Talk:2002 FIFA World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2002 FIFA World Cup is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

June 13, 2006

Featured list candidate

Not promoted

Association football Portal

The article on 2002 FIFA World Cup is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
	B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
	High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Point something out

The hand ball in the USA vs Germany quarterfinal was not 'alleged' as this article claims. Camera replays clearly show the the ball was blocked on the line by a german defender. I'm changing that. 68.102.104.2 (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry, that was me. T.z0n3 (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All-Star Squad

I seem to remember that an American, Claudio Reyna, was placed on the Tournament All-Stars squad. It was big news for us...the first American to receive that honor. Wondering why his name isn't listed... Maybe he was a "sub" on the team, like on the 2nd 11 out of 22 players? Would like to have this cleared up... --AaronM 15:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronaldo

I really can't catch this one:

He ended up with a total of eight goals in the tournament to win the Golden Boot. This was the third highest total in a FIFA World Cup since Just Fontaine scored thirteen times in Sweden '58, behind only Eusébio's nine in England '66 and Gerd Müller's ten in Mexico '70.

Gbnogkfs 12 July 2006, 13:31 UT

[edit] Tie-break

So when two teams are tied on points, does the one with the most goals advance or the one with the highest number of goals for minus goals against? --rmhermen

When team A and team B are tied on points, the following applies:

The team with the highest goal difference (goals made minus goals received) goes through;
If the goal difference is the same for A and B the team with the highest number of goals made (in all its three matches of the first round) goes through;
If team A and team B made the same number of goals the match between A and B is taken into account: the team that won this match goes through;
If the match between A and B ended with a draw the team that goes through is assigned by lot.

I hope this makes things a little clearer...

Cheers -- G_from_B

I can't figure out why the bar at the bottom is shifteed to the right. Mintguy 14:36 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] Almost Didn't Qualify

I don't have all of the specifics which is why I can't put this in the article but, as I remember it, Brazil and Germany almost didn't qualify for the tournament. I think that they had to wait until the last weekend of games, and had to have certain teams lose to make it into the field of 32. Maybe someone could note here on the talk page the specifics. MarnetteD | Talk 05:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Germany finished 2nd in their qualification group behind England, and had to play two play-off games against Ukraine. But: both England and Germany drew their last game, so if Germany had won their match they would have qualified directly ahead of England. Brazil finished their qualification third (30points, like 4th place Paraguay) of four directly qualified teams, and as long as they won their last match themselves they were sure to qualify as Brazil in 4th place had 1 point more than 5th placed Uruguay before the final round, so they were under pressure. I can't remember when they fired Emerson Leão and put Luiz Felipe Scolari in charge, that might have "saved" the qualification for Brazil? Poulsen 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Something else - following the sacking of Christoph Daum for drug addiction and the 1-5 thrashing by England, Germany didn't inspire much confidence (needs sources of course) and the worst Brazil qual campaign ever (I checked the qualification articles, Brazil finished 1st in all their other qualifications) didn't inspire too many either. Poulsen 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with 2002 World Cup Tournament

I originally split off the article (and 1994 World Cup Tournament, and 1998 World Cup Tournament) because this article became too big. Wikipedia recommends trimming stuff over 32K, and as most people know, if you try to edit large articles, Wikipedia times out a lot. If this is merged back, merge the other two as well please. --DR31 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Mildly in favour of just deleting the other page. I can see why the size might encourage de-merging and that there might be additional value in having a separate report of the matches but I would rather just have the Football World Cup 2002 page with links to match reports as I have POV concerns about the other page especially as Oliver Kahn's role in Brazil's success will be contentious between his many supporters and his many detractors.MLA 16:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete the page? No. There is definite additional value. Most, if not all, World Cup articles have more detailed information, at least about the important games. Try to cleanup POV if you think it's bad, but I personally don't see any POV in the final section. --DR31 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with MLA, the merge should not occur. Instead, 2002 World Cup Tournament should be renamed to Football World Cup 2002 (match reports) in line with all the other subsections of this article. Then, all extraneous information from 2002 World Cup Tournament should be removed (such as the statistics section) and a note placed that the article is a subpage of this article.

