Talk:1986 FIFA World Cup

Requested move

Football World Cup 1986 → 1986 FIFA World Cup – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments.

Discuss here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions#Requested move of Football World Cup articles. --Pkchan 10:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Alessandro Altobelli

An anon user keeps placing Alessandro Altobelli as having 4 goals in the competition, while I count only 3: Against Bulgaria, Argentina and Korea Republic. Perhaps there's a mistake with the goals in the competition, but until that is fixed Altobelli should appear having 3 goals. Mariano(t/c) 09:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Altobelli scored 4 goals. 1 vs Bulgaria, 1 vs Argentina, 2 vs South Korea.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.205.128.247 (talk • contribs).

Your're right, my mistake. I'll fix it.Mariano(t/c) 14:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

USSR - Hungary

Frankly, there was no USSR team in 1986, it was the exact ukranian team (Dinamo Kiev to be precise) under the sickle-hammer disguise. Anyhow, the hungarian defeat 6-0 against them is often considered a "second Mohacs" (first Mohacs was the loss of a big battle against ottoman turks in 1526, ending independence). It is said the 1986 fiasco marked end of decline of the entire hungarian soccer team, which started in 1966 with frequent goalkeeper errors. We haven't yet recovered, no world cup slots for us since 1986. 195.70.48.242 10:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

France - Brazil

Something is wrong in the penalty shots. In Zico's page it says he missed the penalty but on this page it says he scored. He missed, but then, if you make the change, then the last French player would not have needed to shoot. --Lduperval 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

His article sais he missed "a penalty during regular time". He did score his goal in the penalty definition. No contradiction. Mariano(t/c) 08:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What company broadcasted the Argentina-england game in 86?

Hopefully someone can tell us who broadcasted the games for the 1986 world cup match against Argentina and england.

Lots of TV and Radio companies, in lots of countries. Can you be more specific? Kevin McE 00:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

There should be more pictures of Diego Maradona's hand ball or his goal of the century.MegasAllexandros 02:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Rainbow Warrior incident

As a New Zealander, I shouldn't be saying this, but I think it's a good thing we didn't make it into the final 24 like we did four years earlier. With the Rainbow Warrior incident fresh in the All Whites' minds, if they were to go up against France, there would have been quite a few fights on the pitch and the referee would really have to practise his card-showing because he was going to have to do it quite a bit. Scott Gall 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Starting to go off the topic, but seeing as I wasn't born yet, did anyone watch the RWC 1987 final? And as it was between NZ and France, was there any fighting on the field?

3rd place qualifiers

AFAIR, the teams third in each group did not qualify as simply as the top 4 of 6: there was a rather contrived system to avoid teams who had played each other in the group stages meeting in the second round which meant that it was possible even to have been the third best of the third placed teams and yet still not reach the third round. The current table, although it describes what happened, does not reflect the rality of why those 4 teams continued in the competition. Kevin McE 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to challenge your memory, as your memory is as useful as mine and everybody else's, but if possible please provide a source. Otherwise, I can only revert the change since it's unproven at this point. I do remember (at least from the 94 World Cup) that there was a convoluted system (some sort of table) to assign the four best third-placed team to the four slots in the knockout bracket. Basically, depending on the combination of these four teams, e.g. ABCD (which teams are ranked first, second, third and fourth do not matter), then these four teams are assigned to the slots based on the table, e.g. the team from Group A is assigned to Slot #1, etc., so as to avoid a team from meeting the winner from the same group again in the Round of 16 (and also the quarterfinals). Chanheigeorge 19:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a sample table:

Combination	Slot #1 CDE	Slot #2 ABF	Slot #3 BEF	Slot #4 ACD
ABCD	C	A	B	D
ABCE	C	B	E	A
ABCF	C	F	B	A
ABDE	D	B	E	A
ABDF	D	B	F	A
ABEF	E	B	F	A
ACDE	D	A	E	C
ACDF	C	A	F	D
ACEF	E	A	F	C
ADEF	D	F	E	A
BCDE	D	B	E	C
BCDF	C	F	B	D
BCEF	E	B	F	C
BDEF	E	F	B	D
CDEF	D	F	E	C

