Talk:1950 FIFA World Cup

Peru qualification is a lie!!
USA qualified fair and square, just look at FIFA website. Please stop adding this false stuff that Peru withdrew so the USA qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.57.109.188 (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This Article SHOULD be amazing!!!
Please, please clean this up!

The version is wrong for all reasons. (just kidding.remove it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.242.147 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Logistics Problems
I think someone (but not me, since I'm brazilian) should mention some of the logistic problems in the world cup. This site: tells alot about the cups, including 1950.--Vertigo200 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
Football World Cup 1950 → 1950 FIFA World Cup – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments.

Discuss here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions. --Pkchan 10:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved per requested move. --Pkchan 12:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Map of venues?
"France agreed to play but they worked out that the venues for their two group matches were over 3,000 kilometres away from each other. The French told the Brazilians that they would stay home unless the arrangements were changed. The Brazilian Federation refused and France withdrew.

''In fact, the entire tournament was arranged so that the four first phase groups (or "pools" as they were then called) had no geographical basis. Hence, several teams were obliged to cover large distances to complete their program. Although Brazil was allowed to play two of its three group matches in Rio de Janeiro while its other game was in (comparatively) nearby São Paulo.''"

This seems like an interesting fact. A map showing the venues might be a good idea to illustrate this point, as to a casual reader (and one who doesn't know Brazilian geography) this point might be hard to comprehend.--128.205.153.176 15:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hungary's non-involvement
Why was this the case? Seems a pretty big fact to miss out.--Tiresais 20:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Added now. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Final Rankings
The final rankings were removed from here because of the claim that it was a knockout tournament. This however was the one tournament where although there were teams 'knocked out' there was no actual knockout phase only two group stages. The rankings were used by FIFA to determine seeds in recent years. The tables from 1978 to present are valid and for consistency we can include the ones from 1930-1974 as well. For that matter FIFA has ranked the early tournaments anyway and a document with those rankings can be found here http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/releases/en/fwc_origin_en.pdf Libro0 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Saar
The Saar also had a team, which did play in the 1954 qualifiers but, I understand, was prevented like the other two Germanies from entering in 1950.

194.46.170.131 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Big Troubleshoot: Goalscorers
The most deeply-researched resource on World Cup goalscorers is probably Cris Freddi's Complete Book Of The World Cup 2006, which uses compatriot and contemporary resources (ie US papers for USA matches and so on). FIFA's match reports and some old English resources might as well have been made up for all the resemblance they bear to what actually happened, and are hardly ever edited even when video footage shows their 'scorer' is standing fifteen yards away tying his laces (Mexico v Italy 1970, for example). Here goes… Mjefm 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ademir's goal(s) in Brazil v Spain
Freddi: "There used to be genuine confusion as to how many Ademir scored in this match… Old English publications said none at all, more recent publications plump for two, especially as the referee credited him with the first - but this was clearly an own goal. Ademir's shot was on target, but he didn't catch in cleanly, falling back in his follow-through.  If it had simply hit the defender on its way in, there would have been a case for crediting it to Ademir - but Parra lifted his leg and caught the ball with his thigh, sending (Spain goalkeeper) Ramallets the wrong way.  All informed sources (including three from Brazil) rightly credit Ademir with one goal in this match and eight in total.  Mjefm 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Freddi: Spain v USA
Quoting CBWC06 again: "Some English sources still credit John Souza with the (USA) goal, but the St Louis Post-Despatch said Pariani 'tallied against Spain with a shot that handcuffed one of the world's greatest goaltenders Eizaguirre' - and the American players agreed. RSSSF's earlier 'goal' for Spain is actually confused with a disallowed Zarra goal. Mjefm 14:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Freddi: Spain v USA
yea, i was wondering about this as well, I was looking in the united states 2009 year book and it credits Pariani with the goal where FIFA credits john souza. this wikipedia page also says that the goal was by souza, however both the souza and pariani pages on wikipedia dispute this, saying that it was in fact pariani. this combined with with your above note has compelled me to change this page to indicate that it was a pariani goal- 00Kevin March 9, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.85.4 (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cremaschi: Chile v USA
This page lists Cremaschi as scoring a hat-trick but RSSSF credits the third goal to Riera. Also Cremaschi is not listed on the List of FIFA World Cup hat-tricks page. I don't know which is correct, but it seems more likely to be Riera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.78.210 (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WorldCup1950lposter.jpg
Image:WorldCup1950lposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Map is wrong?
Hi. It looks like the map is missing the 3 countries that qualified but withdrew - Turkey, India and Scotland. Can someone fix this? For now I will change the subtitle to read participating countries instead. When the map is fixed feel free to revert. --Ubardak (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The official poster shown is a fake.
It's sad to see nobody realized the soccer world cup poster hosted in the article is a fake. The colours are totally wrong. I own such posters (the original ones) and soon I will take a good picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.204.234 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Was there a single player in 1950 World Cup who also attended the 1938 World Cup?
A question. 我弹 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Scotland and Turkey should not appear in Group 4
Both teams withdrew before the draw took place, as is explained with citations in the article. They were therefore never allocated to any group, so there is no justification for listing them in group 4. Only three teams were ever drawn into group 4: Uruguay, Bolivia and France (who subsequently withdrew). Grover cleveland (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Goal difference
It's misleading to include goal difference in the tables, since this gives the false impression that goal difference would have been used to separate teams tied on points. In fact, goal difference was not used at any World Cup before 1970. The 1962 and 1966 competition rules specified the use of goal average, and our tables for these tournaments show Goal Average, not Goal Difference. 173.228.28.139 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely we need some evidence of this? – PeeJay 19:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Subjective quote
"The entire tournament was arranged in such a way that the four first round groups had no geographical basis. Hence, several teams were obliged to cover large distances to complete their program, although Brazil was allowed to play two of its three group matches in Rio de Janeiro while its other group game was held in the relatively nearby city of São Paulo"

This is clearly incorrect and subjective if one observes the map of Brazil and where matches were played:

Pool A: Mexico: Sao Paulo, Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre // Brazil: Rio, Sao Paulo, Rio // Switzerland: Belo Horizonte, Sao Paulo, Porto Alegre (see the map, natural travel order to Porto Alegre) // Yugoslavia: Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Rio (this was the only team of the 13 participants that need to "turn around" if you see the map)

Pool B: England: Rio, Belo Horizonte, Rio (the distance between Rio-Belo Horizonte is almost the same between Rio-Sao Paulo -440km/433km---see Brazil fixture) // Spain: Curitiba, Rio, Rio // Chile: Rio, Rio, Recife // USA: Curitiba, Belo Horizonte, Recife (as Switzerland, natural travel order to Recife -only match played there) //

Pool C: Sweden: Sao Paulo, Curitiba // Paraguay: Curitiba, Sao Paulo // Italy: Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo //

Pool D: Uruguay: Belo Horizonte Bolivia: Belo Horizonte

France and India
Here and elsewhere, I don't think that teams that did not participate in the group stage should be included in the group rankings. Withdrawn means withdrawn, excluded means excluded. Otherwise it is implied that France ranked third in the group and that Bolivia ranked above it. Plain text and footnotes can clarify whatever necessary. --Theurgist (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but those teams were included in the draw, so they were officially in those groups, they just didn't take part in the end. – PeeJay 19:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then what exactly do the acts of withdrawal and exclusion constitute? And even if the teams were officially in those groups, they were not in the rankings and were not subject to the ranking terms (otherwise France would have been ahead of Bolivia based on goal difference/ratio). --Theurgist (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)