![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Reason: The table in this page is basically a summary of the table in World Cup Teams. It would be helpful if the two tables are put in the same page. Chanheigeorge 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge completed. Chanheigeorge 08:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Should we list the 207 teams that have attempted to qualify in the history of the World Cup? The main article points to here within the same breath as mentioning qualifying teams: "In all, 207 teams have competed to qualify to the World Cup (see National Team Appearances In The Football World Cup), but only eleven have made it to the final match, and of those eleven, only seven teams have actually won."
What do you think? Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
What about a list of teams that have yet to make to the World Cup?
What if we made the "Comprehensive team results in each World Cup" table so that all years before their first World Cup a dark gray (%75 black, maybe) to help illustrate the first appearance by each team. What do you think? Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 05:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
And if no one else uses these but me, that's fine too...
Ranking of each team in each World Cup (PDF) Not just "R1," but more specific, like "14." I have started to add these to the article, more yet to come. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 09:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I remember Greece was in 2002 world cup and got quite far, how come it is not listed in the table? 147.8.206.177 09:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Props to DaveOinSF for the new tables.
From his stats, I've noticed that:
This means that when the finals are held in Africa, either 4 or -1 semi-finalists will be African. Fact.
SLUMGUM
yap
stalk
00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what this mean. When the finals are held in Africa there will be either 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 African semifinalists. California viola ( talk) 17:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The above stats are still true, with 4 European teams in the semi-finals. SLUMGUM yap stalk 23:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a valid reason, but I'm not seeing it so could someone explain why Asia and Oceania are grouped together in the section "Performance by confederation". Thanks. -- Colourblind 09:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
DaveOinSF, thanks for clearing that up, I knew there was a reason for it. -- Colourblind 07:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The 1982 featured a group stage made up of 24 teams divided into six four-team groups. Advancing from this round were 12 teams which then competed in a second group stage consisting of four three-team groups. The winners of each of the four groups advanced to a knockout semifinal game. A "quarterfinal" is typically interpreted as being a knockout game involving a total of eight teams. While I've taken some liberties with some of the earlier rounds (calling the final 4 in 1950 a semifinal, and the final 8 in 1974/1978 a quarterfinal) at least in those tournaments the right number of teams were participating. In 1982, there were 12 teams which had advanced to this second round, so I think it's more appropriate to call it "Round 2" rather than "Quarterfinal".-- DaveOinSF 15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I this section really meaningful? I mean, the teams qualify in different competitions, why is this important?-- Panairjdde 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree appearances, first appearance, record streak, etc. do not matter all that matters is if you have won the World cup finals and that is all the information U need. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.223.42 ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 19 June 2006.
The rankings taken from that pdf as used on this page are completely bogus. It amounts to a statistical deception. I contend that the table is of no value for the following reasons
Calm down, dude! We merely use an official ranking of the teams by FIFA here. Nobody is claiming a team finishing 9th is "better" than a team finishing 10th, just as nobody would definitely say a team out in the second round is "better" than a team out in the first round. These rankings are often cited and used, e.g. USA finishing last in 1998, so I see a merit of them being included here as a reference. For some of your concerns:
No matter whether you like this ranking or not, FIFA, being the official organizer of the competitions, probably should have the rights to rank these teams using their own criteria. Chanheigeorge 06:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This may sound stupid, but what if we contacted FIFA at the address listed at the top of the document, and asked them what the rankings were based on? Isn't there some sort of boilerplate letter we could send? Or I am halleucinating (or however the heck you spell it) -- I am very tired. Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"In 1962, Uruguay (2 pts, 4 goals for, 6 goals against) was ranked higher than Spain (2 pts, 2 goals for, 3 goals against), so clearly goal average is used. " - I don't think it's AT ALL clear. How do you work out the following 1962 rankings?
West Germany and Hungary lost 1-0 in the quarter-finals, the Soviet Union lost 2-1 in the quarter finals.