Only evidence I can find right now is the small print under the heading "The format" at http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=World%20Cup%3A%20Mexico%201986. However, I recall that the system did in fact allow some groups an advantage, albeit very slight, over other groups (I remember this because I had a particular interest in N Ireland, and they could have been disadvantaged by the system, although in the event it was the top 4 of the third placed sides who went through. Most pages found on a google search of "1986 World Cup", "third place" qualify" that refer to this seem to be sourcing Wikipedia, which I would contend is in (slight) error. Kevin McE 00:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also heard of commentary like "the third-placed teams of some groups have a slight advantage", but it's never been clearly stated how this advantage may materialize, e.g. under what scenario would the 5th or 6th team advanced, and obviously no such scenario actually happened in 86, 90 and 94. So I'm really not sure if it's correct or not. The commentary can also be due to misinterpretation of the FIFA rules, since the system is quite convoluted and it's possible that people thought it's something that it's actually not. For example, I remember each of the slots are labelled something like "A3,B3,C3", so people may think it's the best placed of the three teams, where in fact it's just any of the three teams (based on the table). It'd be great if we can get hold of official FIFA rules, or some sort of old newspapers or magazines that report on those tournaments, as they may have an explanation of how those slots are filled. Chanheigeorge 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, the system was something along the lines of:

• the best of the 3rd placed teams from groups A, B and E would play 1st in group C
• the best of the 3rd placed teams from groups B, C and F (or the second best of these if 3rd in B had already qualified to play 1st in C) would play 1st in group A,
• the best of the 3rd placed teams from groups A, C and D would play 1st in group F (but it could have been that 3rd in A and 3rd in C had already qualified to play winners of C and A respectively, in which case 3rd in D would have reached the second round even if they had the worst record of all the third placed teams).Kevin McE 23:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your info. It's also possible that such an "unfair" system was in used for 86, but FIFA changed it to a fair system for 90 and/or 94. Chanheigeorge 23:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

According to this newspaper article from 1986 here:

• The winner of group A would play against the third team of C, D or E.
• The winner of group B would play against the third team of A, C or D.
• The winner of group C would play against the third team of A, B or F.
• The winner of group D would play against the third team of B, E or F.
• The winner of group E would play against the second team of D.
• The winner of group F would play against the second team of E.
• The second team of group A would play against the second team of C.
• The second team of group B would play against the second team of F.

Unfortunately it does not say how it was determined which match a third team would play.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to the unfairness mentioned above, where some groups had an advantage over other, it's quite obvious, that playing in group E would be most disadvantageous: winning the group would mean you had to play a second placed team (rather than a probably "worse" third placed one), coming second would mean you had to play a group winner (rather than another second placed team). Groups A, B and C would have been the best groups to play in, while D and F would have been somewhere in between.

Then comes of course the matter of what team you would face in the quarter finals... Fomalhaut76 (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding how the 3rd place qualifiers are placed in the knock-out bracket of a 24 team competition, you can see for example here: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/31/75/45/regulationsfu17wcmexico2011_160611update_e.pdf (pages 35-36 of this pdf) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

About the mascot: Pique

The name pique derives from "picante" (spicy or hot) as is mentiones on the main article, but it is also a play on words as "pique" also means heated rivalry (usually a sporting one but may mean other types) at least in Mexico. For example: Hay pique entre Mexico y EUA. = There is a rivalry between Mexico and The USA. Amendezg 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

World zones

Why was there only one european team drawn in Group B, and yet in Groups C, E, and F, there were three european teams drawn? How come the teams weren't separated on continental zones, as is the normal procedure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.23.112 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wc1986.jpg

