Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)

Seeding
This seeding is absolutely useless. The final seeding will be announced after the end of the qualifying phase of the 2012 European Championship in November 2011.


 * Yes, it is. I have reverted the changes and put this back as a redirect. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But the draw is already in July, how can they use the UEFA coefficient for the seeding? I am afraid they will use the FIFA rakings to determine the pots. That would mean teams like Norway or Montenegro ending in pot 1, while Wales could end in pot 6.
 * The ranking is 99% certain, should the preliminary pots be added here? (see football-rankings.info) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steinarbe (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as I admire Edgar's work (and believe it is correct), the answer is no. It is unofficial and not a valid reference. Jlsa (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)
Hello guys, the groups for the qualification UEFA are "numbered" A to I and not 1 to 9, please amend all the titles of the main articles. Thanks in advance, Rafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafa1985 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Entrants
Please don't change back again this page, I'm just doing the same format as the other pages concernig FIFA World Cup 2014 qualifications (AFC, CAF, CONCACAF), so it's clearer to everybody...


 * As has been pointed out on another discussion page, when there's no seeding that gives some teams a bye to the 2nd or 3rd stage of the competition, there's no point having one list of all the teams competing and another list of all the teams that are starting in the 1st stage. They are identical lists.  For the confederations that do give byes to the top-ranked teams, yes it is helpful to list the teams based on which stage they begin play.  As many times as you come back and re-add the extra list, I'm sure there will be someone else ready to revert.  I haven't taken a poll, but I'm pretty sure consensus is against you on this. LarryJeff (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Belgium NOT guaranteed play-off spot
Belgium are not quite guaranteed a play-off spot. They are guaranteed at least 2nd - but that is not the same thing, as one 2nd doesn't get in the play-offs. If Belgium lose all their games, and are overtaken by Croatia (possible) and Macedonia finish bottom (possible), then Belgium would have 13 points in that 2nd place table. Looking at the 2nd place table as it stands, reveals that anyone below 13 currently has played only 4/5 games (except Croatia) - and thus all (at least in theory) could pass 13pts. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A solution would be inserting a new row for those teams, something like this:

{{legend|#ccffcc|Team has qualified}} {{legend|#ccccff|Team is assured of at least a play-off spot}} {{legend|#ccffff|Team is assured of at least second place}} {{legend|#ffffcc|Team cannot qualify directly}} {{legend|#ffcccc|Team has no chance of qualifying}}

89.7.243.236 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's overkill. Better would be to change key from "assured play-off" to "assured second place". But for consistency i'd just keep it the way it is now. -Koppapa (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it might be overkill to add an extra column but "assured second place" is, in my opinion, more useful than "assured play-off". The use of such a table it to give people useful information at a quick glance as the qualification unfolds. Not showing that Belgium - and later the other teams - cannot finish worse than second in their groups and thus have a very, very good chance of making the playoffs, is quite a flaw.


