User talk:Mauriziok/National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup

Propose merge from World Cup Teams
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)
 * I agree. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As do I. Makes perfect sense to me, having the table in this article. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge completed. Chanheigeorge 08:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

List?
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)
 * I would draw the line on those who actually played the final stage (i.e.: the World Cup itself). 207 teams seems a little bit too long. Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, where does the number 207 come from? Can we verify it to be correct or not? Chanheigeorge 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea. But it makes sense, with defunct nations added, that it'd be over the current total of 190 nations. I hope to find out the real number soon... Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What about a list of teams that have yet to make to the World Cup?

What if...?
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)
 * I think that's unnecessary, and involves too much changes. It is clear right now from the table what each team's debut appearances are. Chanheigeorge 23:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Some links to consider for future use
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)

Factual error?
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)


 * I remember Beckham's last-minute goal against them in the qualifiers which meant England topped the group and Germany finished second. Greece failed to qualify. Maybe you mean Euro 2004. Greece did okay there. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Greece was dead last in the 1994 FIFA World Cup. That's their only appearance so far. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Performance by Confederation
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)
 * When the finals have been held in Europe, at least 3 semi-finalists are European.
 * When the finals have been held in S.America, 2 semi-finalists are S.American.
 * When the finals have been held in Asia, there's 1 Asian semi-finalists.
 * When the finals have been held in N.America, there's 0 N.America semi-finalists.

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)

Asia and Oceania
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)
 * There's a lot of gray area for Asia and Oceania. Oceania prior to 1996 wasn't even an official confederation, and was often just one of the qualifying groups within Asia.  And, in the entire history of the World Cup, there have been only three teams which are typicallly regarded as part of Oceania which have qualified - Australia in 1974, New Zealand in 1986, and Australia in 2006.  And Australia won't even be part of Oceania anymore after this year.  Israel's qualification in 1970 technically was out of the Oceania pool of teams competing for Asia'a spot, even though they're considered part of Europe now.  In any case, there's not enough of a history of Oceania participation to merit a whole separate table.  If you want to make a table completely filled with Zeros with the exception of a 1 in 1974, 1986 and 2006, be my guest.--DaveOinSF 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

DaveOinSF, thanks for clearing that up, I knew there was a reason for it. --Colourblind 07:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oceania had a seperate qualifying group since 1986, and the winner of the Oceania group allways had to compete in intercontinental playoff. Until 1982, Oceanian teams competed as part of the Asian zone. Therefor, only Australia in 2006 and New Zealand in 2010 should be considered Oceania's representative.--Nitsansh (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

1982 tournament
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)

Ranking of teams by number of appearances
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.


 * yes its meaningful, perhaps not for comparison sake, but if you come here you can use that table to clearly see how many times a certain team has appeared in the finals. Batman2005 18:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bogus rankings
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
 * Rankings are not normally used in knockout competitions, usually you just give the round that the teams were knocked out in, an exception occurs in the World Cups since 1934 where a 3rd place play-off has taken place (in 1950 of course the last 4 played a mini-tournament but the effect was the same). In 1930 there was no 3rd or 4th place.


 * It makes no sense to give the relative merits of teams who were knocked out during the group stages of the competition rankings, because the teams that they played were not the same. How can you compare two teams when one is in a group of death and another in a "group of life". It is not a level playing field.


 * Due to various teams pulling out of the competition for the 1950 World Cup, Bolivia and Uruguay ended up in a group of two. They played each other once and Bolivia lost. Uruguay went on to win the Cup. Mexico was in a group of four with Brazil, Yugoslavia and Switzerland. They played three games and lost them all, yet in this table Mexico are listed as 13th and Bolivia as 14th. This seems somewhat unfair.


 * The 1934 positions of Argentina, France and Netherlands (9th,10th and 11th respectively) appear to be based on nothing more than their alphabetic order as their performances in the competition were all exactly the same (they each lost 3-2 in the first round).


 * No idea how this deals with the bizarre system used in the 1954 World Cup where the two seeded teams (and the two weakest teams) in each group didn't have to play each other, and play-offs were required for teams on equal points. Goal average/difference was not a factor, see next item.


 * Some of the rankings appear to be based upon goal difference. Goal difference was not used in the World Cup finals until 1970. The scheme commonly used in other competitions during the earlier history of football was goal average. Goal average was first used in the World Cup finals in 1962, and even then it was only used after two teams has already played a play-off and drawn; it was the last resort before drawing lots. Using goal average instead of goal difference can result in strikingly different results. I have not gone through to check with this table.


 * Retrospectively re-analysing and ranking those competitions using the modern criterion of goal difference is selective. It would also be possible to retrospectively award 3 points for a win instead of two for all competitions before 1978 and then re-rank the teams accordingly.