Team | Rank | Pts | Grp Pos | Pld | W | D | L | F | A | GDi | GAv |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group 4 | |||||||||||
![]() |
5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 2 | +6 | 4.0 |
Group 1 | |||||||||||
![]() |
6 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 5 | +3 | 1.6 |
Group 2 | |||||||||||
![]() |
7 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | +3 | 4.0 |
Group 3 | |||||||||||
![]() |
11 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | -1 | 0.75 |
Group 1 | |||||||||||
![]() |
12 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | -2 | 0.666r |
Group 3 | |||||||||||
![]() |
13 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | -1 | 0.666r |
One point that I agree with you and one that I disagree with you:
I've made my position on this matter very clear, but just for a final recap:
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors=
and |month=
(
help)), where teams eliminated in the same round are ranked by their full results in the tournament. The rankings are of statistical interests only as only the top four positions (top two in 1930) are directly competed by the teams.Hopefully we can get FIFA to explain the criteria of ranking teams (so we can put it in the article), and we can move on with it. Chanheigeorge 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear FIFA,
I am a contributor to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Currently there is a dispute about how rankings were determined on the Infoplus publication "FIFA WORLD CUP™ ALL-TIME RANKING 1930-2002," especially for earlier World Cups when standards such as goal difference and goal average were not even used.
The Wikipedia community has observed that some of the rankings of earlier World Cups appear to be based on goal difference. Goal difference was not used in the World Cup finals until 1970. Goal difference was not used in the World Cup prior to 1970; the scheme commonly used was goal average, introduced in 1962.
Goal average was only used as a tiebreaker if two teams remained tied after a replay of a previous match -- the last step before the drawing of lots.
The different methods (goal difference, goal average) can result in strikingly different results. One side of the argument says that "it is absurd to retrospectively rank teams from past competitions using criterion that was not in use at the time of the actual competition."
In conclusion, it would be of great help if your organization would provide and/or produce the following, to ensure that accurate histories and rankings are kept on Wikipedia:
1. A table for each tournament that lists the teams' overall records and their positions. 2. The criteria for ranking the teams in any given tournament. And if a method to rank teams was not in place at the time of the competition, how is this justifiable?
The community of Wikipedia would greatly appreciate a response in this matter. Also, if it is possible, would you please make an Infoplus document explaining ranking procedures? Thank you very much for your time, and we hope to hear from you soon.
Signed,
Ian Manka, on the behalf of the editors of Wikipedia
Here's a draft of the letter. Feel free to make changes (it's the Wiki way!), and after the World Cup, I'll print out whatever version we have, and I'll mail it (post it).
Ian Manka
Talk to me!
17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This problem has now bled over into other World Cup articles. See for example 1994 FIFA World Cup - Full Team Ranking - where someone has added a table ranking the teams using different crieria and consequently a different resultant order and on 1930 FIFA World Cup - Performance_of_teams, where someone has decided to award 2 points for a win! - in a knockout competition!! The rankings are best consigned to the bin. Jooler 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've modifed the letter so that it looks somewhat better. Thoughts? Ian Manka Talk to me!
Well it's been 2 years, but it's worth adding some comment to this section. FIFA have added the
Technical Study Group reports dating back to the 1966 World Cup. The earliest that I can find that uses a comprehensive ranking of all finalists is
1986 report part 4, page 227; the layout implies the ranking criteria round>points>GDiff>GScored. The same doc on page 230 has a "Permanent Table" of the rankings back to 1930 that we know and love. So at least since 1986 the rankings have a modicum of value in being contemporary rather than retrospective.
jnestorius(
talk)
20:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
How are teams that qualified for the finals but withdrew prior to the start treated for the purposes of these tables? It seems they should be mentioned, especially since before the first table it says "A total of 78 national teams have qualified for at least one World Cup tournament" Technically, Austria qualified for the 1938 WC, but withdrew. There are other cases of teams withdrawing (Scotland, Turkey and India in 1950), so perhaps a note should be added that these teams qualified but withdrew and that it isn't technically being counted as an appearance.-- 128.205.153.176 18:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In the table of comprehensive team results in each world cup I located 2 mistakes, but cant fix it. Maybe someone can. Spain should not be listed as 13th in 1982 but 12th Slovenia should not be listed 20th in 2002 but 30th
I just realized the 1998 and 2002 FIFA World Cup rankings were used for the 2006 World Cup finals draw [1], so I've added the information in the article. Chanheigeorge 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should go back to combibining Asia and Oceania. Technically, only Australia's 2006 appearance was out of OFC (both Australia in 1974 an New Zealand in 1982 were out of AFC), and Australia is rejoining AFC anyway.
