Talk:2009 FIFA Confederations Cup

Iraq/USA section

Exactly how is this relevant to the article? My objection stems both from the editoralizing ("the intrigue of this matchup...is undeniable" -- which makes me want to deny any intrigue I might feel out of sheer spite) and the lack of necessity for such a section (e.g., the '98 World Cup article has nothing on the "import" of the USA-Iran match, and the blurb here has almost as much space as the far more charged W. Germany-E. Germany clash in the '74 World Cup!). My vote is for deleting this section, because I think it adds nothing of significance to the article. For God's sake, it's about a matchup that MIGHT take place, but we won't know for sure until the draw in FIVE MONTHS! Is it really necessary? --74.192.5.13 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This section should be junked. Remember, France could win the European cup and force an "Italy vs France" showdown, a repeat of the controversial 2006 final. The intrigue of that said matchup would also be undeniable. It's a totally unecessary section. 216.153.73.165 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Since only two people (including me) seem to have an opinion on the matter, I've taken the section down. --74.192.3.135 07:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What if Italy wins Euro 2008?

What happens then? The other finalist participates in this tournament? JACOPLANE • 2008-03-6 10:33

yes - the other european finalist will participate, too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.209.14 (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Qualifiers, but will they play

I am aware of no announcement yet by Brazil to the effect that they will take up the place they have won. If there is a reference, then it should be placed, if not, then we cannot describe them as participants: they are effectively invitees, but we don't know whether they have replied to the invitation. They same will apply to the winners of Euro 2008. Kevin McE (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There was previously a footnote in this article noting that neither the CONMEBOL nor UEFA champions were obliged to take part. You have insisted on changing this. I have tried to accommodate your changes, because all of them have been based in fact, while still keeping the previous style of the article intact. (And yes, I have given a reason for every change I have made, if you read the notes on the edit page.) To reflect your point that early tournaments were by invitation only, I am now going to mark this as Brazil's 6th invitation--not appearance, or qualification. I hope this will satisfy you, as nothing else seems to have done so. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I think it looks unusual to note the appearance statistics for all teams except Brazil. My edits have been designed to try and work around that, while simultaneously respecting your points. Also, if you actually take a look at my "reversion" on June 14th, you'll find it's not a complete reversion. I simply hit the Undo button because it seemed easier to do that than to do a straight edit, but also made some revisions before I saved it. I apologize if this is not standard procedure. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that it isn't Crystal Balling to say that these teams will definitely make appearances: they might incur some international ban, or simply decide to take a fine instead of turning up. It is highly probable that they'll be there, but personally, I wouldn't include them at all. My first change (when there was no meaningful footnote: there was the word in followed by a dead link) accurately distinguished between team participating (the previous term) and those invited to participate. The information I added about S American and European champions was removed, without any explanation (despite the assertion above) in the process of listing teams as qualified, although it included two instances where a team had evidently not qualified. After the anonymous editor made other changes, I pointed out that we cannot say that a team who have no obligation to take part will make their 6th appearance. Frankly, I'm not certain that it is accurate to describe this as their 6th invitation either: do we know that they did not decline an invitation in the early days? As I've said, I would not include this element at all. But I do not believe I have been "difficult to satisfy": I am trying to make an article accurate. Kevin McE (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do Italy still have to obliged to take part if they win the Euro 2008? Raymond "Giggs" Ko 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that they cannot withdraw without penalty: the FIFA article says "the South American and European champions will no longer be obliged to take part": it would not have been difficult to include World Cup winners in that sentence, and they didn't do so. But I'm not confident enough in that to support it being in the article. Kevin McE (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Squads

South Africa, Brazil, New Zealand and Egypt have thus far announced their squads. Someone needs to create a page for that info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.0.40.10 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Stadia names

There have been numerous reversions backwards and forwards between Coca Cola/Ellis Park and Vodacom/Free State as names for stadia. So let's discuss rather than editwar. I would suggest that COMMONNAME should normally hold sway, and therefore that the names of the articles should be reflected in this article, but I can have great sympathy for the argument that non-sponsored names, so long as they have wide recognition, should be preferred (As Wiki editors, we are not getting money from fizzy drinks companies or mobile phone operators, so why should we promote them). What stadium names are FIFA using? Kevin McE (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced Coca-Cola/Vodacom with the unsponsored names of the stadia, as used by FIFA. Please discuss here before any reversion. Kevin McE (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen this comment. We should refer to the stadia by the names we use here on Wikipedia. Not sure why we use Coca-Cola Park but not Vodacom Park, but never mind. There is a note in the venues section to mention that FIFA refers to Coca-Cola Park as "Ellis Park", so that should be enough. – PeeJay 07:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Coca Cola article on wikipedia has been changed to Ellis Park. I would like to change all the instances of Coca Cola park in this article to Ellis Park. If there are any objections please post them here. If there are none I will change them in 3 days time. Crazydude22 (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

International broadcasting rights

Would it be possible if someone put in international broadcasting rights for this tournament? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.170.53 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a TV guide to tell people what channel to watch the games on in their country. – PeeJay 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The injustice done...

