Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup seeding

Untitled
The top places in the table should be reserved for the teams who are garanteed top seeding. For a moment I thought Iran was going to get a top seeding place. 83.185.246.184 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Flags
Also, why are some teams with flags and some without? 83.185.246.184 (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Different numbers of teams in pots
There must be an explanation of the special format with different number of teams in different pots. This is impossible with a standard draw procedure. 83.185.246.184 (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Last places
Using FIFA ranking tool in their website, I was able to calculate the points for October ranking. Positions 1 to 8 are correct. As well as projected pots for all teams. Putting the line with two teams fight directly for one place was a good idea. But put all the four possibilities for CAF Third round Group D would leave it too messy. It's fine as it is right now, just waiting for UEFA draw next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulovflopes (talk • contribs) 02:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Seeding date controversy
The seeding they are using is October 2017 even though the African qualification doesn't finish until November 2017. Surely this is controversial and should be mentioned. (Mobile mundo (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)) Mobile mundo (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's how they've done it for a while. If you can find reliable sources discussing any actual controversy, we can include it, but we can't just make up our own. And considering this is a long-established practice, I don't know why it would suddenly be a problem. Smartyllama (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

They use the October rankings because using the November rankings would give an advantage to teams playing in playoffs in November. 74.192.171.220 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Swarbrick85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.171.220 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you please put a direct source if you have found one? That would help me edit that part in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:3100:5300:a935:cd77:6c16:d062 (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Less wording
Can anyone please put the information in the section "Pots" in less words? I feel I put a little too much info on there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:3100:5300:A935:CD77:6C16:D062 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The table in Pots section
Is it possible for the font to be smaller so "Serbia or New Zealand" can fit in one line? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:3100:5300:5073:15e2:e8f1:abf3 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Draw Procedures
I'm unsure why nobody is really reporting this, but the new plan for the draw seems simpler at first glance, but it's actually more complicated. The specifics of the draw haven't been publicized by FIFA from what I can see. It won't be difficult to implement it fairly, but it might be difficult to do it publicly without an audience becoming confused as to why certain things are happening. This may be the cause of them not having publicized it yet. My question is to whether or not they will since they refer to the "procedures of the Final Draw", but it doesn't have any procedures. It just has the principles guiding the draw: 1. pots created by ranking 2. geographical diversity within groups.

It's not as simple as just pick a team and put it in group A. Pick another team and put it in group B. It's that simple for the first Pot of 8 teams, but it becomes successively more complicated for each Pot. The reason for this is that, if you just completely randomize it, it would be easy to end up having 2 African teams in the same group, or 2 Asian teams, 2 North American teams, etc, because there are African teams in both Pot 3 and Pot 4, for example.

A set of procedures that would work are as follows:

Pot 1 - pick a team and put it in group B, C etc. Very simple - fill groups in order from B - G.

Pot 2 - a. Fill groups with a South American team from Pot 1 the first and second time a non-South American team is drawn from Pot 2. b. Otherwise fill groups in order from A - G.

Pot 3 - a. Put the first team drawn into the group that Mexico is in unless the first team drawn is Costa Rica. b. If the first team drawn is Costa Rica, put it in the first group available that doesn't have Mexico in it, taking into consideration principle c for Pot 3. c. Fill the groups with 2 European teams before filling the groups with 1 European team and one South American team, unless European teams are drawn. d. As always, in general, as much as possible fill groups in order from A - G.

Pot 4 - a. Have a special pot for Serbia. There will be either 2 or 3 groups that don't already have 2 European teams. They should draw one of           those groups. I know the principle is to draw teams, and not to draw groups, but if you don't do it this way, it will become too complicated for the audience to understand what's happening. If that doesn't matter, the complication is too much to write here, basically. b. Don't fill groups that have 2 European teams + 1 South American team until all other groups have been filled.

Swarbrick85 (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Swarbrick85


 * Do you have any citations whatsoever for this or is it just wild speculation? Smartyllama (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not speculation at all. Read the citation. FIFA has no procedures published. They have principles published. Principles and procedures are not the same thing at all. I've read dozens of articles stating that they have the "procedures", but they just list the principles of the draw. From what I can see, there are no published procedures. Probably because they're extremely complicated due to the new way of the Draw: putting teams into pots according to rankings. 74.192.171.220 (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Swarbrick85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.171.220 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Final draw table
I dont understand. The final draw table, ie the second table, has four columns identified 1, 2, 3, 4. I assume those are the four pots from the first table, and hence corrected it. However my corrections were undone. Why? What does column 2 or 3 or 4 represent? Column 1 represents pot 1. Why doesnt column 2 represent pot 2, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.40.50.174 (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

As commented on the page they are draw positions. Pot 1 teams are automatically in position 1. The rest were draw. To 2, 3 or 4 to determine the order of play. Red Jay (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Strongest group
The comments on the strongest groups (and actually the whole final column of the group table) are IMO very close to, if not outright, OR. While I do not doubt the numbers, and adding of course is not OR because every schoolkid can do so, the idea that these sum of ranking points are in itself something which measures group strength adequately is. I don't mean the general questionability of the FIFA ranking and the inevitable conclusion of a host being ranked too low for its strength (although that already would be reason enough not to talk about "strength" when talking FIFA rankings), but the fact that with the way points are given, odds of a high combined rating increase with the geographical diversity of the group, if only ever so slightly. Also, the rankings are tilted towards distinguishing top places, meaning playing strength differences of the lower seeded teams are less important than those of higher ranked teams. Is there some source using this way of determining the strength of a group (which of course is always a major news topic with all the "groups of death" and "easy draws" commented on at each major tournament) outside of WP? I failed to find any. And that would mean "OR" to me. --131.169.89.168 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the column and associated comments on the basis of WP:FANCRUFT before coming to this talk page and seeing these comments. Strength of group is a subjective argument and can have its internal methodology and plenty of opinions, but doesnt belong in an encyclopedic document. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)