Yes there is bound to be unbalance but that's why we have draws to see who will "randomly" draw the short end of the stick. By pre-assigning groups to seeded teams, FIFA have removed this randomness if all teams hold to form.
On a lighter note, here is a video of the team reacting to the live draw. It's funny that they were all whispering Sweden right before it was called. I think every fan pretty much had the same reaction as the team
I don't mean with the current draw. I meant if you'd placed the seeds randomly and everyone stayed the same except US got placed in group F and France in group D.
That was why I used the word almost, is you unfamilar with it or do you just pretend to be to advance your agrument?
What the hell are you talking about now ? What do you think I pretend? Try do read my arguments. They are well contained within the last 2 pages.
Whether you draw pot one at random, or if you assign everyone in pot one to a specific group.... to the teams in pots 2, 3, and 4... it's still random where they will wind up (excluding if they get drawn into a group with someone from their confederation (excluding UEFA). But yes, the only "randomness" of Pot 1 was only when they were going to announce that the pot 1 draw was in fact NOT random In 2011, the top 4 teams were pre-seeded into groups.
Try this. http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/03/17/12/04/draw-procedures-set-for-2011-fifa-womens-world-cup
If you don't like that one, try this: http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/womensworldcup/germany2011/news/newsid=1342287/
Before commenting on this I would like to know what the ranking of Brazil and Japan was. Because this could be similar to what is done for example in the NCAA tournament where you have 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3
They have always used some pre -dertermined placement of the seeds and used an exception for the host country and never a pure random draw like some of you suggested.
I don't have a problem that the top teams were pre-seeded. The CSA is scheduling doubleheaders so selling tickets is necessary. Canada only has a population of 34 million, let's say 20 million could actually buy a ticket and go to a game for the group stage. And lets say that only 1 in 100 of those 20 million will buy a ticket and go to the game... that's 200,000 tickets Including doubleheaders, there are 21 ticketed events. That averages to 9,524 fans a game, irrespective of who they root for. Well, you need a LOT of visitors -- if you get 100,000 fans from overseas and they buy two tickets -- that's another 10K fans per game. You still have to do a lot of marketing to get more than 1 in 100 Canadians to buy a WWC ticket. So putting Japan in Vancouver is smart. Brining the USA fans to Winnipeg (in their Winnabagos)... leaving the east coast citys to the fans of France, Germany and Brazil... probably their best draw. What I don't get is why no games in Toronto -- it's only Canada's biggest city.
I'm not sure how putting the USA in Winnipeg is smart. I went to buy my tickets today and the lower level are pretty much sold out. The only places you can get seats right now is behind the goals. Why put the US in such a small stadium?
I'd would have liked to have hear what was said off mike -- e.g. "We're gonna train hard, then go after each of them and kick their asses"
Smart for the organizers doesn't mean convieneint for USA fans. And just because you only see stadium passes passes behind the goal now, doesn't mean other sections won't be available later.
OK I realize A) FIFA doesnt believe rules, even their own, apply to them B) If u write things vaguely enough there is a lot of lee-way. While u could say "their respective groups" is open to interpretation, it is also true that if all the site r predetermined their is no reason to point out that Canada will be placed in Group A and the others will be handled differently. Any way, there is no sense arguing about it. It's FIFA's world and we just live in it.
Any result other than winning the WC will be a disappointment. To do that, USA has to beat the best teams. Being placed in this group might change the order of teams they have to beat, but does not change the overall challenge. If they drop a game to Sweden (as they did in 2011), perhaps that have to play a team like Brazil earlier than expected (as they did in 2011), but they still have to beat all the best teams. I feel like this seeding could end up helping them in terms of motivation for the next 6 months, which will help the overall result. Sure, drawing Australia and Nigeria, in addition to Sweden, is a tougher path than it could have been, but if they lose to Australia or Nigeria, they don't deserve to win the WC or even place.
Draw analysis: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/usa-draws-the-group-of-death-in-2015-womens-world-cup/ http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-comme...group-death-tough-doable-us-women-women-world
I understand the sentiment that you will face all of the best teams and grouping just changes when you face them but it is not true. To win the WWC in 2007 Germany did not have to beat the USA. If the USA had won the final in 2011 they would not have had to beat Germany. To win the world cup in 2015 Germany will not need to beat Sweden. It depends on what happens in the groups and the knockout rounds. FIFA pre-assigning the seeds to groups goes a long way in determining who the seeds will have to face.
The World Cup has crossed my mind off and on this week, and whenever it happens I get excited. But that excitement is tempered when I think about the USA's group. Not because I'm afraid they'll flop. Group D is the toughest of the six for sure, but they will advance (what place they finish is a more interesting question). It's the sheer familiarity that has me feeling bored. Playing Sweden for the fourth straight World Cup. Playing Nigeria for the fourth time in five World Cups (only a hiatus in 2011). It's frustrating. All the new matchups are one reason this particular tournament is so exciting. But the USA somehow always gets stuck with the same teams as always. Were North Korea not banned we'd have ended up with them too instead of Australia. At least we have the rivalry dynamic going on with Sweden to spice things up. They've been a thorn in the USA's side since that 2011 group stage loss. And then there's the Pia factor. I do feel bad for Nigeria. In any other group they would likely advance. In this one it's far from certain.