If there aren't any objections, I'll do this in the next two weeks. The same for the 1994 World Cup Tournament and the 1998 World Cup Tournament articles as well. -D. Wu 22:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Makese sense. I will do that myself. --DR31 _(talk) 15:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article requires cleanup. It is really not up to standard. At least three different types of tables are used for group play alone. DR31 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the cleanup notice, as the the types of match tables have been standardized.Poulsen 17:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This article really really needs clean-up. Listen guys, I know Belgium is on a down slope lately, but we're not yet bad enough to be deleted from history. I seem to remember Belgium qualifying from the group stages and facing Brazil after that. We lost 2-0 and started our descent towards obscurity AFTER that. Apparently someone wanted to create a more glamourous past for Wales, having them win the finals and everything. This is ridiculously petty, but sadly I don't know squat about wiki so I can't fix it. Can someone please restore this page ?(this is my very first post, I registered just to say this, so excuse any infractions against posting rules for now) Naglfar-Lindar 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misjudgements section

The Misjudgements Suspicion section needs to be looked at closely. I'm tempted to delete it in its entirety. It is a good example of NPOV as it reads as if written by an Italian and contains un-verified and un-quoted perjorative statements. I'm not sure it can be cleaned-up but I won't cut it yet in case someone else can clean it. MLA 15:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've copied the section here as there are too many issues to work on. I'll say rename it to "Refereeing controversy" - it now sounds like it was definite misjudgements. Also, it should be moved up to the general description of the WC, no reason in having it after the final. Also, it needs heavy referencing ever to fly on its own! Also, I'm pretty sure the hardened Lazio, Milan, and whatnot players did not cry themselves to sleep over "AGAIN 1966", even if it was "humiliating".. in 1966. Poulsen 15:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Coming back after a couple of years I noticed that any reference to the misjudgement affair, including a very critical statement by Mr. Blatter in the days of the world cup, which I had inserted, has been removed by some diligent hand. On the other hand, delirious opinions of some users that make appear the whole thing an exaggeration of some poor mind of a hooligan, have not been touched. Maybe the only way to avoid an editing war is really to delete any reference to the misjudgement affair. But the way the article is written by Feb. 19th 2008 is not objective. There have been misjudgements, mostly favouring the Korean team. I will not spend the time to reinsert the references that prove that but I will be back in two years to check if this comment has been removed from the discussion.

[edit] ™

the ™ designation doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. afaik, it is to be used by trademark holders to signal their ownership for legal reasons, but not normally used by third-parties referring to it, & surely not in newspapers or encyclopedias. Appleby 21:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Football World Cup 2002 → 2002 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 10:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WORST WORLD CUP EVER

WHO AGREES WITH ME? ME --201.138.124.63 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Me too! This World cup was so setted up Fernandopascullo 00:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA, ESPN, and CNN disagree with you and people value their judgements better than yours.--Sir Edgar 06:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have my own view on this but Wikipedia is not a message board. MLA 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar thanks for the ESPN page now I have a reference and citations for the low quality football , and the low quality referees. Yes exactly from the ESPN page remember the football standard "was not quite up to scratch" and "the standard of refereeing described with alarming regularity in much less delicate fashion."[1] . If you want to see an amazing World Cup why dont you check out some 1970 videos or just turn your TV on and lets see how Korea plays without the help of the referees. :) --201.138.124.63 00:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Definetely the worst ever. This is the second world cup to have heavy controversy on refs. But at least in 1966 it was only one match. Koreans made this world cup suck. You can't even say that was Italy's fault to not score, because when they did it or they create an ocassion some ref with his pockets full of korean money made the impossible to invalidate it. Man, red car because you receive a kick?... at least he could pretend to make it a little bit cleaner. And for the guy of the first response... no bad attitude to you man, but... you really trust on FIFA as an objective point? they are going to make look wonderful everything they sponsor. And for ESPN and CNN... americans don't know much about soccer when Beckham isn't around. As a matter of fact, the spanish versions of those two networks were clearly critical on the 2002 world cup. Come on, every single NEUTRAL fan of good soccer says the same. Of course in Korea and USA they are going to make a big feast with this World Cup, they were the beneficiaries on the ref controversy. And the last point... obviously personal toughs: korean fans suck, you can't put "they were so great and bla, bla, bla" on the article... there is nothing like a stadium full of good latin barra brava style, some european ultras or those africans dancing even if they are 5-0 down.--Bauta 03:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not consider Wikipedia to be a discussion board. This page is not for the discussion of the 2002 FIFA World Cup but for the discussion of the 2002 FIFA World Cup article. Please find a forum elsewhere to discuss your personal opinions regarding the world cup. MLA 06:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Bauta on this one (and --201.138.124.63, the topic creator). Now, I see that this is not a forum, but a discussion page for the article, so I will make my oppinion about the article itself. How come there's almost no mention of the controversial (polemic, embarrasing, dirty, awful, etc) refereeing in the matches that made S. Korea a semifinalist? Here, in Latin america, the referees were all over the news, and the most common commentary about the world cup was "(Insert team here, Portugal, Italy, Spain) were cheated out of the world cup!". As I believe, there should at least a section about the controversy within the article, but it seems like whenever someone brings this up, it gets erased pretty soon. If you do some research (Here, in Wikipedia itself), you can easily find out that, for instance, Referee Byron Moreno was a pretty controversial referee, and even got suspended from refereeing professional matches (because of an incident completely unrelated to this cup)... How come there's no mention in this article that this was the kind of man FIFA deemed adequate to referee such an important match? Orurum 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

