdrawing without entering the draws [png]. Jlsa (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England and Serbia in Europe and Brazil and Chile in Americas are undoubtedly in World Cup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.73.93 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Those teams can still mathematically be overtaken, so they're not "undoubtedly" in the World Cup. –

Jay 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with PeeJay. Note that Uruguay can get to 30 points, which is enough to overtake Brazil. Brazil could fall all the way to sixth. Accordingly, Brazil has not clinched its position. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luxemburg should be pink on the map. —Preceding

talk • contribs) 06:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Either I am forgetting english or this have a different meaning when it comes to the World Cup. I assume "consecutive world cup" mean the team have competed for one or more world cups in a row. Well so, the last time North Korea participated was in 1966 and South Africa in 2002. So? How can they have consecutive world cups? Can anybody explain this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.69.228 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That column has always been a bit wierd to me too. It includes the appearance in 2010, which works for teams who would actually have consecutive world cup appearances (like Australia or Brazil). But for teams that didn't qualify for 2006 it is odd to put "1 consecutive appearance". Maybe it would be better to just put a dash for Korea? Feel free. Aheyfromhome (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a team participated 2006 and qualified for 2010, it has two consecutive appearances. Teams that have qualified for 2010 but not for 2006 have one consecutive world cup appearance. It is actually a bit strange to call it "consecutive" if it is only "one in a row" but 2010 may be the start of a row for these teams, and if they qualify for 2014, it is their second in a row. 2010 was then the first in a row. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.36.36 (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking USA as Third and Yugoslavia as fourth in the 1930 world cup was indeed decided by FIFA long after the tournament ended. This has caused debate, see Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup#Third/Fourth place. As much as I agree it's not as strong a difference as that between two teams who actually played a bronze medal game, FIFA is the official source on the subject.Lejman (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Slovakia's first appearance at the world cup finals is this one in 2010. All of Czechoslovakia's previous results surely count towards those of the Czech Republic, as has been stated for their appearance in the 2006 world cup. This can further argued by the case of Yugoslavia, previous results by Yugoslavia have not been accredited to Croatia or Slovenia but to Serbia and previously Serbia and Montenegro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.23.133 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. FIFA considers both Czech Republic and Slovakia to be successors of Czechoslovakia. I'm not aware of any other teams for which this is the case; as you say, Yugoslavia's results have been inherited by Serbia alone. —Raven42 (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first Slovakia's appearance, surely. Chech Republic is the only successor of Chechoslovakia results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.153.63 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not according to the FIFA website. Aheyfromhome (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 33 facts you need to know about the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ preliminary competition (PDF) , fact #8 is "newcomers in 2010: Slovakia"; fact #9 "finalists with ... fewest appearances in preliminary competitions" has "4 - Slovakia/Slovenia". However, Slovakia on FIFA.com says "FIFA World Cup™ appearances: 8 (1934, 1938, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1970, 1982, 1990)". Stupid FIFA. jnestorius^(talk) 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has put Croatia first , England second and Ukraine third in that table. It should read England, Ukraine Croatia.

Athosfolk (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed in seconds - I guess someone else spotted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athosfolk (talk • contribs) 10:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an irregular visitor, it seems logical to do the following in updating after the Nov 18 playoffs:

1. Put in a CAF playoff box for Egypt-Algeria (in keeping with the presence of the UEFA, AFC Stage Five, American and Asia-Pacific playoffs) 2. Shade the winner of the Saudi-Bahrain game blue (ie. Bahrain), to indicate progression to a playoff (that's what blue seems to mean on this page). 3. Shade final playoff winners in green - France, Greece, Slovenia, Portugal, Algeria, New Zealand and Uruguay) to indicate qualification.

Thought might also be given to use blue for earlier-stage 'progression' to "next stages" in Africa, Asia, Oceania and CONCACAF, though this would be less clear-cut.