 * As it is, we're going to know who fits this category a lot sooner than we'll know who is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs simply due to the nature of this system. Maybe later on the table could be updated to add a third column if it is deemed useful.212.76.225.39 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think adding the 3rd collumn, "assured of at least 2nd place" would be useful and not overkill at all, it would give a much more complete overview over UEFA qualifications and will be something that will change a lot more quickly than the "assured play off" which we won't know anything about untill the competition is practically over. The assured play-off is still important though so I would keep the play off column and add the 2nd place one, as in the example above. Lamadude (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lamadude. PJ Geest (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lamadude and PJ Geest. The use of one colour for play-off certainty and one for second-spot certainty makes clear that a distinction is to be made between both concepts. Once that the group phase is at the end, however, the second-spot colour in the legend should be removed again as all second-placed teams will either receive the purple or pink colour. Kareldorado (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With only three games left to play there are still no teams guaranteed a playoff spot, and that's not surprising given the complexity of the rules. So the distinction seems rather useless to show on the page while the qualifiers are still in progress.  Also, the Ranking of second-placed teams doesn't seem all that useful because the current second-placed teams aren't especially likely to be the eventual second placed teams in many cases.  It would be handy to be able to see how other potential second-placed teams are faring in this regard. I'm just mentioning that in case anybody has got any good ideas about how to present that info. Timanfaya (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The main question is about group B, E and H.
 * Group B: If Armenia Win, Italy arrive 2nd with 18pt and Czech Republic last with 12pt, Italy has 17pt in the play-off
 * Group E: If Norway Win, Switzerland arrive 2nd with 20pt and Cyprus last with 4pt, Switzerland has 16pt in the play-off
 * Group H: If England Win, Ukraine arrive 2nd with 21pt and Moldova last with 5pt, Ukraine has 17pt in the play-off
 * So Belgium is not ensure to be in the play-off. Stigni (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though you're right that Belgium isn't sure yet, you're wrong about Group B: If Armenia Win, Italy arrive 2nd with 17 pts and Czech Republic last with 12pt, Italy has 16pt in the play-off Jeroencoolsaet (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Belgium is assured at least a play off spot if San Marino doesn't win against Poland on 10 Sept 84.198.53.190 (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How? I am sorry but I am having a hard time to understand that. QED 237   (talk)  23:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 84.198.53.190 you are right but there is also hundrends of other result that imply Belgium ensure at least of play-off spot, e.g. Czech Rep. doesn't defeat Italy, Malta doesn't win, and so on.... Stigni (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * San Marino's result on 10 sept has no effect on guaranteeing Belgium at least a play-off spot. In the worst case Belgium would have 16 pts in the second-placed teams ranking. Even if San Marino loses on tuesday they can still mathematically overtake Moldova. If Ukraine finishes second with 21 or 20 pts AND Moldova finishes last in group H they would have 17 or 16 pts in the second-placed teams ranking in which case they would still (or could with 16 pts) be ranked above Belgium.
 * Currently there are five scenarios that would ensure Belgium at least a play-off spot on 10 sept:
 * - France does not win against Belarus (Group I)
 * - Denmark gets a better result against Armenia than Malta does against Bulgaria (Group B) This ensures that Denmark will not finish last in their group. The only scenarios that could see the second-placed team from Group B finish ahead of Belgium require Denmark to finish last.
 * - Kazakhstan wins against Sweden and Faroe Islands loses against Germany (Group C) This ensures that Kazakhstan will not finish last in their group. The only scenarios that could see the second-placed team from Group C finish ahead of Belgium require Kazakhstan to finish last.
 * - Estonia gets at least a draw against Hungary (Group D) This ensures that Estonia will not finish last in their group. The only scenarios that could see the second-placed team from Group D finish ahead of Belgium require Estonia to finish last.
 * - Albania gets a better result against Iceland than Cyprus does against Slovenia (Group E) This ensures that Albania will not finish last in their group. The only scenarios that could see the second-placed team from Group E finish ahead of Belgium require Albania to finish last.


