Jump to content

Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF third round

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extraneous rule

[edit]

I think these should go. Any reference you give for these "rules" is compromised because they include other rules that were changed subsequently; they do not appear in the "regulations" as you suggest, just in press releases outlining what might happen. It is significantly different from "tie-breaker" type rules which are sometimes used, as they come from a standard set of tie breaker situations, and have in a sense been "tested" by actual results (for example, the situation of Solomon Islands and Vanuatu proves that goals scored is the second tie-breaker). The rules you currently list are, at best, speculation, and not "regulation". Jlsa (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And (further), if this information belongs anywhere in the CAF pages it's on the main page, as it relates to overall qualification between the second and third rounds. On this page it is just "well, here's what we were told would happen but never needed to be considered"; we put tie-breakers like this on the "FIFA qualification" overview page, but not every UEFA group page saying "if teams had been equal on points, we would have used goal difference first, but that didn't happen". Jlsa (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification scenarios

[edit]

Should qualifying scenarios for the African Cup of Nations be included as well as scenarios for the World Cup? If so, here are the current scenarios for the next matchday (June 20):

  • Group A: Gabon will qualify for the African Cup of Nations if they defeat Cameroon.
  • Group B: Tunisia will qualify for the African Cup of Nations if they defeat Nigeria.
  • Group C: No team can guarantee qualification on the next matchday.
  • Group D: Ghana will qualify for the African Cup of Nations if they defeat Sudan.
  • Group E:
    • Côte d'Ivoire will qualify for the African Cup of Nations if they defeat Burkina Faso AND the Guinea-Malawi match ends in a draw.
    • Burkina Faso will qualify for the African Cup of Nations if they defeat Côte d'Ivoire AND the Guinea-Malawi match ends in a draw.

Similar lists are given on all the other World Cup qualifying group pages, but this is the only one currently active that is also qualification for another tournament, so I'm not sure if these merit inclusion or not. PiGuy314 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. 1) these are all incorrect. It is impossible for anybody to be guaranteed anything after 3 matches (with this draw structure). 2) the "easiest" way would be a have a separate page that just lists the qualification scenarios for CAN2010 (with a link from the WC versions). Additionally, the templates can be given an additional "variable" to show different lines and colouring if we are using the CAN version. I think I can get this up and running later today. Jlsa (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Hmm, the more you know. Jlsa (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised me at first too that it was possible, but since all you have to do is guarantee not-last, it can be done if you win all of your matches and there's a draw anywhere else in the table. If there are no draws, it's possible for everyone to end up with nine points, but any draws reduce the total number of points available, so it's impossible for someone with 9 to finish last if any game ends in a draw. PiGuy314 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because (a) it wasn't the case with 2pts for a win and (b) it's not the case unless quals is all but one, which is really rare. PS Can you stop pointing out all my mistakes, you're making me look reaaaaaaly bad ;-) . Jlsa (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes happen; I've probably made a few too (even though I try to double-check before editing the main page). These scenarios can get really messy when you have four or five games left and have to consider all the cases where two teams can individually catch up but not simultaneously because they play each other, even worse when (like in Europe) you have to look at results across the other groups and who can still finish last in your group to decide whether clinching second is good enough to get to the playoff. It could be worse, though - tiebreakers don't even have to be considered until the last match since you can always assume that someone wins by a dozen to flip goal difference around. I tried to do some of these for the NFL in December, and when it gets as far as the "strength of victory" tiebreaker (which is the combined record of all the teams you beat) it makes even the messiest of these look simple by comparison. I think there was one scenario last year where if the two teams fighting for a division title both lost, which one won the division would depend on the outcomes of up to nine other games. PiGuy314 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WCQ vs ACNQ

[edit]

With the possibility (and probability) of teams qualifying for the African Cup of Nations very soon, I think we might want to consider whether we can tweak the reporting templates. Once teams have qualified people are going to want to colour them in the tables - but because these tables show two different qualifications there is HUUUUGE scope for misunderstanding. Particularly when teams are in ACNQ the but out of the WCQ - what do we do then. It is possible to get around this.

