Jump to content

Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)

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

New Preliminary Round

[edit]

It appears Sao Tome and Central Africa have both withdrawn. As a result, Swaziland and Seychelles are no longer required to play in this round, and the teams they were matched against will play each other instead.

Team 1 Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score Team 2 1st leg 2nd leg
Madagascar  -  Comoros 13 October 17 November
Somalia  -  Djibouti
17 November
Sierra Leone  -  Guinea-Bissau 14 October 17 November

Results table for Groups

[edit]

I have proposed one kind at Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)#Results Tables please see if it is liked, and i will provide them here. F9T 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angola

[edit]

Quote from the article: If Angola advance to this stage then all teams in the group will automatically advance to 2010 African Cup of Nations. My question is: Why? Antipoeten (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16 teams must qualify for the African Cup of Nations and one must be Angola, so the top 3 from each 4-team group excluding Angola will qualify, which means that in Angola's group all 3 other teams will qualify. - MTC (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This qualification methodology may conflict with latest CAF documents (which may not, however, be accurate). See notes below and CAF website at [1] Jlsa (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team Order

[edit]

For the groups should the teams be listed in alphebetical order or in the order FIFA lists them? I vote for FIFA order. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/preldraw/fifa%5fprel%5fdraw%5fresults%5f29101.pdf JedG (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that alphabetical. Hm... It doesn't matter because after first match everything will change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerTatoo (talk • contribs) 11:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the FIFA order is representative of something, then we should use it. – PeeJay 13:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Group schedule out yet?

[edit]

Is the group schedule out yet? If so, we should include it.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Group Stage

[edit]

Some questions need to be answered.

What happens with the smaller group in terms of the best 2nd placed teams? Is the withdrawal of Eritrea effective eliminating this option as usually happens in CAF when teams drop out.

Ranking is based on

  • Points in 1st Group stage. So what happens with the small group with 4 games v 6 games?
  • Place in 2008 ANC from 1st - 16th. 1st to 4th are obvious, any official announcement on how 5th - 16th are defined?
  • Final FIFA rank (from 20 to 1 based on ranking among teams that qualify for this stage). Ranking will be latest as at draw date - so October, November??

Jlsa (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JLSA!
  • I sent an e-mail two days ago to CAF regarding this issue. No reply yet.
  • I think the final criterion will be total points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw). See for example the seeding procedure for ACN 2006.
  • No info at the moment in the CAF calendar of events.

Edgar (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - this is getting weird.
  • CAF has changed their website and added a link [2] which states a few things that are surprising.
  • It appears from my reading of this document that the problem of Eritrea's withdrawal on the "points acquired in Round 1" estimate will be handled by the double counting of the first three Group 11 matches (which is advantageous to Swaziland as they have 2 home matches in this, Togo has 1 and Zambia 0). Note that this boosts the "effective matches" played by each side to 6 (as per other groups). Presumably, the "unadjusted" points will be used to work out who won the group, while the "adjusted" points will be used to work out the ranking for the second group stage (and if the group runner-up is included in the "best 8 group runners-up")
  • The first group stage alone will determine who gets to the 2010 Africa Cup of Nations. That is 12 groups winners + 3 best runners-up (not 8 best) + Angola (so presumably 4 best runners-up if Angola is a group winner). Not sure how this squares with previous thinking on how 2010 ACN qualification was going to work.

Jlsa (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great find, J! --Edgar (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So who gets places 5-16 from the ACN 2008 for their Round 3 seeding? 81.155.114.153 (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeding update from CAF

[edit]

(see their website)

Summary

  • Confirms earlier FIFA notes (exclude results against 4th place)
  • Returns to original set-up for ACN 2010 (top 3 in second round groups)
  • Says nothing about if RSA and ANG are in same group

Other points

  • 5-16 probably as per prospective seeding table (by consensus, though not by official notice)
  • The semi-suspension of Chad could be a huge factor if it means that the ordering in that group if dependent on whether they are included in the standings or not. It is still possible for one team to win the group if all teams are considered, but for someone else to win is results against Chad are excluded. In this case, what happens? We could have 20 teams qualified for the WC 2nd group stage, but a different 20 teams qualified for the ACN 2nd group stage. And, even worse, the difference could be due to changes in the 2nd place team rankings and could affect a team in a different group. (Say, for example Chad finish 2nd in a 4-team version and are ranked 9th of the runner-up, but Sudan finish 2nd in the 3-team version and are ranked 8th. There would be a team that would advance in the ANC but not in the WC. They would not be happy).