 * It is patently absurd to retrospectively rank teams from past competitions using criteria in a selective way that was not in use at the time of the actual competition. The players of that day wouldn't have considered goal difference of any value and if they had it would surely have had an influence on how many goals they put in the back of the net. Would Argentina have stopped at 6 goals when they played Yugoslavia in the semi-final in 1930? Would Yugoslavia have tried harder to claw back more than one goal? the players wouldn’t have even wondered about such a thing, and neither would they have wondered about who scored the quickest goal or the number of corners they got or the number of bookings or the number of shots that hit the woodwork, and they would have been equally surprised to find teams ranked using these criteria.


 * The only rankings that have any merit are those that were actually competed for. Winner, Runner-up, and 3rd and 4th except for 1930. Jooler 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally though [i.e. - this is not part of my agument above] I don't think 3rd and 4th have much value either, the 3rd place game is usually a disappointment with the teams not really caring who wins, and I don't know why they bother with it. If you lose in the quarters to the eventual winner, you're probably no worse a team than one that might have had an easier ride in the other half of the draw and reached the final. It should winner and runner-up like in the Euros. Runner-up being an award for getting to the final; not for coming second. Jooler 10:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * Teams that finish with the same records are now indicated as tied.
 * I think the criteria (2 pts vs 3 pts; goal average vs goal differential) that was used during that tournament is always applied for the ranking of these records. 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 think tie-breaking play-off matches are not counted in the overall records of the team when determining the rankings.

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)
 * That would be a good idea. We can do it after the World Cup finishes. Right now, they (and we) are probably too busy with the World Cup to think of this topic. Chanheigeorge 02:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On a separate note, I propose a change in the formatting for each cell. See what I did for Algeria's results. My reasoning is that what round the team is eliminated from is more important than the ranking, so it should be put first and in a larger font. If you like it, we can make changes for the other cells later. Chanheigeorge 18:42, 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.


 * Jooler 21:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The rankings are no more than a convenience for some bogus statistical comparisons. There is no level playing field for directly comparing results of two team in two different groups. Jooler 22:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

