2010 Fifa World Cup Group B

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wiki English. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWiki: WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.107.130 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess the title says it all. 85.146.209.49 (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When they are correct - they should be moved to the appropriate section of the template.

Next matchday (22 June):

Argentina will win Group B if:

1. They do not lose to Greece, OR
2. They lose by 1 goal and Korea Republic do not defeat Nigeria by more than 4 goals (or Korea Republic win by 4 goals but score fewer than 3 goals more than Argentina)
3. They lose by 2 goals and Korea Republic do not defeat Nigeria by more than 3 goals (or Korea Republic win by 3 goals but score fewer than 3 goals more than Argentina)

Argentina will advance if

1. Win over Greece
2. Tie with Greece
3. Lose and Korea Republic also lose or draw to Nigeria

• Greece can advance by the following:

1. Tie with Argentina and Korea Republic loses to Nigeria
2. Win over Argentina and Korea Republic lose or draw to Nigeria

• Korea Republic can advance by the following:

1. Win over Nigeria
2. Tie with Nigeria and Greece either draw or lose to Argentina (the former scenario being that Korea Republic's 2-0 victory over Greece will be a tie breaker if both are leveled on points and goal differences after their third match)

• Nigeria can advance with:

1. a win over Korea Republic and a Greece loss to Argentina.

It looks right right now, on the basic level. The problem is the goal level, especially if Argentina loses. In your table at the top, are the teams listed in order B1, B2? Purplebackpack89 16:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the current table is right. Every scenario was considered except when both Greece and South Korea win, in which case the scenario becomes too complicated. 68.193.169.23 (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If both South Korea and Greece wins, it does indeed become rather complicated:

Both Korea and Greece win by one goal and Greece does not score two goals more than Korea -> Korea & Argentina Advance
Both Korea and Greece win by two goals and Greece does not score two goals more than Korea -> Korea and Argentina Advance
Korea wins by one goal and Greece wins by two or three goals -> Greece and Argentina Advance
Korea wins by one goal and scores three or more goals than Argentina, and Greece wins by four goals -> Greece and Korea Advance
Korea wins and Greece wins by five goals or more -> Greece and Korea Advance
Korea wins by two goals goals and Argentina lose by three goals or less: Argentina and Greece Advance
Korea wins by three goals or more and Greece wins by one or two goals: Argentina and Korea Advance
Both Korea and Greece win by three goals or more: Korea and Greece Advance

If Greece and Korea win:

• Argentina advance unless they lose to Greece by at least 3 goals margin and the combined margin of both matches is at least 6, or if they lose to Greece by at least 3 goals margin and the combined margin of both matches is 5, and Argentina score at least 3 goals less than Korea.
• Greece advance if they defeat Argentina by at least 3 goals margin, or if their margin of victory is greater than South Korea, or if the margins are equal and Greece score at least 2 goals more than Korea.
• South Korea advance if their margin of victory is greater than Greece, or if the margins are equal and they score at least 1 goal less than Greece, or if Greece win by at least 3 goals margin and the combined margins of both matches is at least 6, or if Greece win by at least 3 goals and the combined margins is 5 and South Korea score at least 3 goals more than Argentina.

--Nitsansh (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Put it up there if you haven't already Purplebackpack89 19:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The positions of the Greek squad had been wrong. I have corrected the text, but smone should do the same with the File:KOR-GRE 2010-06-12.svg. Panagiotis botsis (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