Image:Wc1986.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no merger. -- SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm proposing to merge Hero (1987 film), the "official film of the 1986 FIFA World Cup," into this article. I nominated the film article for deletion based on an inability to find sources confirming its notability, but it survived thanks to some new (although slightly dubious) references provided by someone else. Still, as it is, I don't believe the topic is currently justified as needing its own article (as it is, it's apparently not even notable enough to currently be mentioned in this article), and the admin who closed the AFD suggested that it could be merged here. Any objections? Propaniac (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, only if the production value of the film is preserved. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - In my opinion, the 1986 FIFA World Cup article should only contain information directly related to the football that was played at the tournament. Any films that were made about the tournament, any music that was made in conjunction with the tournament and anything else culturally relevant should be confined to a separate article. Perhaps 1986 FIFA World Cup in popular culture or, if nothing else culturally relevant can be found, an article on 1986 FIFA World Cup miscellany could be created, which would contain info on the match ball, and other sundries. – PeeJay 17:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The deletion discussion brought about a consensus that the film is notable per criteria in WP:Notability (films) and, as a result, deserves its own article. I also agree with PeeJay that the tournament article should not be overwhelmed by all sorts of information not related to football and keeping a link from the tournament article to the film article (and vice versa) should suffice. One thing I would agree to would be to include it in a comprehensive article about all of the films from FIFA World Cup™ Film Collection if and when such an article is ever created. For now, it should stand on its own. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Gee, you sure do seem to have a downer on the Hero Film page don't you, Propaniac? I'm sure its nothing personal, however. Whereas it is a FIFA-backed film, a box-office success in its own right, and with stars such as Michael Caine involved, it certainly deserves film status (bearing in mind, some tv shows have a wikipedia page per episode) and therefore a page of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.85.177 (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Iran

Iran did not take part to this World Cup. It was Iraq which competed. Then, Iraq didn't reach the Round of 16, since they lost all three matches (Mexico, Paraguay, Belgium). So the standings of Group B is completely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.205.215.11 (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Maradona's 2nd goal against England

FIFA Game Report states that Maradona scored his 2nd goal against England in the quarterfinals at the 54th minute mark. I just watched the game (it was reprised by ESPN) and the clock was marking about 10:30 minutes on the 2nd half when he scored. This means the goal was scored at the 56th minute mark, instead of 54th, as FIFA rounds up the scoring time. I won't change the information on this page because we all know that Wikipedia demands us to give reliable sources to write things down. So I can't just change the info stating that "I've watched the game, this timing is wrong". I also can't find any reliable source to change that info. Anyone that could help on finding this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.48.103 (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Rankings

DEAR FRIEND , WHY YOU DO NOT MAKE SUCH RANKING , WHERE DANEMARK IS IN THE 8 ( CAN SAY BEFORE ENGLAND ) PLACE .. YOU ARE DO NOT SEE , THAT THE POINTS OF DANEMARK ARE MORE FROM ENGLAND .. OR ARE YOU SEE THE ROUNDS WHERE THE TEAMS PLAY .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.132.99 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The rankings are based on the reference supplied with the section. The document is a PDF. On page 45 there is a table with the title Permanent Table. Under the column titled Mexico 1986 it lists the countries' ranking at the end of the tournament. Argentina is first. German FR is second. England (listed on row five) is eighth. Denmark (listed in row 26) is ninth. They were eliminated by Spain in group of sixteen and could finish no higher, regardless of how many points they received in group play. The Germans, despite losing to the Danes in group play, managed to make their way to the finals which is why they finished in second place. It's not bias. It's not racism or linguistic preference, it's how the tournament is evaluated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

