User talk:Zirath

Denmark cannot be the best eight second place team. Because in second place team ranking, matches against the last-placed team in each of the six-team groups are not included in this ranking. Therefore, the last match of Denmark will not effect the point and goal difference of Denmark in second-place team ranking (Denmark 10 points with -2 GD). The worst potential second-place team in the other groups is Slovenia, if Slovenia draw and Iceland loss in their last matches (Slovenia 10 points with +4 GD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawiphan (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

2nd in group D could still be worse than Denmark if Turkey, Romania and Hungary all lose. eg Tur 0-5 Ned, Rom 0-1 Est and Hun 0-0 And, leaves Romania 2nd with 10pts and -4GD Zirath (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I just opened a discussion at WT:FOOTY, at the section WT:FOOTY#Remove borderline in standings that i thought might be of your interest. One editor keeps inserting borderline in already completed standingstables and i think they should be removed as they always has been? There are no need for borders when group is finished and teams has background colors. I would appreciate your input on the issue. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say that I worked on the scenarios for the next set of matches and then compared to your sandbox. I could not find anything wrong with your "calculations", but instead I found a couple of mistakes I made. Just thought you should know that your scenarios are completely correct (with reservation for group F, the only group I have not looked at yet, and the fact that we could both be wrong), in case people starts arguing and edit warring tonight. I will be there to update the tables, just like I am updating World Cup qualification. Qed237 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there is currently a discussion that might be of interest to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Team positions in team tables, since you have been updating such articles.

Basically it is if we should display teams on same position if they have the same points and tiebreakers, during the tournament and before. For example

Alternative 1: 1) CHI 2) COL; 3) ECU, 4) URU, 5) PAR; 6) VEN; 7) ARG, 8) BOL; 9) BRA; 10) PER. Alternative 2: 1) CHI 1) COL; 1) ECU, 1) URU, 5) PAR; 6) VEN; 7) ARG, 7) BOL; 7) BRA; 7) PER.

The exampel is for Template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONMEBOL table where 4 of the teams won 2-0 and they have exact same tiebreaker.

So should they all be listed at same position and should we list all teams at same position before any match is played? Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Team positions in team tables. Qed237 (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my error so quickly in UEFA_Euro_2016_qualifying. I forgot to take into account that the final position in group A can still change. I will make sure I am completely certain in the future. Kind regards, Guest9999 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure if I have said this before or not, but thank you for your very good work, especially on the World Cup qualification tables and articles. I have been away, and will not be here full time due to personal issues, but I know that it does not matter because you are here doing such a good work. Also on the side I want to inform you that I have been working on creating a programme for calculation possible scenarios/points. The code will calculate the possibilities of every team and group in ranking of second-placed teams and fourth-placed teams (excluding last-placed teams) as well as the possible standings within the group. This to confirm all letters.

Once again, thank you for doing a great work. Qed237 (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now made a computer programme from this and I will post my results on User:Qed237/sandbox5. There teams can be compared and also groups, for example if 4 groups have "max 10 points" in runners up-table while a team will finish top 2 and have at least 11 points in runners-up then they have qualified. Qed237 (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

May I ask how you added palestine as X in this edit. Qed237 (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

They cannot finish 5th. If they finish 4th, TLS is 5th so the two wins vs Malaysia will count + 2 0–0 draws = 8 points minimum, same as Iran. 7pts is the most that can be a worse 4th. If TLS pass MAS then PLE have only 3pts but they are in top 3. Zirath (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are the Max and Min per group right now. (not 100% so ask if really unsure about any)

The cut off for the 2nds table can be anywhere from 6-15pts, while the cut off for the 4ths table can be anywhere from 0-7pts Zirath (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I will leave it for now and take a closer look at the numbers I get from my computer programme. Qed237 (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have corrected my computer programme with some issues I saw, but I do think it is correct now. How do you calculate your numbers? In group A I get 13 and 5 for 2nd place, and 7 and 0 for 4th place. Can you give me example on how you get 14, in other words when will that happen? Qed237 (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My computer programme now gives you right on everything except group A. How do you do your calculations? Pen and paper or a programme? And how to you calculate scenarios before matches? Qed237 (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I made a mistake making a summary of the teams, now I get 9 instead of 7. So I have 13-5 for second place and 9-0 for fourth place. All other groups are the same so it is just the 14 for "Max 2nd" that differs. Qed237 (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Why you always reverse the X status for Indonesia? (X=Assured at least second place). this group stage use these rules for tie breaker:

1. Points in head-to-head matches among tied teams;
2. Goal difference in head-to-head matches among tied teams;
3. Goals scored in head-to-head matches among tied teams;
4. If more than two teams are tied, and after applying all head-to-head criteria above, a subset of teams are still tied, all head-to-head criteria above are reapplied exclusively to this subset of teams;
5. Goal difference in all group matches;
6. Goals scored in all group matches;
7. Penalty shoot-out if only two teams are tied and they met in the last round of the group;
8. Disciplinary points (yellow card = 1 point, red card as a result of two yellow cards = 3 points, direct red card = 3 points, yellow card followed by direct red card = 4 points);
9. Drawing of lots.

So with Indonesia already beat Thailand and Timor-Leste, even if they lose the last match to Laos, and two of the three other teams (THA, TLS or LAO) win their remaining games, only Laos can finish above Indonesia. I said two of the three because it is impossible to have all three of THA, TLS and LAO to win all their remaining fixtures. but even if they did, still only Laos can finish above Indonesia according to the tie breaker rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamakh1986 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey! You recently changed the format of the qualifying format of the first round of 2020 AFC Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournament‎. I think that that info is wrong as according to recent media news, after a number of withdrawls the format has been changed, and that is why only 6 teams will qualify to the next round. I have provided the citations in the First Round Section of the Format Section of the page. The citation is of both FIFA and AFC.--Anbans 585 (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I do not understand why Guam are eliminated already. They may still get 9 points, enough to be runners-up. Right now it seems too soon to say runners-up with 9 points cannot be in top 5. Please explain :) Thanks Centaur271188 (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I already realised they can be 5th runner up and was about to revert when you wrote this. Its almost not worth undoing tho as they will be confirmed out if Oman or Singapore win in like 20 minutes anyway. Zirath (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, thought the aussies only had 1 more game left. Good work and thanks for keeping this group in check. Wittty (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)