 * Still, we"ll probably see some teams ensuring qualification for the world cup rather than seeing Belgium getting guaranteed of at least a play-off spot next tuesday :-) Tvx1 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on some option but still it is better don't edit nothing until tomorrow night also because "Next matchday scenarios" are OR. So for now we all agree that Belgium is not yet qualified for play-off. Stigni (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I never suggested anything being added to the page regarding these scenarios. I just mentioned them so that we know in which case we should edit the page and change Belgium to guaranteed a play-off spot tomorrow night. I wanted to make the situation clear before tomorrow's matches to prevent erroneous editing and/or reverting regarding Belgium tomorrow night. If you think any of the scenarios I mentioned are wrong please feel free to explain. It would be very useful to have the situation correct before the matches so as to prevent any needless discussion afterwards. Tvx1 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't all the math, but if San Marino not win, Ukraine need to defeat England; otherwise it can't be possible that Ukraine reach 20pt AND San Marino 6pt. So for (Group H) we need San Marino defeat Poland OR Ukraine defeat England.
 * I said to not edit anything until tonight for the because we can undo the wrong edit and saying "See Talk Page". Stigni (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by Stigni, I have made a mistake in my proposed scenarios. Here is the correct list of SIX possible scenarios:
 * - France does not win against Belarus (Group I)
 * - Denmark gets a better result against Armenia than Malta does against Bulgaria (Group B) This ensures that Denmark will not finish last in their group. The only scenarios that could see the second-placed team from Group B finish ahead of Belgium require Denmark to finish last.
 * - Kazakhstan wins against Sweden and Faroe Islands loses against Germany (Group C) This ensures that Kazakhstan will not finish last in their group. The only scenarios that could see the second-placed team from Group C finish ahead of Belgium require Kazakhstan to finish last.
 * - Estonia gets at least a draw against Hungary (Group D) This ensures that Estonia will not finish last in their group. The only scenarios that could see the second-placed team from Group D finish ahead of Belgium require Estonia to finish last.
 * - Albania gets a better result against Iceland than Cyprus does against Slovenia (Group E) This ensures that Albania will not finish last in their group. The only scenarios that could see the second-placed team from Group E finish ahead of Belgium require Albania to finish last.
 * - Ukraine does not win against England AND San Marino does not win against Poland (Group H) This ensures that Ukraine cannot finish second with 20/21 pts AND San Marino finish second-to last, since both these teams still have to play each other and cannot simultaneously win that match. Tvx1 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In Group B it's actually sufficient if Denmark draws with or defeats Armenia in the ongoing game. Sure, they could still finish last but only if both Bulgaria and the Czech Republic drop points to Malta, making both unable to get 16+ points to the runner-up table. 109.204.158.230 (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently I haven't analyzed the groups quite thorough enough. With Denmark having secured a win against Armenia Belgium is now guaranteed at least a play-off spot. Tvx1 (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this table. There are 6 coloured bands in the table but only 5 in the key. 86.180.41.18 (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The white band isn't really a colored band. It means nothing. Teams in that band aren't guaranteed or eliminated of anything. Tvx1 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 86.180.41.18 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Second-placed teams ranking !
Someone has mistakingly altered the ranking of the second-placed teams. It needs to be reverted !!!Tvx1 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've corrected it myself already.Tvx1 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This table should include the FIFA ranking. Nergaal (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For now I think it is quite useless, because it will be insert in the Draw section and it is not a tiebraking criteria. Stigni (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It was all wrong again so i've fixed it up, hoepfully correctly... Waddl 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waddl (talk • contribs)

Suggestion: color for finishing sixth
Just throwing this out there, maybe a gray highlight could be used for teams that are guaranteed sixth? This is useful as once a team is locked into sixth, other teams' playoff totals cannot be changed with introduction of a new sixth place team. 69.248.177.221 (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there will be to many colors. And also we have the note in the table (1,3,6) were 6 is that sixth-placed team can change. QED 237   (talk)  19:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A single red line may be enough:

Tkyheg (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * IIRC, Last time there was a different shade of red used when a team was certain of 6th. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not needed in my opinion -Koppapa (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It think the red line is a good idea. Certainly better than yet another colour. Tvx1 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is quite useless and finishing 6th it don't give anything to the team. There is not relegation and choose a new color or line only for the second placed teams classification it is absourd. It is not easy do math for the 2nd placed team until the last match when that line is complitly useless. Stigni (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither Bosnia nor Greece are assured a playoff spot
IF both lose all remaining games and Latvia finished last in the group, they only have 13 points in the runner-up ranking. That's not enough currently as in every other group there are still teams that can make it to 14 points in such ranking as runners-up. --77.47.97.36 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Fixed. Stigni (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Same with Russia and Croatia. Croatia are sure runners-up, but not sure in the playoffs with probably only 11 points in RU rankings. Russia are not even sure runners-up yet. --77.47.97.36 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is also true for Spain and France. Bulgaria can make it above 14 points if Czech Republic finishes last. --Lars Ransborg (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If Cze end 6th, and Bulgaria end at 19 pt they will have 15pt in second-placed team classification; the limitation is that Hungary (Group D) can have at most 14pt. In the other group it is easy find a solution with at least of 15pt.
 * So of course Cro (11pt), Gre (13), BIH(13), Spa(14) and Fra(14) are not ensure of a play-off spot. Stigni (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