One point that I agree with you and one that I disagree with you:
 * After also accounting the quarterfinal results of the 1962 World Cup, we have: Hungary (W 2, D 1, L 1, Pts 5, GF 8, GA 3, GD +5, GAv 2.67), USSR (W 2, D 1, L 1, Pts 5, GF 9, GA 7, GD +2, GAv 1.28), West Germany (W 2, D 1, L 1, Pts 5, GF 4, GA 2, GD +2, GAv 2.0). So it looks like they use GD here; so they have been inconsistent, or make an error in ranking the teams.
 * However, I totally disagree with you about not being able to make statistical comparions when there is no "level playing field" (whatever that means). So are you telling me I cannot compare the number of goals scored by Ronaldo and Klose in this World Cup because they play against different teams? Or the number of total goals scored by Ronaldo and Muller because they play in different eras? Chanheigeorge 23:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A level playing field is an idiom in the English language meaning fair and balanced. Ronaldo and Klose are competing for the "Golden Boot" (sic) in which the criterion is simply how many goals they score, and they both know it. There's no separation of players on the same number of goals by the number of times they hit the woodwork or the number of bookings they receive and they wouldn't expect there to be. Actually I'll revise that. They are NOT "competing" as such. It's a simgle award for an achievement of scoring the most goals, there is no 2nd or 3rd place in the "Golden Boot". It's just that Adidas think they can sell more sportswear because they award the 'adidas golden shoe' to whoever scored the most goals. It's a marketing gimmick dreamed up in 1982. On an individual basis it's not a level playing field either because the best goalscorer in the tournament could be unlucky enough to be in a team that is otherwise crap and only play in 3 games. There was no criteria around to determine who finished in what position in 1930 etc and retrospectively inventing one makes no sense. Jooler 05:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion. However, we live in a world where people often make statistical comparions when there is no "level playing field". Remember the 1986-1994 World Cups, where the four third-placed team with the "better" records make it to the Round of 16 (how can they compare the teams when they are in different groups!?). Or maybe you can check out the European Golden Boot award. Heck, every sports record is basically a comparison without a level playing field. Anyway, my point is that we write Wikipedia articles to report on what the world has done, not what the world should do in our opinions. Given that the rankings are officially sanctioned by FIFA (not dreamed up by one of us), I see a merit in reporting them here. I've written something to explain the rankings in the intro, and also made them less intrusive in the table. Finally, I agree with Ian Manka that it'd be better if we can contact FIFA to ask for a thorough explanation of the rankings, so we can better improve the article. That's all from me for now! Chanheigeorge 00:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is such "statistical comparisons" that you refer to are actually statistical deceptions. You can prove [anything] with statistics if you use selected criteria. It was George Canning who said "I can prove anything with statistics except the truth". If they are "official" rankings, and you accept FIFA's authority on this, what right have you to declare the tied positions? e.g. 9th in 1934? Have you gone through the whole set of rankings to determine where there appears to be other tied positions? I assume not. Taking it as a curate's egg where we can selectively choose which parts to accept and which parts to reject makes little sense. You either accept the list wholesale or reject it. As far as i'm concerned there are enough anomalies in this list to make it next to useless. Jooler 08:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the basis for the rankings of this curent tournament? Jooler 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you seem to believe that by introducing the rankings, we have proved that some team is "better" than another team in the tournament. Where did you get this concept? This is only your interpretation of the rankings. We have clearly only stated that, where this ranking comes from, and what is the criteria of deciding this ranking (by observing how the positions are decided; yes, it would be nice if FIFA stated explicitly about this, that's why we should ask for an explanation). Nobody is claiming that the 9th placed team performs "better" in the tournament than the 10th placed team! Do you know that in Wikipedia we're not even allowed to write "Brazil is the best team in 2002 because they won the World Cup"? Here's a quote from you:
 * the best goalscorer in the tournament could be unlucky enough to be in a team that is otherwise crap and only play in 3 games...
 * Now, who is going to decide this subjective title of "best goalscorer"? You? It seems to me that you're going to attack every statistical comparison that does not conform to your way of subjectively deciding what is "better" or "worse". Unfortunately for you the world is going to produce more of these "bogus rankings", and we are going to continue writing Wikipedia articles about them. If you do not like them, please write to FIFA or whatever authorities to ask them to scrap them.
 * P.S. Somebody before (67.164.138.176) added tied positions to the rankings, and I verified them (found one to be incorrect) and also checked on every tournament to see if there are further ties (found one more). Chanheigeorge 19:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you seem to believe that by introducing the rankings, we have proved that some team is "better" than another team in the tournament. - I don't see how you manage to draw that conclusion? Certainly not from my last contribution. What you have quoted from me is a plain statement of fact that acknowledges that the winner of the "Golden Boot" and scorer the most goals is going to be one who happens to have been given enough of an opportunity. The criterion used for this award is simply the absolute number of goals scored. It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility that FIFA might come up with another award (The Golden Shin-pad ?) for the player who has the highest scoring average per game. Score 3 goals in the first three games and get knocked out in the first round and you might still win it. It's all about the criteria you choose. Change the criteria and you can list the teams in a completely different order. As for ties, what about the 1962 competition? Do you tie Mexico and Spain because they had the same goal difference? Or do you tie Uruguay and Spain because they had the same goal average? Which criterion do you choose? Do you arbitrarily make a choice? Or do you accept the list on that PDF which has no ties, or what? You can't have it both ways. At the end of the day the list is full of too many anomalies and inconsistencies and arbitrary choices, that it amounts to a statistical nonsense. Its better to ignore it and stick with the traditional way of ranking teams in a knock-out competition by simply highlighting the round in which they went out. This is the way you will find it listed everywhere except that particular PDF document. See for example Italy national football team or any other national team. It should say Winner, Runner-Up, 3rd and 4th. All other rankings are subject to interpretations and should be ignored. Jooler 09:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made my position on this matter very clear, but just for a final recap: 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)
 * I agree that the round where the team is eliminated is more important than the ranking. Hence the current display of the cells.
 * I see a merit in the rankings included here. It is official, and it is sometimes cited in the media (e.g. USA's last place finish in 1998).
 * The current explanation of the rankings in the article provide the facts behind the rankings, which I believe the readers can decide themselves whether they are "statistical decpetions" or not:
 * The team ranking in each tournament is according to FIFA, 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.
 * Teams are considered tied if their overall records (wins, draws, losses, goals for and against) are all identical. Again I do not see a problem (apart from laziness from FIFA). For example, league tables are often written such that teams with the same record are "sorted alphabetically", where in reality they are tied. Anybody with some common sense should be able to realize that.
 * The one problem is Uruguay and Spain's rankings in 1962. Hopefully we can get FIFA to clarify on it. If not, we can always put a footnote to explain the problem. I do not see why we have to throw away the rankings of all tournaments just because of one mistake. In many competitions technical mistakes are made (for example, incorrectly adding up the numbers); you do not just completely ignore the whole table, but you should explain the mistakes.

