Talk:UEFA Euro 2008 Group C

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The ITV coverage of Netherlands v Italy showed Boulahrouz to be playing at right back and Ooijer at centre back, not the other way around as this article originally stated. This does however conflict with the information given by Sky Sports Live Score Centre. I've adjusted the Netherlands' team sheet accordingly, but can anyone do the same with the .svg image in the middle of the article? I'm relatively sure that the information given by ITV is correct, as Ooijer playing at RB is unlikely. Thecomaboy (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar problem with Gattuso and Ambrosini playing on the sides of the midfield. I switched them on the list but the image is not correct.--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant what ITV say the lineup was. This press release from UEFA shows Boulahrouz at centre-back and Ooijer at right-back, Gattuso at left-mid and Ambrosini at right-mid. – PeeJay 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. My mistake. Thecomaboy (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same is on uefa.com, I saw it. It is made by humans who can make mistakes, so citing wrong information is irrelevant. The Milan midfield with these three players is always Gattuso, Pirlo, Ambrosini from right to left and it was the case in this game too.--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me a link that proves that it was the case with this game too? – PeeJay 16:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. --Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and what makes Yahoo! more reliable as a source than the tournament's organisers? – PeeJay 20:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ususally nothing. In this case: the fact that they are not providing fake information while uefa.com does. The point is that even the most reliable sources may contain facts that are wrong, so why copy the mistakes to Wikipedia? Let me ask, if on uefa.com the starting line-up included Amelia instead of Buffon as goalkeeper and thousands of people saw Buffon playing from the first second till the very end, would you add to the article a line-up with Amelia, because untouchable uefa.com says so? The swich of position of Gattuso and Ambrosini is clearly a similar mistake. So now what, shall I look for images that show them in their position at the start of the game??--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between listing completely the wrong player and getting a couple of positions wrong. If an error had occurred, I'm fairly certain it would have been corrected by now. The fact that it hasn't indicates that no error has taken place, so to say that UEFA.com is providing "fake" information is a bit of an overstatement (which, in itself, is a bit of an understatement). – PeeJay 22:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something is "this" when it is "that" is in fact fake information. Even if it's "only" about their position. Moreover, I'm sure uefa.com wouldn't have corrected it by now, as I bet noone bothered to notify them about it.--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to have to concede defeat on this one, unfortunately. I'm inclined to agree with you about their positions on the pitch but uefa.com is the authority like 'chandler' said and if their information is incorrect, this article is doomed to be also. Most sources I read after that game stated that the Netherlands' first goal was clearly offside and that the linesman had made a terrible decision, even though in the rules of the game it was perfectly acceptable due to Panucci's position behind the goal line at the time. Sometimes, like that linesman, you just have to settle for the belief that you're right even when everyone else believes otherwise. It's a shame but there's nothing else that can be done. Thecomaboy (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't consider this a war and this situation a defeat. I just wanted to point out how ridiculous it is sticking to official sources when sometimes they are wrong and I hoped that at least Wikipedia editors would approve that and stop pumping this encyclopedia with other sites' mistakes. Sometimes it is more use of thinking before/after/instead of copying data like a robot. I know uefa.com gives the basis to the entire article, but fake infos could be corrected with an additional footnote or something. Considering this offside/not offside matter, that is a whole different story, highly debatable. If you asked 100 refrees around the globe there would be some who'd say it was offiside, while everyone who saw the match - and know Gattuso and Amrosini - would agree that they started (and played) on the right and left side of the midfield respectively and it's a fact.--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a perfectly valid point. I have this gut feeling that Boulahrouz and Ooijer are the wrong way around as well, from knowledge of both players, but Yahoo! has them placed the same way. Strange. Thecomaboy (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooijer actually began his career as a right-back, so him playing at right-back against Italy is perfectly plausible. – PeeJay 21:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't just have a feeling about what I say. I know for sure, I checked it in the replays of the match. And that's why I'm still debating this, I would have stopped way earlier if I wasn't 100% sure of what I say is relevant!