More countries are guaranteed a playoff spot
It would seem to me that more countries are guaranteed a playoff spot, if the differences in points to the second-placed team that is placed last in the second round (currently Bulgaria), or any potential alternate team, is taken into consideration. But it's a little intricate, as the last-placed team in the second round, as well as last-placed teams within the groups, might change.

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's hard to image, for instance, how Greece – or Bosnia, which is currently leading that group – would miss the playoffs. Even in the unlikely case that they both would lose to Liechtenstein, which is the only way Liechtenstein could avoid last place in the group, both Greece and Bosnia have recorded only victories against the alternative last-place countries (Latvia and Lithuania), as well as previous meets with Liechtenstein. In any case, they can't get fewer points (that count) in that table than they already have. Ergo: they're both in the playoffs.


 * HandsomeFella (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm .. I just realized that they actually can get fewer points. If they both lose the rest of their matches, and Liechtenstein wins both its remaining matches, Greece or Bosnia, whichever comes second, might have to deduct 6 points – instead of currently 3 – from their matches against the new last-placed team, Latvia or Lithuania. Even so, they could still be in the clear. Complicated stuff ...
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If I have gotten everything correctly, a team can currently be assured of at least a play-off spot if it is assured of at least 15 relevant points (i.e. points in the runners-up table). This is because Group D is the worst in terms of the maximum possible number of relevant points its team can have - Andorra is assured of last place, and the group's runner-up can have a maximum of 14. Group B can produce a runner-up with more than 14 relevant points if Bulgaria and Malta win their remaining matches, Armenia gets above Czech Republic, and Czech Republic loses its remaining matches, which would put it in the last place. Then Bulgaria would have 15. Other groups can also easily produce runners-up with more than 14 relevant points.  A R  TYOM   17:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Only Belgium and Germany are ensure about a play-off spot. All the calculation are long and not easy (it a clear OR...) so I think on Wikipedia in a article we not need a list of all the possible scenarios and calculations. Stigni (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am confused. Belgium is up by 5 points with the 2nd place team only having one game remaining. How has Belgium not qualified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navigio (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Belgium and Croatia have TWO games remaining.Tykyheg (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, my apologies. And sorry for forgetting to sign my comment. Navigio (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ireland out already?
Someone's coloured Ireland in red and said they mathematically can't qualify. I don't think this is true. Suppose, for example:


 * Ireland beat Kazakhstan and Germany, and finish with 17 points;
 * Sweden lose to Austria and Germany, and finish with 17 points;
 * Austria beat Sweden but lose to the Faroe Islands, and finish with 17 points;
 * Ireland end up with the best goal difference of the three and finish second in the group;
 * Croatia, in Group A, lose their last two games;
 * Either Wales or Macedonia finish bottom of Group A.

Croatia and Ireland would each be second in their groups and, ignoring results against sixth-placed-teams, would each have 11 points. So if Ireland's goal difference were better, they would be ahead of at least one other group runner-up, and would get into the play-offs, and could qualify. It's a fairly implausible combination of results but it is mathematically possible. I think. Am I missing something here? 92.11.178.90 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Ireland can still qualify. QED 237   (talk)  22:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ireland will lose that three-way tie on points between tied teams, that's before goal difference. I cannot see Ireland finish second. -Koppapa (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The tie-break criteria bit says they've changed it this time so that goal difference comes before points-from-games-between-the-tied-teams. 92.11.178.90 (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, you are right. It's under FIFA rules, not UEFA's. Thanks for clarification. -Koppapa (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Second placed ranking
Hi everyone.

