Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF fourth round

US SOCCER

Should Seattle be one of the sites for the US Soccer team in the WCQ? — Michael 20:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should put it in. People are making up stuff all over the place on this page. Mexico didn't play all their Hex games last time in CdM (or all their group stage matches this time) and Trinidad used a couple of venues, but apparently this time its better to make stuff up than leave a blank space. As Grant Alpo reckons, "since all but the US have national stadiums, in all probability these matches will be played at them, and deviations will be the exception rather than the rule" we should just put a whole lot of venues in because, well, Wikipedia is apparently about things that might happen (Costa Rica's building a new national stadium, so maybe we should just assume it will be ready by a certain date and put all the matches after that date at the new venue - hey, maybe we should start putting in likely results too, as Grant says "There's nothing out of line about this", after all, any US defeats are likely to be the "exception rather than the rule"). And where is this Hasley Crawford Stadium place? Jlsa (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a douchebag. Stadium info is not the same thing as potential results. We add venues for tons of things without enumerated assurances that games will be played there. If a country has a national stadium, it is more than reasonable to assume that the matches will be played there, unless there is reason to believe otherwise. There's nothing to be so petty about. Keep things civil. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are facts. This is Wikipedia, with little things like (as you well know) "No original research" etc. It's odd you complain about "lists of goalscorers that aren't published by FIFA" as not being valid - although they are true - yet you feel it's fine to put in things you don't know even to be true - because they are, what - likely? Which is not so, history suggests not all the Mexico games will be in Mexico City, therefore you are including a list that is more than likely to be false. Again the question, if some things which we don't know can be put in here because "probably most of them will be right" where does that end? This is not your vanity blog with your rules. It is never reasonable to assume things without an external published source. Never. And the key reason is because it is surprising how many times it hasn't been true. Lots of "reasonable" assumptions were made as to where UEFA qualifying matches would be played - Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland - yet they all needed to be changed subsequently because they were wrong. Black and white - Wrong. Seems to me that you value "appearance" over "accuracy". In the context of an encyclopaedia, that's pretty stupid. Jlsa (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you selectively enforce your own standards, and you do so in a douchebaggy way. I don't think we wait for a third party source before adding that the venue for an FA Cup match will be Old Trafford, Goodison, etc. It is reasonable to assume that when a team has a stadium, they will play their matches there. There weren't sources for the venues before I added the ones I did, so I don't see why there is any problem with filling in the others that have national stadiums. If they are wrong, then we'll change them. -- Grant .Alpaugh 01:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted a number of times, Mexico does not play all its matches at CdM, it didn't last time around, or the time before. This is markedly different to the examples you give. And, there is a fundamental difference in your case too, in that you admit you are guessing. Maybe the guy who put the Honduran ones in knows that the Honduran Federation has a policy of always playing at the same ground, that would be validation enough, just as ManU has a policy of always playing at OT. Mexico has no such policy, as evidenced by the history of its last 12 home WCQs, 7 of which were not in CdM. If you could find an EPL team that played FEWER THAN HALF of its home games at its home stadium you might have some vague point, but, of course, you don't. In effect you have added information which is not merely possibly incorrect (like Costa Rica's list), but is almost certainly incorrect. You are making it up. "If we are wrong, then we'll change them" would be a fabulous tagline for an encyclopaedia wouldn't it - maybe you can suggest it to Wikipedia. Jlsa (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to Seattle becoming one of the possible sites for the United States, I'm looking at the first match of the final round against Mexico, unless it was for the spot in the playoff or a spot in the FIFA World Cup, alot of us in Seattle would buy tickets for the Mexico match. As far as I know, Seattle's a soccer town, a lot of Soccer fans here. I didn't get an answer yet about the United States playing one of their matches in Seattle during the final round, should that be the case? – Michael 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly did you want to include that information? -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about that, we'll need to wait till about January to figure that out. – Michael (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this was sometime last month, soundersfc.com asked who we want the United States to face off against in Seattle. Obviously, they don't know wether or not USA will play one of there matches at Qwest Field. They're probably expecting it though. – Michael (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since U.S. Soccer does not have a "Home Stadium" like Wembley or the Azteca, any information about Seattle potentially hosting a game is irrelevant, or more specifically, non unique, because by that logic every stadium in the U.S. could host a national team game. Does that make sense? -- Grant .Alpaugh 01:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all they do is play one of their home games here and there and here and there, it's kinda rediculus. – Michael (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, Germany moves all around, Spain does the same, and a lot of other countries do so as well. It allows people all over the country to see the team without having to travel. Anyway, this isn't supposed to be a forum, so since your issue is pretty much settled, see you around the project. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking each round into sections

