Talk:1990 FIFA World Cup

Semifinals, the third-place match, and the final

"Nine years later, it was revealed that FIFA had instructed Codesal to ensure that Germany won the final. "

I removed the line above from the article. The statement above refers to the following allegation. It is obviously falsely cited. In the linked article, an allegation is cited from a newspaper interview, which can hardly be viewed as a substantiated source. Furthermore, in the statement above, this citing of an allegation is morphed into a statement resembling some sort of factual information. In fact, where as the newspaper article below is cited as "..prevented Argentina from winning", the object of this argument is now that "..to ensure that Germany won the final."

On October 1999, Jorge Humberto Rojano, former president of the Mexican Referees Association, alleged in an interview with Mexican newspaper La Jornada that FIFA, at that time managed by Brazilian João Havelange, would only allow Codesal to supervise the final match if he prevented Argentina from winning

While I would agree that some of the calls in that final, including the penalty call, were controversial, it is a very far stretch, if even that, to imply that the game was fixed. (March08 (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

References

Requested move

Football World Cup 1990 → 1990 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 13:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

West Germany's attacking play

The intro states that "...West Germany was one of the few teams to choose an attacking style of play." This is true in part, they certainly started off brightly, and were worthy champions, but their last 3 goals were a penalty, a deflected free kick, and another penalty- hardly an attacking style of play, given the results were two 1-0 victories and a 1-1 draw. They also gave up on the group stage once they were through, and hardly ran at the dutch in numbers. I've made a minor alteration to reflect the stats. Andy 10:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact their last goal WAS a highly debatable penalty (Jor70 11:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)).

Just because you only score 1 goal a game doesn't imply that the style of play wasn't attacking. Look at the 2006 semi final agianst Italy. They went forward more often and ended up losing the match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.63.71 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Advanced TV Coverage of the event

I remember back in the day it was said that this was the first World Cup event that was covered with advanced cameras with multiple angles and really neat onscreen graphics. I think it's worth mentioning how good Italians handled the Media Coverage of the game. What does everybody think?

Yes...I agree. I also know it was the first time the FIFA World CUp was aired in South Africa. I am assuming this means Africa as well. Does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.61.253.144 (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Theme song

Do you know the name of the theme song in World Cup 90? I only know that it is composed by Paul Mauriat but I don't know exactly the name?Travohuy 17:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"To Be Number One" performed by Giorgio Moroder. Cheers :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.139.42.5 (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jose Roberto Wright

"RAMIZ WRIGHT Jose" appears on the match reports[1]. Shouldn't that be the name that we use? --StuartBrady (Talk) 23:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Both might be possible: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22jose+roberto+ramiz+wright%22&btnG=Search - ChaChaFut 23:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent dispute

Please sort things out on the talk page as an alternative to engaging in edit-warring.

• Generally speaking, Youtube clips are not suitable for use as references.
• Claims of cheating, diving, poor sportsmanship etc. must be backed up with sources stating exactly that. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should a video's location matter? Whether is YouTube or Veoh, VHS, whatever, it is still showing the frank cheating habits of the Germans and I have the whole match for them to see. It is one thing that many people have said the referee was favoring, etc. But I have HARD PROOF of the incidents at hand.SuperSonicx1986 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One man's cheating is another man's opportunism. Unless you can find sources that categorically state that the Germans cheated throughout the 1990 final, it's not going in the article. – PeeJay 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So your argument is if you dive, it is not diving unless you said you dive, right? If I go and shot someone, it is not killing unless I said I killed? Come up with some better excuse for your adored team's nastiness. SuperSonicx1986 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, my point was that it's not diving unless someone else says it's diving and, for the purposes of Wikipedia, that someone has to be from a reliable source. – PeeJay 07:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's cut it. I am someone else and I am saying that it was diving. Are you satisfied now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.33.182 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It doesn't matter how many anonymous Wikipedians say it was a dive. Unless it's been stated in a reliable source, it shouldn't go in the article. Comprende? – PeeJay 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article is not the place to be pointing fingers, calling people cheaters, divers, and whatnot. This stuff needs to go. I've actually removed some the comments about England being given two controversial penalties in the Cameroon-England game because of this too (no sources cited regaring these controversial events). Darkhorse686 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember an interview on the italian tv, after the final, to the germans who were playing for italian clubs - they all admitted the penalty was harsh, but they said it was some sort of "compensation" for a penalty not called some minutes before. I also found this interview with Klinsmann on the argument. So it was a controversial call indeed, even if I don't know if it's appropriate to put it in the article. --82.58.196.36 (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistake

It says in "Negative Tactics" that argentina are the only team to fail to score in a world cup final, yet netherlands went goaless in the most recent final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.13.157 (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

2 points for a win, not 3!