Please note that matches against the last placed team (in groups of 6 teams) do not count (since there are not 6 teams in every group). Therefore matches against the last placed teams must be removed so if for instance bulgaria has 13pts in normal group but has two victories against the last placed team, then they have only 7pts in the second-place ranking. The points in this table is most likely not the same as in their group. Please note this before editing the second-placed rankings table. QED 237  (talk)  11:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Further to this, Bulgaria are now actually out so can be colored in red. Aremnia, despite sitting behind them, are not quite out as they can still be one of the best 2nd place teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.227.195 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If I have made my calculations correctly Czech Republic can still finish last which will give Bulgaria 11pt in second place-ranking that can be enough? QED 237   (talk)  17:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Czech last gives Bulgaria 12pts and Malta last gives them 10pts. Czech can already max at 9pts. However, Slovenia can be second in Group E with only 8 pts at present. Zirath (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Bulgaria are out now for sure, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.53.248 (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Slovenia might finish second in Group E with 16 points, minus 6 from the matches against Cyprus, giving it 10 for the second-placed table, which Bulgaria can still achieve. 85.246.229.20 (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also Group D the second can have 10 points in ranking ( If Turkey, Romanian and Hungary loose, i know it is unlikely...) Montenegro is technically not out, because Ukraine might loose ( which is unlikely against San Marino) Even Croatia is not through to the Playoffs yet, because Armenia in Group B can get second and have 12 points for comparison (Croatia 11). But very likely the kicked out team will be the second of group B

Different colours needed
Next to each other in the Group A table - the colours for "qualified" and "assured 2nd place" look practically the same. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed! I'll try and change it. Though I suppose none are of much use for people who are red/green colour blind. I wonder if we should take this into account more1 --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't see the problem really. It has been like this for months. They are two clearly different shades of blue. They are both blue because they deal with the situation of 2nd-placed teams. Tvx1 (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No - not the blues. The light green of the first place 'Team has qualified' and the almost turquoise for 'Team is assured of at least second place' - because one is above the other, they are sort of merging into each other.  and it hasn't 'been like this for months' because it's only now that we've got a situation where one is directly on top of the other [something we didn't have previously] that this situation has occurred. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem with changing this. If it merges for some people, then it merges for them. I agree that it's not the clearest. The idea that if you can see it, then others' complaints are irrelevant, makes no sense. That it has been like this for months is not a particularly valid argument either. This is the first time the two colours have been placed alongside each other. Perhaps you might reflect if it's good editing to be reverting multiple editors' desire for clarity. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we try with another 'blue' color? I too find it a bit difficult to tell them apart, I can only imagine the difficulty for someone who usually has difficulty discerning colors. -- Lejman (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact is that the color use for the team that have qualified and the team that are onely secured a second place are very much the same. If you look at group A right now I can not see any color difference between Croatia and Belgium. And since these two colors when use always will be together it is a real problem. Maybe it doesnt show up like that with the screen you are using, but look at by a guy with perfect color vision on a HP Laptop using Google Chroom and Windows 7 I tell you that there is no difference. And I dont think that the person I just described is a fringe minority. Lets just change the color of those only secured the second place. Jack Bornholm (talk)


 * It can indeed be difficult to distinguish between the green and light blue. It though the problem was with two blues. Sorry for that. Maybe we could use a darker green than the current one. What would you think of this for instance:

Tvx1 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To me that is a good difference easy to see. The problem is that all of the qualifications has the same colors (and the same green color). Therefore it dont match the others in 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification.  QED 237   (talk)  19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure we'll resolve this in time for the final games on the 15th. It's good to continue the discussion for future tournaments though. As for the issue itself, like QED states, the green is the same on all the other tables, while the 'runner up uncertain of playoff' color is UEFA specific. For that reason it's practical to change the runner-up color so I'd rather change the runner-up color to a non-blue than change the green. That said I'll accept any solution as long as the colors become distinguishable. -- Lejman (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It has to be a blue for the runners-up. That's the color that deals with the situation of the runners-up. Hence the blue line too. We'll have to use a different blue for the guaranteed runners-up not guaranteed for play-offs. Allow me to make a new proposition:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; font-size: 90%;"