...to Egypt national football team by English referee Howard Webb who awarded Brazil a penalty in their match against Egypt in this tournament even though he had earlier awarded a corner to Egypt in the final minute when they were nearly having a 3-3 draw but Kaka ruined it and scored the penalty to make it 4-3 with Egypt national football team losing instead and the Egyptian Football Association are appealing to FIFA to sort out the decision because there are claims of video evidence being used which is illegal under the laws of the FIFA government [1] Keeps being removed by IP addresses. very annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.217.87 (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this a discussion for improving the article or just someoine annoyed at a decision made that can happen in this world of errors? Druryfire (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No the information in that link is being removed by IPs as said above despite it being sourced and is left here until the fuss dies down and until everyone from Brazil stops removing it. --Contributions/86.40.217.87 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, none of the sources mention that this was made using illegal techniques (a comment by a reader does not count!). All articles clearly say that the decision was correct and made by Webb himself. Unless you can show a source that really claims otherwise (not only echoing what some fans say), then no, it's not something that should be included. We do not add what fans speculate. Regards SoWhy 21:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, the correct decision was made at the end of the day, no matter what way the outcome was made. The player stoped a goalscoring opportunity using foul play, so he got sent off. The referee should be praised rather than castrated. Personally, i don't think there's any room for this article unless the result was overturned (which won't happen). Mistakes, wrongly or rightly happen in every match, but they don't go into an article like this, they go into some web forum but no outcome ever happens from thisDruryfire (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the citations say that the ref changed his mind, so they cannot be used to claim that it was anything other than a disputed penalty. As to taking advice, although the ref makes the final decisions, he is entitled to take advice from whomsoever he might choose. Kevin McE (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tie-breakers

As both South Africa and Iraq could finish with the same number of points, the same GD and the same GF, what would be then the next tie-breaker, knowing they have drawn each other? Schnapper (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

See this NYTimes blog entry. Regards SoWhy 08:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, for an official source, see page 30 of this document. – PeeJay 10:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FIFA remove all television monitors after Egypt penalty decision

I think the paragraph above that was removed is now important. It needs new info too. FIFA have acted to remove all television monitors. It has provoked action by FIFA so this is now important. The section was called Controversy which this was. It is important not to loose this information. It has become a big talking point across many different days. [2] [3] [4] [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.221.52 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Scenarios

Are we adding scenarios...please let's decide this quickly so the section has some use? I say we should as it is both newsworthy and factual and seems to have developed as a precedent on previosu world cups. What we need is a clear decision, not someone deleting them and creating an edit war just long enough for the scenarios to be completed. I saw this happen on the Serie A page this year, because some people were monopolizing the page. Nlsanand (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no point adding it for this competition, as the group stage will be over within two or three days. People should just use their brains and do some simple arithmetic for once, instead of being spoon-fed information like needy little children. "Waah, I can't work out whether a team on four points will be able to finish higher than a team with six points when both have one game left! Waah!" – PeeJay 21:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert my removal of it then? Oo SoWhy 22:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SoWhy, I think you're talking about something different. This discussion is about qualifying scenarios, not tie-breaking criteria. – PeeJay 22:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I realized. Those are misplaced too though. Regards SoWhy 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Tie-breaking criteria

(edit conflict) I do think it's misplaced. Tie-breaking is standardized for every FIFA game and as such, information about how it's done should be added to the article about tiebreaking in association football, not here. There is no relevance in that at the moment and certainly no coverage regarding tiebreaking in this tournament. Regards SoWhy 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I disagree. Tie-breaking criteria can change from competition to competition, and from year to year, so adding the tie-breaking criteria for each competition is entirely appropriate. – PeeJay 20:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

They are still irrelevant to the article at hand unless tie-breaking is an issue and covered in reliable sources as such. Many regulations change from tournament to tournament but we never list all those changes in the articles unless they are relevant to the games. I see no reason to handle this competition otherwise. If there is any tie-breaking which is really notable, we can add the relevant parts but unless that happens, should we really have such a section? Regards SoWhy 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone asked about the tie-breaking criteria above, so obviously someone else felt it was necessary to add it to the article. Personally, I think it's pertinent info. Third opinion anyone? – PeeJay 23:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's pertinent already, it's just not relevant without any ties to break. I'm all for adding it to Group tournament ranking system#Tiebreaker criteria for example but not here unless the criteria were changed significantly and this change evoked coverage in reliable sources. Regards SoWhy 14:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The tie-breakers are always important, because different competitions have different rules and not everyone knows how teams are ranked. chandler 14:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is relevant, but should be deleted after the group stage should no teams be tied on match points. (And if I may editorialize, I think it is absolutely asinine that Italy should be ranked higher than Egypt while they are tied at 3 points (or should they both finish at 4). Matches between tied teams being less important than overall goal difference is absurd. Being less important than total goals is insanity.)Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Insane or not, it's what the FIFA tie-breaking rules are. Italy has more goals and thus is placed second. We cannot change the table just before we don't like the way FIFA ranks teams. Regards SoWhy 17:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, I never suggested that we should. I was just tangentially criticizing FIFA's ludicrous system. Obviously this site must reflect reality, however absurd it may be.Alanmjohnson (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the tie-breaking criteria should always be listed, even after the group stage is over, even if they are not used in the group results. Years from now readers may come back and do what-if scenerios by changing just one score or one goal, so the criteria will come in handy. I was just looking at the U-21 European championship and I was frustrated because I could not find the criteria there. Belarus was winning against Italy momentarily and I was not sure who would have qualified for the semi-finals had they tied in points at 4.Juve2000 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Line up images

Please check the line up images in Group A and Group B... maybe there are some problems. Hoising (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why blocked for anon editing?

