Talk:1970 FIFA World Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

Football World Cup 1970 → 1970 FIFA World Cup – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments.

Discuss here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions#Requested move of Football World Cup articles. --Pkchan 10:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pele[edit]

The Brazilian team, led by Pelé (who was in his fourth and final World Cup), Jairzinho, Rivelino and Tostão, is often regarded as the greatest team ever.

This line is confusing (atleast to me). It gives the impression that Pele was the captain of Brazil but the captain was Carlos Alberto (which is not mentioned anywhere in the article). Could this line be changed to the effect that these four were only the Brazilian forwards. Tintin (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with this line, indeed this page, is that it keeps trying to order things, "regarded as the best ever" etc. In Brasil, the 1958 'team' is usually named as the best national team in their history, but even then they leave it open (1970, 1982, any squad without Roberto Carlos). The Banks save against Brasil is given the "arguably best ever" curse. Banks himself said he's pulled off better. Football is a game with a long history, and of many differing opinions- it rarely benefits anybody to claim a consensus. I'll reword if nobody disagrees. Wholemeal 03:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be a bit better to say the 1970 team is often regarded as the best ATTACKING team ever. As many coaches, analysts, pundits and fans note, the Brazilian defence of 1970 was suspect, extending in a backward chain that included the keeper Felix. Italy's equalizer in the Final reinforced this impression for many. Virtually every serious analysis of the 1970 Cup makes this point. I added the word "attacking" to make a finer, more qualified distinction. As for Pele it is fair to say that he "led" the team, although Alberto was the captain. His reputation, skill and inspirational exhortation was clearly a key force. In the Final he proved the point, scoring one goal, and creating two.

Enriquecardova 06:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only article that uses such superlatives. There is little praise for Brazil in the 1958 article and reading the 1954 article, you won't even suspect that the Hungarians were any good. Tintin (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested change[edit]

Beckenbauer was not fouled but try to "win" a penalty the resulting dive/simulation caused him to break his clavicle. If he were fouled it would have been a penalty (it was not given). Reamarkable show of courage to play on - but the injury was his own fault.(yitzak) 11:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goal averages[edit]

"The Soviet Union took top spot due to superior goal average."

Does anyone else find this confusing? If USSR scored 6 goals and let in one, their goal average would be 6. Mexico on the other hand scored five and kept a clean sheet. Wouldn't that make their goal average infinite, thus presumably better?

Also, is anyone else having trouble finding this page by typing in "1970 FIFA World Cup" in the search box?

CarlosCoppola 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seems someone changed the goal average to goal difference. Yet the 1974 article (and FIFA's web site) says it was only then that "For the first time in the World Cup in both qualifying and the finals, teams level on points at the end of the group stage were separated by goal difference (replacing play-offs and goal average)." Any football historians out there with knowledge of what this is about? CarlosCoppola 08:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is my mistake, or infact FIFAs. Originally there was no explanation here on this page. I then noticed that someone had put goal difference on all of the tables for all of the World Cups going back to 1930 even though goal difference wasn't used in most of them. So I checked up and removed goal difference from the competitions where it wasn't used and tried to verify when goal averages was important to qualifying. Goal average is normally used in large league competitions where teams play over 20 games and the chances of having a clean sheet are rare. In the World Cup, play-offs used to be used and the neccesity of using goal average or some other scheme was very rare. It has never been clear whether a team with a 0-0 for/against score has a better goal average than a team with a 1-1 for/against score and indeed in my research I have read that the possibility of this problem raising its head caused FIFA some headaches in the 1958 World Cup (or might have been 54; I can't remember), but in the end the eventuality didn't happen. Anyway, in researching this and using the Times Digital Archive I found an article in The Times from Wednesday, May 27, 1970; pg. 13; which says
"From the four groups, the leading teams in each will go into the quarter-finals. If two or more teams finish level on points in the contest for a quarter-final place, goal difference will count. If the teams have the same number of points and the same goal difference, lots will be drawn to determine who qualifies. If a quarter-final or a semi-final ends in a draw - and it is a possibility that at least one will end that way - the referee will draw from a hat the name of the country to go through to the next round."
So I added this to to the article with this edit. I a bit confused by the result in Group A where the top two teams finished with the same goal difference, I assumed that they drew lots as had been proposed, or perhaps they could have decided it by the suporior goals for score. However later on I found a FIFA document [1] which specifically said that goal difference only began to be used in 1974 finals. So I thought I had made a mistake here by keeping goal difference and changed this page to say goal average. I have to admit that in my haste to "correct" the page I mis-read the goals for/against for Mexico and Russia and thought that it actually now made sense and didn't require lots or a count of goals for only to resolve who got top spot. By this time I had forgotten the full details of the Times article and just simply assumed that the FIFA document was correct and that it all made sense now, with no neccesity to draw lots or whatever. I should have known better. It looks like The Times is correct and the FIFA document is wrong. It remains a mystery whether the top spot in Group A was because of higher goals scored or because of lots. Probably th former, but who knows. Jooler 10:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a quarter-final or a semi-final ends in a draw - and it is a possibility that at least one will end that way - the referee will draw from a hat the name of the country to go through to the next round - What would be happened, if the playoff for third place ended in a tie after 120 min? Whould they have drawn, too, or would there be two teams on third place? (Sorry for my English, I am a German) --95.113.57.43 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes section[edit]