!width=180| !width=25|Pld

!width=25|Pts
 * - bgcolor=#ccffcc style="border-bottom:3px solid green;"
 * style="text-align:left;"|🇧🇪 belgium
 * 9 ||25
 * - bgcolor=#40E0D0 style="border-bottom:3px solid blue;"
 * style="text-align:left;"|
 * 9 ||17
 * - bgcolor=#ffcccc
 * style="text-align:left;"|🇷🇸 serbia
 * 9 ||11
 * - bgcolor=#ffcccc
 * style="text-align:left;"|🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 wales
 * 9 ||9
 * - bgcolor=#ffcccc
 * style="text-align:left;"|
 * 9 ||8
 * - bgcolor=#ffcccc
 * style="text-align:left;"|🇲🇰 macedonia
 * 9 ||7
 * }
 * And this what it would look like for group F.
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; font-size: 90%;"

!width=180| !width=25|Pld

!width=25|Pts
 * - bgcolor=#ccccff style="border-bottom:3px solid green;"
 * style="text-align:left;"|🇷🇺 russia
 * 9 ||21
 * - bgcolor=#40E0D0 style="border-bottom:3px solid blue;"
 * style="text-align:left;"|
 * 9 ||18
 * - bgcolor=#ffcccc
 * style="text-align:left;"|🇮🇱 israel
 * 9 ||13
 * - bgcolor=#ffcccc
 * style="text-align:left;"|🇦🇿 azerbaijan
 * 9 ||8
 * - bgcolor=#ffcccc
 * style="text-align:left;"|
 * 9 ||6
 * - bgcolor=#ffcccc
 * style="text-align:left;"|🇱🇺 luxembourg
 * 9 ||6
 * }
 * So what do you think? Tvx1 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is definately better. I think it looks good. QED 237   (talk)  18:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that looks great! -- Lejman (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * yeah - that works well.. Though of course now, in 24 hours it won't matter. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like it. Hopefully the discussion will be remembered for future qualifying campaigns though! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not worth worrying too much more about this for this year, as these tables will soon be finalised, but there will need to be a better solution for future campaigns. The colour used above whilst distinct seems out of place with the rest of the pallette. Granted that is an aesthetic concern only, and I appreciate this change was motivated by concern for the accessibility of the table, but really, if we are concerned about accessibility then using colour alone to convey meaning is a really bad move. In future I would recommend an additional column to the table with the actual qualification status in text. Even single character abbreviations would work such as Q, P, 2, R and E.  AJ Cham  17:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please get the 'possibilities' (i.e. who is eliminated and who can still get a spot) correct...
someone is editing poorly, and saying some teams are out of it and others are guaranteed playoff or 2nd place spots, when in truth that is not the case. generally this seems to come from assuming results (or at least goal differences) of the 15 oct. games (e.g, ukraine will beat san marino, etc.). please, whoever is editing, make sure that ALL possibilities are accounted for, however unlikely they are, and that the page is correct... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.231.147 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There are probably 50 editors editing now and back and fourth. Give it an hour or two before people realize what is right and wrong. Everyone is doing their best (I hope). QED 237   (talk)  21:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a mistake in the 2nd teams comparison: The 2nd of Group E is not secure in the playoffs. Iceland would be, but Slovenia can finish with 10 points (with draw and a loss from Iceland) While in all other Groups there are teams which can at least get 10 points ( it is even 12 (Armenia Group B)  The second of Group E is not through yet. Although Island has enough points

group b neither bulgaria, danmark, or chech republic have a chance to qualify, beacouse they can be only be worst secondplace, only armenia have a chance


 * Though unlikely, they could still finish ahead of the Group D runners-up. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And Group E ( slovenia with a draw, while Island looses...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.109.254 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes - we're slowly getting there! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

could someone please explain why czech republic are apparently unable to qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.49 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Czech Republic can't qualify as they will lose 6 points from the games won against Malta. They are definitely out - the other 3 have a chance though.

