Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC)

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 10:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

OFC qualification pages

@Stevie fae Scotland, Centaur271188, and JalenFolf: I am wondering, is it really necessary to have sub-articles for 2022 OFC qualification? There will only be 16 matches played in a single window, less than half of that in the previous qualification cycles (35 in 2018, 34 in 2014, 36 in 2010, 39 in 2006). The format is a mini-tournament, akin to 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – OFC Third Round last cycle, I think a single page on the qualification is sufficient. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I concur that separate pages for the group and knockout stages are unnecessary now that the format has been confirmed. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree re qualification match and the final stages. It's four matches total so the only way you could justify a separate article is if something notable happened in any of those matches (the chances of that are slim though). That's why I had created a redirect for the qualification match rather than a separate article. I hadn't done so for the final stages as I wasn't sure how FIFA were stylising it but I see one has now been created. I do think though that the group stage is more akin to 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round which has just finished, the difference being the number of groups and that it's a single round-robin rather than a double round-robin. There are also more games in this group stage (12) than there will be in the UEFA play-offs (9) which have a separate article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: The only reason the CONCACAF Second Round or UEFA play-offs have separate articles is because the other rounds have so many more matches (56 in the CONCACAF first+third rounds, 20 or 30 in each UEFA group). In this case there are very few matches across all rounds, so there really is no need to split the information. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I created it because I thought it's what we've done elsewhere but I've made the exact same argument you've put forward about other Oceanic football articles and it's gone completely unheeded which has led to a needless duplication of information. Taking that in mind, I think you are right. We should keep the separate pages but only as redirects to the main article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jkudlick and Stevie fae Scotland: I agree with S.A. Julio, we should keep the whole OFC campaign in a single article. About CONCACAF 2nd round, it could be imported to CONCACAF main page, unless you guys want to keep it separate for consistency's sake. Anyway, number of matches is not the only factor to be considered here, many 1-match events still have their own page if they are notable enough (major upset, record scoreline etc.) Centaur271188 (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

CONCACAF Second Round content can easily be merged into the article about the First Round, as it seems to have been a continuation. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: It is OK too. If others agree about that merge, then I will take care of it. Centaur271188 (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as that merging is announced first through the CONCACAF article Help page, rather than 'consensus' here which may have a much smaller audience. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the CONCACAF 2nd round article necessarily needs to be merged, though it is a shorter article, I think it still is fine on its own. Other articles of similar length exist, such as 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – OFC First Round. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Not invited? Invited but quit?

Hi, Centaur271188. I was hoping to catch someone's attention, while I was also searching for more information on the internet. You got here before I could find anything, thank you.

I was trying to figure out the broken logic of the section 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC)#Entrants. If "Nine FIFA-affiliated national teams" were in the competition, then no one needs to know about the two that did not enter, nothing needs to be said about American Samoa and Samoa, as they are simply not part of the nine. Then I wondered if they were mentioned as having withdrawn "from the qualifying campaign on 29 November 2021" because it was intended that all 11 teams were meant to compete, as they did in 2018. Again, if this is not true, then there is no need to mention those two teams, as they have nothing to do with the qualifiers for OFC. In other words, there should be a reason provided for even mentioning these two teams who seemingly have nothing to do with the qualifiers, otherwise remove them completely from the text and the table.

Since Tonga was still in the nine entering into qualification at the time of the draw, were named and were given a place in the qualifiers (the single knockout game against Cook Islands), then it makes sense to keep them in the text and the table. American Samoa and Samoa need some sort of wording to justify their presence here. I had hoped that the wording was "all 11 were meant to compete, but other stuff happened", but your edit summary makes clear that "we were not sure about the format", so mentioning American Samoa and Samoa is, itself, speculation.

Of course, all this is made more difficult by the fact that the citation provided for the mention of the withdrawal of American Samoa and Samoa, "Update on FIFA Club World Cup and OFC preliminary competition for Qatar 2022". FIFA. 29 November 2021., does not say anything about those two teams. The citation's failure to mention either team does makes it pure speculation to include "American Samoa and Samoa withdrew from the qualifying campaign on 29 November 2021", being the day of the draw.

I don't have the answer, and have been looking for it. Otherwise, the only way to justify the text and table mentioning those two teams, including any mention that they specifically withdrew from qualification (as compared to having not been invited), is to speculate. I was searching for proof, and would have deleted my speculative edits – but also remove all speculative mention of those two teams withdrawing, including the meaningless citation that says nothing about them – if no proof could be found to show that they were ever part of the 2022 plan.

