Thanks DCU... Now what was I getting at? Not quite sure where I was going with that originally but we could go here since you made the important insight that Norway had the same chance (1 in 3) of drawing Sweden or Denmark that Germany did. In addition to that 1 in 3 chance, Norway (like the US) had a 50-50 chance of drawing North Korea. So their odds of being drawn into a group including North Korea and either Sweden or Denmark was (1 in 2) times (1 in 3) or 1 in 6 = 16.7% Germany's chance of a similar group, as mentioned, was zero thanks to the committee ruling sending North Korea to Group B. So the chances of being in a group with 3 of the top 6 ranked teams in the world break down like this: US: 33.3% Norway: 16.7% Germany: 0 Another way of looking at it: there was a 50% chance of a group with 3 of the top 6 teams in it, and if there was it would either be with the US in it or Norway. On the other hand, there was a zero % chance that Germany would be in it. I think I'm still upset about it.
Just for the people that are writing off North Korea...as someone who has seen possibly more of them than any other international side in the last 12 months (including their triumphant U20 World Champions) - don't dismiss them over the other two of the U.S.'s opponents. Group B is, as you are all acutely aware, the really tough group in the draw. Still, USA are the best team in the world so they should make it through regardless? And Germany need all of the help they can get at the moment!
Well when it´s time Germany will be ready thats for sure, so don´t think for one moment they are going down easy. The question is who will Usa face in the final? Germany, Brazil, North Korea , Norway , China maybe? Like i wrote before, North Korea is a really strong team, the dark horse imo. Usa and North Korea from group B.
Here's my predicted finish: GROUP A 1. Germany 2. England 3. Japan 4. Argentina GROUP B 1. USA 2. North Korea 3. Sweden 4. Nigeria GROUP C 1. Norway 2. Canada 3. Ghana 4. Australia GROUP D 1. Brazil 2. China 3. Denmark 4. New Zealand QUARTERFINALS Germany def. North Korea USA def. England China def. Norway Brazil def. Canada SEMFINALS Germany def. China USA def. Brazil THIRD PLACE Brazil def. China FINAL USA def. Germany
Re: group of prolonged, agonizing death ... busy weekend, much whining and hand wringing to do over the various weekend games. I'll try to tamp down the hyperbole here. I'm sure Sweden (or almost anybody) would much rather play North Korea than Brazil. As has been pointed out, that 03 Sweden-Brazil game was a real nail-biter, as was the USA-Brazil game in 04. The Swe-NK game in 03 was not the most exciting, and only 1-0 if I recall, but Sweden handled them better than they handled Brazil. And, as has also been pointed out, Marta (and Elaine too) has just gotten better and better up at Umeå.* True of course that we haven't seen much of the Brazilian NT recently, but are they missing anyone of value from 03/04? I don't think they are, and they were so young then that a couple years on and they're probably just better. As far as the Swedish NT, it's true that those great names (Andersson, Bengtsson, [arguably] Sjöström, Törnqvist) will be missed. Sigh. Correct that, are missed right now. Sorely. Especially Mostöm (who I have likened more to Wagner than Boxx, except that she played on a team that understands through balls and was therefore effective rather than wasted). At the same time, though, Sweden played the US far closer than anyone else did in the last Algarve, and I'll stick by my opinion that with Swedish good luck combined with US bad luck, Sweden wins. May the devil permit they will both emerge from group play, without too much damage from Nigerian and North Korean elbows. Yeah, I'll bet they are! Even without Rottenberg, Germany ought to be able to fight their way out of that wet paper bag of a group. *on a Mac, it's option-A.