SPASIBA WAM SPASIBA .. THANK YOU , THANK .. IF IT'S REAL , YOU WANTED SAY THAT DANEMARK , BECOSE IS NOT IN THE 1/4 FINALE , CANNOT AND PLASET HERSELF BEFORE ENGLAND , WHAT IS IN 1/4 FINALE TEAMS .. THANK YOU .. THIS IS ONE PERFEKT ROUND- RANKING .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.42.247.70 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC) DEAR FRIEND(S) , IF YOU TO UNDERSTAND ME RIGHT , I WANT TO SAY , WHY YOU ( WHAT ARE THE FACTORS ) TO PLASED DANEMARK ON THE 9 PLACE , WHEN THE SOVIET UNION IS ON THE SECUNDS FROM THE 1/4 FINALE .. IN THIS DESTINATION , AND , BULGARIA ( FOR EXAMPLE ) TO LOSS ONLI 0-2 IN THE 1/8 FINALE AND ( PRI TOWA POLOJENIE) GO (!!) IN THE 15 PLACE ( THIS IS FEAR AFTER DANEMARK ( WHAT TO LOSS 1-5 FROM SPAIN ) !! ) .. THIS IS NOT REAL RANKING ( NOT ROUND , NOT ANOTHER .. ) .. THANK YOU .. AND WHAT YOU CAN SAT FOR URUGUAJ  !!95.42.231.116 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)MATEI HRISTOW

First. There's a key on your keyboard. In English we call it Caps Lock. It seems to be engaged on your computer. That's considered shouting. Please stop using all capital letters.

Second, and probably more important. The rankings are not our imagination, they are FIFA's official rankings. They will not be changed. If you have a problem with the ranking, please contact them and request that they change the ranking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Teams hosted in the first round

This expression is used in the Venue section. Exactly what does it mean? In what way is a venue Hosting a team? Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Discipline

The burden of providing reasons for inclusion is always on the person intending to add information to an article. Furthermore, the article should remain in the state it was in before the intended info was added until the discussion is resolved. – PeeJay 16:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Burden of proof is required, however, you reverted here and in other articles for very different reasons. The section can be marked with unreferenced until a ref can be found. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I never reverted the addition of players with red cards on the basis of poor sourcing; it was always to do with a lack of discussion. Don't put words in my mouth. – PeeJay 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD. It is not, in my opinion, appropriate to demand discussion before 'permitting' an edit. I have reverted Pee's latest edit, marked the section as Citation needed and am hunting down references. What a gripping life I lead! Longwayround (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not quite correct, but that may be my interpretation. The link was to Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. The editor made the bold edit. You reverted. You never discussed, you simply reverted. Here's the discussion. What is your problem with the addition? It's just as referenced as the scorers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My problem with it is that I don't believe a list of red cards is encyclopaedic. We don't record red cards in the {{footballbox}} template after all. – PeeJay 16:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Many, many facts are not recorded in that template. For what it's worth, I believe that (if reliable sources can be found), this information could be valid. Longwayround (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if that's the case, why are we including the info about players who were sent off in a section entitled "Scorers". Red cards are not goals, nor do they have a direct effect on the score. – PeeJay 17:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Statistics should have their own section. Goal scorers and disciple should be recorded there as was done in the 2010 FIFA World Cup article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

PeeJay, I think I may have been in the process of moving the Red-Cardees to a new section just as you posted that! Longwayround (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources

PlanetWorldCup (not a reliable source) claims there were eight red cards in the 86 tournament. List of FIFA World Cup red cards is a completely unreferenced article but does show the eight players. Longwayround (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The FIFA website only lists seven red cards on its stats page, but the match report for Canada's game against the Soviet Union also lists Sweeney. – PeeJay 17:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd gladly go for the FIFA website as a RS over PlanetWorldCup. Longwayround (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Germany vs Mexico, Quarterfinal

Removed the claim that a legitimate goal was disallowed. Can't find any legitimate verification. Tapered (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Estadio Azteca, 2015.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Estadio Azteca, 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Match Reports

All the match reports need to change to their archive URL after FIFA broke the existing links. Benica11 (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting permission to edit

I am noticing that the section of the Second Round and Quarter finals is a complete chronological mess. It should start from June 16th games and follow a chronological order, it looks like the first game, Mexico vs Bulgary was almost at the end, while it was the very first game of that round, as taking an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travsam (talk • contribs) 08:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)