I'd do it myself, but it'd take more experience with templates than I have. 121.208.19.160 (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 would be possibly be wrong, 2 would definitely be wrong (as it might suggest Bahrain advanced to a play-off and Saudi didn't). 3 would just be silly. You progress from stage to stage. Would you suggest we unshade teams as they are eliminated from the final tournament as well. If not, why is it different? Remember also that these template are used in mutliple pages - your changes would render other pages misleading if not ridiculously unclear. Jlsa (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "qualified teams" grid is beyond messed up, it's gibberish. I don't know how to lock it, nor how to go about correcting it, but figured I'd call someone's attention to it. -96.253.165.215 (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan seems to be counted in two places. It's listed as one of the four teams who did not enter the tournament, but it's counted as one of the 43 teams that entered the AFC qualifying tournament. Where does Bhutan go, and how do we want to count the number of competitors in the qualifying tournaments because of South Africa playing in the qualifiers (for continental cup purposes) even though they're automatically in World Cup? —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is with the Table. I agree with the begining of the article where the number 204 excludes South Africa and includes Bhutan. Bhutan failed to register but later on was granted qualification, therefore it should be added to the table as 204+1 BridgeBlues (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add more to the confusion, the 43 that entered from the AFC INCLUDES Bhutan. BridgeBlues (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the Problem. Papua New Guinea is not included in the 10 of the OFC teams in the table because they did register. Therefore the 10 should be changed to a 11 with an explanation as to why. BridgeBlues (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French Guiana is part of France. France qualified for the world Cup finals. So French Guiana should be coloured blue,right?

Can someone update the map for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.79.233 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going by the territorial definition of the French Football Federation, then we'd need to color in: "Guadeloupe, French Guyana, Martinique, Mayotte, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, and Réunion." —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how many of those have their own FIFA-affiliated football association? –

Jay 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Presumably none, since they're governed by FFF and play in the French cup tournaments. Q.v. Football in France, noting that the departments are mentioned as being under the jurisdiction of FFF. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And none of them are only New Caledonia is a member associations of FIFA per its website.[5] —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC) revised 21:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But don't New Caledonia compete in World Cup qualification? They joined FIFA in 2004, IIRC. –

Jay 21:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Touché. New Caledonia is on the FIFA list. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the rest of the overseas territories should be coloured the same as France itself, and New Caledonia should be coloured as not having qualified. –

Jay 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

See previous section. FIFA is the guide - not the FFF Jlsa (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, n'est-ce pas? –

Jay 21:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

(You needed a '?' at the end of your last comment.) Jlsa (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.asp?id=3757
  • In FIFA World Cup qualification on 2011-03-18 13:08:28, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification on 2011-06-18 12:22:11, 404 Not Found

--

• http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hMVC1s6Pr6WoHBrceHOFXYf4HZRw
  • In
    France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off
    on 2011-03-19 11:31:56, 410 Gone
  • In 2010 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-18 12:20:21, 410 Gone

--

• http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jO_FwfnIayPK8z-g_2K2KxWTfpPA
  • In
    France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off
    on 2011-03-19 11:31:57, 410 Gone
  • In 2010 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-18 12:20:11, 410 Gone

--

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification. 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/20070629220842/http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=64/newsid=554858.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=64/newsid=554858.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1137489.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hMVC1s6Pr6WoHBrceHOFXYf4HZRw
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2009/1202/1224259931744.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jO_FwfnIayPK8z-g_2K2KxWTfpPA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/8391388.stm

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 07:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification. 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/20070926230651/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/fifa_wc_south_africa_2010_regulations_en_14123.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/fifa_wc_south_africa_2010_regulations_en_14123.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610190624/http://fifa.com/worldcup/regulations/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/regulations/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind%3D64/newsid%3D554858.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614120346/http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/organisation/media/newsid%3D1065516.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/organisation/media/newsid%3D1065516.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid%3D1137489.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hMVC1s6Pr6WoHBrceHOFXYf4HZRw
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2009/1202/1224259931744.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jO_FwfnIayPK8z-g_2K2KxWTfpPA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/8391388.stm

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.

• 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]