Sure Sweden has a good team, but North Korea is on the way up and fast, and we lost a couple of great players. Won in WC 2003 with just 1-0 over NK, lucky that time. But then Nigeria could very well give us a surprise and win. We need to beat NK, to advance and of course Nigeria. Beating the Us will be to hard. I know i sound pessimistic, but i think i am realistic about this group B. Anyway it ain't over until the fat lady sings
I've been reading about N. Korea's impending greatness for almost ten years, it seems, and every time they disappoint at the WC. They've been the best Asian team this last cycle, but not overwhelming so. Against the other three Asian qualifiers, they are 4-3-1 on aggregating scoring of 9-5 in the current cycle (since Jan. 2005). In the same time frame, Sweden is 2-1-0 on scoring of 5-2 (against Japan and China) while the USA is 7-2-0 on scoring of 16-3. That's a small sample to draw any conclusions from, but I don't see any strong signs that NK is ready to break through to the top tier that the USA and Sweden belong to. It's very possible NK's success is simply a result of China's obvious slippage rather than any improvements of their own. Nigeria is 2-1-9 all-time at the WC, with a GD of -30. In 2003 in this exact same group, they lost every game, scored no goals, and gave up 11. I doubt they'll do much better this time.
From all the commentary here and elsewhere it seems rather clear that the possibilities of advancing beyond the first round depends in great part to whom you get drawn with. Luck of the draw seemed to have had little to do the way teams were seeded an some allocated arbitrarily. I wonder is it this all about the game and winning or drawing rather than the group you are in. A much clearer picture will happen in the second round which should tell who is who. Even then teams at times try to manipulate their outcome to avoid playing this or that.
After looking at the draw carefully, I did detect one inconsistency in the placement of teams. Brazil was obviously pulled from Pot X and put into the pot with the unseeded Asian teams. This left Canada to be put in with the European teams. When Pot 3 is drawn, the first team out is England. Now knowing that it was Canada in that pot (Brazil already having been drawn from the previous pot), England should have filled the spot in The USA's group. The next team was Canada, they should have been placed in Group A. After that came Sweden, who should have been put in Group C. Hence the groupings should have been: A) Germany, Japan, Canada, Argentina (a 2003 group in it's entirety) B) Nigeria, USA, Korea DPR, England C) Norway, Ghana, Australia, Sweden D) China PR, New Zealand, Brazil, Denmark (unchanged) I'm sure this was just an oversight by those conducting the draw, but it was not consistent with past draws where you always first fill the group with the possible principle conflict.
I was wondering about that too since New Zealand went into Brazil's group for reasons you state above. However for pot C, China also couldn't draw Canada because they needed a European team in their group, so maybe that's why it was done differently. Once Germany drew England, Canada was destined for Norway's group no matter what. I played it out like you did and thought, "Damn it would have been fun to see Norway and Sweden in the same group..."
We'll have to wait and see how good Brazil is in this tournament. They were obviously not on form against Argentina (assuming Argentina has not improved to the extent that a 2-0 win over Brazil would indicate). Brazil has been inactive for 2+ years so preparation will be the key. Maybe they'll pull things together, but it's not the way anyone would tell you it should be done. According to FIFA, N Korea posted a 3-1 win and a 1-0 loss against China (now ranked #11) in 2006. Of more interest is their 2006 performance against other Asian rivals. Their one game against Asian newcomer, Australia ended in a draw. They also were less than dominant when up against Japan, outscoring Japan by 1 goal over 2 games and 2 overtime periods. So over 5 games and 2 overtime periods they beat 9'th, 11'th and 14'th ranked teams by a total of 2 goals. Tell me why that's impressive.