Otherwise, we can insist that the divisions are _geographic_ rather than based on _confederation_ in which case we can keep it pretty much as it is, only change all references to "confederation" so that it says "continent" instead. Future appearances by Austrlia will then still count towards Oceania-- DaveOinSF 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the criteria for this table? There are extensive footnotes explaining where the debuts listed in the table do not conform with FIFA's official attribution of World Cup history. Surely this table should align with FIFA's position, given that it's FIFA's tournament. 203.221.201.182 ( talk) 01:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Where a country has changed it's name and/or jurisdiction, and has subsequently qualified for a WC, it is entirely right and proper that they are listed under the new name, thus allowing consistency in the presentation of such countries' reords in these tables. However, in the cases of Dutch East Indies/Indonesia, and Zaire/DR Congo, I would suggest that it is more appropriate to give the contemporary name of the team when it qualified. No RS will state that Indonesia played at the 1938 WC, and I remember watching the 1974 tournament, in which the epiphet "Democratic Republic of" was only applied to East Germany. One cannot say that Indonesia appeared at the 1938, also the link will direct to that team: one can (in a footnote) say that Indonesia is the current name of one of the teams that did so. Kevin McE ( talk) 07:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not at all certain what each of the colums in the overall chart are supposed to be. I can guess at some of them, but others are completly opaque. Can someone who knows more create a legend/key? Naznarreb ( talk) 20:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if this article could have a list of nations by semifinal appearance. It is widely used as a measure of success for the national teams and such lists are included in other competitions' relative articles. - Sthenel ( talk) 11:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yugoslavia (1998) and Serbia and Montenegro (2006) was the same country. The only difference is the name, but it was the same country. Why they are considered as different countries?-- Igortxo2 ( talk) 11:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Currently both semi-final & final and 1st-4th are listed. What about doing away with the semi-final and final and just list them as "round 1, round 2, quarter-finals, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st" one thing this would fix is 1950. As there was no semi-final or final (or you count the final group as one as a final.) in 1950 it currently is sort of misleading. So this is how 1950 would look for UEFA
1950![]() (13) | |
---|---|
Round 1 | 6 |
Round 2 | — |
Quarterfinals | — |
Fourth place | 1 |
Third place | 1 |
Runners-up | 0 |
Champions | 0 |
cha ndl er 14:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there is an information that Slovakia has asked to FIFA that their records were separated from Czech Rep. and cancelled from the former Czechoslovakia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.226.150 ( talk) 23:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In the map of appearances Trinidad & Tobago are coloured in grey, as if they never went to the World Cup, but they did in 2006... Can anyone fix the mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.98.98 ( talk) 11:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe India was qualified for the 1950 edition, but they withdrew because of the travel expenses. Therefore, they should be listes as (..) - "qualified but withdrew" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.192.189 ( talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The table under Debut Teams has the key at the bottom, "#Qualified but withdrew". However, none of the teams are marked with #in the table? Grunners ( talk) 13:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we expand the color scheme of the Comprehensive results table? Gold/silver/bronze is perfect, of course, for 1/2/3, and blue's... as good a color as any for 4th, I suppose (it'd be neat if someone knew how blue came around to denoting 4th place, for curiosity). Since there are so many stages of progress that can be distinguished, how about colors for the quarterfinal, first knockout, and group rounds? The color scheme could be translated for the years where there was a different format, into roughly equivalent stages of progression. Are there any articles with tables having an elaborated color scheme that could be applied to this one as well? Simple but powerful 04:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I actually prefer the less color set up, as it highlights the great accomplishments without becoming a redundant eye sore. The R# are very defined as well so I don't think there is much of a need for a new color scheme.