Jlsa (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAF have left themselves in a very, very awkward position for this one. I think they may ride it out and pray that it all works out. But if Chad do complicate matters significantly, we'll just have to keep our ears to the ground and see what they decide. If they get Chad and Angola in the same 2nd round group then the whole thing will be an embarrassment so I'm sure they'll decide something.
What we do know is that there are two group 10s for each competition (see). I think we should make a template for Group10ACN and put it in the page, along with a paragraph explaining the whole situation. I'll get onto it.Aheyfromhome (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad

[edit]

Chad kicked out of ACN quals (not FIFA quals). The text notes the "second round of ACN qualifiers". The note directly above hints that there is, in fact, no second round qualification for ACN - if all depends on the first round. Note, that logically it would have to be the case - how could Chad qualify for a second round ACN group but not a second round WC group (surely another team would make up the qualifiers for the second ACN round?) Jlsa (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They even removed that info from the link you posted.--Edgar (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for qualification

[edit]

Are teams with the same number of points ranked by their goal difference or head-to-head results? Isavevski (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GD first (then HTH eventually - see the main 2010 FWC page).Jlsa (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it's HTH first for the second round. 2010 FIFA World Cup - League format tiebreakers (CAF)--Edgar (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification notes

[edit]

As per Asia, qualification notes appear on this page (rather than the page with all the match results).

The notes are (if I have got them correct) accurate as regards securing advancement via winning the group, or being eliminated via finishing third or fourth in the group. I do not think it's likely that their will be a team that (even if they finished second) would have to be in the top eight, or who can only finish second but can't be one of the best eight runners-up.

Note also that (as per the Asia groups) these reflect only on things that can happen due to results this weekend (20-22 June) Jlsa (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective seeding notes

[edit]

I have expanded out the presentation to include all teams that can mathematically advance (rather than having two separate tables). The gives a better feel to how teams might 'slot in' if they move into the top 20 (particularly nations such as Egypt).

I have no idea of any tiebreakers is case teams are equal across seeding pots (that is, the 5th and 6th ranked sides were level). I assume CAF are just hoping this doesn't happen.Jlsa (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the IE lacking green line things, I am happy for anyone to suggest why this doesn't work in that particular browser and try and overcome the problem, but I am not an expert on these things (and I just copied a table from somewhere else that seemed appropriate).Jlsa (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's just something that's always happened in IE. Something to do with it not using newer coding standards, according to a quick search I did. It's not been fixed for a while so I guess there's no real solution... except for getting Firefox.Aheyfromhome (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And for anyone who's holding off on getting Firefox3 because they are afraid they will lose the green lines (and I assume that's all of us) don't fret - they still work there too.Jlsa (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite reports that...

[edit]

Nothing seems to have happened with the stadium inspections, so I think we should remove the notes below many of the groups. They're just lengthening the page, and the original article was only mentioning the possibility of bans so it's not significant unless something happens, which it looks like nothing is. Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest the same Jlsa (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad disqualification

[edit]

Yes, I could say it is complicated. But please follow the regulation of FIFA World Cup. Because Chad could still available for the World Cup. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the bit you keep deleting is the table for advancing in the African Cup of Nations - which is a different tournament. CAF have stated that Chad's results will not count for this table, so it is included separately from the WC qualification table. Logically, I would think you HAVE to be right on this, it just can't work otherwise, but that doesn't mean that CAF are being sensible about this. Jlsa (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that the source you quote (the November 2007 draw procedure) seems a particularly weak source given it pre-dates all the changes that even FIFA have announced to how this will work (notably Eritrea's withdrawal). And again, CAF aren't proposing to exclude Chad from the World Cup - they are proposing to exclude them for the African Nations Cup (without, admittedly, noting how on earth they would deal Chad actually being qualified for the next stage of the WC) Jlsa (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goalscorers

[edit]

There's a discussion in the CONCACAF section where someone wants to change the format of all goalscorers including this page and other confederations. In case you want to take part in the discussion before the tables here are changed, please have a look. goalscorers Vorlath (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

[edit]

(It's more than just a New Order song.)