Well i can only go on what i have read, and what a lot of Swedish experts has to say about NK, even the Swedish coach Dennerby. But sure if you look at it from your point of view , it´s not impressive. Another but, we are talking WC here, even a lower rank team can pull something out of the hat, and with young, fast hungry players well that´s scary. Other games before the Wc means nothing. I can be wrong but i have a strong opinion on both NK and Brazil. If i am wrong and you are right CAFAN, you can make fun of me as much as you like after the WC (the i told you so thing)
Nillan, you are certainly not alone in your opinion on NK, so not to worry. The thing is, NK and Brazil arent going to surprise anyone unless it's because they play below expectations. On the other hand, FIFA rankings and past WWC results can result in higher expectations than the hard, cold facts would support and vice-versa. Canada, Japan and Australia all have the potentail to be giant killers and this is not based on anything but actual/relatively recent results against the traditional favourites. Argentina's win over Brazil is currently seen as an aberation (which it might be) but if that assumption turns out to be false someone might well pay the price. And no one should take the African teams lightly because so little is known of their relative improvement compared to the teams we see on a regular basis. The 2003 pre-tournament teams to watch were exactly (almost) the same same teams that are touted this year, but Canada (not Brazil, NK, Norway or China) advanced to the semi-final round. No one on these boards saw that coming, but the Canadian results to back that up were there for anyone to see. Had Canada's entire back line not been injured just prior to the tournament, Canada could have very realistically made it into the Gold medal game. Since 2003, the gap between the traditional powers and the the rest has narrowed and in some cases disappeared entirely. With the exception of the USA (perhaps) all of the traditional favorites have shown they can be had under the right circumstances. That being said, it took the USA 90 minutes, two overtime periods and a very late PK call to beat Canada in the CONCACAF final match. Another few minutes and the game would have gone to a shoot-out and once that happens all bets are off. Ryan has said he will impress upon his team that every group game has to played as a 'must win'. Of course, in Group B that kind of advice is easy to understand - one slip might be one too many. It's not as obvious that that's the case in the other groups, but it might be just as real.
Personally I don't see North Korea and Brazil that strong. North Korea is definitely overhyped due to their impressive U20 world cup, which doesn't mean too much for the A team. They are lacking international experience, one of their main problems. But they also have problems to finish and they won't get too many chances in a World Cup. I don't see them reaching the quarter final. Almost everybody expects Brazil strong. Why? I admit I am still wondering, how they could manage to play such an Olympic final in the Greece heat, if I see now Cristiane playing in Germany, and she is in bad form and one of the slowest players. They won't have that 2004 surprising effect this year and they completely rely on Marta. If you take her out of the game, they have a pretty average team. I expect China and Denmark here to reach the quarter final.
I agree I know that Canada is a tough team, i been saying that since wc 2003. The norwegian coach Pellerud has done a great job. Norway and Canada is out of group C and i think Canada as C1. Norway is always a strong team, but i think they will have a problem with Canada.
Care to change group and find out ? Well it remains to be seen , i still think they are going to surprise us all.
Here's some of what San Diego Union-Tribune reporter Mark Zeigler wrote about the WC draw in yesterdays Sidelines column of the weekly GOAL! section: Sidelines: By Mark Zeigler
Honestly, my initial worry wasn't about the difficulty of the teams or FIFA's evil plot to destroy us. We'll advance to the next round, I'm not sweating it. I was just bored. I would love to have played England, Japan, something more exciting. But then I thought about it this way- maybe the US squad has changed enough to change the nature of the matchups. I'd like to see Lopez (hope she starts) help shut down N. Korea. I'd like to see Greg coach us against a peaking Sweden without FoudyHammFawcetc. Hey, I might even like to see HAO get faceplanted by the Nigerian Ladies of Wrestling.
LOL they are totally crazy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgoGqTSVDuA. North Korea From ESPNsoccernet: Perhaps the biggest blow dealt to the United States by being placed in Group B wasn't the opposition as much as the obstacles to playing them. Just as China endured on its march to the final game in 1999 (hitting San Jose, Portland and New Jersey in eight days in group play before moving on to a San Jose-Boston-Los Angeles trek in the knockout stage), the Americans and their Group B compatriots face the roughest road trips between the widely separated cities of Chengdu, Shanghai and Tianjin.
I agree with you that it would be much more interesting to have some new match-ups in WWC group play. Too bad that the U.S. didn't end up with England and Japan in their group instead of Sweden and North Korea. I just asked this question over in the "USA Women: News and Analysis" Forum and thought I would ask it here as well: Was it at all possible for the U.S. and Sweden to have gotten a worse draw than they actually did? Also, was it possible for Norway to have received a more favorable draw than they did?
USA Greg Ryan (coach): It's not easy to comment on this group because they're all difficult opponents. We start in Chengdu against Korea DPR, and I have the highest respect for them. They're very strong both physically and mentally. Sweden are one of the favourites in my opinion, and I believe Australia and Canada could spring a surprise. I think Greg Ryan has your second question covered.
I definitely wouldn't want to underestimate Australia and Canada, but were there any other countries Norway could have drawn that they have a better record against historically?