I was wondering why India was included on this list. They have never made the finals, and that seems to be opening a very big 'can of worms' as some 200 nations now attempt to qualify for the world cup. If India is included, why isn't Samoa, American Samoa, Fiji, Papa New Gunnie, Iceland, and so many others who compete w/o reaching the finals? I will remove them if no once can give an explanation. Thank you.PeaceKeeper1234 18:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The list - "Ranking of teams by number of appearances" , isn't this kind of historical ? Then I don't think we should include Brazil's qualification for Russia 2018 already. I suggest that list is updated first after the WC in Russia. (They haven't appeared 21 times already) Boeing720 ( talk) 17:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
For countries like Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago and Tunisia it states in the Comprehensive team results by tournament table that they were either part of the United Kingdom or France before independence. Now, is that really correct? Weren't they part of the British Empire and French colonial empire instead of being integral parts of the two countries? To my knowledge, only Algeria, and there only the three coastal departments, were politically part of France. 203.3.24.23 ( talk) 23:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The article states Defending runners-up are 15-for-18 in qualification efforts for the following World Cup. What does that mean? Is "15-for-18" some obscure English expression that I have never heard of (it might be; English is not one of my best languages), or is it just wrong? :) Fomalhaut76 ( talk) 13:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The fact sheet that is referenced above the table for "Comprehensive team results by tournament" only goes as far as 2010. What is the source or methodology for the 2014 and 2018 rankings? 2A02:C7D:39C:1B00:C803:7101:6EB9:290 ( talk) 07:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fifa states unambiguously that the former German Democratic Republic team is not to be intended as a successor team to Germany, and therefore there have been 79 participants to World Cup from 1930 to 2018. With Qatar taking place in the 2022 edition, that'll make it 80.
See this document from the FIFA site: all time ranking 1930-2014 -> https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/1785d394c2baed36/original/nynltbogj47gfjtfszqr-pdf.pdf
Please reinstate the German Democratic Republic entry in the ranking as a standalone country consistently with FIFA communication.
Thanks
I have already corrected this page twice earlier on, only to have my changes undone. Please edit the page as I explain above. Note that up to 2021 or so, there correctly was an entry for the German Democratic Republic. 2603:3024:1824:D00:B0E6:D5E3:9EA5:B20D ( talk) 21:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. If your edits are being reverted, please establish consensus rather than attempting to edit war via edit requests.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
22:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)I was looking for a list of debutants per World Cup. It seems Qatar (as host) is the only debutant in 2022, and was wondering if that was the least number of debutants in a World Cup yet? It would be nice to have a list here.
Walrasiad (
talk)
03:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how the decision was reached to merge this article with FIFA World Cup records and statistics - it certainly hasn't been discussed at either of the two articles - but in any case the claim that all the information that was here can be found at the other article is now false, since nearly all the information formerly present here has been removed from the FIFA World Cup records and statistics (again, as far as I can see, without discussion). Under these circumstances, the merging is no longer justified and has been reverted. Kostja ( talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to once again point out that at the time the merging was carried out (24 November), there had been no discussion whatsoever whether to merge this article with the FIFA World Cup Records and Statistics - neither here, nor at the other article. Obviously, the merging of one article with another, especially when most of the content is lost is a significant enough matter that it warrants discussion, so I ask anyone who want to merge the articles to explain their reasoning here. Kostja ( talk) 16:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Aquatic Ambiance: I believe there are valid reasons for keeping National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup and FIFA World Cup records and statistics separate. This discussion from last year shows consensus for keeping them separate. If you want to merge them again, you need to follow the process outlined at WP:MERGEPROP to change the consensus. Also, you need to make sure your edit summaries are truthful. These pages were not merged for years. They've existed separately for over 18 years, and in that time they were only merged for 40 days (24 Nov 2022 to 3 Jan 2023). Wburrow ( talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Reason: The table in this page is basically a summary of the table in World Cup Teams. It would be helpful if the two tables are put in the same page. Chanheigeorge 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge completed. Chanheigeorge 08:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Should we list the 207 teams that have attempted to qualify in the history of the World Cup? The main article points to here within the same breath as mentioning qualifying teams: "In all, 207 teams have competed to qualify to the World Cup (see National Team Appearances In The Football World Cup), but only eleven have made it to the final match, and of those eleven, only seven teams have actually won."