I had put it into sections and splitting it up like they did in CONMEBOL wiki page. If you see it makes things look more organized, cleaner, and easier to edit, instead of clicking the edit button and having to scroll down the match/round you want to edit. Do you all think it should be implemented in the CONCACAF 2010 Fourth Round page and make things easier?Hazerduz (talk)

This was how the page was originally set up. However, it was changed (IIRC by Chanhaigeorge) mainly because one the rounds is played slightly out of order (due to the confederation cup). Personally I have no real issue with the matches getting slightly out of order in this way (so, grouping the results by round so the 3 June match is listed after the 6 June round), or (possibly better), splitting that round into two separate section (So we would have Rescheduled Round 6 - 1 match, Round 5 - 3 matches, Round 6 - 2 more matches). I did undo your earlier effort because you had grouped the matches into the incorrect rounds because of this issue. Jlsa (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that moving that match being played 03/6 should be moved to it's correct round if we do sort by rounds or like you said make a subsection underneath the round it is in. Hazerduz (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC-6)

I disagree with creating Round sections, but if they do get made, I would rather the moved game be in its correct round and just have the Round sections be completed slightly out of order, rather than create a subsection or anything. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA-Costa Rica note

Uhhhhhhhhh.........just out of curiosity, why do we need a note about USA's match at Costa Rica being rescheduled? – Michael (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We probably don't. But, all the other rounds are played together, so people might legitimately be expected to wonder why this one match is different. This answers their questions. Personally, I think it's overkill, but there you go. Jlsa (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiebreakers

Instead of notes on tiebreakers, why not just say what the tiebreakers are? Seems stupid the way the section is set up as it requires new explanations everytime. Nlsanand (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica's Spot in the Playoff

Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but this artical says "Costa Rica will ensure at least a place in the CONCACAF-CONMEBOL playoff if: they defeat Mexico AND USA defeat El Salvador AND Honduras defeat Trinidad and Tobago." Shouldn't it say "Costa Rica will ensure at least a place in the CONCACAF-CONMEBOL playoff if: they defeat Mexico AND El Salvador defeat USA AND Trinidad and Tobago defeat Honduras."? Why would the two teams closest to Costa Rica in the standings need to win for Costa Rica to be guaranteed a spot in the playoff? It stands to reason that their closest competitors would have to lose in order for them to be guaranteed a playoff spot. Hspstudent (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not remotely. All that has to happen is that a) CR wins as much as possible. b) the two worst teams do as badly as possible. CR don't have to finish high - just not 5th or 6th. Jlsa (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points calculation

How exactly are team points calculated for the standings? It doesn't seem to match "Goals for" or "wins", or any addition or subtraction of the different stats listed in the standings that I have tried... --Measure (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA standard is 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie. It used to be 2 points for a win, but there were too many teams playing not to lose instead of playing to win, so the reward for winning was increased -- Foetusized (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added the info to the article, but I don't know if it's the right place. Anyhow, nice to see how it all makes sense. --Measure (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Math Correct?

Now I know WP is not a crystal ball, but I'm looking over the points standings and something doesn't make sense. Going over a hypothetical, say that El Salvador WINS the next two games, AND Costa Rica and Honduras LOSE the next two. The final points standings should look like this:

USA 22 pts (beating HON and CRC) Mexico 15, 16, or 18 pts (lost to SLV and depending on the outcome vs. T&T) SLV 14 pts (beating MEX and HON) HON 13 pts (losing to USA and SLV) CRC 12 pts (losing to T&T and USA) T&T 8, 9, or 11 pts (beating CRC and depending on the outcome vs. MEX)

In this scenario, SLV qualifies to the WC and HON gets the playoff game. The reason I bring this up is that the article says the SLV can ONLY get a 4th place finish if so and so happens, but it looks like it is not the case, then it should be rewritten to say that SLV can get AT LEAST get a 4th place finish if so and so happens and can qualify to the WC if so and so happens. Can anyone verify what I am trying to say? 76.30.7.207 (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The the section of scenarios is based solely upon what can happen on the next matchday. It even says as much at the top of that list of information. You are correct, though, that with two games remaining El Salvador could qualify directly without the playoff if they win both games and get some help from other teams. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]