In the notes it says that "The rules on substitution were relaxed. In previous tournaments only injured players could be substituted. This tournament allowed up to two outfield players to be replaced at any time and for the goalkeeper to be replaced if injured"

Were substitutions of any kind allowed in earlier World Cups? I've got several books that site Puzach of the USSR as the first World Cup substitution (half time in the opening match against the hosts, replacing Serebrianikov). I may be wrong, but players in previous World Cups were forced to limp out the match, or go of and leave their team a man short. Can anybody confirm otherwise? Wholemeal 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there were no subs allowed in FIFA tournaments until 1970. Injured players, ie Pelé for Brazil v Portugal in 1966, had to be withdrawn. It was arguably this high profile incident that forced FIFA to finally accept substitutes in order to prevent teams hacking down the opposition's most talented players. Mjefm 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Own goal in Mexico v Italy[edit]

Another quote from Freddi (see 1950 talk): "Early sources credit the own goal… to Guzmán, and in this case they're right. Some Italian publications city Peña, but it's clearly No.14 on the replay (Peña, the No.3 wearing the captain's armband, is nowhere near the ball)." Mjefm 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WorldCup1970lposter.jpg[edit]

Image:WorldCup1970lposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:1970Telstar.jpg[edit]

Image:1970Telstar.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:1970Telstar.jpg[edit]

Image:1970Telstar.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link[edit]

On the External links section - "Brazil's heroes of 1970 relive their days of glory". Kvsh5 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Time ?[edit]

What's with 'two time' champions Brazil ?

Surely you mean "twice"

78.32.193.115 (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common term in North America while "twice champion" is unheard-of. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same for the UK. – PeeJay 17:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Ball and best young player[edit]

Teofilo Cubillas received the best young player award and Pele the Golden ball award retroactively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.4.240 (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did he? If you have a source, add it. If not, don't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Brazil's 19 goals has yet to be beaten"?[edit]

As the anon pointed out when he removed the statement earlier, this is clearly an untrue statement, as 19 goals wasn't even a record in 1970. Hungary and West Germany both managed at least 20 goals in 1954, so either our source for this article is wrong, or there is some kind of proviso that I'm missing. – PeeJay 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of "Their total of nineteen goals in the Finals has yet to be been beaten" is obviously wrong and I just read the source, which I should have done before reverting, and it says nothing about the team's total output, so someone inserted it before the referenced material. It was added here by Sinfony81 (talk · contribs) who hasn't been active for the past month. I'll remove that phrase now and if someone could review the rest of that addition, or all of the material added around that time, that would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plural[edit]

Rather than undoing my revision to keep a sentence that looks terrible, why didn't you improve it? I can almost guarantee that there is a better way of formatting that sentence than "champions England," and I am really tired of people undoing my revisions just to leave bad stuff behind. There wasn't even a link to the associated section with regards to this "discretionary plural," and I can almost guarantee that if you don't change the sentence in some way, other viewers will see it as wrong, and more changes be made. Dustin (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you make such a guarantee when you're the first person to make that change in the last few years? – PeeJay 16:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently not, otherwise the IP wouldn't have had anything to "fix." See this? Dustin (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 1970 FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referees[edit]

Please, check the names of the Referees; it seems that there are several names are not the correct ones like Antonio Sbardella who is noted in series as Referee of matches of West Germany?! 213.225.6.178 (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 1970 FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should video highlights of the draw event be visible as bullet point link?[edit]

Today I added a bullet point with an external Youtube link for the "video highlights of the 1970 draw event". Giving readers the option to click on video links to watch the described event itself, has been used by other wikipedia articles like i.e. 2016 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums and 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates. This is why I thought, that adding this as a direct video link in a similar way, was a good idea.