This is (quite frankly) getting pretty ridiculous. This is a pretty petty point, but just adds to the ridiculous levels that this whole things is descending to.

The seeding for the next round (the third round as per FIFA) is based in part on (to quote the latest CAF release - the one from June that is linked above) last FIFA ranking before the date scheduled for the draw of the second round.

Now, on the surface, that implies the second set of November 2007 rankings. That is, if you use either (1) the FIFA description of what each round is or (2) the first half of that article (which refers to the draw for the Third Round in the same way).

But wait, the bit of text that we are reading (the second half of the article) here is just copied from a previous CAF release (from January) (note that it states that all teams can obtain 18 points, which obviously isn't true now that Group 11 is 3 teams only). That release referred to Round Two as the next round (what we are now calling Round Three). Note that under Criteria 1 it states 'The number of points obtained during the group matches of the first round. This means that they will use the rankings of (presumably) November 2008 - not November 2007.

This is also a guess (November 2008), because the last games are in mid-October and it might be possible to have the draw before the November ones are out. But the CAF release has set aside November dates (presumably late-ish) for any required playoffs, so it might be the case that a team makes the top pot as of the end of qualification, but the change in ranks in November lowers them to the second pot for the next draw. That wouldn't be very popular (and, it could conceivably be gamed by one of the countries by scheduling a quick friendly against a strong nation in an attempt to move up their FIFA rank - they could contract Edgar to see if he could help them learn who they'd need to beat).

Jlsa (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late in reading this :) That would be the day - I don't think there's someone actually interested in contracting me for such a purpose. Besides, most (if not all) of the FAs don't know how the FIFA Rankings really works. Edgar (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on advancement

[edit]

Most of the can be eliminated/can secure advancement outlooks are based solely on ability to get a second place spot. If RSA lose to Nigeria, they could still finish 2nd, but if SLE win as well, then EGQ would have to finish 4th (as RSA would need to beat them in the last round) and so RSA would only have 1 point in the "2nd place ranking" list. However, there is (even now) no other group where a team can get 2nd and have fewer than 2 points on that ranking. Therefore, RSA would be unable to advance (although, they would still be in the WC finals). Hope that made sense. Jlsa (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Addendum: If RSA lose and SLE/EQG draw then the only way RSA can make the top 8 runners-up is if they they draw their last match and Nigeria defeat Sierra Leone - this is because they need EQG to finish ahead of SLE [so, even in this case they would need Nigeria to win by two clear goals] so then it is RSA's results against SLE (1 point) that are excluded, not against EQG (4 points). This will, however, only work if they start their last match ahead of EQG on goal difference/goals scored. Hence the notes on this. Note that this would imply that South Africa should deliberately not try to win their last match in this case. This could be the nightmare situation that can develop if the results of some matches are excluded from analysis. Personally, I say, BRING IT ON!!!! Jlsa (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The additional notes on Zimbabwe and Botswana are (as I understand it) the only other cases where results solely within a single group can eliminate a team in this way. There are MANY other cases where results in other groups, combined with results in a given group could eliminate teams in the next round of matches.Jlsa (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The additional notes on Ghana, Morocco and Egypt are the only cases where teams can be assured at least one of the best 8 runners-up spots. All these teams would have 9 points against the 2nd and 3rd placed teams in their group (their last game being against the definite 4th placed team). As there are no teams in groups 3,6,7 and 11 that can finish 2nd with 9 or more "runner-up" points this would be sufficient to ensure a spot in the Third Round.Jlsa (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other scenarios for definite elimination/qualification

[edit]

I've put a version on my page here which I should update over the course of the weekend. Jlsa (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an argument that we should also include cases where results in other groups could make teams certain to advance/certain to be eliminated. This list is being developed, but here is a start.