--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the Wikipedia verifiability policy. It reads "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Since the line-up shown in the article was published by a reliable source, I see no reason to second guess it, regardless of where the players actually played in the game. I was surprised myself when I saw Gattuso's name at left mid, but that's the official lineup. – PeeJay 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my whole reasoning is - indirectly - about claiming how pointless this policy (among many others) is. It gives the core of this very problem I've been takling about. This is insane! And you assuming (knowing?) this line-up is wrong and still holding on to it is really shocking to me. --Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we didn't have this policy, we would have all manner of people claiming things are true without having to reference their claims. QED. – PeeJay 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but believe me, I would never ever question a reliable source if I couldn't prove they were wrong.--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that for a second. However, the lineup shown by UEFA is the one submitted to them by the Italian team. Furthermore, as chandler says below, players are allowed to change position at any time. Maybe Gattuso and Ambrosini decided before kick-off to swap sides, but the fact remains that their official positions on Monday night were left and right mid respectively. – PeeJay 22:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The three DMs when playing together were announced like Gattuso-Pirlo-Ambrosini (from right to left) in all CL and league games and Italy's qualifying matches and they did play in their previously announced positions. Then, in this match the line-up shows Gattuso and Ambrosini switched, but they in fact start in their "right" position, despite the written line-up. Don't tell me it's not obvious the official line-up for Netherlands-Italy was incorrect. BTW, what is that you doubt? That I can prove them wrong? I can, but I got a feeling that providing a video or series of images showing them in their starting positions wouldn't be acceptable according to some kind of wiki policies (or other reasons).--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a recurring problem. I'm currently watching the Croatia/Germany game and the CMs in that game (Kovic and Modric) have been listed the wrong way around by UEFA also, something which was correct last game (Modric has started on the left both games, and is a known left-sided player). My guess is that Gattuso, Pirlo and Ambrosini were all considered CMs by UEFA, not LM, CM and RM respectively - considering they started 433, that's how I would personally have listed them, with Pirlo perhaps the specific DM just behind the other two - and because UEFA consider them all to be in the same position, it apparently doesn't matter to them in which way they are ordered on the pitch, as it seems with Modric and Kovic. We could reach a resolution here by listing all three as CMs, rather than claiming Gattuso and Ambrosini to be the wingers they are clearly not. That way, their incorrect positioning on the pitch would be more acceptable? Just a thought. Thecomaboy (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact remains that ppl are allowed to move when they are on the pitch. But the official starting formation given by Italy to UEFA (i presume) is the one on uefa.com and its the one that counts ← chandler 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←

It should be UEFA to whom the players' accurate position matters the most! If it's a recurring problem that tells a lot about the reliability of that site. I think if they just condidered them midfielders, they wouldn't provide images showing their actual positions. That would make no sense. (For UEFA CL matches I've seen, the line-ups were always correct.) On one hand I agree there should be just a list of players' names and the line where they play considering the sources' quality. On the other hand - besides that probably no editor would support the idea - that would require drastic changes in all four Euro 2008 group articles, causing a lot of work of others going to the air. The correction of players position would cost only a few clicks. So, all in all I support your idea, but I wonder what others think about it.--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's performed the task on this page already, and I agree that the Champions League line-ups are never incorrect. The modification doesn't have to be tournament-wide, just for this article - as you say, it would be too much hassle, so I think we should just leave Gattuso, Ambrosini and the other articles be. However much it is one of Wikipedia's policies for verifiability over truth, I wish common sense could prevail in this particular case, but I think we have done the best we can. Thecomaboy (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still the fact remains the image is not correct. But I guess I have to accept the correction in the list about players' position as a compromise. Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the same is happening in Group D with Sweden's attacking and defensive midfielders being mixed up on UEFA's official line-ups. It's hard to do things right when the official source has questionable reliability! Thecomaboy (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they played more beside each other than usual in the Swedish lineup, but still Andersson seemed to be more offensive than Svensson (even if everyone thought before the match that he would be the defensive midfielder) ← chandler 22:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Look at the Netherlands/France teamsheet. What did I say about Boulahrouz and Ooijer? The Netherlands have started the exact same eleven - what need would there be for any changes of position? The UEFA stats page states that most of Ooijer's exchanges were between both DM members, while Boulahrouz's were between the right-sided De Jong. That would suggest the former was in a more central position. I know I am right, despite the verifiability! Sky Sports previously had Boulahrouz at RB, but have probably since adjusted to UEFA's incorrect information. Thecomaboy (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess what's needed for changes in position: uefa.com itself realising the mistakes and put them correct on the website. Then the Wikipedia article can be changed, too. Probably it's not what you wanted to hear, but there is no other way in my opinion, knowing the circumstances. See, truth <<<<<<<<< (questionable) source Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't see UEFA ever doing that unless they are contacted. At least people will know they played, if in slightly incorrect positions. Look at the heat map on the match centre when the players are set up in their tactical positions at the start of the match: [1]. Boulahrouz is clearly less of a wing back than Van Brockhurst, but he does appear to be on the right more than Ooijer, the supposed RB. I know it doesn't make a difference to where it says they started the game, but it is clear where they actually played. Could there not be a footnote stating this information? It would hint users towards the correct information without directly contradicting the line-up given by UEFA. The user below me has the right idea. Thecomaboy (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agre with that, but see in above comments that I've run my circles about this matter, suggesting to footnote the diffrences from uefa.com. So, I see no other possibility than contacting the official website, as it's obvious they didn't just make one mistake.--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of our arguments are sufficiently justified in the heat map - considering the wide right the diagram states Ambrosini starts in, he is remarkably left-sided (!), and vice versa for Gattuso. In fact, the heat map barely registers their presence in their supposed starting positions. Rather than us using 'less reliable' sources to support our contradictions to the official source, the official source supports them for us. We therefore have a balance! The footnotes can simply put forward the doubts that have been raised as a result of these self-contradictions. Thecomaboy (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay, you say (and i quote) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." There is no requirement that we stick to the official source (in fact, no mention of any concept of official source is ever made in that policy!), and if you really want the conflict mentioned, it can very well be stated in a footnote. Baseline: what'd be wrong if i corrected the page and sourced to that yahoo page? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the fact that we don't always have to use official sources, but my point is that UEFA is the authority on this information. Anyway, I could probably find about three references that support UEFA's info for every one that you find for the other viewpoint. – PeeJay 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the majority of sites, articles use UEFA as their number one reference. Wikipedia does too. Probably they don't know or care if it's not fully correct. They suppose it's reliable and that's what matters to them. And the question comes if uefa.com is trustworty then why do Yahoo/Eurosport and ITV announce line-ups different from them? All they need to do is copy the one on that site, but they don't. This cannot be a coincidence.--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they just used their initiative and thought that since Gattuso usually plays further right, that's where they should put him in their graphic. However, that would be crystal-balling on their part, which is not permitted by Wikipedia. As Hume teaches us, past experience cannot prove the future. No matter how many times you drop a stone and it falls to the floor, you cannot say for certain that it will fall to the floor the next time you drop it. Same can be said of Gattuso playing in a right-sided central midfield role. – PeeJay 20:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you supposing that it's crystal-balling is crystal-balling. The line-up of uefa.com is available at least half an hour before the match, Yahoo could have posted that line-up, but they didn't. Like I said before, it's a fact these players were standing at their right positions (which contradicts uefa.com) at the first second of the match, what I write is not just speculation. So how would one know Yahoo didn't post their line-ups according to what they actually saw at start the match? --Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. However, can you find a timestamp for when Yahoo posted their version of the lineup? – PeeJay 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at 20:00 the list of players, not their positions. I can't find when they posted the image that shows the accurate positions.--Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my discovery just above makes a difference? Thecomaboy (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. In fact, I saw the press release from UEFA when it was first released. However, the lineup images are intended to show the teams' lineups at the start of the game, and not to be representative of where they actually played. – PeeJay 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little fun fact that might come true, If the Netherlands beat both France and Romania, while Italy and France draw, one team will advance to the knockout stage with only 2 points. Has to be some sort of record if it were to come ture. ← chandler 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Italy and France play a draw and Romania wins, will they (Italy & France) play penalties after all or not. Can somebody tell me this. Isavevski (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italy and France will play penalties if they draw and Romania doesn't lose. – PeeJay 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? They would play penalties to decide 3rd place?Alanmjohnson (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the tournament regulations, it doesn't matter what place is being played for, they still use the same ranking criteria, including the penalty shootout idea. – PeeJay 21:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VERY interesting. Thank you. I'd be kind of curious to see that. If the Netherlands-Romania game has significantly more injury time or delay, it would be a funny situation for France and Italy to have to wait several minutes to know if the penalties would be necessary.Alanmjohnson (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, well that wouldn't be very fun, to have to have a penalty shootout when you've just missed the quarterfinals ;) ← chandler 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. As an Italian, it would be extremely depressing. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 03:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the rules, the possibility of a penalty shoot out is not restricted to the situation where qualification or determination of quarter final opponents are at stake. BUT there is no difference in prize money between 3rd and 4th (as far as I can see), so I suspect that the ref would be encouraged to quietly forget to do this. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be no difference in prize money, but determining the final rank is still necessary. I mean, UEFA could go down the other route and use the two nations' coefficients from the 2006 World Cup and Euro 2008 qualifiers (which would mean Italy would finish above France), but I suspect France might have a few words to say about that, especially after all the moaning they did about their seeding for the finals tournament. Then again, at least if France finished last, it would mean that their seeding was justified =D – PeeJay 08:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More an issue for UEFA than for Wiki, but why would they need to make any distinction? They don't differentiate 3rd from 4th, or 5th from 8th? IFAIK, the group finishing position does not feature in calculation of future co-efficients, and I'm sure there must have been ties for third in previous group stages (although to be honest, I'm not so bothered about it as to look for examples). Still, it would be a laugh to see two depressed teams having a penalty shoot out that they couldn't care less about. That's why I suspect that UEFA might have a quiet word with the ref before the game and suggest that he should not bother with it, despite their own rules. Kevin McE (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like UEFA have indeed recognised the pointlessness of this, and scrapped their own rulebook. Kevin McE (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the main page of Euro it says that if Italy and France are dead-even, Italy advance. Why is this the case, where Turkey and Czech Republic must play penalties to decide their deadlock? Pn57 (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italy and France can only be "dead even" if they draw with each other and Netherlands don't beat Romania, in which case neither of them advance. Can you provide an exact quote form the site? It does sound as though they have decided that, although there is nothing in their own rules to justify it, they will drop the penalty shoot out if progress is not at stake (see discussion above). The game between Turkey and Czech Republic will definitely determine a qualifier, so penalties will not be passed over. Kevin McE (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Group C page, it states that Italy advance when Italy and France have a score-draw while Romania lose... this is one of those dead-even situations and qualification is at stake. But Italy seem to have the advantage here over France?pn57 05:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pn57 (talk • contribs)

Here's how it works if Italy-France is a score-draw and Romania lose. Netherlands @ 9 pts for 1st place, the other 3 tied @ 2 points. First tie-break is points earned in matches between tied teams. Well, that's still 2 points for each. Then goal difference in matches between tied teams - again, with all being draws the GD is 0 and equal for each. Next is goals scored in matches between tied teams. France is @ 0, Italy and Romania @ 1. So France will remain behind Italy in a draw. If a score-draw, Italy will have at least 2 goals and thus beat out Romania. If scoreless, Italy/Romania will remain tied and go onto other tiebreakers (depending on Romania's scoreline against the Netherlands.Alanmjohnson (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what those other tiebreakers are? JACOPLANE • 2008-06-15 10:20