Hoping you have something that could clean this up. Perhaps something along the lines of "Unlike the 2018 qualifiers for OFC, when all 11 OFC teams competed, the 2022 qualifiers only included nine teams, with a dearth of information regarding when or why the national teams from American Samoa and Samoa were either excluded, or withdrew, from the qualifiers." Jmg38 (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jmg38: I think the fact that some OFC teams withdrew is notable enough and worth mentioning. Of course many previous qualifying campaigns (especially those ~20 years ago and earlier) had a lot of teams not entering, withdrawing etc. and our pages often just omit them, but that should not be an excuse. Here we know some teams withdrew, we have sources say clearly that they did (the FIFA article does mention 2 Samoan teams, if you miss that paragraph, just do a Ctrl+F (that should work in most browsers) then type 'Samoa'), so they should be mentioned as 'withdrew'. Centaur271188 (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

All 11 teams were due to compete per this OFC update in July 2020. American Samoa and Samoa were announced as having withdrawn on 29 November 2021 by FIFA per the source quoted above. I suspect they may have withdrawn before then as the phraseology suggests FIFA had known about it before the draw announcement. There should probably be more detail about the original format and why the changes came about than there is currently though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Centaur271188 and Stevie fae Scotland, did you folks actually think I was going to read that entire article? Thank you for pointing it out, and I can't believe I missed that, despite reading it twice. Thanks also for the July 2020 update link. Based solely on the wording in the FIFA article, I have adjusted the wording in the text a little. Thanks again, to both of you, for the help this. Jmg38 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: If I remember correctly, OFC did not have any official format before the pandemic. For comparison, CONCACAF had one, then the pandemic forced them to change it, so we have 'original format' and 'new format' in CONCACAF article. Other confederations kept their old plan, only changed the schedule. For the last 2 years, OFC has only announced postponements and proposals. Centaur271188 (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there was no pre-pandemic announcement. I probably should've phrased it slightly better, what I meant was there is no detail on the proposals that were made and at one point looked to be fairly set in stone (the format anyway, not so much the dates) and that perhaps we should explain it more in the article. In a way, that format is kinda what they are doing, just with less teams. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: We used to have a short paragraph about some proposed format, until an IP removed it.[1] I think that change is OK because proposals seem not notable enough to be included. Centaur271188 (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"Cancelled"?

Probably academic, but this page lists the Vanuatu vs Tahiti match as cancelled, yet FIFA lists it as postponed. Given the reason for the postponement (half the Vanuatu team down with Covid-19) it seems unl;ikely to be played, but if FIFA says it's just postponed, surely we should list it as such. Grutness...wha? 11:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

OFC say it "will not go ahead" which implies a cancellation rather than a postponement but I doubt it would make much difference tbf. We'll just need to wait and see what they decide to do with it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Voided match

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: For your information, FIFA's and confederal match reports do not necessarily address the true status (e.g voided) of the match. See [2] and [3], please. Centaur271188 (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I wouldn't accuse FIFA of being the best record-keepers. But the source is very clear that the result still counts - it is still a full international, which will be used in ranking calculations. Both the OFC and FIFA list the match as a full international.

'Voided' would mean that the result of the match is discounted completely; that the game effectively didn't happen. But that's not the case, and the key sources all agree on this point. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: Quoted from OFC: "All matches played or scheduled to be played as part of Group A involving the Cook Islands or Vanuatu shall be deemed to have not taken place for the purposes of determining the group standings" [4]. I think it satisfies your 'effectively didn't happen' definition. Yes, the match is still recognised as a full international and included in ranking calculations. But this article is about the qualifying campaign, in which it is considered non-existent. Centaur271188 (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It far from satisfies that definition. To say the result was 'voided' is factually incorrect. When I came to this page, I saw that and presumed that meant that the match was completely expunged. But it wasn't: the game was played, and finished 2-0, and that result stands. It is still listed as having taken place as part of the qualifying process, but just not being used towards qualifying.

The result should be displayed, but with a clear note that it was then used for the qualification table. The word voided, in particular, is factually incorrect. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Joining this discussion, I'm in agreement with Super Nintendo Chalmers. Voided would mean everything about the match is no longer official, the fact that the match was played and the game while not used in the context of this tournament still counts in rankings feels to me like that isn't the correct wording. I don't think you can just consider the match in the context of this article and void it.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@NZFC and Super Nintendo Chalmers: For this qualifying campaign's purposes, the whole match no longer stands, not just the result. 'Voided' is factually correct here. Still quoted from OFC: "The Solomon Islands will go into their match against Tahiti with a clean disciplinary record (as they did not receive any cautions in their match against the Cook Islands, this shall not change the status quo in substance)" (source above). We still keep the original result, in parentheses right below 'Voided', I think that is reasonable and relevant enough. And of course, context and relevancy matter here - if we are in articles about Cook Islands or Solomon Islands national teams, the original result could be shown more clearly than the 'Voided'. Centaur271188 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: The more I've looked into it, the more I am happy enough to leave it as voided as there is precedent here with the same thing happening with North Koera in the AFC. They played five games, but they were all voided after they pulled out of the rest of the tournament.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 00:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@NZFC:, @Centaur271188: - but that example is different, and shows why voided is wrong here. Look at https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/worldcup/qatar2022/media-releases/update-on-the-2022-fifa-world-cup-asian-qualifiers-after-withdrawal-of-korea-dpr: the source is clear that the results of the North Korea matches were "null and voided". But at https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/worldcup/qatar2022/news/update-on-ofc-preliminary-competition-for-the-fifa-world-cup-2022-tm, FIFA explicitly retain the result of this game: "For the avoidance of doubt, the match between the Cook Islands and the Solomon Islands, which took place on 17 March 2022 with a 2-0 result in favour of the Solomon Islands, will count with respect to the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking, although it will not count with respect to the preliminary competition Group A standings." We clearly need to illustrate that somehow, but the term voided is incorrect. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: No, for this qualifying campaign, nothing about the match is retained. FIFA's article (simply copy-pasting OFC's one, so no need to quote anyway) confirms that too. Trying to say 'it will count with respect to the world ranking' in this article is neither notable nor relevant. Off-topic: you might want to read Help:Fixing failed pings - I did not receive your ping, and I believe NZFC did not either. Centaur271188 (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: Thanks for the tip on pings, hopefully that worked. I entirely agree re: this qualifying campaign that the result doesn't count and nothing is retained, but that is different to saying that the match is voided. I'd be happier if the game (and all the cancelled matches for that matter) were removed from the page rather than listing it as voided: the removal at least wouldn't be actively providing misinformation, whereas to me "voided" does. Again, my context: I tend to follow WC qualifying results via Wikipedia so when I first came to this page and saw 'voided', I presumed that the match result was fully expunged from history (as per your DPRK example). If I hadn't been motivated to look further, I'd have left the page with the wrong impression. I suspect that others will too. The situation is different to the DPRK one; the game is effectively redesignated as a friendly retrospectively.