What do you think? Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
What about a list of teams that have yet to make to the World Cup?
What if we made the "Comprehensive team results in each World Cup" table so that all years before their first World Cup a dark gray (%75 black, maybe) to help illustrate the first appearance by each team. What do you think? Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 05:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
And if no one else uses these but me, that's fine too...
Ranking of each team in each World Cup (PDF) Not just "R1," but more specific, like "14." I have started to add these to the article, more yet to come. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 09:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I remember Greece was in 2002 world cup and got quite far, how come it is not listed in the table? 147.8.206.177 09:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Props to DaveOinSF for the new tables.
From his stats, I've noticed that:
This means that when the finals are held in Africa, either 4 or -1 semi-finalists will be African. Fact.
SLUMGUM
yap
stalk
00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what this mean. When the finals are held in Africa there will be either 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 African semifinalists. California viola ( talk) 17:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The above stats are still true, with 4 European teams in the semi-finals. SLUMGUM yap stalk 23:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a valid reason, but I'm not seeing it so could someone explain why Asia and Oceania are grouped together in the section "Performance by confederation". Thanks. -- Colourblind 09:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
DaveOinSF, thanks for clearing that up, I knew there was a reason for it. -- Colourblind 07:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The 1982 featured a group stage made up of 24 teams divided into six four-team groups. Advancing from this round were 12 teams which then competed in a second group stage consisting of four three-team groups. The winners of each of the four groups advanced to a knockout semifinal game. A "quarterfinal" is typically interpreted as being a knockout game involving a total of eight teams. While I've taken some liberties with some of the earlier rounds (calling the final 4 in 1950 a semifinal, and the final 8 in 1974/1978 a quarterfinal) at least in those tournaments the right number of teams were participating. In 1982, there were 12 teams which had advanced to this second round, so I think it's more appropriate to call it "Round 2" rather than "Quarterfinal".-- DaveOinSF 15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I this section really meaningful? I mean, the teams qualify in different competitions, why is this important?-- Panairjdde 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree appearances, first appearance, record streak, etc. do not matter all that matters is if you have won the World cup finals and that is all the information U need. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.223.42 ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 19 June 2006.
The rankings taken from that pdf as used on this page are completely bogus. It amounts to a statistical deception. I contend that the table is of no value for the following reasons
Calm down, dude! We merely use an official ranking of the teams by FIFA here. Nobody is claiming a team finishing 9th is "better" than a team finishing 10th, just as nobody would definitely say a team out in the second round is "better" than a team out in the first round. These rankings are often cited and used, e.g. USA finishing last in 1998, so I see a merit of them being included here as a reference. For some of your concerns:
No matter whether you like this ranking or not, FIFA, being the official organizer of the competitions, probably should have the rights to rank these teams using their own criteria. Chanheigeorge 06:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This may sound stupid, but what if we contacted FIFA at the address listed at the top of the document, and asked them what the rankings were based on? Isn't there some sort of boilerplate letter we could send? Or I am halleucinating (or however the heck you spell it) -- I am very tired. Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"In 1962, Uruguay (2 pts, 4 goals for, 6 goals against) was ranked higher than Spain (2 pts, 2 goals for, 3 goals against), so clearly goal average is used. " - I don't think it's AT ALL clear. How do you work out the following 1962 rankings?
West Germany and Hungary lost 1-0 in the quarter-finals, the Soviet Union lost 2-1 in the quarter finals.