All these anonymous accounts and unregistered users complaining about how well one of the co-hosts did in the first WC held in Asia smells of racism. Look at how often teams do well when playing at home and as hosts. And yet when an Asian country hosts the WC and does well, everyone cries foul. Grow up, you babies! The 1986 FIFA World Cup article barely mentions Maradona's cheating with his "Hand of God" action (yes, it was blatant and deliberate cheating). And yet, Italian and Spanish fans continue to attack South Korea's performance in the 2002 tournament. There was even a user who claimed in my Talk page that South Korea cannot win without the help of referees. But then when South Korea beat Togo a few days ago, he says the referees helped yet again. Wow! Pathetic...

The fact of the matter is Italy would have lost anyhow. Even if Totti (who has a TERRIBLE reputation for spitting, diving, and unfair play, and most likely deserved his second yellow card anyhow) was not thrown out of the game, Ahn would have still scored the golden goal and South Korea would have won. Even if he didn't and the score remained 1-1, Italy has NEVER won a WC game on penalties and South Korea would have won in the shootout, just as it did with Spain. Regardless, Italy played a terrible game trying to win 1-0 and using all its players for defense after scoring the first goal. Most Western sources criticize Italy's play during that match and think the Italians deserved to lose. As for the Spain vs. South Korea match, there are always off-side calls in a game and some are deserved and some are not. Spain doesn't do well in the WC anyhow.

Regardless, sources like CNN and the BBC are more important than the opinion of a few Italian and Spanish football fans using anonymous accounts to gripe about having their WC dreams dashed by an Asian team.--Sir Edgar 04:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The 1986 article mentions the Hands of God. It is very different a player cheating from the referees cheating, it has nothing to do.

Bad refereeing in 2002 WC against Portugal, Italy and Spain is mentioned in wikipedia articles in other languages and has been accepted by FIFA although they denied that it was intentional to promote football in the Asian market. It is one of the prominent facts of the WC rather than the fact that local fans were supporting their team.

Ok, excuse me if I don't want to make a page saying "I like this, I like that, and i think corea is super cool". But you can review some articles i work for and stop crying of anonymous accounts, look this or this one or maybe this, see the history and then maybe you can guess where I from and stop calling me italian or spanish. I'm just a football fan, and like every other football fan aside of Koreans, Brazilians and people from U.S. I think that was the worst world cup because when you want to be the tournament surprise you don't need referees. Senegal, and the turkey were surprises of the world cup, corea was simply ruiner. France and Argentina were disappointments, Spain and Italy were assaulted deliberately.

Of course Italy would lost anyhow... when they scored the golden goal the referee denied it. And the problem is not whether Italy played good or bad, the problem is that the match refereing was incredible one sided in korean favor, and that wasn't the first time in that world cup, and wasn't the last time, so obviously everybody thinks that this was a setted up world cup. Adn about 1986, you said it, the article mentions it... the 2002 article don't mention it. And this was one goal made by a player, that the referee didn't see and later he claimed that was his fault to validate the goal. In this case are three matches with a one-sided referee, curiously the same team, and the whole world saying that was all setted-up. Oh... and Korea beat Togo? no way... really? they beat the superpowerful team of Togo? wow... they must be the champions right now.