What I am thinking about is two-fold. 1) An either/or on the template. I know how to deal with a situation where if a variable is yes (say, tie-breakers) then something happens and otherwise nothing happens. So, I could already make a template with two options (say, WCQvers and ACNQvers) so that you can use the same template for both tournaments, but you have to ensure you put in which version you want. What I had hoped was that it would default to WCQvers if nothing was specified (but I don't seem to be able to do that - in the sense that I can get it to not put a line after 3rd place if no version is specified but I couldn't get it to not put a line after 1st place if a version WAS specified). 2) A section stage would be having a specific page for ACN2010 qualification (currently you just shift back to WCQ for CAF). This would have the usual intro and "who's in" guff and maps and stuff, and would have a link to WCQ pages for Round One and Round Two and for the matches in round three, but would have a specific set of tables (with the ACNQvers templates) and all the "on the next matchday" things would be put there (rather than here, becuase it is not 100% relevant to WCQ).

I hope that makes sense. I don't think it would be hard and I think it would get around some impending issues with the tempaltes/qualification/colouring/etc.

Jlsa (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it might be easier to just add two columns to the template rather than doing coloring: one for WC qualification (Q/E for "qualified" or "eliminated", leave blank if neither is the case) and one for ACN qualification. Making a separate page for ACN qualification seems redundant to me since it would be exactly the same set of games (I know the qualifying overview pages for each confederation include a summary of results from each round, but the round pages have more details). Something like this, maybe (the data here is after a hypothetical set of results for the next two rounds):
Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts WCQ ACNQ
 Gabon 4 4 0 0 7 1 +6 12 Q
 Togo 4 2 0 2 2 4 −2 6
 Morocco 4 1 1 2 2 3 −1 4 E
 Cameroon 4 0 1 3 0 3 −3 1 E
PiGuy314 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest:

  • For WCQ, we stick to the green/red coloring, 'cos it's universal for the tables of all WCQ zones.
  • For ACNQ, either use PiGuy's column method, or just write it plainly after the table (say in where the tiebreakers are), like "Gabon has ensured qualification for the ACN". The good thing about ACNQ is that only one team is out, so we never need to say "Team A is eliminated from ACN", 'cos that just means the other three teams have all qualified.

Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like this should suffice:

Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
 Gabon 4 4 0 0 7 1 +6 12
 Togo 4 2 0 2 2 4 −2 6
 Morocco 4 1 1 2 2 3 −1 4
 Cameroon 4 0 1 3 0 3 −3 1

For qualification to the 2010 FIFA World Cup (group winner):

  • Morocco and Cameroon have been eliminated from the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

On the next matchday:

  • Gabon will ensure qualification to the 2010 FIFA World Cup if....

For qualification to the 2010 African Cup of Nations (top three teams):

  • Gabon has ensured qualification to the 2010 African Cup of Nations.

On the next matchday:

  • Togo will ensure qualification to the 2010 African Cup of Nations if....
  • Morocco will ensure qualification to the 2010 African Cup of Nations if....

Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation - with both sets of scenarios has been added - and I think it works fine (even though I didn't think it would). The remaining problem is that the shading of teams has become somewhat compromised by the additional "ACN" options. Basically the red/green options are well understood - and the "blue playoff one" is probably fine too, but I'm not sure that the "yellow ACN qualification shading" option is as well. It is not TOO bad on this page (CAF Third Round) but when the shortened version of the table for 2010 WC Qual summary also includes qualification for a different tournament - then it starts to stray into the "confusing" area. And, I think it will actually get a lot worse once there needs to be a distinction made between team eliminated from the WC onyl and those eliminated from WC and ACN.

The following table is a suggested alternative - I believe it can be put into the usual "full/table only/mai stats only" template standard code as well (the one below is not), which would not see the ACN column included. I don't think the inclusion of the yellow line in all cases would be a problem.