Team | Rank | Pts | Grp Pos | Pld | W | D | L | F | A | GDi | GAv |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group 4 | |||||||||||
![]() |
5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 2 | +6 | 4.0 |
Group 1 | |||||||||||
![]() |
6 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 5 | +3 | 1.6 |
Group 2 | |||||||||||
![]() |
7 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | +3 | 4.0 |
Group 3 | |||||||||||
![]() |
11 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | -1 | 0.75 |
Group 1 | |||||||||||
![]() |
12 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | -2 | 0.666r |
Group 3 | |||||||||||
![]() |
13 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | -1 | 0.666r |
One point that I agree with you and one that I disagree with you:
I've made my position on this matter very clear, but just for a final recap:
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors=
and |month=
(
help)), where teams eliminated in the same round are ranked by their full results in the tournament. The rankings are of statistical interests only as only the top four positions (top two in 1930) are directly competed by the teams.Hopefully we can get FIFA to explain the criteria of ranking teams (so we can put it in the article), and we can move on with it. Chanheigeorge 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear FIFA,
I am a contributor to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Currently there is a dispute about how rankings were determined on the Infoplus publication "FIFA WORLD CUP™ ALL-TIME RANKING 1930-2002," especially for earlier World Cups when standards such as goal difference and goal average were not even used.
The Wikipedia community has observed that some of the rankings of earlier World Cups appear to be based on goal difference. Goal difference was not used in the World Cup finals until 1970. Goal difference was not used in the World Cup prior to 1970; the scheme commonly used was goal average, introduced in 1962.
Goal average was only used as a tiebreaker if two teams remained tied after a replay of a previous match -- the last step before the drawing of lots.
The different methods (goal difference, goal average) can result in strikingly different results. One side of the argument says that "it is absurd to retrospectively rank teams from past competitions using criterion that was not in use at the time of the actual competition."
In conclusion, it would be of great help if your organization would provide and/or produce the following, to ensure that accurate histories and rankings are kept on Wikipedia:
1. A table for each tournament that lists the teams' overall records and their positions. 2. The criteria for ranking the teams in any given tournament. And if a method to rank teams was not in place at the time of the competition, how is this justifiable?
The community of Wikipedia would greatly appreciate a response in this matter. Also, if it is possible, would you please make an Infoplus document explaining ranking procedures? Thank you very much for your time, and we hope to hear from you soon.
Signed,
Ian Manka, on the behalf of the editors of Wikipedia
Here's a draft of the letter. Feel free to make changes (it's the Wiki way!), and after the World Cup, I'll print out whatever version we have, and I'll mail it (post it).
Ian Manka
Talk to me!
17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This problem has now bled over into other World Cup articles. See for example 1994 FIFA World Cup - Full Team Ranking - where someone has added a table ranking the teams using different crieria and consequently a different resultant order and on 1930 FIFA World Cup - Performance_of_teams, where someone has decided to award 2 points for a win! - in a knockout competition!! The rankings are best consigned to the bin. Jooler 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've modifed the letter so that it looks somewhat better. Thoughts? Ian Manka Talk to me!
Well it's been 2 years, but it's worth adding some comment to this section. FIFA have added the
Technical Study Group reports dating back to the 1966 World Cup. The earliest that I can find that uses a comprehensive ranking of all finalists is
1986 report part 4, page 227; the layout implies the ranking criteria round>points>GDiff>GScored. The same doc on page 230 has a "Permanent Table" of the rankings back to 1930 that we know and love. So at least since 1986 the rankings have a modicum of value in being contemporary rather than retrospective.
jnestorius(
talk)
20:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
How are teams that qualified for the finals but withdrew prior to the start treated for the purposes of these tables? It seems they should be mentioned, especially since before the first table it says "A total of 78 national teams have qualified for at least one World Cup tournament" Technically, Austria qualified for the 1938 WC, but withdrew. There are other cases of teams withdrawing (Scotland, Turkey and India in 1950), so perhaps a note should be added that these teams qualified but withdrew and that it isn't technically being counted as an appearance.-- 128.205.153.176 18:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In the table of comprehensive team results in each world cup I located 2 mistakes, but cant fix it. Maybe someone can. Spain should not be listed as 13th in 1982 but 12th Slovenia should not be listed 20th in 2002 but 30th
I just realized the 1998 and 2002 FIFA World Cup rankings were used for the 2006 World Cup finals draw [1], so I've added the information in the article. Chanheigeorge 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should go back to combibining Asia and Oceania. Technically, only Australia's 2006 appearance was out of OFC (both Australia in 1974 an New Zealand in 1982 were out of AFC), and Australia is rejoining AFC anyway.