There is no such POV statement about any team on this page like that. It just states who won, etc. The details are in the match reports article.--Sir Edgar 00:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in your terms... why you don't delete the maradona facts on 1986?... So, the article has to say "korean fans are the best, they are super fun and neetos, they really made love so well to me" (aside, every host country does the same, have you seen Germany matches recently? they produce home advantage with the only difference that they don't cry like womans when the ball is in the goal area) but not the fact that the whole world thinks that it was a setted up cup. Whatever man, it looks that you want this article to be your article and throw all the roses to korea... a mess you have to hide the truth to do it. But well, with a good documental every one will see it... FIFA never admited that 1966 was setted up for England, but every ones knows that.--Bauta 02:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's work together to provide an accurate and balanced commentary on this since it seems to be an important to issue to some people.--Sir Edgar 02:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know who made the reference, but it was fine. Not too much of it, but teling it. Congrats to whoever made it, specially if it was you sir edgar. Now, there are some edtis with the Rivaldo event... I want to put it here before it starts another discussion: Maybe we have to enlarge the suspicions of setting-up section a little bit to include the spanish, belgium, and turkish claims. The problem isn't just about the Italy game. Now... into the other point; you can't put all the stuff about the Rivaldo behavior, maybe try to put in the Rivaldo article, but man... nobody specifies about the Totti "dive", the spanish goal invalidated, or the belgium one. The problem isn't this specific play or that specific play, the problem is the feeling that referees were extremely one-sided in favor of specific teams.--Bauta 23:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see some references for your claim every single unbiased football fan supports your view.

Do you? Then go grabbing into the article history: there is plenty of references, like the critical statement by Mr. Blatter pointing out the misjudgements in the Spain vs. Korea game, which has been removed by some zealous hand. The bottom line is that the world is learning a lot about Korea and communication in that country simply by observing how this wikipedia article has been systematically mutilated of important material.

Indeed I know of quite a number of unbiased football fans who don't support your view. As others have stated, Toti clearly deserved the second yellow and Italy has shown time and time again they have no understanding of the term 'fair play' and can only win by cheating and simulating, ala the Italy vs Australia match for example... Nil Einne 16:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AET marker

In the detailed match listings (where they list the goal scorers and times, it correctly lists the Korea 2 - 1 Italy match as AET, but it does not list it as AET in the bracket above it. Can someone please fix this? Thank you.

[edit] Message to siredgar

It's frustrating that this article don't say what the whole world saw because one of the "red devils" (very original, a mess that Belgium, Man Utd, and Indpte copy that...) want this to be his page... so I put this message on his talk page, and now for every one:

Just seeing the history of the article. Why you delete information that can even be documented?, that every one, except for corean nationalists, agrees? If you are corean, or just think that they finish fourth because they were an incredible awesome super cool team... please, try to move on and accept that the 2002 world cup was full of controversy, specially with the corean matches.--Bauta 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The information deleted is not proven. They are merely insinuations and accusations. Anyhow, most Western media have dismissed Italian and Spanish claims against the South Korean team as "sour grapes" and probably racist in nature.--Sir Edgar 04:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Even the reference to the critical statement by Mr. Blatter after the surrealistic Spain vs. Korea game has been removed. What was not proven in that case, that Mr. Blatter said that, or that Mr. Blatter exists, or that a world cup took place in Korea? Sir Edgar, you are preposterous just like your nickname.

Ok, here it is from the high and mighty ESPN, but the latin ESPN (Not spanish... latin)[2]: "Luego que Japón quedara eliminado por una gran actuación turca, Corea quería mantenerse en pie frente a la poderosa Italia. Y lo logró bajo dramáticas y controvertidas circunstancias. ... ... Millones salieron a las cancas a festejar semejante triunfo, pero no sería la última vez que lo harían, en parte, gracias a la ayuda arbitral. ... ...Korea entonces se convirtió en el primer conjunto asiático en llegar a esa instancia y aumentó el festejo de los aficionados así como también las críticas por el método de selección de los árbitros."

Traduced: "After Japan was eliminated by a great turkish performance, Korea wanted to stay on their feets against the powerful Italy. And they did it under dramatic and controversial circumstances. ... ... Millions were into the streets to celebrate the big victory, but this wasn't the last time they would, partly, thanks to the referee's help. ... ... So Korea became the first asian team to reach the semifinals and increased the fans celebration and the critics for the referee selection method."

And from your awesome super cool BBC [3]:

Awful? pre-meditated? outrageous? provocative?... well... maybe they are racists or neo-nazis, how can people say that Korea wasn't the incredible super fine yoopie team that deserved the championship?.

Documentated... and don't throw accuastions of racism so easily, that's a very serious matter.--Bauta 16:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The BBC article seems to point out that there may have been many misjudgements. Did the referees also favor the USA, Croatia, and Senegal for some reason? Why isn't this mentioned in your edits?--Sir Edgar 00:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate human error is the same that pre-meditated and provocative for you?

