Talk:2011 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 1

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

Football: Women's football Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the women's football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's sport: WOSO Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the Women's football / soccer task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

France clinch in next match v Iceland?

Searching for consensus; regardless of the result of the 24 July match between 2 eliminated teams, France will win the group if they do not lose to Iceland on 21 August. I have added this and been reverted. I understand (but disagree with) the reasoning for the revert, namely that the scenario goes beyond "the next match day." I completely agree that we do not want to have scenarios using results from multiple matches played by the same team(s), but I do not see the harm in giving a scenario such as the one we have now in this group, conditioned only on the result of the next match which actually has bearing on the group result (i.e., ignoring matches between teams that are already eliminated).

I know what my opinion is, and that of one other editor. I'd like to hear others. LarryJeff (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complicated matter (and really hard to explain in writing). It's a matter of dealing systematically with all the possible things that can happen - limiting the "scenario" thing to a manageable level. Basically, you have to put restrictions on scenarios because otherwise people will try to put all sorts of scenarios in. Technically I could put in even before the first round of matches - "Iceland will qualify if they win all their remaining matches" and it would be true. But we don't want that sort of information. That's a first point. The more relevant point (to your comments) occurred with the AFC Group A quals for the mens WC when Japan and Australia could qualify by getting a point - people wanted to put "Australia will qualify if they get one more point in their last three matches". Again, it was true - but while it seemed correct it was "not the whole truth" as Australia could also qualify even if they got no points if other teams lost. And at most points through the process things like this could happen. Just as in the WC groups in SAfr we noted that (say) Brazil could qualify by winning their next match, even though they could really qualify by winning EITHER remaining match - we limit the scenarios to what's on the next matchday. The limit means that we are putting a definite and objective start and end point on the matches we are considering. If we don't put a strict limit on the matches under consideration (which is your proposal) we get the question of "well, do you mean that France can ONLY qualify if they don't lose the next match, or do you mean that ONE WAY France can qualify is to not lose", because there is no restriction on what you are considering, all these caveats suddenly become important. The current formulation says "the only things that can change on the next matchday are" (in this case, nothing, but in some cases there will be things). The "don't include matches between eliminated teams" is just a red herring here. I don't deny it can lead to slightly odd situations like this one, but the alternative is (in my opinion, and frankly, in my experience from Wc quals last year) far worse. Jlsa (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jlsa, you are misstating my position. I am absolutely not proposing that we have no limit on the matches under consideration. In fact, I agree 100% with your statement that there must be restrictions. The past examples you provide, such as a team winning all their remaining matches, needing a certain number of points in the next 3 matches, etc., would go way beyond what I'm suggesting.

You are also incorrect saying that my idea of ignoring matches between 2 teams who have already been eliminated is a red herring; a red herring is an argument intended to divert attention from the core matter. On the contrary, it goes directly to my position; i.e., (again to use this group as an example) that we are able to say today (with no regard for what Northern Ireland and Estonia do) that France will be able to clinch their spot in the next round by beating Iceland (in what is the next match for both of those teams). This is (in my opinion) quite different from giving a scenario where France would be able to clinch in their match if 'X' result also happens in the prior match, just as it is different from saying that France only needs to win 1 of their last 2 matches. It does focus the scenario on a single match. LarryJeff (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]