Otherwise, we can insist that the divisions are _geographic_ rather than based on _confederation_ in which case we can keep it pretty much as it is, only change all references to "confederation" so that it says "continent" instead. Future appearances by Austrlia will then still count towards Oceania-- DaveOinSF 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the criteria for this table? There are extensive footnotes explaining where the debuts listed in the table do not conform with FIFA's official attribution of World Cup history. Surely this table should align with FIFA's position, given that it's FIFA's tournament. 203.221.201.182 ( talk) 01:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Where a country has changed it's name and/or jurisdiction, and has subsequently qualified for a WC, it is entirely right and proper that they are listed under the new name, thus allowing consistency in the presentation of such countries' reords in these tables. However, in the cases of Dutch East Indies/Indonesia, and Zaire/DR Congo, I would suggest that it is more appropriate to give the contemporary name of the team when it qualified. No RS will state that Indonesia played at the 1938 WC, and I remember watching the 1974 tournament, in which the epiphet "Democratic Republic of" was only applied to East Germany. One cannot say that Indonesia appeared at the 1938, also the link will direct to that team: one can (in a footnote) say that Indonesia is the current name of one of the teams that did so. Kevin McE ( talk) 07:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not at all certain what each of the colums in the overall chart are supposed to be. I can guess at some of them, but others are completly opaque. Can someone who knows more create a legend/key? Naznarreb ( talk) 20:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if this article could have a list of nations by semifinal appearance. It is widely used as a measure of success for the national teams and such lists are included in other competitions' relative articles. - Sthenel ( talk) 11:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yugoslavia (1998) and Serbia and Montenegro (2006) was the same country. The only difference is the name, but it was the same country. Why they are considered as different countries?-- Igortxo2 ( talk) 11:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Currently both semi-final & final and 1st-4th are listed. What about doing away with the semi-final and final and just list them as "round 1, round 2, quarter-finals, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st" one thing this would fix is 1950. As there was no semi-final or final (or you count the final group as one as a final.) in 1950 it currently is sort of misleading. So this is how 1950 would look for UEFA
1950![]() (13) | |
---|---|
Round 1 | 6 |
Round 2 | — |
Quarterfinals | — |
Fourth place | 1 |
Third place | 1 |
Runners-up | 0 |
Champions | 0 |
cha ndl er 14:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there is an information that Slovakia has asked to FIFA that their records were separated from Czech Rep. and cancelled from the former Czechoslovakia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.226.150 ( talk) 23:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In the map of appearances Trinidad & Tobago are coloured in grey, as if they never went to the World Cup, but they did in 2006... Can anyone fix the mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.98.98 ( talk) 11:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe India was qualified for the 1950 edition, but they withdrew because of the travel expenses. Therefore, they should be listes as (..) - "qualified but withdrew" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.192.189 ( talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The table under Debut Teams has the key at the bottom, "#Qualified but withdrew". However, none of the teams are marked with #in the table? Grunners ( talk) 13:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we expand the color scheme of the Comprehensive results table? Gold/silver/bronze is perfect, of course, for 1/2/3, and blue's... as good a color as any for 4th, I suppose (it'd be neat if someone knew how blue came around to denoting 4th place, for curiosity). Since there are so many stages of progress that can be distinguished, how about colors for the quarterfinal, first knockout, and group rounds? The color scheme could be translated for the years where there was a different format, into roughly equivalent stages of progression. Are there any articles with tables having an elaborated color scheme that could be applied to this one as well? Simple but powerful 04:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I actually prefer the less color set up, as it highlights the great accomplishments without becoming a redundant eye sore. The R# are very defined as well so I don't think there is much of a need for a new color scheme.