Can anybody explain to me why spain are not definitely through? It's the head to head record that comes first which Spain hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.231.86 (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Because Head to Head isn't first - GD is. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not head-to-head record, it's goal difference. See 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA). -- Lejman (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More precisely, only in case of a perfect tie on three criteria. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

From B Group only Armenia has theoretical chances to advance into playoffs after beating Bulgaria at home. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No if Romania lose but still end up second (Hungary and Turkey also lose) and Denmark end up in second place, denmark will beat Romania on goal differential so Denmark can still go to playoff. QED 237   (talk)  22:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Qed237, I was speaking of Group B, not D. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and as i said Denmark can also go through from group B. Are your head spining now? You seem confused. QED 237   (talk)  22:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Not clear why Portugal isn't assured of at least the playoff, since they're on 15 points in the 2nd place table and if Northern Ireland finishes last, Portugal's point total will go up, not down. Dawindler (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If Portugal lose vs Luxembourg, Northern Ireland wins and Azerbaijan loses, Azerbaijan will finish 6th. Then Portugal will finish second with 12 points. -- Lejman (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Portugal gained 4 pts against N.Ireland, and 3 - Luxwmbourg. It currently has 18 and a game against LUX. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Portugal gained 6 pts vs Azerbaijan, so if Azerbaijan finishes last, Portugal will only retain 12 of 18 points. -- Lejman (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They are assured (in my opinion), but their points will go down by one. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Theoretically they are not assured, no matter what you think. QED 237   (talk)  22:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooo, that is painful. Can you please elaborate. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If Azerbaijan finish last and Portugal lose next they will only have 12pts in second placed ranking and that may not be enough. QED 237   (talk)  22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, good point. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Czech Republic is eliminated because even if they finish runner-up in their group, they would finish last in the runner-up ranking an therefore cannot get a play-off spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What about if Hungary will place second, would that allow Czech to advance? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess, 10 points is the threshold right now for any second teams to advance into playoffs and the Czech Republic just does not cut it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope Czech Republic won't be through then. Hungary would have at least 11 point in the runner-up ranking while Czech Republic can get 9 at most. Tvx1 (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this apply to Denmark too? Since their last match will be against last-team Malta? If Bulgaria is the last ranked number 2, and Denmark can't pass them i mean. ? Yosh3000 (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If Denmark win, and Bulgaria don't, then Denmark will be 2nd with 16 points total, giving 10 after taking out results against 6th. Thus they could in theory pass Turkey/Romania from group D if neither of those get any points.  188.221.79.22 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Ukraine can still top group H - it states they can only qualify as a runner up - So I've looked at this closer and think it is actually a problem with the colours of the key. It looks as if Ukraine are in white (not in the key) - as opposed to a faint yellow? Might be worth a closer look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.225.122 (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes they can, you are right. Someone just changed it but I am looking for these edits and changing them back on sight. QED 237   (talk)  10:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The color for ukraine is right. They have no color as they can both be eliminated (so not assured second place) and they can also win group (so not eliminated). QED 237   (talk)  10:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Background colors in runner-up table
I propose we use background colors (blue) for teams that are certain to be runner up, and qualify for playoff in the runner-up table. -- Lejman (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To expand on this. The purpose of the colored 'line' in previous tournaments has been to show which teams are currently holding a rank of importance (such as first = green line, qualifies directly). When a team has clinched the rank, the line has been replaced with a colored background. See 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) and UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying for instance. Once qualifications are complete, all lines, as well as background colors like 'red' for eliminated are removed as they become redundant. I don't mind leaving the lines in for now if that's preferred. Since we know a team (Sweden) in the runner up table has clinched a rank (qualified for playoff) I argue that we should colorize it blue, since that is the purpose of the 'blue line' in that table. -- Lejman (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I think we should leave this table without colors and simply mention sweden at the next section as it have been done. Jack Bornholm (talk)