Do you have definitive evidence of "pre-meditated and provacative" that it should go into a Wikipedia article? Leave opinions out of references.--Sir Edgar 02:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The French 2002 WC article has a section about bad refereeing [4] in several matches. Something along these lines needs to be added to this article.

I'm not sure how to go about giving my opinion or editing here, but I find some parts of the article on the 2002 unjustifiable. The descriptions of other world cups sound objective but this sounds like someone grinding an axe. I believe I can offer a balanced report, but I don't know exactly how to edit being new to this site. I was just appauled at the account as a soccer fan for the following reasons:

Italians and Spanish think there were problems with the refereeing, but many people think Korea out-hustled the teams they beat while receiving no more favoritism from the refs than other hosting countries have received over the years. Anyway, it's not our job to decide it, but to represent the controversy. In the middle of the peice, "debateable and controversial" sounds like an argument not a report, and "several erroneous decisions" is a foregone conclusion. The most that can be said object ively is "controversial".

The last two lines are a disgrace to this encyclopedia and need to be fixed.

Firstly, this is far from 'one of the most controversial' world cups. 1966 and 1990 had very controversial calls in the final game and 1934 had Mussolini meeting with referees. "There was controversy surrounding would be more accurate", but I believe nothing at all here would be better. It is by no means "widely regarded". I follow soccer closely and no-one I know regards the controversies in 2002 as that big.

Being known by you must be a good reference of objectivity, I see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.138.253 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, the "widely rumored" comment is simply libelous. I have never heard of this rumor except as a wild specualtion. It certainly does not belong in what should be an objective account.

Actually, erasing these is the only solution I see as they are both speculative and do not represent the World Cup accurately. I believe we should make mention of the controversy without drawing conclusions.

I think I can write a proposed edit but am not sure how to go about that. Can anyone advise? - ksmyth, July 18, 2006.

[edit] Knockout stages

Since the talk on the 2006 is way too long, and the issue not quite the same, I'm responding here. I fail to see the need for a listing of the group stage teams in the Knockout stages section. If a reader wants to know who came out of what group there's an entire section on the group stages. - Pal 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Other than giving the reader some finger excercise by making him scroll up the page, what useful purpose does leaving this information out provide? Jooler 04:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually more relavant on the 2006 page, because we are hoping that this would be a solution to the edit war that has been taking place. We're considering changing the Knockout stage to a tournament-inclusive bracket for all of the World Cups. Please read the issue to familiarize yourself with the issue we're having and make a case on the 2006 page. Thanks, --Palffy 04:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read what's over there, and it still doesn't make sense to refer to group play in the knockout round. I wouldn't have a problem if you used the bracket that includes group play in a separate section somewhere else in the article (after the final or before group play?) and removed the one from the knockout stage. - Pal 13:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to show which groups the last 16 came from and whether they finished first or second. It gives context to the knockout stages. It shows that they weren't put in those boxes in random order and shows how teams would have faired if they had finished in the other slot. Jooler 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out the change I just made. This gives group context without suggesting that the group play round is part of the knockout stage. I feel this is a good compromise, but if you disagree you can revert it and we'll continue discussing it. - Pal 15:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Of the two, the more graphical Jooler's edit is a better representation...::shrug:: --Palffy 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What the heck happend to this section? Can anyone make sense out of it? I've no idea how to read this table.sikander 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we simply use this format ? Its easy to read for everyone. sikander 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But what do you think of this format? Jooler 09:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Perfect; simple and easy to understand. sikander 00:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Alert

the bracket diagram is messed up (Turkey and Brazil seemed to be switched).

This guy is vandalizing the page: 81.155.3.180

--Peripatetic 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think I got most of it; everyone check to make sure I didn't miss any. - Pal 20:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been done again 22:56 22 June 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Match reports

I was wondering if the article should have links to the match reports, as per the 2006 FIFA World Cup article. Is there any reason not to? The reports seem to be available from two locations:

I can't find the 1998 world cup site... so on the assumption that FIFA are going to move the reports around every few years, would linking to the 2006 site be better? --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've opted for using the reports from the 2002 site for the time being, as they're more complete. --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

I added an awards section for every world cup. I don't know if you like the format I have it in, but I do think it is important that we have these awards for each tournaments article. Let me know what you guys think.Squadoosh 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! However, should it also include the silver ball and bronze ball awards? Or maybe not? (Just an idea.) --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe not because in the link to the "Golden Shoe" and also the Awards link on the bottom the page provides who won the Silver and Bronze balls...lol. Thanks. Squadoosh 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full Ranking