Qualifying coefficients, fair play record and drawing lots. – PeeJay 10:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, Italy have the advantage in qualifying coefficients, and so if NED 3-0 ROM, and FRA 0-0 ITA, Italy and Romania have identical records in the overall group, and against every opponent in the group, so the first criteria external to the group, coefficient, would see Italy through. Kevin McE (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying UEFA Coefficients would qualify Italy is just wrong. These coefficients nothing to do with this case. It's the ratio "points per game" from qualification matches for the 2006 World Cup and UEFA Euro 2008 that determines it. Allowing such inaccurate content to be kept is disinformation Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 13:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are the coefficients used by UEFA for this competition, and previously. Although UEFA have announced a new formula for calculating coefficients, it will not be used until the draw for the Euro 2012 qualifiers. Kevin McE (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they aren't the same, since Italy's UEFA coefficient is 2.22, while its coefficient that will be considered in such case is of 2.36 Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 17:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let us know what source you are using for a UEFA co-efficient? Kevin McE (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this: UEFA_coefficient#Ranking_for_Euro_2008_final_tournament. Note that these are not the actual UEFA coefficients, but only apply for this tournament. And plus the calculation is quite simple:

• Coefficient = (Number of points won in 2006 FIFA World Cup qualifying + Number of points won in UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying) / (Number of matches played in 2006 FIFA World Cup qualifying + Number of matches played in UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying

Which in Italy's case would be:

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}Coefficient&{}={\frac {23+29}{10+12}}\\Coefficient&{}={\frac {52}{22}}\\Coefficient&{}=2.36363636...\\Coefficient&{}=2.{\bar {36}}\end{aligned}}}$ Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: I'm aware of the coefficients in use for this tournament. What I am asking is what calculation are you taking as being the basis of what you refer to as the "UEFA coefficient", rather than the one in use for this tournament. I know the table at the coefficient article gives a different coefficient for Italy, but the basis of calculation as described is the same. Hence my question of "what source you are using for a UEFA co-efficient?" Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My source? The official UEFA Euro 2008 booklet. Simply scroll down to page 9 (or enter 16). Under "7.07 g)". It explicitly says such coefficient is determined by dividing points obtained by matches played during qualification rounds for the 2006 FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euro 2008. I had also added this as a source in this article, but it somehow got removed. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: the coefficient 2.36 for Italy is also in the "UEFA coefficient" article. You are mistakenly confusing it with the "2.222" by reading the national UEFA coefficient rankings table, which, as I have already said, is NOT applicable for this tournament. The correct one for this tournament is just underneath it. :) Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be going round in circles here. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I entirely understand where the 2.36 figure has come from, and have not intended to question this one. The figure I am querying is the 2.22 (as in my last editnote). I can see that it is in the article that you refer to, but the description above that table does not appear to differ from the calculation described for the 2.36 figure (it has been calculated by dividing the number of points scored (three points for a win, one for a draw) by the number of matches played in the last two qualification rounds of the World Cup or European Championship.). That is unsourced in the article: this coefficient, that you refer to as the UEFA coefficient is the one for which I am asking for a source outside this project. Kevin McE (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the answer to that is quite simple. The value 2.22 - used for seeding during the Euro 2008 qualifications - comes from the qualifications results of the 2006 World Cup and Euro 2004; while the 2.36 - used in this case - comes from the qualifications results of the 2006 World Cup and Euro 2008. That's why they are different. I truly hope this explains it, we've managed to make such a long discussion off misunderstandings. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 06:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think I got what you're asking for. Well, I found this useful site, especially what they call the UEFA national team coefficients 2000/2006 the one with the "2.22" (so wait, it goes back to 2000??? Now I'm confused!!!) and what they call the UEFA national team coefficients 2008 with the "2.36". My point??? I don't know, I can't even understand what we debating on now so... Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 06:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Saying UEFA Coefficients would qualify Italy is just wrong." - Let me disagree: i believe no matter which figures you use (personally, i found the 2.222 one here), Italy ends up above Romania, as much as i hate to have that decide the ranking... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The great thing about all of this debate is that it will be entirely moot within about 4 hours. I love Wikipedia.Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That truly was the smartest thing I've read in this section...let's just enjoy the game and FORZA ITALIA!!!! Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]