Note, all the following depend on the results in other groups falling the right way. However, this is effectively an extension of what the page already shows (however, it is not really possible to define the exact set of results that would lead to this outcome as there will be many possible combinations of results with varying likelihoods). I would be happy to add these notes to the main page (although I am open to hearing the opinions of others on this)

NOTE: I suggest we use this area as a "test" version. Once we are happy with the outline, we can copy it over to the main page. Jlsa (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group 1

On the next matchday (6/7 September):

Group 2

On the next matchday (6/7 September):

  • Namibia will be eliminated if they do not beat Kenya
  • Zimbabwe will be eliminated if:
    • they lose to Guinea (if Kenya vs Namibia is a draw or a Namibian win, Zimbabwe may finish 2nd in this group, but will be unable to finish in the top eight runners-up, and will be eliminated), OR
    • they draw with Guinea AND Kenya defeat Namibia AND the definite runner-up elimination point rises to 3 or more (as they would no longer be able to make the best eight runners-up).

Group 3

On the next matchday (5/7 September):

  • Benin will advance if they defeat Angola AND Uganda does not beat Niger (as group winners)

Group 4

On the next matchday (5/6 September):

  • South Africa will be eliminated (from the qualification tournament) if:
    • they do not defeat Nigeria AND Sierra Leone beat Equatorial Guinea, OR
    • they lose to Nigeria by more than 4 goals AND Equatorial Guinea and Sierra Leone draw, OR
    • they lose to Nigeria by exactly 4 goals AND Equatorial Guinea and Sierra Leone draw AND Equatorial Guinea score at least 2 goals more than South Africa in their respective matches), OR
    • they lose to Nigeria AND the other match is a draw (as noted, with certain scores this becomes a definite elimination) AND the definite runner-up elimination point rises to 4 or more, OR
    • Sierra Leone defeat Equatorial Guinea (regardless of South Africa's result) AND the definite runner-up elimination point rises to 4 or more.

Group 5

On the next matchday (5/7 September):

  • Ghana will advance if:
  • Gabon will be eliminated if they lose to Lesotho AND the Ghana and Libya draw

Group 6

On the next matchday (5/6 September):

Group 7

On the next matchday (5/7 September):

  • Côte d'Ivoire will advance if they defeat Mozambique AND Botswana do not defeat Madagascar (as group winners)


  • Madagascar will be eliminated if:
    • they lose to Botswana, OR
    • if they draw with Botswana AND Mozambique defeat Côte d'Ivoire.
  • Botswana will be eliminated if they lose to Madagascar AND Côte d'Ivoire defeat Mozambique (as they will not be able to win the group or finish in the top 8 runners-up).

Group 8

On the next matchday (6/7 September):

  • Morocco will advance if:
    • they defeat Ethiopia AND Mauritania do not defeat Rwanda (either as group winners or as one of the best 8 runners-up), OR
    • they draw with Ethiopia AND Mauritania defeat Rwanda AND the definite runner-up qualification point falls to 7 or less (oddly, if Morocco win, then a Mauritanian victory is the only result that does not ensure Morocco's advance).

Group 9

On the next matchday (6 September):

Group 10

On the next matchday (6/7 September):

  • Mali will advance if they defeat Congo AND Sudan and Chad draw (as group winners)

Group 11

On the next matchday (5 September):

Group 12


On the next matchday (5/7 September):

  • Malawi will be eliminated if they lose to Djibouti AND Congo DR and Egypt draw.