I really like the idea of having a full team ranking for each World Cup. Someone else do not and keeps deleting it. In past World Cups FIFA has adopted it to decide which teams could go through the knockout stages, and they are still using in World Cup Qual stages. And It is very good to give an idea of a team's overall performance in the cup. I would like to know why you keep deleting it (and please do not reply that it compares apples with oranges, because it does not).--130.251.4.11 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If FIFA use it, I'd like to see some justification for its removal. I personally think that the third place play-off is nonsense, but you don't see me removing that from any articles. --StuartBrady (Talk) 13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FIFA don't use it as it was presented here. It is a piece of OR and has no place here. Sorry. --Guinnog 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay — that's a better reason. Thanks. --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FIFA uses it. If you have a look at the article 2006 FIFA World Cup seeding you will see that there is an official ranking in each World Cup, which ranks the teams from the first to the 32nd. UEFA uses a similar criterion to determine the best runner-ups in qualifying stages. --130.251.4.11 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. As you can see on the page you refer to, FIFA's rankings are based on such calculations, but not completely so. Also from that page, FIFA have expressed dissatisfaction with the seeding system and plan to change it. But the main argument against including the table is that it may confuse people into thinking this has some significance beyond (possibly) deciding future seedings. The World cup is won by the winners of the final; it is not essentially a league competition, and including this table may be seen as implying that it is. Hope this clarifies why I am so strongly against its inclusion. --Guinnog 15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I will try to explain mine: FIFA seeds the teams on two different rankings: The "CocaCola" one and the final ranking of the last World Cups, with different weights. The fact here is that the final ranking do exist, and it is official. What they are planning to change is the CocaCola ranking and the weights assigned to the two ranking systems. And please note that the final world cup ranking is used to rank the teams from 5th place to last, since the first four places are assigned by the finals. My proposal is to include it anyways, maybe in a different page. We could add an entry in the "2006 FIFA World Cup general information" box. --130.251.4.11 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objection to that. I just don't really think it belongs on the main WC entries. --Guinnog 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goals total

The infobox says 161, someone just typed 158 above the list of scorers, I count 157 from the scorers section (thanks to Excel). Is there an official figure? SLUMGUM yap stalk 22:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi Arabia

Why is Saudi Arabia classified as an AFC participant? Isn't it middleeastern? Oyo321 05:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the middle east is part of the asian continent

[edit] A youtube video as a source?

How is a youtube video a reasonable source to state that Totti was wrongfully sent off in that game. I removed the source and tried to keep NPOV.

--207.35.14.235 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You are, of course, correct that that is not a reliable source. -- Visviva 07:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The youtube video showed from different angles the controversial playing action. If you were honest, you would at least have left the reference there so that everybody could make his own mind. By acting as you did you committed censorship, wich is a well-known practice in Asian countries.

[edit] redemption

What is surprising is that france did something smart. See had Uraguay defeated france they would have qualified for the round of 16 over senagal. Because of uraguay's goal differeance.

how is that smart?--Numberwang 15:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

and that doesnt even make sense.Numberwang 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in summary

The summary should mention the major controversial calls, but the previous version seemed especially targeted to imply something sinister about just one country. Many sentences had links to articles that had nothing like that sentence. There were many bad calls, and you can Google an article about your favorite bad call; don't hand-pick only commentaries on the Korea games. News articles that overview the whole 2002 World Cup mention various bad calls, don't just quote the sentence about Korea. That's all I'm saying. CBJourney 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meet again before the final

Is it me, fifa or wikipedia who has it wrong? I thought that teams that meet in the group stage can only meet again if they are in the final together. Spain and Paraguay were in the same group and advanced to the knock-out stages, but it would be possible fot them to have met in the semi finals, the same thing with Denmark and Senegal, England and Sweden and Japan and Belgum, all of the teams to be precise. Was this a unique format? Because I know that in the 2006 World cup, group winners and runners up could only meet again if they were in the final.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.197.184 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2007

Brazil and Turkey (Group C) met in the semifinals. It was a special format to make sure the hosts will play on their home soil no matter where they finish in their group (1st or 2nd). Follow South Korea's and USA's path to the final. Edgar (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of final

"The first goal should really be marked down as an error by Germany goalkeeper, Oliver Kahn, who failed to deal with a long-range shot from Rivaldo, spilling the ball directly into Ronaldo's path. The second goal was much better taken" sounds very POV. Does anyone else think this should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.126.9 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The second part, about the second goal being better taken, perhaps. But not the first part. The first part seems bang on to me. – Pee Jay 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)