Why won't we put this article into semi-protected state at last? Some unregistered users (or is it the same one?) can't seem to accept the fact that there was 2-point system at the time.-NineInchRuiner (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Some people are just thick, I think. They notice that the points don't seem to add up using today's points system, so they decide to fix it. They're not acting in bad faith, they're just ignorant. – PeeJay 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the last paragraph of the "Round of 16" paragraph it says "Ireland thus became the only team in history to reach the last eight in a World Cup finals tournament without winning a match outright." But in the "Statistics" section it says "The Republic of Ireland became the second team in World Cup history to reach the last eight without winning a match (Sweden progressed to the last eight by default in 1938 when Austria withdrew)." One of these sections needs to be reworded or clarified to avoid the contradiction. 82.17.92.82 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree! So which wording is correct or more accurate? --Yankees76 ^Talk 17:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

David Platt's disallowed goal v Germany in Semi-final

I added this

"David Platt scored from a free-kick to give England a 2-1 lead, but the goal was controversially ruled out for offside, while replays showed that it was a wrong decision. Platt had a headed goal disallowed in extra time; though a replay showed he was onside."

But it does not come up. What gives? 86.152.234.225 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And I removed it because the documentary does not discuss the offside goal. It shows the free kick. It shows the goal. It shows that it was called back. No commentary was made at all. It goes on to the next portion. We don't discuss the shots that hit the hardware either. We only discuss goals. Find a reference that discusses the disallowed goal and it could be added. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Final with replay

I don't think it's true that the final would have been decided on a replay match if it ended in a draw. The only source is a Glasgow newspaper article published on July 5th, but there was also this article published July 7th on the New York Times that discusses the controversy of deciding matches with a shootout and claims that FIFA had no plans to change that. If the rule change was actually introduced, I think it would have been mentioned there. Also, this wikipedia article itself claims that Argentina's strategy for the match was to play for the shootout. rbonvall (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I just rewatched the Argentine transmission of the final, and the commentator at one point explains (translation is mine): «as you already know, if the equality persists, 30 minutes will be played divided in two halves of 15 each, and if equality continues, there will be a penalty-kick shootout». Even if it is in Spanish, I think it is a better source than a Scottish tabloid, since it doesn't make sense that a commentator of one of the involved teams doesn't know such an important change of the rules. rbonvall (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried to edit that in the World Cup Final 1990 Article too. Somehow one unknown Newspaper article seems to overules common sence and the absence of any other confirming article.

Is this the prove that the recent wiki Article is wrong: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/07/sports/world-cup-90-is-the-penalty-shootout-here-to-stay-fifa-says-yes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.38.2 (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that, especially in the face of the NYT article, this Scottish tabloid should not be used. Thanks, 46.114.38.2 for removing it. —LucasThoms 16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Italy never lost a match?

The stats show Italy as 6-1-0 with 13 pts. If they never lost a match, how did they not win the tournament? I think they are 6-0-1 with 12 points, because they lost to Argentina. Correct?

I would think so, but some people write a loss on penalty shootout as a draw. This is because they were not beaten in open play, but rather in an uncertain shootout. Plus, in a knockout stage it is impossible to draw a match: had the same score been had in a group stage match, the result would be a draw. -- Kndimov (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A loss in a penalty shoot out goes into the books a draw. As it stands they had three wins in the group stage, won the first two matches in the round of sixteen, drew with Argentina in the semi-finals but did not advance on penalties and then won the third-place match. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

'Results' section created

Hi there. As part of something to try and organise Wikipedia a bit more, I'm making it so that on every FIFA World Cup page, there is one section that has the results, with the name 'Results'. I recently did that, however, that did mean I had to move the group stage and knockout stage headings down a peg. Just letting you know. EDIT: Doing the same for 1994 through 2014. Nick F., Toaster (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1990 FIFA World Cup. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614094554/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/ffprojects/ip-401_06e_tv_2658.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/ffprojects/ip-401_06e_tv_2658.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/ffprojects/ip-401_05a_tvstats_9299.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511104746/http://www.rsssf.com/tables/90full.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tables/90full.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:45, 16 June 2017 (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:

• Stadio Meazza.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Upgrade Fail on 1990 World Cup Groups

I have upgraded everything on the 1994 World Cup and 1998 World Cup. I have upgraded from round of 16 to final which works successfully but tried upgrading groups but nothing showed up, help needed please.GBT00 (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect seeding rank for the draw!

The article currently list seeding/ranking numbers for the draw as they were reported by NYT: 1=Italy (Group A), 2=Argentina (Group B), 3=Brazil (Group C), 4=Germany (Group D), 5=Belgium (Group E), 6=England (Group F).

Most likely, the NYT source however mistakenly thought, that the alphabetic group order also reflected the ranked seeding order. Because the official FIFA source claim: "The ranking obtained at the last two FIFA World Cups (1982+1986) was decisive for the seeding in 1990, with the rank gained in Mexico 1986 counting double." If we believe this official FIFA source indeed is correct, then its impossible to device a mathematical calculation resulting in Brazil (nr.5 in 1982 and nr.5 in 1986) having a higher seeding rank than Germany (nr.2 in 1982 and nr.2 in 1986); meaning the NYT source claim of "3rd brazil and 4th Germany" either is incorrect or based on another ranking criteria.