Wikipedia never used to be like this years ago. 166.203.170.165 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's been blocked for anon editing? What are you on about? – PeeJay 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they refer to the fact that the article has been semi-protected due to massive vandalism and speculation by IP editors. Regards SoWhy 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Qualified Teams??

Am I the only one that notices that the following text is completely untrue?

"Each team was represented in the draw by its competitor in the Miss World 2008 competition, except for Iraq, which was represented by Miss World 2007, Zhang Zilin, from the People's Republic of China. "

The qualified teams are selected because of their victories in their respective continental competitions, not by the Miss World Competition. Can we get this removed as soon as possible? It's extremely misleading and is more than likely vandalism

Tjfaivr (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Tjfaivr

I think you've mis-read the quote. It means to say that, at the actual draw, the teams were represented by their Miss World entrants. This has nothing to do with how the teams qualified for the tournament, but who was present at the draw. – PeeJay 23:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The great flag debate

Lets have an informal vote here as to whether we should have flags on the map or just colours.Juve2000 (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll throw my 2 cents in and vote for flags. (Flag 1, Colour 0).Juve2000 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, as the creator of the flag map, I prefer the flags also. (Flags 2, Colors 0) ~ KzooKid (talk

None of the two maps are suitable imo, if any map, it should be a map like this one chandler 17:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The results of a Confed cup aren't as extensive as those of a world cup. If a reader can identify a nation on the map, he/she could easily find out how well that team preformed from the info displayed in the article,IMO. ~ KzooKid (talk)

Are you implying people don't know where the countries are? Why would there even be a need to imply where the countries were in a article like this? It's common knowledge, the normal "MOS" is to have a map of the performance under the Participating teams, see world cups, European championship etc chandler 21:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I Want The One With Flags. (Flags 3, Colours 0) Gonzalochileno (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is the result of discussion, not of voting: reasons should be given, and "I Want" is not an adult reason. I oppose the flag map on the grounds of aesthetics, consistency with previous maps, and the possibility of adding further information. If the map only shows where the competing nations are located on a map, I would suggest that it adds nothing to the article and so should be removed entirely. Kevin McE (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

100% agree with Kevin McE. Either use the regular color-coded map as shown above by chandler or no map at all. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd hate to see the flag map go, but it does show you where the teams are. With that said I'd prefer the colored one. –Howard the Duck 07:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The flags are great for the nations that are large. But what about smaller nations where the flags get distorted or dont show very well... ie New Zealand's? It looks like a yellow blob. As a Cartographer showing flags is an excellent way to convey the point of who qualified. However on such a scale flags trying to represent small land bodies. It just simply looks like a mess. I say like all of the confed cup wiki entries there should be no map. user:Auxodium II eng

Agree with user:Auxodium II. Maps should point out the results of nations in each tournaments, rather than locations: there are already lists of participants.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't really see the need for either map. - fchd (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

i agree to removal of the map. or have it showing who made the semi finals. Or the top 3 teams and the rest one colour. But i think the removal of this stupid map would be best.user:Auxodium II eng

Agree with fchd. About the colored map, I don't think many readers use colored map to see how far the teams went in the competition, it's just too complicated too see a blind map just to see which team went to the semi finals. It might be a little bit useful for 32 teams tournament (FIFA World Cup) to see which continent/area performs better, but in this tournament there are only a maximum of two teams per continent, the colored maps would be useless. If a map is really needed for the article, I suggest a simpler map with a common colors for all the participants except the host and the winners. - Martin tamb (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Silver and Bronze Shoe

I was just wondering where the Silver and Bronze Shoe awards came from. AFAIK, there was no award presented at the trophy presentation ceremony (though admittedly that could be because Torres and Villa were not there), but it seems odd to rank one over the other considering they both (along with Clint Dempsey) scored 3 goals in the tournament. Can anybody shed some light on this? AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, Torres and Villa both had an assist, while Dempsey didn't, and Torres played five less minutes, meaning his strike rate was microscopically higher. AfterMayAndIntoAugust (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Spain and Italy in different groups?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it looks like Spain and Italy were both in Group/Pot A according to the article, which in the statement following the laying out of the groups goes on to say they were not. Like I said, maybe I just don't get it, but it seems contradictory... Darquis (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The pots are simply the way in which the teams were divided before the groups were drawn. South Africa, Brazil, Italy and Spain were placed in Pot A so that each team would not be drawn with at least two of the others in the same pot, and likewise for the teams in Pot B. – PeeJay 22:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Soccer ball

Please consider uploading an image of the soccer ball locally, it is up for deletion on commons. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)