in the "map" say that if nigeria win and greece lose nigeria has the best goal difference.BUT nigeria s i seen has the worst,not better..eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.111.173 (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nigeria have the worst GD now. However, if they win by 1 goal their GD will be -1. If Greece and Korea each lose by 1 goal their GD will be -2. Any other margins will only make the situation better for Nigeria and worse for the other two. That is why we can already say that Nigeria would advance in that scenario. LarryJeff (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In that case, why are Nigeria marked on the table as eliminated from the tournament, since there is still a scenario where they could advance? --74.192.25.188 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Argentina have not progressed to the last 16 yet, and Nigeria have not been eliminated yet, so both teams should not be shaded in these colours. Also, the green line separating second and third place has been removed. This is not in keeping with the format used in other group tables, so should be put back into the design of the group table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.179.159 (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right. As unlikely as it is that Argentina would not advance, it is still mathematically possible for Greece and South Korea to be the two teams out of the group. I was writing about this on the main page, but I notice it has already been fixed. --74.192.25.188 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Yet someone has inexplicably restored the green shading to Argentina. This is not correct. If Argentina lose to Greece, and South Korea beat Nigeria, we would have a three-way tie on points at the top of the table, with all nations except Nigeria standing on 6 points. If the goal differentials were sufficiently wide enough, ARGENTINA WOULD NOT MOVE ON. So they have not qualified for the second round yet; though they will no doubt do so on Tuesday, the shading needs to be removed. Would someone please do so? --74.192.25.188 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are the last names of Korean goalscorers only have initials? Zbase4 (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I have fixed them. Zbase4 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, i believe they should've been left as they were. Korean "last names" are actually the given names, the family name is placed first (see: Surname#Order_of_words); and the current situation is inconsistent: Koreans are shown with full names, while the other goal scorers only have their last name shown. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm firmly of the opinion that we should at least provide the main match stats. There is no prose here, nothing to tell the reader who the matches went, which side was in control, etc. Precisely this is told by stats, in a short amount of textual space. Tropical wind (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right that there is currently no prose in this article, but there should be. Just because there is no prose does not mean that we should violate WP:NOTSTATS in place of said prose. – PeeJay 22:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
If there is a rule against stats (I'm not seeing it), why do we list substitions, etc.? In my mind, ball control and shots on target is much more important than substitutions or single yellow cards. Tropical wind (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, now I see it: there is a rule against: "Excessive listing of statistics." But the main stats, those inserted by me (there is only few now), are not "excessive", thus I'm not of the opinion that this rule prohibits listing them. And again, we also list single yellow cards (this is a stat too), which are less important. Tropical wind (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Mostly because subs shows us who played. and for how long. The other stats are "nice to have", but in this article just weigh down the page loading. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
If you think of it long enough, everything is just "nice to have". The main stats, as provided by me in my last modification, take up only 1197 bytes, which represents a 3.8% increase. This hardly slows page loading, so your argumentation is flawed. If you hate tables so much, we can even list them without tables. Tropical wind (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No, if we have to have the stats then they should be tabulated. However, your argument that stats are a replacement for prose is not a good one. We must add prose to all of these articles. – PeeJay 23:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I did, and continue to think long enough. Not everything is "nice to have". That's why there are needs and wants. As far as football articles, the score is vital. When it comes to international play and many league games, knowing who played is also vital. How often they shot is not. That's why there's no {{shot}} template like there is a {{goal}} template. Stats are nice to have. As soon as you say stats are important I could argue that the player stats that are recorded in the EUFA Champion's League games of distance run, fouls committed, fouls suffered, etc. are necessary as they're just as valid as the team stats. The problem with a table is not the amount of text but the amount of work the server goes through. We're not supposed to concern ourselves with server load, but artificially creating load for statistics isn't necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Including the flags for managers managing their own country's national team is quite redundant. The flag is visible only a few centimetres up the screen, and readers will most likely infer from the fact that no flag is displayed that the coach is from that country anyway. – PeeJay 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. The flag is not always that of the nation for which the manager is managing. It's a point of pride for nations who have nationals coaching. This cannot be said of all nations at this world cup or many others. It is therefore not redundant. Having player flags would be. The following nations were coached by individuals not from their nation.
South Africa: Carlos Alberto Parreira (Brazil)
Nigeria: Lars Lagerbäck (Sweden)
Greece: Otto Rehhagel (Germany)
England: Fabio Capello (Italy)
Australia: Pim Verbeek (Netherlands)
Cameroon: Paul Le Guen (France)
Paraguay: Gerardo Martino (Argentina)
Côte d'Ivoire: Sven-Göran Eriksson (Sweden)
Switzerland: Ottmar Hitzfeld (Germany)
Honduras: Reinaldo Rueda (Colombia)
Chile: Marcelo Bielsa (Argentina)
So rather than single-out the above nations, just retain (or insert) the national flag of the coach under all circumstances. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I prefer (I don't think either way should necessicarily be considered wrong) only having flags next to the names of managers who are foreigners to the team which they are managing. It is a way to further distinguish them. And, as has been said, if I saw a name with no indication of the peron's nationality, I would assume he was from that country. LarryJeff (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Why are we forcing readers to infer anything? We should simply state it whether by using a flag or by indicating the FIFA-recognized nation in prose. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:MOSFLAG, we should not "emphasize nationality without good reason". In my opinion, there is no need to emphasise the fact that an Argentine is managing the Argentine team, but I believe there is a good reason to emphasise the fact that a Swede is managing Nigeria or a German is managing Greece. – PeeJay 14:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)