Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC fourth round

Group Winners
Are there any benefits to winning the group such as seedings? Or will it just be bragging rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.169.170 (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No benefit (if they do it like before). Seedings are based on 1)Performance in last two finals and 2)FIFA ranks - and there is erally only 1-7 for seeds, so no AFC team will be seeded, and they will all be in the same AFC pot. Jlsa (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ha
Brilliant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanhearthegrassgrow (talk • contribs) 11:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan
A few days ago there were a theory, that if Australia beats Uzbekistan and Bahrain draws with Qatar, Japan will finish at least on the third place at the end. I guess it's true, so it should be there. Thanks --Simy69 (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case both BHR and QAT would have 5 points. If they both won each of their final two games then they could reach 11 - the same as Japan if Japan lost both of their games.  So, mathematically Japan wouldn't be assured the spot.  But if the match is NOT a draw then Japan would be there (at least third). Jlsa (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought this case, but somehow I wrote the wrong version. --Simy69 (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan is now mathematically assured of at least third place (and thus reaching the playoff) - neither Uzbekistan nor Qatar can reach 11 points. PiGuy314 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain on 6 June

 * Question: On the next matchday (June 6): Bahrain is able to advance only to the AFC play-off, if Australia gets at least 1 point and Japan beats Uzbekistan. --Simy69 (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, if Australia and Japan both secure direct qualification, then by definition no other team can. So yes. --Richjhart (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Aus/Bahrain scenario
If Aus loses all its remaining games, and Bahrain wins all its remaining games, they would be level on points and it would come down to goal difference?

And if Bahrain somehow makes up the 9 goal difference, they will take 2nd spot (assuming Jap 1st in this scenario) and Aus is guaranteed the 3rd place (playoff matches) at a minimum?

-- Chuq (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much what the article says at present - Australia 3rd at worst (note: Japan would HAVE to be 1st in your scenario because they would have to beat Australia for Australia to lose all their remaining games). Jlsa (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article takes into account the GD - it states that if Aus loses all its matches and Bhr wins all its matches, Bhr will qualify. -- Chuq (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Standings templates
Should a different color background (say, blue) be used for Australia and Japan in the standings table to indicate that they have guaranteed (at least) qualification to the playoff? PiGuy314 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The way it has usually been done is that you get a colour when you have definitely attained a single state - not "at least". Bahrain will "go blue" when they are guaranteed third so it would have to be something different - I think text is probably the best way to go on this (although that's just my opinion). Jlsa (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It may be that I'm more used to how it's shown in most American sports leagues, where a team that has guaranteed that they will advance to the playoffs (but may change how they qualify, such as whether they are a division winner or qualify as one of the highest-ranked other teams) has a notation that may change later if they guarantee a higher qualifying place (such as an "x" denoting a team that has guaranteed a playoff spot, whether they can still win their division or not, and a "y" for a team that has guaranteed first place in their division). I'm not sure if that sort of notation is as commonly seen elsewhere, so it might not be as immediately clear as I thought. PiGuy314 (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Uzbezkistan vs. Bahrain
Right now, it says UZB must beat Bahrain by 2 goals to advance. Am I missing something? If UZB beats Bahrain by 1 goal: -both teams will have the same number of points. -both teams will have the same GD -Uzbekistan will have a better GF and will advance. Am I interpreting the tiebreakers incorrectly? Schoop (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, currently, Bahrain beat Uzbekitsan 1-0, so a 1-0 win for Uzbekistan in the return, or a 1 goal victory should take it down to GD before GF. Druryfire (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now Uzbekistan has -4 GD and Bahrain -3. In case Uzbeks win 1-0 they will have GD -3 and Bahrain will have -4, so any win shall lead them to play-offs. 194.50.169.20 (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats correct, that's my understanding, winner takes all. Druryfire (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)