Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 1

Denmark-Malta on October 10 or 11?

In the table it says Oct. 10, but in the list Oct. 11. Which is correct? — Emil K. ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is October 11. kalaha 08:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Albanian goalscorers

Who scored Albania's first goal against Malta - Armend Dallku or Erjon Bogdani? The Results and fixtures section lists Dallku as the scorer, but the table below as well as the FIFA official report of the match say it is Bogdani who scored the goal. Which is correct? --212.36.9.181 (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

From the YouTube video Erjon Bogdani scored! Correction to be made. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Malta

Can Malta still win this group (post 28 March)? With all the double ties (teams needing to play each other twice) a quick check can't find a way to keep all the other teams below 14. Would be interested to know. Jlsa (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a way either. But they can still pull off the greatest comeback since Lazarus and finish second. Aheyfromhome (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Without doing any calculations, as both Albania and Denmark both have a better head-to-head record against Malta, have you guys taken that into account, so that perhaps they can't even finish 2nd. Will try to calculate myself, these scenarios are so fun and time wasting, and on Thursday they might all be redundant ;) chandler · 12:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FIFA competitions, including this one, use goal difference as the first tiebreaker after points, so head-to-head doesn’t make a difference when it comes to these scenarios. I also can’t find a way Malta can finish first, but they can indeed finish second. MTC (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure now that Malta cannot finish first. If Malta win all their games and all the others are draws (limiting the total points to a minimum) then Denmark have 16 and malta 13. Then Denmark needs 3 of those draws to be losses - but none against Hungary and only one against any other team. That means 1 each against POR, SWE and ALB - lifting all of them to 12 and Hungary still 14. So none of Hungary's draws can be made losses (to lower them to 13) without lifting someone else to 14. So, Malta can no longer win this group. Jlsa (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, Denmark and Hungary can't both stay under 14 without another team going to 14, was what my calculations showed as well. chandler · 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Albania on the next meatchday (June 6)

• Albania can only advance to the UEFA play-off, if Denmark gets at least the same number of points than Albania.

It is for sure, isn't it? --Simy69 (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

"Portugal will be able to only advance to the UEFA play-off with a loss." wtf does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.46.155 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably that someone got his maths wrong :-) – IbLeo (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It means that if Portugal loses, has no more chances to advance direcly to the World Cup. Will be able to advance only to the UEFA play-off. -- Mário e Dário (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. Honestly, it's quite strangely formulated. I actually understood that if Portugal wins, they will no longer be able to reach the play-offs, which of course makes no sense at all. Couldn't it be rephrased? – IbLeo (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I also dislike it and used another formulation in [1]: "Albania will at best be able to advance to the UEFA play-off if ..." PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

While we were discussing, someone else elegantly fixed it! – IbLeo (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Portugal elimination scenario

I think there's a scenario in which Portugal can be guaranteed worst runner-up if they make it that far. Should they lose to Hungary, they're capped at 10 adjusted points and 0 goal differential (currently +5, but +4 against Malta in their first game and at least another -1 if they lose), so they could not finish ahead of Norway. If every other group can clinch 11+ (or 10 with a positive goal difference), Portugal would be eliminated even if Sweden fail to win. This scenario requires:

• Portugal lose to Hungary, AND
• in Group 2:
  • Greece and Latvia do not draw, OR
  • Luxembourg defeat Switzerland AND Israel do not defeat Moldova; AND
• in Group 3:
  • Slovenia defeat Slovakia, OR
  • Czech Republic defeat Poland (note: if Portugal lose by only one goal, Czech Republic must either win by two or score at least two more goals than Portugal for this scenario to come into play); AND
• in Group 5, Bosnia and Herzegovina do not lose to Estonia, AND
• in Group 7:
  • France do not lose to Faroe Islands, OR
  • Serbia defeat Romania AND Austria do not defeat Lithuania, OR
  • Serbia draw with Romania AND Austria lose to Lithuania; AND
• in Group 8, Republic of Ireland do not lose to Italy.

If someone could check this over I would appreciate it; I'm 99% sure it's right, though. PiGuy314 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not 99% right - it's 100%. Jlsa (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiebreaker scenario on last day

If Sweden draws 4-4, Portugal loses 0-3, and Hungary does not beat Denmark (or does by fewer than four goals), Sweden and Portugal will each be 16 points, +5 GD, 13 scored, having drawn 0-0 in both of their head-to-head games. It appears a coin flip would be used to rank the teams, though if Sweden won the toss, they would still be eliminated as the worst runner-up. Regulations do permit FIFA to organize a tiebreaker game if there is time, but is there? Jonpin (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is time for a tiebraker game, which could be scheduled on November 14th (which is an international football games day, according to FIFA). Schnapper (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

November 14 is when the playoffs are supposed to start, though. It would almost certainly have to be earlier. 70.123.155.113 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Next Matchday" version.

I won't bother to revert back to my version, as it'll all be over tomorrow anyway. But I was curious to know in which way my version wasn't better than the previous. Contradictory to the revert-reason, I really did think that my version was more definative. For example, the current version doesn't include the possibility of Sweden finishing 3rd or 4th. Also, these things are about eliminaton or qualification and not final placing. The simple stipulation is that if Sweden do not win they will be eliminated (possibly as worst Runner-Up). The same applies for Hungary wining by less than 5 goals. Whether or not they finish in 2nd place doesn't matter. Granted, the paragraph about the tiebreaking was a little out-of-place, but I didn't think that a stipulation with 6 or 7 "AND/OR"s was going to be any clearer.
Anyway, these differences happen and it's fine. I just wonder if I've missed any obvious reason as to why my re-write wasn't good. Much love, Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No point in putting in elimination scenarios for the final day - either they guarantee qualification or they don't. Personally, I think having the "runner-up but fail to qualify" provisions in there is useful since they matter for Norway, though I can see why there might be disagreement. PiGuy314 (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess it never mattered that much anyway. I didn't have anything better to do than ask ^_^ Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)