Jlsa (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are just way too many calculations involved (a total of 81 scenarios for a 4-team group with 4 matches left). Even if you finished your work, it is hard for anybody to verify your calculations, unless we iterate over all scenarios ourselves. Actually, have you thought of writing a computer program to do all the work? This way, we can have the program print out a long text file and it is easy to see how we come up with the results. Plus, we will also need to do the same thing for Europe, since only the top 8 of 9 runners-up qualify for the play-offs. If I have the time (a BIG IF?), perhaps I can write a program to do this. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a single five-team group, giving the future permutations is reasonable; for interlinked results across multiple groups, it's so complicated and hedged as to be almost worthless even if it were verifiably correct. I think this violates WP:OR and possibly WP:CRYSTAL. The simplest thing is to wait and see what the results are. jnestorius(talk) 09:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go as far as saying that doing this is OR (we're just applying math and logic, hardly ground-breaking stuff) or CRYSTAL (we're not saying something is likely to happen, just something will happen if such scenario plays out), but we do need to be able to verify what we're writing here is correct. When UEFA qualifying is coming close to an end, I'm sure we'll see a lot of newbies coming in saying "team X has clinched a play-off spot by finishing runners-up in its group", when in fact it might not be true since the worst runner-up will not make it, and the system of determining worst runner-up is quite complicated. So some sort of computerized calculations will be helpful, even just in the case of determining the current scenario since we can edit instantly when results come in. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What CHG writes is pretty much dead on. It's not CRYSTAL, and OR is too often just shorthand for "I don't understand it, take it away.". So, I'll cover the other points he has put in here. The key points are (in order), accuracy and verifiability. Verifiability is of some concern. It's not really that complicated. There are 81 possibilities in most groups (243 in the one with the Sudan-Chad game, but just 9 in the 3 team group) - and these have been handled already with what's already on the page. The additional information looks across groups, and they are quite independent. In each group, for each set of 9 possible results from the September matches (call these "row" results), we just check how many "adjusted points" the second place team would get with each of the 9 possible October results (column results), and check what the maximum and minimum are in each row. The important numbers then are highest minimum (for elimination calculation) and lowest maximum (for qualification calculation). These are estimated for each group. The additional possibilities ONLY affect teams with possible September results that leave them in a position where they can either only finish 1st or 2nd, but not definitely 1st (for qualification), or can finish at best 2nd. It's really not that hard (it only took an hour, and that was the first time I did it, so it gets easier).
That's the methodology. The important thing about accuracy is (however), that the stuff on the page at the moment is actually not accurate - it leaves some important possibilities out - that is, a reader may take our results as is and one of the options listed above happens (say, we say X can only be eliminated if Y occurs, but Z occurs and - because of results in other groups - X is still eliminated). It a sense we have mislead that reader with what is on the page at present. Already, I have actually added in a couple of definite "extra possibilities" where a team will ensure at least a best 2nd place position if they win and certain other results occur - for example, Morocco winning and Mauritania not winning ensures Morocco passage to the next round, although they still could lose the group. I think these MUST be in, because they can be enumerated exactly.
And that is the only argument against including these possibilities (I feel), the fact they can't really be enumerated exactly (in that the list of possible results in not stated explicitly). The newbie point really reinforces this, we need to be aware of the full set of outcomes ourselves if we are to say "hey, you're wrong, they still might be the worst 2nd place side". There is every chance the newbie will actually be right (even if they don't think about the possibility, it might not actually be possible) - so if you say they are wrong, you need to be sure they really are wrong. On the computation of this, I certainly have a spreadsheet that does it, and I'll try and tidy it up so others can use it.Jlsa (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you've basically written what I've been thinking that's necessary for solving the problem. I've written a skeleton of a computer program to do that, but it's not really near completion. If you can put up a spreadsheet of how you make your computations, then verification shouldn't be a problem. As for how we can present the results (in the case of results of one group impacting other groups), there are two important numbers: the minimum number of "runner-up points" that assures qualification, and the minimum number of "runner-up points" that assures non-elimination. Depending on future results, these two numbers will change. Perhaps we can say something like "Team A assures themselves of runners-up spot, with at least 8 runner-up points if this occurs", and another part will say "8 runner-up points assures qualification if 3 out of the following occurs", and the readers (if they're smart) can connect the dots themselves. Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a program that allows you to put in the table and the remaining games and get out all the possible scenarios. What kind of format do you need for the output. I still also need to implement the 2nd place score against the top 3. http://www.catprog.tfcentral.com/Downloads/file.txt is an example of the current output Catprog (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to present next-day scenarios

[edit]

I think the following is a clear way of presenting all next-day scenarios. I have only figured out the case for Group 1, but Jlsa should be able to fill in the blanks.

[THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN EDITED RATHER THAN COPIED - Jlsa]

I've adjusted your earlier suggestion so Conditions A and B have been given a name

On the next matchday (6/7 September):

...
...

(Written somewhere after all the groups)

The definite runner-up qualification point is the number of adjusted points (that is, excluding results against the fourth-place team) a team needs to have to ensure qualification as one of the best runners-up. At present, 9 adjusted points will ensure qualification to the third round as a runner-up.

