The only teams in the 2011 WWC that didn't lose at least twice (if you count losing in penalty kicks as a "Loss", even though it officially isn't in the record books) Japan (only lost once - to the hands of England) Sweden (only lost once - to the hands of Japan) Brazil (only lost once, sort of, on penalty kicks, to the hands of the USA) Germany (only lost once - to the hands of Japan) Mexico (only lost once, record was 0-1-2, two draws) England (only lost once, sort of, as it came in penalty kicks against France) Every other team lost at least twice (10 of the 16 teams lost at least twice) What's crazy is that England and Brazil are actually the only teams to not have an "official loss". They both did not lose in Group play, and both scored a "Draw" officially (but lost in penalty kicks) to France and the USA respectively in the Quarterfinals. But as I said at the top, we'll count that as a "Loss" since they didn't advance. USA lost twice (Sweden, and then against Japan in the Final, since we're counting a penalty kick loss in the knockout round, as a loss here, since they didn't advance, or I should say didn't win the title in that situation). And what's even crazier. Notice those six teams up above in bold. 3 of those 6 teams were from Group B (supposed to be the weakest group), but half of the 6 teams that had no more than one loss overall, came from that group.
Just a "bump" because I appreciate persepctive like this. It shows how competitive the event was. Thanks.
Okay, I'll bite.... If you count PK losses as losses instead of draws, then by definition of the knockout round, you're guaranteed that all teams except one or all teams outright will lose at lease once (excepting the possibility of teams drawing thrice in the group stage). Other stats that I think might be more telling in terms of competitiveness are total number of draws, when draws occur, the fates of group winners, and the distribution of GD's.
Yeah, and this is a major reason England moved ahead of you in the FIFA rankings, because England never officially lost a match, and France only won 2 of their 6 matches played in terms of their "official result". France 2011 WWC vs. Nigeria (WIN) vs. Canada (WIN) vs. Germany (Loss) vs. England (Draw) (Advanced on penalty kicks) vs. USA (Loss) vs. Sweden (Loss) Only two wins, and no wins in their final 4 matches. This is why England supposedly advanced in front of France in the most up to date FIFA women's rankings, although I would have kept France above England myself, as France played a tougher schedule, and more total matches (advanced further).
A curious pattern: In 2007: Germany won the World Cup. Germany scored against every team they played except England. England conceded at least one goal against every team they played except Germany. In 2011: Japan won the World Cup. Japan scored against every team they played except England. England conceded at least one goal against every team they played except Japan.
England is an improving nation in women's soccer. They are now #6 in the world, which I believe is their highest ranking. They made the final of the 2009 women's euro tournament (their first final appearance ever). They now have what it takes to beat the best teams in the world (they beat Japan in the World Cup, they beat the USA a few months ago in a friendly match, and they almost beat France in the World Cup, and they were the only team to get a "result" against Germany in the 2007 WWC). I think too many fans take this England team lightly. They are not always the best team with possession, but they always seem to find ways to win or stay competitive against the world's best teams. And even when Kelly Smith retires, this team won't miss a beat. They're developing and getting better as time goes by. England and Brazil are two nations that have it in their blood to always be good at soccer (of course, England always finds ways to lose in a penalty shootout in many of its biggest matches in the biggest tournaments, now for both men and women). It's in the French blood too. And believe me, it's in the Spanish blood, and Spain is going to be a future force in the women's game. Give it 5-10 years, and they'll be a consistent Top 10 team in the FIFA women's rankings, and one of the Top 5 teams in UEFA overall. These 10 nations have the brightest future in women's soccer (in no order) Germany (tough, physical, intelligent, aerial dominance, good footballers all-around) Brazil (speed, flair, technicians with the ball, and Brazilian mystique and magic) USA (tough, gritty, intelligent, in your face soccer, aerial dominance, and goalkeeping) France (possession, precision, offensive attack, 90+ minutes of intense football) England (competitive, tall, rangy, physical, stubborn (good way), and tough-minded) Spain (flashy, speedy, brilliant, offensive-minded, ball skill, near flawless counter attack) Sweden (tall, resemble some old Norway teams with size, physicality, and skill) Japan (precise, perfect on the ball, technical, smooth, highly intelligent, no mistakes) Australia (youthful, energetic, passion, sound decisions in coaching, but shaky defensively) South Korea (call me crazy, but their youth is more than solid. they will be better than North Korea some day) (Norway is the x-factor here, will they ever reclaim the prestigious status they used to be?) (Nigeria is another x-factor. if they pump more funding/resources in, they could very well be Top 10 in the future easily) (New Zealand is not Top 10 in the future, but I think Top 15 consistently is there for them. They are getting better, and prove that rugby is not the only sport they can play at the women's level) Teams on the decline Canada (the rest of the world is catching up and passing them by) China (China has declined more than anyone. They used to be in the Top 2-3 teams in the world) North Korea (South Korea will be the better nation in the future in women's football) Denmark (They used to be Top 5 in UEFA. A few years from now, they'll be lucky to be Top 10 in UEFA, with Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Netherlands and company moving forward)