Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup Group F

Flag

What flag will I put beside Vladimir Weiss if he was born in Czechslovakia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaneMc2010 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To the flags: I looked in the other groups and there were only flags besides the coaches if he was a foreign coach... So no need for this ones. Kante4 (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand/three man defences.

I've noticed at the start of this World Cup that the tactical diagrams of teams playing three man defences (like New Zealand today, and Mexico/Uruguay before) often seem to be neglected for 4-4-2. I remember Australia played a similar formation to New Zealand in 2006 (3-4-3/3-6-1), so couldn't their diagram be used for this page? To say that New Zealand played 4-4-2 not only misrepresents the game, but also serves to generalise their tactical novelty which may be of interest to those using this Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecomaboy (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA.com says 4-3-3/4-3-2-1: FIFA Kante4 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA only says 4-3-3 based on the official registered positions of the Starting XI players. In the actual match, Vicelich played in midfield. The referenced FIFA.com matchcast was shown prior to the start of the match, and doesn't reflect how NZL actually lined up. Also, I would like to mention that New Zealand have played 3-4-3 for all matches since November 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.197.181 (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the line-up diagrams are based on the tactical line-ups provided by FIFA. It has been this way for a long time. The same method is used for UEFA matches where the tactical line-up images are provided. – PeeJay 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote from the coach Herbert saying prior to the match that he will use Vicelich in midfield at: http://tvnz.co.nz/all-whites/herbert-opts-vicelich-3588302, report that NZ used a 3-4-3 against Slovakia: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/3816107/Historic-result-for-All-Whites, and demonstation of NZ's usual 3-4-3: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/01/new-zealands-world-cup-2010-tactics/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.197.181 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Another link that describes the whole starting XI: http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/06/16/we-should-learn-from-spirited-all-whites/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.197.181 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read my above comment. – PeeJay 00:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"we've always done it like this" is no argument. If there is a way to provide more accurate information, that shuold always take precedence on wikipedia. Cayafas (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, even FIFA descibe New Zealand's formation against Slovakia as being made of a three man defence at http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/awards/bestyoungplayer/news/newsid=1246140/index.html#smith steady weiss shines, and the "Tactical View" (as opposed to "Tactical Lineup") at each 15 minute interval of the official FIFA matchcast http://www.fifa.com/live/competitions/worldcup/matchday=5/day=1/match=300061483/index.html also shows NZ using 3-4-3. One other thing pointed out with the matchcast is that Fallon played in the middle of the three-pronged attack line with Smeltz on the left and Killen on the right. If PeeJay still disagrees with me, I suggest we mark this article as being in dispute. (219.89.29.44 (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

Italy - Paraguay

Hi, there are two errors on Italy. Grosso and Panucci don't play !!! There were Criscito and Cannavaro instead. Please edit the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ITA-PAR_2010-06-14.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.73.157 (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Iaquinta also barely touched the ball on the wing. He was an out and out striker. I think it's better to remove the images instead of having incorrect information. Apparently FIFA doesnt mind having incorrect information, but this is an encyclopedia (a wiki, so not as high a standard, but an pseudo-encyclopedia nonetheless) and incorrect information should be avoided at all costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.103 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Slovakia's line-up against New Zealand

Slovakia's line-up is incorrect. Šesták played in attack alongside Vittek. Jendrišek was on the wing, and Hamšík played in the middle. Source: http://www.fifa.com/live/competitions/worldcup/matchday=5/day=1/match=300061483/index.html (look under "PITCH" and "Tactical line-up") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.103 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand's line-up is also wrong in their first game. They played a 5-2-3. Bertos and Lockhead are wingbacks playing wide, with Reid, Nelson, and Smith in the center of defense. Vicelich played in midfield alongside Elliott. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.103 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

--93.149.73.50 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Slovakia v. Italy substitutions

Are you missing a late (90 ) substitution by Slovakia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.180.42 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Its there now... sorry for my impatience. 207.7.180.42 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did somebody write a description of the match between Slovakia and Italy? More importantly, it reads that the Italians abused the Slovakian goal keeper because they were losing. That sort of presumptive writing is not tolerated on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.73.135 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand first WC team eliminated based upon three point system

A user has reverted several of my edits concerning the fact that New Zealand was the first team eliminated by the new 3-point system adopted by FIFA -- at the World Cup stage -- (and now most international and domestic competitions for soccer). So as not to avoid a continued spat, I have included the "citation needed" tag. I don't think this is necessary given that "basic math" is a standard for not needing a citation .... see: (WP:NOR). As per standard Wikipedia policies, simple calculations do not count as original research. I'm pretty sure that we can all look at past WC tables and add (2 points win-1 point draw) and compare that to (3 points win-1 point draw). Nevertheless, to satiate a particular user, I am bending over backwards to include the "citation needed" tag. As such, I believe it is well within the bounds of reasonableness, given my patience with this user, to count future reverts as vandalism.Obamafan70 (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But what difference does this "fact" make? Are you arguing for a return to the days of two-points-for-a-win? The number of points awarded for a win is a fact of football; the fact that that number has changed over time is irrelevant. – PeeJay 15:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand the concept of relevance???? I will enlighten you -- relevance means the pertinence of an item to a given subject (ask yourself, "Are these two items connected?"). You should have said, "This is clearly relevant to Group F, but is this important enough to merit inclusion in an enyclopedia?" For example, if someone added the following statement, "Group F marks the first time that the adidas Jabulani ball was used in a match between Italy and Paraguay", then one would certainly understand its relevance to this article (it is inherently connected), but one would argue for its triviality. The fact that New Zealand was eliminated in this World Cup because of a rule change for awarding points does not constitute trivia. It isn't just important; it's essential material for an encyclopedia. We cannot have an article about the 2010 FIFA World Cup without noting that it is the first time the tournament has been hosted by an African nation. Likewise, we cannot have an article about Group F without noting that this group play included the first elimination by the Three points for a win rule.Obamafan70 (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your assessment of the encyclopaedic value of this "fact", but I will leave it for another user to give a third opinion on the subject before anyone takes any further action. – PeeJay 23:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to disagree. However, in the future, it might be helpful to produce an argument (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument) and refrain from using scare quotes (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes) unless you have a legitimate basis for doing so with respect to the term in question.

New Zealand was the first team eliminated by the three point rule -- (it's a fact, not a "fact")Obamafan70 (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys. Take a look at group E in would cup 98. Belgium played 3 draws and was eliminated. So, New Zealand is not the first team being eliminated after going through the World Cup without defeats after the 3 point rule was introduced. -Maw Mawerick (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. See 1998 FIFA World Cup Group E. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)