Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)

Meaning

What do the results actually mean? They're way to confusing for even people who follow football. Can't we just have actual goals there? Dori | Talk 00:30, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Not that confusing at all really - Full time and half time scores are given. However, in view of comments from a couple of other folk, I'll change the program I have written to generate this output to get rid of the half time results altogether. -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 05:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was also referring to things like "17:00" which I am guessing is the time when the game will be played (although it doesn't give the timezone, local time?), but it doesn't make much sense to put that in the results column. Dori | Talk 12:56, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Unclear!

• How were the groups drawn? Was it totally random? Based on a strict seeding order? Or slightly random, based on general seeding tiers? And in the latter two cases, where did the seeds come from? The article is incomplete without this info. Doops | talk 00:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Likewise, when are the results of the seventh-place finishers dropped? We know they're ignored when comparing among groups; but have they already been tossed out during the previous step, i.e. when we're determining, within each 7-team group, which teams placed first and second? Or are they taken into consideration for that? This question is mostly accademic; in groups 2 & 3 Kazakhstan & Luxembourg are 0-0-10 so far. But in group 1 it is concivable that the two-point differential between the Czech Republic's defeat of Armenia and Romania's draw with them could loom large. Doops | talk 06:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I will try and answer these questions. The draw was made by FIFA in.. I think 2002, but I will need to check that. The teams are separated into seeds based on the FIFA Rankings at a certain time. Those teams in the lower reaches of the seeds are drawn first, those in the higher reaches and the "top seeds" last. This year, if I recall correctly, those nations with a large representation in European cup competitions (like Italy, France and England and I think one or two more) were put into the smaller groups to assist with clearing fixture backlog. doktorb 22:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So it sounds like the groups were drawn randomly from seeding tiers. i.e., each group got one of the top 8 teams, one of the teams ranked 9-16, and so forth. Is that what you meant? Doops | talk 05:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes that's how the initial draw was made. The first teams to be drawn are the "less able", lowest ranked teams, they fill the first spaces in each group; then the next tier, then the next and so on up to the "most able" highest ranked teams. doktorb 07:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Because of the need to create smaller groups to assist those nations with a large contingent in cup competitions, and the decision to have a Best Runner Up section this time, it would be unfair to include the results of teams in both 6 and 7-strong groups, so with regard to those teams playing in groups of 7, the results against the bottom team are disregarded. I am no expert on this, but this is the general jist.doktorb 22:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I don't think you understand my question. When comparing the second-place finishers to decide who the top two are, it would be impossible to compare among groups unless each team had played an equal number of games. This is very clear. The question is: in the previous step, when we were deciding who finished first and second within each group, did we consider those bottom teams' results or not? See what I mean? It's a fine distinction. Doops | talk 05:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah I think I understand this. Within each group, all matches between all teams are determined for positions. Within the "Second Based Teams" ranking, those in groups of 7 have matches against the bottom teams in each of those groups disgarded. doktorb 07:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • "Within each group, all matches between all teams are determined for positions." — That's good; otherwise we'd need to make a second table for group 1 wihtout Armenia and completely rewrite the scenarios. It could really change things! Doops | talk 07:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Netherlands: qualified?

The 2 best 2nd-ranked teams are automatically qualified. Well do your maths, folks, that means the Dutch are 100% certain to go to Germany. So I put them in bold. (unsigned by 24.200.133.131 on 16:13, 10 September 2005)

Nope - they've only got 22 points against the top six teams. If they lose to Czech Rep and Macedonia, they'll end up and 22, and can be passed by Poland (24 if England win both) and Croatia (24 if they draw with Sweden and beat Hungary), to finish third among the 2nd-ranked teams Sam Vimes 23:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Sam is right, when in doubt check the official page

I was right. The Netherlands have 28 points. Poland have 24 with one game left, so a maximum of 27, while Croatia can have a maximum of 26. They can't reach the Netherlands.

For the internal purposes of Group 1, the Netherland have 28 points. But for purposes of comparison among groups, the 6 points from the two victories against Armenia (7th in group one) are disregarded. Why? Because with 7 teams in groups 1, 2, & 3, each team there plays 12 matches; while each team in the other groups plays only 10 matches. To make any sort of comparison among groups possible, you have to consider them on the same basis — i.e. 10 matches. Doops | talk 18:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I see, well that resolves the issue I had with it being unfair to teams in other groups.

