Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup seeding

Likely seeding[edit]

Pot A
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
England
Germany
Spain
Italy
France/Portugal

Pot B
Remaining CONMEBOL and CAF members
Pot C
Remaining UEFA members
Pot D
CONCACAF, AFC and OFC members

--Lars Ransborg (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked out what the seeding would be if the same method was used as in 2006

Pot
South Africa
Germany
Brazil
Italy
Spain
England
Argentina
France

Pot
Remaining 8 UEFA members
Pot
4 AFC, 1 OFC and (3 CONCACAF or 3 CONMEBOL)
Pot
5 CAF and (3 CONMEBOL or 3 CONCACAF)

Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You two said almost exactly the same thing. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except mine is more precise :P I was going to overwrite Lars' version but I thought that that would be rude. Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think FIFA will try to avoid seeding France/Portugal (especially France) since they had to go to a playoff to qualify, they'll find a way to seed Netherlands in that last spot instead. 207.61.175.5 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they just choose the October rankings, it would be a straight swap between France and the Netherlands for seeding. Good point, random IP address. Aheyfromhome (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEWS[edit]

France and Portugal have missed out of top seeding, due to their involvement in the play offs. Netherlands and England have been seeded above them.Statto74 (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

huh?[edit]

Is this a real article yet? With no real substantive news about the 2010 process, it's mostly speculation, despite how obvious or likely the process will look. --125.29.243.30 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the time an RFD went through, we'd have real knowledge. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why does seeding merit its own article when no article exists (AFAIK) regarding the draw itself? Perhaps rename this and expand it into a larger article? --125.29.243.30 (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior performance in World Cups[edit]

Definetely going to be a factor. If people keep deleting that as a factor, they need to be reported as Vandals or 3RR Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. You are. You are deleting information that is almost certainly true. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until I get one, you need to stop deleting my edits, use {{cn}} tags, and for heaven's sakes, use proper English. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until you get one, shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've already vandalized and 3RRed, now you're going to add incivility to that? If you think something is unsourced, you need to consider {{cn}} instead of just deleting it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ι've been vindicated :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concede, but would point out that the move was unexpected by many throughout the world, including the above comments. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember who was the actress that presented this. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.95.5 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]