To my mind, there are two good solutions. The first is to list the match and the result, with a note to say that the result did not contribute to the qualifying campaign. The second is to remove it and the cancelled matches from qualifying section, perhaps placing a written description of them, when they would have occured etc, along with the details of the COK/SOL match in their own subsection, as part of the history of qualifying but not as part of the qualifying process. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: In the limited space of football box, I think we tried our best to provide information and ensure that readers would not misunderstand. 'Voided' is mentioned first because it is the most important thing, right below is the original result, and a note explaining what 'Voided' means here. If you want it to be clearer, then we could write out that sentence, instead of using Template:Refn.
About the idea of removing all cancelled and voided matches, I think you should open a broader talk in WikiProject Football. Off-topic again: I also saw the COK-SOL match is mentioned as 'Friendly' in national teams' articles. Do we have sources saying FIFA downgraded its status from 'World Cup qualifier' to 'Friendly'? Such change would affect the importance coefficient. Centaur271188 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: I don't particularly think that we should remove all voided and cancelled matches more broadly; it is interesting/encyclopedic to show, for example, the dates and venues in which they would have happened. I was trying to come up with productive solutions, which would avoid the inclusion of this result in a misleading way: because at the moment, the result is presented as if it were voided, annulled, as per the North Korea example, when in fact it was not. I know you like the current appearance of it and I do appreciate the need for succinctness, but the current version is misleading; I don't know why you're happy with that. I'm sure there's a way of presenting this which avoids a word like 'voided' which is false.

The point on the 'friendly' listing is well made - I guess that that will become apparent when FIFA release their rankings in a few days time, and that can be updated at that point. That may also guide the next steps here: if the game is reclassfieid as a friendly, then listing it as voided is a little more acceptbale - or, to be honest, listing it as cancelled with a footnote that a friendly did take place in that time slot may be even more accurate? If the game is used as a qualifier in calucating the Solomon Islands' ranking, which should be apparent from their points total, then listing it as 'voided' becomes even less tenable, surely, because in that instance the result is accepted as a qualifier - which was just not later 'used' for the group table. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a thought - is 'excluded' a better term? As per the below?

17 March 2022 (2022-03-17)

17:00 UTC+3

Cook Islands	0-2 (excluded)	Solomon Islands
	Report (FIFA) Report (OFC)	Kaua 20' Hou 45+1'

Al-Arabi Stadium, Doha

Referee: David Yareboinen (Papua New Guinea)

'Note text': Due to subsequent withdrawals of Vanuatu and Cook Islands, the result of the Cook Islands v Solomon Islands match was excluded from the group standings. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Something similar happened to Bolivia and Chile in that they played a qualifying match that is no longer considered as part of the qualification process. Argentina withdrew from qualifying in 1950 after Bolivia had played Chile in their opening match which meant both teams qualified automatically so it was redesignated as a friendly. For whatever reason, it's not included on that article but it probably should be given the fact it was played as a qualifier, much like the Solomon Islands–Cook Islands match and it is listed on both results articles (Bolivia, Chile) as having been played as a qualifier. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: At this point, we are just repeating our arguments. I think 'Voided' and the refnote are correct and clear enough, per my interpretation of OFC's announcement (from my first reply in this section). If you insist on using source's wording directly (it does not use 'voided' so we should not either), you can consider "not counted" (better than "deemed to have not taken place", surely) instead of 'excluded' :) and I will not object. But that word should be mentioned before the original result (per notability and relevancy). Centaur271188 (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)