Explanation nr.1 (but we need a source before reporting it):

• Italy were automatically seeded nr.1 as the host nation into Group A (as this would be a continuation of the FIFA practice from all world cups since the first one in 1930, with the 1954 World Cup being the only exception).
• Argentina were automatically seeded nr.2 as the defending champion into Group B.
• Brazil were automatically seeded nr.3 as the nation having the highest number of World Cup titles throughout history.
• The remaining seeding rank from nr.4 to nr.6, was decided by the FIFA rank calculation formula, with the ranked 1986 position counting double and the ranked 1982 position counting normal, because such a formula would return the results of:
  • (4) Germany: 23+46=69p
  • (5) Belgium: 15+42=57p
  • (6) England: 19+34=53p
  • (7) Spain: 13+36=49p
  • (8) USSR: 18+30=48p
  • (9) Scotland: 10+12=22p
  • (10) Austria: 17+0=17p
  • While in comparison, the score for the 3 top-seeded teams based on the calculation critera (instead of the other criteria listed above) would have been: Italy (24+26)=50p, Argentina (14+48)=62p and Brazil (20+40)=60p.

Explanation nr.2 (but we need a source before reporting it):

• FIFA's explained calculation formula, would return the following rank:
  • (1) Germany: 23+46=69p
  • (2) Argentina: 14+48=62p
  • (3) Brazil: 20+40=60p
  • (4) Belgium: 15+42=57p
  • (5) England: 19+34=53p
  • (6) Italy: 24+26=50p
  • (7) Spain: 13+36=49p
  • (8) USSR: 18+30=48p
  • (9) Scotland: 10+12=22p
  • (10) Austria: 17+0=17p
• FIFA as the next step (after having identified the top6-ranked teams from the list above), then finally decided on political/practical/security grounds, the group letters A-F for each of the top6-ranked teams, without their ranked seeding order having any influence into who would get into A, B, C, D, E or F.

Please share your knowledge, whether or not "Explanation 1" or "Explanation 2" is true, and also help find a source (if you can). Danish Expert (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect USA Results

This article has sections claiming that the United States won their group and then won the tournament when they actually finished 4th in their group, and I can't manage to fix it, so can someone please use this website https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/worldcup/1990italy/match-center to fix this (it is FIFA's official site). Thank you 65.130.16.179 (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

All-star team seems incorrect

The all star team section seems sketchy and unreliable, with a single source in Dutch: why would the same journalists choose Maradona as the Bronze Ball and leave him out of the team?

Many other sources describe an altogether different all-star team — mind you, it is always the same team, and quite different to the one mentioned in this article. See: https://www.squawka.com/en/italia-90-all-star-team-gascoigne-maradona-best-young-player/; https://www.kodromagazine.com/mundial-italia-90#:~:text=El%20once%20ideal%20del%20Mundial,)%2C%20Milla%20(CAM)%2C; https://talksport.com/football/377316/1990-world-cup-all-star-team-who-were-players-voted-best-italy-180523283751/; https://www.kodromagazine.com/mundial-italia-90#:~:text=El%20once%20ideal%20del%20Mundial,)%2C%20Milla%20(CAM)%2C.

Before proceeding to change it, I wanted to ask for your thoughts. Pugliese23 (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The all-star team given in the article is incorrect and actually contradicts the source cited directly under the section heading Awards in note 38. The real team of course included Goycochea (instead of Taffarel), Maradona (instead of Donadoni) and Gascoigne (instead of Scifo), among others. Please go ahead and change. Thank you! Lumet (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Time of matches

The time zones are incorrect. Besides all times there is a (UTC+1). But Italy practices Summer daylight saving time each year from March to October. So UTC+2 is correct. Look at Daylight saving time by country for more information. The last time a country with a daylight saving time hosted a World Cup was Germany at the 2006 tournament. Also, the last time a city with a daylight saving time hosted a Summer Olympics was London in the 2012 event. Aminabzz (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This should be all fixed now. We had an issue with an editor a couple of years ago trying to implement a whole raft of changes that seemed reasonable, but ended up not being so. This must be one of those non-suspicious changes that slipped through the net. – PeeJay 14:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The times themselves were correct. The time zones were just incorrect. Aminabzz (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Iran also planned to host

On the year 1977, Imperial Iran sent their own proposal to host the 1990 FIFA World Cup. But the revolution of 1979 ruined that.

Source (in Persian): https://www.varzesh3.com/news/1416397/%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%AF-%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%AE%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88-%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-90

Also it has a newspaper paper from 1977 explaining the matter.

Is it worth to mention in the article? Or not because the plan didn't continue? Aminabzz (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Earthquake

Not related to the World Cup itself, but I think it's worthy of mentioning.

On June 20, during the match of Brazil vs Scotland and Sweden vs Costa Rica a massive earthquake hit Iran (1990 Manjil-Rudbar earthquake).

Is it okay to mention it here? Aminabzz (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll find a lot of things happened around the world during those two matches. As tragic as an earthquake is/can be, I don't think it's worth mentioning in an article about an unrelated event. – PeeJay 14:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)