Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To edit the group standings and fixtures: Group 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
For information on how to properly edit the group standings and fixtures see Group 1/doc

This does not sound right at all, I cant find any official information from the AFC but Asia has NEVER used Asian Cup results as a basis for WCQ!

Correct, AFC has never used the finishing positions of the previous asian cup as seedings for the world cup (which spoon added that?). In fact, there have been two methods used in determining the AFC seeds in the last 2 WCs. For WC02, they were based on World Rankings. For WC06, they were based on the finishing positions in the previous WC qualifying campaign. Who knows which method will be used? Rankings? Previous WC positions? I have feeling it will be as follows:
  • QR - world rankings (bottom teams in QR, regardless to previous WC position);
  • GS1 - Previous WC positions (Australia number 1 seed!!!);
  • GS2 - Previous WC positions
For previous WC positions, the are teams are place in the following order:
  • Teams that qualified for WCF and those that progessed the furthest;
  • Teams knockout in GS2
  • Teams knockout in GS1
  • Teams knockout in preliminary round
  • Teams that did not enter.
Within each 'group' teams are separated via - points; goal difference; goals for; World ranking
FYI the following is the seedings for the group stage if indeed the seeds are based on previous WC positions: Australia, South Korea, Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, North Korea, China, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Syria, Palestine, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Indonesia, Tajikistan, Hong Kong, Yeman, Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, India, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Taiwan, Laos, Bangladesh, Macao, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, then the others who did not enter the last WC in ranking order...
--Fridge46 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Second Round display

I have reverted this section to take out the additoins by Mussav, but I will explain why here. There is no definite position for sides in the second round as yet, so even the position of Indonesia is not definite. However, if (as might be expected) all remaining matches go with seedings then Indonesia will go here. I don't think we can put Winner A v B as an option as the result of the tie will completely alter the result (ie, East Timor cannot ever be Seed 12 and China could never be Seed 19). I hope this is clear. The only options that can reasonably be put in Second Round at this point are this one or just leaving it blank with the seeding numbers.Jlsa 06:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

You made a mistake in the final round. if teams are divided into two groups of five then

shouldn't they play 8 games.

Yes they play 8 games. But there are 10 match days, because in each day, 4 teams play and 1 team rest Calapez 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But that makes no sense why?

Each team will play 8 games, but in 2 matchday days, the team will have to rest in order to the other 4 teams play each other.. 8 + 2 = 10 matchdays. They choose to have 10 teams in the finals, so they had to split them in 2 groups (5 each) Calapez 03:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home Stadium of Myanmar

Thong Nhat Stadium in Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) will be the home stadium of Myanmar football team.Peanux 09:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goalscorers

The table is split into rounds (but ordered by total). Some players may score a lot of goals in these initial rounds and that will be noted. There will probably need to be some sort of "code" for teams not playing (a "-" would make sense) and something else for an eliminated team (an "x" or a ".") Jlsa 00:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering of draw

The ordering of the draw by seeding serves no sensible purpose. There are a number of reasons for this. 1 - this is the draw that was made, and published. 2 - if we do it by "seeding" (which is inherently unclear because it is only by the higher seeds anyway, and they appear randomly on each side of the draw) someone will no doubt rearrange it everytime the seeding changes (as it may well do for the second stages and beyond). 3 - why seeding, why not alphabetically, order of first match. If you deviate for one reason, someone will come and reorder by their own whimsical preference.

Additionally, The rollback occurred because for some reason the order of some matches (Kuwait and Indonesia) had been (haphazardly in formatting) reversed for some obscure reason. The section on "seeding" for the second round was now inconsistent with the first - as it was not updated to reflect "seeding" order. The section on the third round seeding is a) repetitive of results for 2006 WC, b) possibly actually incorrect (no official seeding for the third round has been determined, it may well be based on FIFA ranks in accordance with the new World Cup regulations - ref the UEFA issue) and is c) only partial as it only explains why the 5 bye teams were put in that order, not why the order 38 sides were give their particular ordering (surely, if we are explaining how seeding works we explain the whole thing - not just 5 out of 43).Jlsa 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The ordering of the draw by seeding serves no sensible purpose. - Yes it does, it gets the viewer to see who (and how) a team got a 3rd round bye, thus they are put in order of seeding. If a team from a lower seed gets a bye, I as a view would like to see which team from the top 11 lost and gave that lower seed a bye.
That could be true once ties are decided. If, say, KGZ wins then your table is wrong and does not serve its prupose. Are you going to reverse all the names so the winner is first (stuffing everything up again like with IND and KUW which are team #2 not team #1 in the draw). Are you going to reorder the table for every upset - which ordering is it then - ordering of seeding of winners or ordering of seeding at draw. The ranking of the teams who advance will be included in the "Round 2 info" anyway so there is needless repetition of this. Will you change the order in the detail page (to keep it consistent with this page). Are you going to leave IND the wrong way around again.Jlsa 01:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You need lines like this

to saperate the qualifying stages, because it looks confusing put all together like that. Chaldean 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korea DPR v Mongolia

Why was the DPR Korea v Mongolia match stopped? Will there be a replay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.57.176 (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. However, the only reference I've seen to the match (the Guardian) suggests there was no stoppage - only the result was not released. Normally, that would seem stupid, but this is North Korea we're talking about, so you cannot rule that out.Jlsa 13:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results table for Groups

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 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All goalscorers?

Is there a reason to list all goalscorers of qualification? I think the table should be cropped up to leave out players with only 1 or 2 goals, because there is no point in having all the goalscorers listed. Artyom (talk • contribs) 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Well there obvious is some point in listing all goal scorers, because all goals are equal (and someone obviously thinks it was worth it to create). It is, no doubt, a lot of work. Perhaps the answer will involve a "template" such has been developed for the group tables, which automatically cuts off display at a certain level of goals. Jlsa (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Has Saudi Arabia progressed?

With two matches to go, the worst case scenario for Saudi Arabia is that Lebanon draw level with them on points. But Saudi Arabia has beaten Lebanon twice. Is the first tiebreaker goal difference or head-to-head? Bush shep (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The first tiebreaker for (all) of the qualifiers is goal difference, so atm they can get overtaken by Singapore. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Turns out to be a stupid question: I thought it was Lebanon on three points. Erk. Bush shep (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)