Confusing -- Group 4

Group 4 help on explaining scenarios. It might be confusing to readers who are not fans of soccer/football. The grammar is confusing as well. IanManka 18:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, it does read better now. Thank you to all who helped clarify. IanManka 03:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• • It looks to me like the scenario of France and Switzerland each finishing at 20 points is twice listed in the opening section as France winning the group: "A win or draw against Switzerland would win the group for France." and "If Switzerland beat Ireland and draw or lose against France then they will finish second." However, later in the section, it says that this would go to overall goal differential, which is correct as far as I can tell. However, it's early here, I'm tired, and I'm not sure. I vote we give the teams 3 weeks to figure it out themselves. :) By the way, I'm not sure if it's standard usage in UK/Europe, but in the USA, "Switzerland" would be considered a singular noun, and thus it should be "If Switzerland beats Ireland" or "If the Swiss (team) beat Ireland" Jonpin 13:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've decided to remove the tags on this, and just wait until a few games go by so they can "figure it out themselves" as Jonpin put it. 02:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

rewriting scenarios in the middle of the day

I see that as results trickle in today, some people have started to edit the scenarios to reflect these. With respect, do you really want to do that? You're working harder than you need to. Why not just put a caption at the top of each scenario section warning that it's presenting the situation As of 7 October 2005 and wait for all of today's results to come in? Then you can just rewrite the (presumably much simpler) scenario rather than trying to figure out which bits still apply and which bits don't. Doops | talk 18:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Group 4 tiebreaker question

How are multi-way ties settled, as in the potential three-way tie between France, Israel, and Switzerland? I see two possible ways to settle this tie: (1) In H2H goals scored, ISR 4, SUI 4, FRA 2, so FRA is 3rd; overall GD puts SUI 1st and ISR 2nd. OR (2) First is between ISR and SUI on H2H goals; SUI is 1st on overall GD; then go back to determine second, which is deadlocked until overall GD, which would put FRA 2nd and ISR 3rd. I know method #2 is used, for example, in the NFL, but does anyone know for certain which one is used for World Cup play, i.e. do you rank the group as a whole, or determine the top team, then the next team, etc.? Jonpin 07:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I would assume (1). You rank the teams, then apply various criteria to differentiate among tied teams, then apply further criteria to differentiate among still-tied teams. But, no, I don't know for certain. Doops | talk 07:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Of course, it won't come to that, and if it does, France has only themselves to blame. Jonpin 08:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yuk!

Wow - these qualification pages have changed some since I started work on them - they're so ugly now! Also - what happened about guidelines? You're only meant to use each internal link once per page in Wikipedia. *sigh* --Zaphod Beeblebrox 09:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk to User talk:BLOGuil. He made the changes to a list (ugh!) from the table to "update page to follow the pattern of previous World Cups' qualifications." (diff: [1])

I preferred the table, and to change the whole thing to compare it with ugly, previous tables isn't cool. I guess I really didn't notice it until you mentioned it. Shame. :( — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 13:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that previous World Cup qualification violate the guidelines was not taken into account then? Internal links are not meant to be repeated within the body of a document. All of these qualification pages are hugely overlinked. --Zaphod Beeblebrox 08:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I don't think from the time I started to work on them to now did we ever follow the guidelines on internal links. Then again, I could be wrong. If you have any questions, please see my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Group 6 format versus everything else

It is easy to see that Group 6 is far more detailed than all the rest of the groups, this is obviously not neutral point of view, all groups should be as detailed as each other. I'm not sure whether all should become like Group 6 is now or whether to change Group 6 so it's like all the others. It certainly shouldn't stay this way though. - MTC 13:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Group 6 coverage is different to that of the rest of the groups. It looks as though a lot of work has gone into it - and it shows. For my money, Group 6 looks much better than the rest of the Groups in this qualification page - it follows the style being used for the main results page, which I would support. It would be a little extra work for me, but I would be willing to look at the feasibility of writing a small script to moving this page to a unified format which copies Group 6. --Zaphod Beeblebrox 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dead links

All the links leading to the match reports on this page and the specific group pages have gone dead. I'm not sure if this is just because of them getting moved on FIFA.com's part, but I was unable to find them anywhere else on the site, and just thought something could be done about it.

This is what the pages look like:

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/germany2006/preliminaries/preliminary=8071/matches/match=43736/report.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.255.231.3 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)