Team
 Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts ACN
 Ghana 4 4 0 0 7 0 +7 12 Q
 Mali 4 2 1 1 5 4 +1 7 Q
 Benin 4 1 0 2 2 6 −4 3
 Sudan 4 0 1 2 1 5 −4 1

Anyway, just a thought. I think this would better preserve the "WCQ" flavour of the table for situations when the table just wants to be about the World Cup.

Jlsa (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is sure

[edit]

The groups are with home and away matches. At the end of 3 games NOTHING IS SURE. Ghana is not qualified, Gabon will not be qualified on the next match, Ivory Coast is still not qualified. It is simply probable that a team with 9 points in 3 matches will be qualified, but not sure. It could lose the other 3 matches... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.234.25.103 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not know the difference between:
If you read carefully, the page said (before you kept reverting it) "Ghana has qualified for the 2010 African Cup of Nations", since they are assured of finishing in the top three, even if they lose all the remaning matches. Do the math. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ghana has indeed qualified for the African Cup of Nations. If Benin defeats Mali tomorrow, then both Sudan and Mali would have to win all remaining matches to reach 9 points, which is impossible since they have to play each other. If they draw, Sudan still has to win out, which would mean Mali could pick up at most six more points and finish with 8. And if Mali defeats Benin, Sudan would have to defeat both Mali and Benin to get to 9 points, meaning both would have to win their two other matches - and that's also impossible because they still play each other again. So there's no combination of results remaining that could result in all three of the other teams reaching 9 points.
A simpler way of checking is that since all but the last-place team qualify, any team that has guaranteed that they will finish above the group average on points cannot possibly be last and therefore has qualified. If no match ends in a draw, everyone could finish 3-0-3 simply by flipping the results of the first half of the schedule (and thus 9 isn't enough to guarantee a spot) - but if any draws occur, the average will be lower (a draw only provides two total points instead of three) and therefore no team that reaches 9 points can be left out.
As for World Cup qualification, no one can be certain of that yet (although there's a chance Ghana will be after the next round, if they win and Mali either draws twice with Benin or wins one match and draws the other). But the page doesn't say that anyone has qualified. PiGuy314 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tie-breakers

[edit]

The FIFA World Cup qualification page describes the tie-breaking methodology, but I had to use Google to find it. Is there any reason not to include at least a link to the page on this page (and the other third-round pages)? My preference would be to put a copy of the entire Group tournaments rules section on this page, immediately below the Seeding section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rks13 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group C scenario

[edit]

The tiebreaker rules listed on the main WC qualification page do not list away goals (whether in head-to-head or overall group play) as a tiebreaker. Therefore it doesn't matter how many goals are scored in the Egypt-Algeria match; if Egypt win by 2, both teams will finish on 13 points, +5 overall GD, equal numbers of goals (9 if the game is 2-0, 10 if it's 3-1, etc.), three points against each other, 0 goal difference against each other, same number of goals scored in head-to-head matches (3 if the game is 2-0, etc.) and the result will be decided by random draw. PiGuy314 (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article now says they would stage a playoff match. The BBC's article about this [1] (that took me longer to find than I expected) stated that this match would have to be arranged at the last minute, meaning that a random draw could still be used.

Africa Cup of Nations qualification use a different set of tiebreakers

[edit]

According to here: [2]

The Orange Africa Cup of Nations: The CAF regulations are applicable to determine the three qualifying places in each group. These regulations state that in case of a tie in points between two teams the results of their direct encounters will be considered as follows:

  1. Greatest number of points during their direct encounters
  2. Highest goal difference during their direct encounters
  3. Greater number of goals scored during their direct encounters
  4. Greater number of away goals scored in their direct encounters

The overall goal difference for the Orange African Cup of Nations only applies when a perfect tie appears during the direct encounters or when more than two (2) teams possess he same number of points.

After checking through the groups, only one group scenario has to be changed:

  • Group A: Same, as Morocco wins head-to-head tiebreaker over Togo on away goals.
  • Group B: Different, as Mozambique wins head-to-head tiebreaker over Kenya on away goals, they will qualify if both teams finish with 4 points, regardless of GD
  • Group C: Same, as any one-goal win by Rwanda means Zambia will qualify (either by winning head-to-head tiebreaker on away goals, on by overall GD if Rwanda wins 1-0), and any two-goal (or more) win by Rwanda means Rwanda wins head-to-head tiebreaker.
  • Group E: Same, as head-to-head tiebreaker is tied between Malawi and Guinea, group will be decided by overall GD.

Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. That's not what I remember, and it is possible that those are NEW regulations. The document referenced is not the one I remember from earlier - and it's certainly NOT the one that was referred to when Chad was expelled from THIS tournament. See here for a reference for Chad's expulsion under article 15 para 1 (a) of the regulations of the African Cup of Nations - which is certainly NOT what Article 15 in these new regulations is about. Curious. Very curious. Jlsa (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might also want to note that the regulations were ADOPTED on 10 September 2009 - slightly after the tournament started. Jlsa (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the link to the ACN regulations: [3] (see Article 14). Not sure when they are adopted. Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says at the back. Jlsa (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thing. As the rules stand the WRONG sides advanced from the second round. Uganda finished 3rd behind Angola on goal dif, but on head-to-head they would have finished 2nd, and then would have advanced to the third round as one of the best runners-up. Jlsa (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, depends on whether they should have applied FIFA rules or CAF rules for the second round. It's clear that FIFA rules were applied for the second round, and according to the link, CAF rules are going to be applied for the third round for ACN qualification. And it's not our jobs to apply rules; it's our jobs to report on how the authorities apply "rules", even when they are maddingly inconsistent. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt–Algeria World Cup dispute 2009

[edit]

Wehwalt nuked the playoff controversy section with the comment "removing text on disturbances, please spin off material into its own article. This should be primarily statistical. Will be watchlisting article as uninvolved admin."

In the first place, never delete valid text. If it needs to be moved, you move it. If you're too lazy to move it, then do nothing. If you don't know where to move it to, use the Talk: page. When this topic was deleted from here, it reappeared in two separate wildly different versions in Foreign relations of Egypt and Foreign relations of Algeria; an outcome that was hardly unexpected.

In the second place, why should the article be "primarily statistical" (and define "primarily")? Wikipedia is not RSSSF. There are list articles and table articles, but if prose is called for then prose should be used. That applies equally to articles about football, asteroids, battles, or poems. The fact that an article which is mainly about sports trivia can segue into a section about international relations is not a flaw; it is a strength of Wikipedia's interlinking. jnestorius(talk) 00:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we check what is done for other mega controversial matches in World Cup qualifying history? The reason I "nuked" it is that it was turning into a POV war, which was benefiting no one. Nothing is ever lost on Wikipedia except if oversight intervenes, that is why we have page histories, so don't worry too much about such things, we know where to find it. Here's a good example, a single sentence leading to its own article. I think we could do well to follow the example.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favour of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, as in the Football War example; but the point is not "let's not pollute football articles with non-football information". If there's a lot of information, it can be refactored into a separate article; if there's only a little, it should be left in the main article rather than put into a stub that will never be expanded, or (worse) deleted altogether. Clearly the people who added duplicate info to two other articles did not know where to find it in the archive. Wikipedia is written for the benefit of readers, not editors; most readers have no knowledge of archived versions. Your edit comment didn't mention a POV war, and in any case the solution to POV wars is not deleting the entire topic. jnestorius(talk) 14:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's agree to disagree. I have no great problems with the sentence you inserted, it might actually be worthwhile to add a bit if FIFA does anything about it at their forthcoming session. Please note that the text I deleted was POV as all get out, and pretty poorly sourced, youtube for example. A clean sweep was for the best. But what we have there now is not dissimilar than what was done for the football war. It might be better to have a link or pipe in the sentence rather than the main template, but I think it will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group C 7th Match: Algeria v Egypt

[edit]

On the Fifa site for the world cup qualification it includes the play-off between Algeria and Egypt as a 7th match for both teams and the result is included in the final group table. Due to this shoudn't you update the group table on this page to include it.

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/africa/standings/index.html

KP-TheSpectre (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 62 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_–_CAF_third_round&oldid=1196566024"