During the next matchday (5-7 September), the definite runner-up qualification point will fall to 8 if any one of the following happens: checkY
  • Group 1:
    • Cameroon defeat Cape Verde, OR
    • Cape Verde defeat Cameroon AND Mauritius do not defeat Tanzania
  • Group 2: Kenya defeat Namibia AND Zimbabwe and Guinea draw
  • Group 4:
    • South Africa do not defeat Nigeria, OR
    • Equatorial Guinea do not defeat Sierra Leone
  • Group 5: Ghana do not defeat Libya checkY
  • Group 7:
    • Madagascar and Botswana draw, OR
    • Mozambique defeat Cote d'Ivoire, OR
    • Botswana defeat Madagascar AND Cote d'Ivoire defeat Mozambique
  • Group 8: Ethiopia achieve a better result than Mauritania
  • Group 9: Tunisia do not defeat Burkina Faso
  • Group 10:
    • Congo and Mali draw, OR
    • Mali defeat Congo AND Sudan draw with Chad
  • Group 12: Egypt do not defeat Congo DR
During the next matchday (5-7 September), the definite runner-up qualification point will fall to 7 if any four of the following happen: ☒N
  • Group 1: Cameroon defeat Cape Verde checkY
  • Group 3: Uganda defeat Niger AND Benin do not lose to Angola ☒N
  • Group 5: Libya defeat Ghana checkY
  • Group 6: Gambia defeat Liberia AND Algeria and Senegal draw ☒N
  • Group 8: Ethiopia defeat Morocco AND Rwanda defeat Mauritania
  • Group 9: Burkina Faso defeat Tunisia ☒N
  • Group 11: Togo do not lose to Zambia ☒N (Note: Tunisia now guaranteed to finish above runner-up of Group 11) - and therefore qualified? - no (but if Ethiopia plays again and beats Morocco, the Tunisia are in even if the DRQP remains at 8).
  • Group 12: Congo DR defeat Egypt ☒N

The definite runner-up elimination point is the number of adjusted points (that is, excluding results against the fourth-place team) that a teams needs to be able to better to prevent it being eliminated if its best position in the group is second (that is, if it cannot win the group, but can still come second). At present, any team that cannot finish with more than 2 adjusted points cannot advance as one of the best eight runners-up. (This would not apply if they could gain fewer adjusted points yet finish first in the group).

During the next matchday (5-7 September), the definite runner-up elimination point will rise to 3 if any six of the following happen: ☒N
  • Group 1: Cameroon do not defeat Cape Verde ☒N
  • Group 2: Kenya defeat Namibia AND Guinea defeat Zimbabwe ☒N
  • Group 4: South Africa defeat Nigeria AND Sierra Leone defeat Equatorial Guinea ☒N
  • Group 5: ☒N
    • Libya and Lesotho obtain the same result, OR
    • either match is drawn
  • Group 6: Senegal do not defeat Algeria checkY
  • Group 7: ☒N
    • Botswana defeat Madagascar, OR
    • Mozambique defeat Cote d'Ivoire AND Madagascar and Botswana draw
  • Group 8:
    • Ethiopia and Morocco draw, OR
    • Morocco defeat Ethiopia AND Mauritania do not defeat Rwanda
  • Group 9: Burkina Faso do not defeat Tunisia checkY
  • Group 10:
    • Sudan and Chad draw AND Congo defeat Mali, OR
    • Sudan defeat Chad AND Congo and Mali draw
  • Group 12:
    • Djibouti and Congo DR obtain the same result, OR
    • either match is a draw checkY
During the next matchday (5-7 September), the definite runner-up elimination point will rise to 4 if all eight of the following happen: ☒N
  • Group 1: Cape Verde defeat Cameroon
  • Group 5: Libya defeat Ghana AND Gabon do not defeat Lesotho
  • Group 6: Algeria defeat Senegal AND Liberia do not defeat Gambia
  • Group 8: Morocco defeat Ethiopia AND Mauritania do not defeat Rwanda
  • Group 9:
    • Tunisia defeat Burkina Faso, OR
    • Burundi defeat Seychelles AND Tunisia and Burkina Faso draw
  • Group 10: Sudan and Chad draw AND Congo defeat Mali
  • Group 11: Togo do not defeat Zambia
  • Group 12: Congo DR defeat Egypt AND Malawi do not defeat Djibouti ☒N

Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC) (edited by Jlsa (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Hooley dooley - this would be hard. Just as an example (for group 1)

  • IF Cameroon draw AND Tanzania win, then Cameroon will clinch UNLESS the best 8th runner-up point remains at 8, which would require ALL of the following (named teams win - XXX means draw):
    • Groups 3, 6 and 11: Best runner-up is already at 7 so are not relevant.