Ranking of second-placed teams
Just a suggestion. May be it would be a good idea to identify number of points the second teams is loosing (or lost) against the currently placed sixth team. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinon that will make the table even more complicated and I dont see what we would "win" on showing that. QED 237   (talk)  22:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. Just many people are jumping in with their editing. Right? :) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes they are :) QED 237   (talk)  22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Denmark can't qualify
... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.115.44 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes they can. Romania can get second in group D on only 16pts. That gives them 10pts in second place ranking and -3 in goal differential. If Denmark win and is second in group B they have 16pts and also 10pts in second place ranking but with the goal differential -2. So Denmark can end up as a better second placed finisher then Romania and then go to playoff. QED 237  (talk)  23:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Czech Republic are out though... 105.225.236.43 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No they are not. Please read Template talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group B for explanation. QED 237   (talk)  20:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Huh? Surely this proves my point. Czech Republic can only get 9 points. Romania already has 10 105.225.236.43 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right sorry. I confused myself, has been editing this for 24hours straight now and people keep saying Denmark is eliminated and Czech Republic is through, so now I mixed them up. You were totally right. Sorry! QED 237   (talk)  21:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, no worries! I'm quite confused myself. 105.225.236.43 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Original table
Can the tool be a source upon which the play-off seedings can be announced on Wikipedia after Tuesday's matches and before FIFA actually publishes the October rankings on Thursday? It gives the following values.

A dash indicates that the team cannot be in the play-offs with such an outcome. --Theurgist (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, nice work making that table. I have actually looked at these numbers myself to see if my favourite team will be seeded or not and I can imagine that more readers are interested in this kind of information. However it is only needed for a very short time and without a really good explanation it might be confusing for some people. But with a good explanation I am very positive to have this in the article. QED 237   (talk)  21:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I realize i might have misinterpreted your question. I am not sure if we can use this as a source for the seeding. It is correct but I am not sure. QED 237   (talk)  21:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There will be an interim of about 36 hours between the conclusion of the group stage and the official release of the rankings. One can expect that many other sites will publish the seedings based on FIFA's tool's prognoses before FIFA does, and I think so should we. Even if this information doesn't get sourced adequately, it'll be 100% correct, and there are WP:IAR, WP:CALC, and indeed the very short time the situation will last. --Theurgist (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is very true and if we dont include it it will be a huge mass of IPs coming in trying to edit the article and especially the seedings. I think it is for the best. QED 237   (talk)  18:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But I think a note would be good to let the reader know that the ranking and seeding is not yet official. QED 237   (talk)  20:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reliable sources describing the correct seedings, we don't have to use FIFA as a source. In any case the teams shouldn't be ordered by irrelevant September ratings to give the wrong idea about seeding.-Koppapa (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Original table
Tykyheg (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

French goalscorers
The article must be missing some French goalscorers, because France scored 15 goals and the "Goalscorers" section only shows two French players with two apiece and four with one, totalling eight. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Finland scored an own goal against France. -Koppapa (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC
 * The article missed one goal each from Paul Pogba and Karim Benzema. 139.228.30.69 (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are still 2 missing. 13 are accounted for now. Tvx1 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is FIFA's website's complete list of scorers in the UEFA zone. It doesn't list the own goals though, nor is it capable of sorting the players by team. --Theurgist (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Clear statement of who qualified
I have added a couple of sentences to the lede listing the qualified countries' teams. I did this because there was no explicit statement in the article of who actually qualified. As the whole point of the qualification process was to select 13 European teams, I feel there should be a clear indication somewhere of which teams were actually selected. Without such a list, it is difficult for the readers to easily see who qualified.

I had previously added such a list, but it was reverted for no apparent reason. I hope that other editors will be willing to engage here, whether for or against this content. I hope the list will not be reverted without giving a reason.

--A bit iffy (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good addition. -Koppapa (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone look at the Group including San Marino in 2014? Someone has edited it wrongly and I am unsure how to do this. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.6.230 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)