I was wondering why India was included on this list. They have never made the finals, and that seems to be opening a very big 'can of worms' as some 200 nations now attempt to qualify for the world cup. If India is included, why isn't Samoa, American Samoa, Fiji, Papa New Gunnie, Iceland, and so many others who compete w/o reaching the finals? I will remove them if no once can give an explanation. Thank you.PeaceKeeper1234 18:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The list - "Ranking of teams by number of appearances" , isn't this kind of historical ? Then I don't think we should include Brazil's qualification for Russia 2018 already. I suggest that list is updated first after the WC in Russia. (They haven't appeared 21 times already) Boeing720 ( talk) 17:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
For countries like Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago and Tunisia it states in the Comprehensive team results by tournament table that they were either part of the United Kingdom or France before independence. Now, is that really correct? Weren't they part of the British Empire and French colonial empire instead of being integral parts of the two countries? To my knowledge, only Algeria, and there only the three coastal departments, were politically part of France. 203.3.24.23 ( talk) 23:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The article states Defending runners-up are 15-for-18 in qualification efforts for the following World Cup. What does that mean? Is "15-for-18" some obscure English expression that I have never heard of (it might be; English is not one of my best languages), or is it just wrong? :) Fomalhaut76 ( talk) 13:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The fact sheet that is referenced above the table for "Comprehensive team results by tournament" only goes as far as 2010. What is the source or methodology for the 2014 and 2018 rankings? 2A02:C7D:39C:1B00:C803:7101:6EB9:290 ( talk) 07:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fifa states unambiguously that the former German Democratic Republic team is not to be intended as a successor team to Germany, and therefore there have been 79 participants to World Cup from 1930 to 2018. With Qatar taking place in the 2022 edition, that'll make it 80.
See this document from the FIFA site: all time ranking 1930-2014 -> https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/1785d394c2baed36/original/nynltbogj47gfjtfszqr-pdf.pdf
Please reinstate the German Democratic Republic entry in the ranking as a standalone country consistently with FIFA communication.
Thanks
I have already corrected this page twice earlier on, only to have my changes undone. Please edit the page as I explain above. Note that up to 2021 or so, there correctly was an entry for the German Democratic Republic. 2603:3024:1824:D00:B0E6:D5E3:9EA5:B20D ( talk) 21:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. If your edits are being reverted, please establish consensus rather than attempting to edit war via edit requests.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
22:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)I was looking for a list of debutants per World Cup. It seems Qatar (as host) is the only debutant in 2022, and was wondering if that was the least number of debutants in a World Cup yet? It would be nice to have a list here.
Walrasiad (
talk)
03:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how the decision was reached to merge this article with FIFA World Cup records and statistics - it certainly hasn't been discussed at either of the two articles - but in any case the claim that all the information that was here can be found at the other article is now false, since nearly all the information formerly present here has been removed from the FIFA World Cup records and statistics (again, as far as I can see, without discussion). Under these circumstances, the merging is no longer justified and has been reverted. Kostja ( talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to once again point out that at the time the merging was carried out (24 November), there had been no discussion whatsoever whether to merge this article with the FIFA World Cup Records and Statistics - neither here, nor at the other article. Obviously, the merging of one article with another, especially when most of the content is lost is a significant enough matter that it warrants discussion, so I ask anyone who want to merge the articles to explain their reasoning here. Kostja ( talk) 16:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Aquatic Ambiance: I believe there are valid reasons for keeping National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup and FIFA World Cup records and statistics separate. This discussion from last year shows consensus for keeping them separate. If you want to merge them again, you need to follow the process outlined at WP:MERGEPROP to change the consensus. Also, you need to make sure your edit summaries are truthful. These pages were not merged for years. They've existed separately for over 18 years, and in that time they were only merged for 40 days (24 Nov 2022 to 3 Jan 2023). Wburrow ( talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)