If other words, if CMR draw and TAN win - Cameroon will almost certainly have secured a spot (based on my guess that not all of that list will happen).Jlsa (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the lists of conditions, as they are complete, would be long, but the list stated above (condition A) is the same for teams in different groups, as long as the scenario assures that the team is assured of runners-up spot with at least 8 runners-up points. And condition B applies for every team that is assured of runners-up spot with at least 7 runners-up points. So we don't need to repeat the same condition again individually, we can just list it at the end in another part. The problem with saying "Team A might advance based on other group results" is that it is not helpful as other group results come in. Well, has Team A advanced yet? Nobody knows, except you, who has worked out all the possible scenarios. I know you would likely be around to edit during the matches, but I don't see why we have to write something so mystic that nobody is really sure what's happening. Why not share enough information that other editors can make edits easily? Anyway, I have written my computer program, so actually I think I can write the next-day scenarios. I will post it here first (you can verify it), then perhaps we can then put it on the main page. Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer output for verification

[edit]

As I said, I've finished writing a computer program that checks for all scenarios. I've put the output files at:

The content is mostly self-explanatory so I won't explain it here. However, there are two problems with this program:

  • The program only deals with points and goal difference. So the goals scored tiebreaker is not used. This is relatively minor, as the only current "mistake" it makes is in thinking Zambia can finish ahead of Togo when all three teams in Group 11 are tied with 5 points. However, this does not impact the overall calculations at all.
  • The only results of a match are win, draw or lose. So it cannot reason about the possibility of distinct scenarios created when one team beats another by a certain margin of victory.

Currently I cannot think of a way to deal with these two problems. Basically all we can do is by thinking of these possibilities ourselves. This can be helped a bit by inspecting the output file. If the scenarios picked in RUmax and RUmin consists of only a single entry (i.e. only one team can finish runners-up and only one team can finish last), then the two problems above do not appear for that particular case (the progam is written to always pick those whenever possible). However, if the scenarios picked in RUmax and RUmin consists of multiple entries (i.e. more than one team can finish runners-up or last place), then the two problems above can potentially appear.

I will inspect the output files and put the rest of the information up here (if others have not). I'm also checking for the possibility that one team's next-day runners-up point-total is above or below a certain threshold by goal difference (yes, it may be possible if certain weird conditions happn, I hope none exists currently, 'cos it would take a huge paragraph to explain that). Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With one round to go...

[edit]

Apart from Group 8 (which may need some resolving if Ethiopia's suspension does not get lifted soon), we're almost there with all the insane calculations and permutations. So here's the basic summary:

  • The definite runner-up elimination point remains at 2 points. Currently, seven group runners-up (3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) will get at least 4 runner-up points, so teams with at most 3 runner-up points are still alive, but barely.
  • The definite runner-up qualification point is, most accurately, 7 points +3 GD, as four group runners-up must have a worse record:
    • Group 1: at most 6 points
    • Group 5: at most 6 points
    • Group 9: at most 7 points +2 GD (either Tunisia, definitely at 7 points +1 GD, or Burkina Faso, who has to lose to Burundi to finish second, so their record is at most 7 points +2 GD)
    • Group 11: at most 7 points +1 GD (must be no better than Zambia's final record at 7 points +1 GD)

Of course we are also able to enjoy all the oddities of this wonderful system of comparing runners-up:

  • In Group 7, if Madagascar beat Cote d'Ivoire and Botswana beat Mozambique, then Madagascar will finish second with 9 overall points, yet they will have 8 runner-up points, guaranteeing advancement (compared with Tunisia in Group 9, who likely will finish with 13 overall points, but only 7 runner-up points).
  • In Group 10, if Congo beat Sudan by one goal, they are definitely in, either as group winner, or finish with 9 runner-up points (since Sudan will still finish third). However, if they beat Sudan by a wider margin, not enough to catch Mali (assuming Mali wins), but enough to send Sudan to last place, they will finish with 6 runner-up points, putting them in a worse position. They are actually a bit better off by drawing, since they will finish with 7 runner-up points.

