Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup Group E

Denmark v Japan

Japanese GK's jersey color in the match against Denmark is grey, not black. Danish GK's jersey color is green. Correct it please. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wccorrection (talk • contribs) 03:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japan's formation against Cameroon

Japan's line-up is incorrect. Honda played as the striker with Matsui and Okubo on the wings. Endo played in the middle alongside Hasebe. Source: http://www.fifa.com/live/competitions/worldcup/matchday=4/day=1/match=300061477/index.html (look under "PITCH" and "Tactical line-up" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.103 (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I re-created the line-ups for Japan v Cameroon according to the MatchCast (http://www.fifa.com/live/competitions/worldcup/matchday=4/day=1/match=300061477/index.html) and the Start Line-Ups (http://es.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/24/43/19/10_0614_jpn-cmr_tacticalstartlist.pdf) Rbb l181 (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work, Rbb l181. However, the line-ups are still incorrect. The starting line-up listed by FIFA in the PDF and on MatchCast are only FIFA's hunch before kick-off, based on the rosters handed in by each team. If you look under each 15 minute segment in the MatchCast, you have were each player was on the field for that time interval. Using that information, you can figure out each person's actually position. Specifically, Hasebe did not play on the wing as FIFA had listed him before kick-off. Hasebe played in the center of midfield, with Okubo on the wing. Japan played with pretty much the same line-up in the second game, and FIFA corrected Honda's position but still got Hasebe's position wrong. It's should be Hasebe and Endo in the middle and Okubo and Mitsui on the wings, with Honda as the lone striker. If you could fix that, that would be great. Thanks. I can also fix it if you want, if you can just show me how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.103 (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GK jersey color of both team are incorrect. Japan's GK jersey color is grey, not black; while Cameroon's GK jersey color is brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuaa (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some problems with Japan's formation ? The pictures files are still completly false. Will you stop kidding this team ? Okubo plays LW, Matsui RW, and Honda CF, did you understand that ???? Here you can find good formations. http://coupe-du-monde.tf1.fr/matchs/pays-bas-japon-5800057.html Stasm (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've recreated the Netherlands v Japan formation according to http://coupe-du-monde.tf1.fr/matchs/pays-bas-japon-5800057.html. Is this one correct or is there any other changes I should make? Also, are the GK's jerseys' colors correct? Rbb l181 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The formation of Japan v Cameroon has been changed as well based on http://coupe-du-monde.tf1.fr/matchs/japon-cameroun-5800042.html. Is this one correct as well? Rbb l181 (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thank you.Stasm (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the GK's jerseys' colors are correct. Thank you. But for the Japan's GK's jersey's color in the 2nd match against the Netherlands is yellow, not black. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuaa (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rbb l181, for the corrections of GK's jerseys' colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuaa (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honda is CF! LM　is Okubo Endo is CM.why not modified? なんとかしてよん！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.174.32.123 (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark own goal v Holland

The replay clearly shows Poulsen's header was going well wide, it only went in because it hit Agger. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/matches/match_09 The BBC website explains it all, with a nice video. Mjefm (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poulsen. see: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=249722/match=300061478/report.html 109.170.47.209 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the edit warring. In case of controversy, FIFA's decision remains official (if they change their minds then the new version becomes official). Please bear in mind that if an attacking player shoots for the goal and it brushes against the goalie (or any other defender) and still goes into the goal, it counts as a goal by the attacking player. The ball ricochets off Agger's back - this is not the same as Agger making the goal. It is unfortunate for Poulsen that his shot was deflected. --84.246.24.129 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point: if a shot is not on target and is deflected in, it is an own goal. This is not a 'controversy' as video evidence is plastered all over the net, so there is no need to refer to FIFA's official report. Poulsen's header was going wide – by a mile – and only went in BECAUSE of Agger's touch. Stop using FIFA's match reports as gospel, they are often poor sources as discussed in FIFA World Cup goals with disputed scorers. It is utterly illogical to put it down as a Poulsen own goal. Mjefm (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The own goal has been officially credited to Agger, by both the BBC and FIFA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.235.117 (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mjefm, it is not up to you to decide who the goal should be credited to. Sure, there have been goals in the past - before television analysis - that have had disputed scorers, but now goals are analysed to the Nth degree, so the goal will surely end up being attributed to the correct person. If not, it's still not up to us to argue with FIFA, because then we would be guilty of ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and our records would not match up with FIFA's, the national association's or the player's. – Pee Jay 16:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay, why do you assume that FIFA is the ultimate authority – when they have been proven anything but reliable in the past – and yet are happy to dismiss, say, BBC Sport, who are surely an equally valid source, if not more as there is video evidence on their site? The disputed scorers article makes it clear that some goal disputes are down to perception – and FIFA's lead is taken – whereas others are simply down to inaccuracy. If there is a discrepancy do what I've done: make an entry on the disputed scorers article (which somebody has nominated for deletion, making everything even more complicated than it need be. Mjefm (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to agree with PeeJay here. FIFA supervises the event, FIFA makes the rules, FIFA is the authority. If the FIFA would credit Robin Van Persie as the goalscorer (because he was the last dutchman to hit the ball), Van Persie would be the official goalscorer and we on Wikipedia would have to credit Van Persie as well. --85.146.209.49 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume FIFA is the ultimate authority? Its called the FIFA World Cup, of course they are the ultimate authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.168.114 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries?

Since when are there summaries? Isn´t it normally done after a stage is completed? Kante4 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to encourage users to write some sort of prose about every match that is played at the World Cup. It mainly stems from the in the news section on the Main Page, because there is some opposition to the World Cup being linked via there, due to the lack of updated prose. See talk:Main Page#Where is the World Cup today bring back the World Cup petition. I admit, the prose is poor, but I'm not a very experienced editor in writing about football games and I'm more so hoping that it will catch on and encourage users to write better summaries. Jolly Ω Janner 20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it. It was just not looking good where it was placed. ;-) Kante4 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danish line-up formation

The Danish line-up formations are very incorrect. I don't know how to correct it. But Tomasson is striker/off midfielder just behind Bendtner. Jøregensen is central midfielder. Grønkjær is left winger. --Lindberg (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which formation is wrong? Or are both of them wrong? If the NED v DEN is right, should the other one be similar? If not, could you please send to my e-mail a sketch of the actual formation so I can change it? Rbb l181 (talk) E-mail. 19:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure about the formation against Cameroun. The one against Holland am not 100 % about.

This is the line-up against Cameroun:

Denmark (4-2-3-1): Thomas Sørensen

Lars Jacobsen- Simon Kjær- Daniel Agger- Simon Poulsen-

Christian Poulsen- Martin Jørgensen-

Dennis Rommedahl- Jon Dahl Tomasson- Jesper Grønkjær-

Nicklas Bendtner

This is the line-up against Holland:

Denmark (4-2-3-1)

Thomas Sørensen-

Lars Jacobsen- Simon Kjær- Daniel Agger- Simon Poulsen-

Christian Poulsen- Martin Jørgensen-

Dennis Rommedahl- Thomas Kahlenberg- Thomas Enevoldsen-

Nicklas Bendtner

--Lindberg (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish line-up from the Japan-game needs to be adjusted. Look here: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/25/japan-3-1-denmark/ --Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]