2010 Fifa World Cup Group C

JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm... they're the team strips. They're not picked at random ten minutes before kick-off. Bazonka (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering how that's determined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.253.123 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The team with the most points goes top. Then it's goal difference. Bazonka (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

From the FIFA tournament rules:

The ranking of each team in each group will be determined as follows: a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches; b) goal difference in all group matches; c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches. If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings will be determined as follows: d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned; e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned; f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned; g) drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee.

USA should be placed above England in group C based on criteria G —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiddy5825 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Kiddy5825 (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Kiddy, how do you figure? There have been no lots drawn by FIFA. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm struggling to understand why the USA has been placed above England, but one of them had to go above the other, and it just so happens that FIFA have placed the USA above. – PeeJay 07:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

England should go above as they scored first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.68.146 (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just follow FIFA ... since they can draw with no news released... Hoising (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The FIFA page for this game (http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=249722/match=300061466/index.html#usa+green) lists American goalkeeper Tim Howard as the Man of the Match. I don't know how much more official it gets than that. Right now it says Glen Johnson, but in light of this evidence (quite accurate evidence too, as anyone who saw the game will tell you), I am changing it to Tim Howard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.141.91 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I see I am not allowed to Edit the 'Article' page, and I can't create a Wikipedia account, b/c something goes wrong everytime I try to do it. So can someone w/ edit privileges please change the Man of the Match for the ENG/USA game to Tim Howard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.141.91 (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
For normal account creation to work you need cookies and Javascript enabled (for the captcha), and not have account creation blocked (the latter is unlikely, as anonymous editing is normally blocked at the same time). If it still fails, you can ask for an account to be created for you. CS Miller (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently watching the Slovenia vs. Algeria game and to me it's clear that the Slovenia shirts and shorts are definitely the same shade of (dark) green. In the kit displayed on this page they are however not. Could this be fixed? --85.146.209.49 (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, to me it looks like the shorts color is right but the shirt isn't.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 12:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the same wrong colors are used on the Slovenia national football team page. --85.146.209.49 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The table is meant to be in alphabetical order. So the U.S should be third. Dapi89 (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently they're tied for 2nd place. Please see the template. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Technically, they are tied for 2nd place, but FIFA has placed the United States ahead of England (for no apparent reason). Leave it as it is. – PeeJay 17:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It'll get broken in a few days anyway. Purplebackpack89 04:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no rule, the second/third division here is arbitrary. --Pretty Green (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Like PJ said, this is how it's listed on the FIFA website, so that's how we're listing it. If I had drawn up the table on my own I would have also put England ahead per alphabetical order, but that's not how FIFA did it. There's been a rather pointless argument about it on the talk page of the standings template that resulted in a minnow being thrown around, so let's just leave it alone. :) JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The tie breaker after goal differential is total goals. USA currently standing at 3 goals, ENG at 1.KBrown (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to figure out who can advance or get eliminated after the second group of games? It appears similar to Group G, only the goals scored are different, but that doesn't seem relevant at this point. DandyDan2007 (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been posted before, but has since been removed. Slovenia can secure a place in the next round with a win over the United States. Algeria will be eliminated with a loss to England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.58 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It was removed because the standings template is setup with a spot to enter scenarios, so it normally should have been entered there instead of in the text of the main article. However, the template is currently protected because of the edit warring over the positions of USA and England in the standings. Short version: I re-added the scenarios for Slovenia and Algeria for the next matches. LarryJeff (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And I have re-reverted. You can request changes to protected templates using {{editprotected}}. – PeeJay 15:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

PeeJay, Is it really that big of a deal to you whether it's in the template or typed directly into this article? I'm not disputing that an edit request can be submitted for the protected template, but why go to that trouble when it's faster and easier to just put the information in where it can be done? If it was being done as a way to circumvent the protection, that would be different. But in this case, it is completely unrelated to the reason for the template being protected. I just don't see the harm in entering it directly in the article. LarryJeff (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's important because that template is being used in multiple locations. Including it in the template allows the information to be on display in all applicable locations. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Would just like to point out that it was Pecnik who was injured and subsequently substituted in the Slovenia-USA game, and not Dedic. I'm unable to correct this so can someone who can please take a look at it when they get a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.91.141 (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Where would you include that? --Tone 20:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I just mean that next to Dedic's name on the section for the Slovenia-USA match, it says he was brought on in the 87th minute and taken off in the 94th. I'm just pointing out that it was Pecnik and not Dedic who was subbed off in the 94th minute. In fact, Pecnik has been ruled out for the entire tournament as a result of his injury. I know it's a small thing, but it really rankles with me, and I would change it myself but I'm not allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.91.141 (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. Kante4 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

At the top of the page, the description is WAAAAAY to broad. The description of the USA-England game can be under that game, and even that description should be much smaller. For example, 2010 FIFA World Cup Group A is much, much shorter. It needs to be a brief summary. Soxrock24 (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that it has been fixed. Please do noit let that happen again. Soxrock24 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Instead, there should be a short summary of each match under each section title. – PeeJay 20:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup Group C. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629125430/http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5265187/ce/us/referee-pablo-pozo-injured-carlos-batres-sub-algeria-slovenia-match?cc=3888&ver=global to http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5265187/ce/us/referee-pablo-pozo-injured-carlos-batres-sub-algeria-slovenia-match?cc=3888&ver=global
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/24/92/36/22_0618_svn-usa_tacticalstartlist.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/24/97/48/23_0618_eng-alg_tacticalstartlist.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/25/57/60/38_0623_usa-alg_tacticalstartlist.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The goal difference for England should be 2-1 and not 2-2. Please correct this