So let's forward to the last round and see what happens. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco

[edit]

Since Ethiopia was automatically eliminated by FIFA, shoulden't Morocco have qualified for the next round? Maurtania has already eliminated.--70.231.242.251 (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. They still need to win their last match (draw will be enough - and even a loss might be too). They need to be 1st (which they aren't at the moment) or one of the best 8 runners-up, and you need 8 points at present to be certain that you will be one of the best 8 runners-up. Jlsa (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, as Chanheigeorge says, 7pts and +3GD is enough to definitely advance, therefore a Morocco draw (which leaves them on exactly 7pts and +3GD) will ensure their qualification to the next round.Jlsa (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third round draw date?

[edit]

Any info on this subject?

It would make sense to take place after November 12th, when FIFA will release the November rankings (including the results from the last match day).

In this CAF Press Release it says: "If teams ranked eighth and ninth are in complete equality a playoff match will be organized in November." (regarding the best 8 runners-up).

If this match takes place, then they could move the draw after December 17th.

Including November 19th, there are 13 match dates available until the World Cup draw. The third round only needs 6. They could even start the third round in September 2009, but that's unlikely.

There's a week full of committee meetings in Cairo. Perhaps they will also decide (and hopefully announce) the date of the draw.--Edgar (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 24th. Date Set For World Cup Qualifiers Draw--Edgar (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain me...

[edit]

Why FIFA did not decree that ALL matches in the last round of group stage should kick-off on the same day and time? Now there are 2 teams who must win to advance, and their opponents don't care much about the result because they definitely qualify. And even in one group in which both matches are played on Sunday, and the results should determine who gets runner-up, and as a consequence, which teams qualify as best runners-up, they don't kick-off the same time! This is absolutely silly!!!

Actually, the whole system is silly... they should have had just 10 groups, and 2 teams qualifying from each to the third round... --Nitsansh (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a combination has been missed out in the possibilities for next round...

[edit]

As I read it, if Egypt win their match tomorrow, Malawi drop to second in their group and may miss out on qualification as a result (or certainly would affect the chances of other teams qualifying) - can someone who understands the way the draw works better than I do double-check this? Grutness...wha? 00:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is Angola eliminated already? They're in second place.. Radicell (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi would have 6 points if they finished second, ahead of at least Gambia, Mozambique, Cape Verde and South Africa. Angola have only 4 points and will finish behind groups 5-12. —Raven42 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African seeds established

[edit]

[3]. Only the FIFA rankings are used, instead of the complicated formula as suggested. So it's different from the "prospective seedings" we have now. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scores in Egypt Group Grid Incorrect

[edit]

The grid shows that Rwanda and Egypt tied 0-0, when in fact it was Algeria and Rwanda who tied 0-0. I would change it but I don't know how. Could someone please help? 124.170.187.42 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colour highlighting scheme for 3rd Round

[edit]
I've had a thought. It's not the best thing to put teams that can't qualify for the World Cup in red, as these templates double for the Cup of Nations qualifying. It seems a bit dismissive of that fact to have teams that are above the yellow line "eliminated" just because we're paying attention to the World Cup. As there's only 1 team to qualify for the WC in each group, they'd be only 1 team in green and at the top, implying that the rest can't qualify for it. We can highlight teams that get into the Cup of Nations in yellow, and then if someone is anchored to the bottom the group highlight them in red. No rush, so I'll wait a bit for thoughts. Aheyfromhome (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't really do it with colours the usual way - you'd probably need to have a separate column (see this talk for three suggested versions). The problem with using a more complicated colour scheme is that the "cutdown" table is often used (just P and Pts) and this can often make no sense if we also have ACN stuff on the table as well. Jlsa (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's SO much better. Now the templates say "World Cup" but the shading scheme is for the qualification for a completely different tournament. Genius!!! Jlsa (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing as the ACN link sends you back to this page 79.71.43.229 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF). 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) 20:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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 10:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(CAF)&oldid=1196565926"