I would like to hear your opinion (including PeeJay). Should it be included? And if you do not want to include it, then why? Danish Expert (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what adding video highlights of the draw adds to the article. All we need is to be able to cite the results of the draw. What do you think the actual benefit of the video is? – PeeJay 10:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay: Well, I am close to accept not having it, because the clip is so short. Yet, watching the video still adds value for these three points:
  1. The draw procedure (incl. how seeding system and special rules were used).
  2. Noting the pecularity that countries were given a new group position within the same drawn group, after the draw itself - different from the group position order/number they were first drawed into (this was a new revelation given by the video clip to me - I suspect a reason could be some special "group position" votes being made by the FIFA Organising Committee, but do not know for sure).
  3. The identity of those who participated in the draw event.
Danish Expert (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the video really shows any of that. You can barely hear anything in terms of atmos from the event. – PeeJay 13:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay: I do not propose to add additional written text/facts into the article, compared to what we have already written. However, I do propose to add the link for the video, mainly because this is the primary source documenting how the draw event took place live. I think all FIFA World Cup draw event articles should feature such a video-link as a standard, if its avaiable from Youtube. I also recently added it for the 1998 FIFA World Cup#Draw article. The draw video is important to include, because it supplements and proof the info provided by written references; and for those draw event videos being the "full version" the interested reader also get the opportunity to relive and experience the draw event themselves (by clicking on the video-link if they want).
The video clip (despite being short) proofs the following 9 facts:
  1. The draw was staged January 1970 in Mexico City at the Maria Isabel Hotel.
  2. It was predetermined before the draw event took place (videoclip at 1:04), that Mexico would be in Group 1 (at team position 2) and England in Group 3 (at team position 10).
  3. The first step of the draw procedure was (information deducted from the clips), then first to draw the remaining teams first for group 1. The first silver cup contained the name of all teams from Pot 1, the 2nd silver cup contained the name of all teams from Pot2, the third silver cup contained the name of all teams from pot3, the 4th silver cup contained the name of all teams from pot4. As Mexico before being preselected belonged to the 2nd silver cup, their opponents were drawn from silver cup 1+3+4, to ensure that all groups featured one team from each pot.
  4. As documented by the videoclip after 37s, they also drew a group position number from a small 5th cup ahead of each national team beeing drawn. This meant, that before drawing a team from pot 1 (silver cup 1) for group 1, the group position number was first drawn for this subsequently drawn team. Group position 2 had been given to Mexico in Group 1 ahead of the draw, and group position 10 had been given to England in group 3 ahead of the draw. So for the draw in Group 1, the available open group position numbers in the small additional cup to be drawn were 1+3+4. In eaxmple, the group position number 1 was first drawn for the subsequently drawn team name drawn from silver cup 1 (being USSR). You can also hear, that they subsequently drew group position number 3 ahead of the draw of the third team for group 1 from silvercup 3 (being Belgium).
  5. The second step of the draw procedure was (information deducted from the videoclip after 85s), then to draw all teams playing in group 2, by drawing one team from each of the four silver cups.
  6. The third step of the draw procedure was (information deducted from the videoclip after 85s), then to draw all remaining teams playing in group 3. As England from Pot 1 had already been selected for Group 3 ahead of the draw into group position 10, this was done by drawing one team into Englands groups from silver cup 2+3+4.
  7. The fourth step of the draw procedure was (information deducted from the videoclip after 100s), then to draw all teams playing in group 4, by drawing one team from each of the four silver cups.
  8. The 10-year-old daughter of the president of the FIFA Organising Committee (Guillermo Cañedo), drew out the teams from four silver cups, so that each of the four groups featured one drawn team respectively from pot 1, pot 2, pot 3 and pot 4.
  9. After teams had been drawn to each of the four groups, the event ended by giving (either by a re-draw or committee vote) all teams a new group position number, compared to the order they had been drawn. This can be learned from the video, by comparing the videoclip after 85s with the final videoclip after 100s; while the group position number was identical for group 1 (1=USSR, 2=MEX, 3=BEL, 4=ELS) after the "first round of the draw" (85s-clip) compared to the "final moment of the draw event" (100s-clip), the group positions in the final clip was changed after the "first round of the draw" at least for group 2 (being changed from: 5=URU, 6=ITA, 7=SWE, 8=ISR, into 5=URU, 6=ISR, 7=ITA, 8=SWE) and group 3 (being changed from: 9=BRA, 10=ENG, 11=???, 12=???, into 9=ROM, 10=ENG, 11=CZE, 12=BRA). No clip document group positions for group 4 after the "first round of the draw", so for group 4 we only have the final videoclip showing evidence of how the final group positions were for this group after the vote/re-draw (13=Peru, 14=BUL, 15=Marrocco, 16=GER).
    • The exact group position number, determined the order of the group games for each team, meaning who should play who in respectively the first, second and third game. This was of huge importance, because all group matches were not played simultaniously in the group but at different dates; giving a huge tactical advantage for the team drawn both to play the first and last group match of their respective group. FIFA regulations had determined ahead of the draw, that the 4 opening matches in group 1-4 should be played by: Team 1+2 in Group 1, Team 5+6 in Group 2, Team 9+10 in Group 3, Team 13+14 in Group 4. FIFA regulations had determined ahead of the draw, that the 4 closing matches in group 1-4 should be played by: Team 2+3 in Group 1, Team 6+7 in Group 2, Team 10+11 in Group 3, Team 14+15 in Group 4. Thus the most optimal position for a team to be drawn for, was Team position 2+6+10+14, as those team positions would benefit both from playing the opening and closing match of their group.
Again, I do not propose to expand the text in the article with any of the facts above (compared to what has already been written); but I do think adding a line with a youtube link for the video clip of the draw event is informative and adds value. Danish Expert (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1970_FIFA_World_Cup&oldid=1196063829"