Proposed FIFA Letter
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)


 * I think we should ask FIFA to provide a table for each tournament, listing the teams' overall records and their positions. Then we ask FIFA what is the criteria for ranking the teams (right now appears to be points, goal difference, then goals scored), and whether this is justifiable (especially for tournaments before goal difference is used). That way we can at least double-check the rankings. And I think we should rephrase the comments a little bit.... Chanheigeorge 00:28, 3 July 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)
 * If somebody uses a different ranking system from those by FIFA, that's original research, and should be taken out. Chanheigeorge 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've modifed the letter so that it looks somewhat better. Thoughts? Ian Manka Talk to me!
 * Looks good. Just say you're writing on behalf of the editors of Wikipedia. Chanheigeorge 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Changes have been made. Any final thoughts before I copy this into Microsoft Word, print it, and send it? Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Criteria is plural. It should be a criterion, unless you consider it part of a real quotation.  SLUMGUM    yap    stalk   18:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If any rankings are going to be used they should be the ones FIFA put out, regardless of whether or not its a statistical deception or not. If FIFA says France finished 28th in the 2002 World Cup, then no matter what anyone says, they finished 28th.  Further, I think if anyone actually sends a letter to FIFA that it'll be the subject of great laughter around the break room table. FIFA likely doesn't give a damn what is on wikipedia. Batman2005 18:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it extremely unlikely that you will get a reply to this. I've sent emails to FIFA in the past and not had a reply. But if you are going to send this, you might aswell point out the situation in 1950, where poor old Bolivia ended up a in a group of two with the eventual winners Uruguay. They only played one game in the group stage which they lost. Mexico played 3 group games and lost them all. Yet Mexico is placed above Bolivia (presumably because of goal differce/average). Bolivia weren't given a chance to redeem themselves with a win or a draw, because they had no-one to play. It is plainly unfair to place Bolivia last. Jooler 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, what the hell -- it's worth a shot, right? We have less of a chance of getting a response if we don't send a letter on. Plus, it gives me something to do. We'll see what happens. Edit the letter as you so choose such that it is accurate. Or, how you want it to look Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Qualified Teams that Withdrew
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)


 * The words "appear" are now always used instead of "qualify", so those countries are not included. Chanheigeorge 00:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel that these teams at least merit a footnote for qualifing for the tournament, even if they chose not to participate for whatever reason. --Billdorr 23:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Two mistakes
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


 * Thanks. Fixed. Chanheigeorge 23:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rankings used for finals draw
I just realized the 1998 and 2002 FIFA World Cup rankings were used for the 2006 World Cup finals draw, so I've added the information in the article. Chanheigeorge 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

AFC/OFC Again
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)


 * I think the current classificiation is okay. It's clear that in 1974, 1982 and 2006 the three teams represented OFC (it's natural that there's no Ocenaia zone before 1986 when there are so few teams). From now on, Australia will represent AFC. Of course, we should merge if AFC and OFC ever merge. Chanheigeorge 03:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Listing of Countries by Debut
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)

Contemporary names
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)

Column Headers of the overall chart
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)


 * Do you mean the host country flag and number? The article does say For each tournament, the host country and the number of teams in each finals tournament (in brackets) are shown. Nonetheless I think the current table runs contra to WP:MOSFLAG. I'm not sure we really need the flags in at all so have moved them. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In the "Overall team record" section, the columns after "Team" are labeled Pld, W, D, L, GF, GA and Pts; it is not clear what those headings mean.Naznarreb (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

List by semifinal appearance
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 and Serbia and Montenegro
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)

Tweaking the recent changes on results by confederation
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

chandler 14:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Slovakia records
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)

Error in map of appearances
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)

India
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)

"#Qualified but withdrew"
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)

Comprehensive results color scheme
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.

Comprehensive team results (India)
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)
 * India qualified for the tournament by default. Thus, they qualified. Those other teams never qualified. LordAtlas (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Counting Brazil's qualifier already ?
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)

Part of France or the United Kingdom instead of the colonial empires?
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)


 * I agree that labeling former colonies as "Part of [Country]" is misleading at best, especially when there are and have been other not-fully-sovereign territories competing in qualifying and even the finals (Dutch East Indies). I think we should reserve the "Part of [Country]" indication for countries that were fully constituent parts of another country before becoming independent (e.g. East Germany, Slovakia, former parts of Yugoslavia or USSR). Former colonies should simply be classified as "Not affiliated to FIFA" where applicable. Wburrow (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Defending runners-up
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)

Source or methodology for 2014 and 2018 rankings
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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)


 * They're already there, listed under East Germany.  O.N.R.  (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * East Germany is listed under "Former countries" in the Overall Team Records section. While that's accurate, I think it would be better to move GDR back into the main list and retitle "Former countries" to "Predecessor countries" or something like that. That would keep the list in agreement with the FIFA fact sheet that OP linked to. Wburrow (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Debutants list?
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)
 * Never mind. It's the very first list. I must have been blind. Walrasiad (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)