Just thinking about playoff seeding... It's certain that Taipei will be the AFC seeded team. They started the AFC Women's Cup almost even with Thailand in the rankings, but here's how their tournaments differed: Taipei 2-1-1, Thailand 1-0-4, including the H2H Taipei victory. Taipei will end up ranked in the mid-30s, and only three other continents have teams in the top 30 (UEFA, C'CAF, and C'BOL). The only question now is which of the non-UEFA seeded teams gets the #2 seed and not get into the bracket that has both #3 & #4... Taipei's only real competition here is the C'BOL rep, as I find it unlikely that Costa Rica doesn't make the C'CAF top 4.
No other qualifiers to the WWC will be determined until July. CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, CAF & OFC all have their final tournaments then.
Jamaica and Panqma will be the concacaf representative I think. Or who thinks Mexico will screw up and come third in the group like last time?
Depends on the draw for Jamaica, Panama & Costa Rica. Unfair that Mexico isn't a direct qualifier since they're hosting the final tournament.
Sweden(GEO, IRL), Spain(SCO), Switzerland(ROU, ITA), Germany(POR, SRB) and France(WAL, SVN) will qualify in April if they win their games independent of other results.
With AFC tournament finished, we begin a slow period. Not a ton will be decided until end of July. CAF (Africa Women's Cup of Nations): July 2-23, 4 teams directly qualify CONCACAF W Championship: July 4-20, 4 teams qualify COMNEBOL (Copa America Feminina): July 8-30, 3 teams qualify OFC Women's Nations Cup: July 5-31, 0 teams directly qualify UEFA: regular qualifying groups finish September 6 For the sake of speculation, here's how the intercontinental playoff could look: AFC: 2 slots (Chinese Taipei, Thailand) CAF: 2 slots (Ivory Coast, Zambia) CONCACAF: 2 slots (Costa Rica, Panama) COMNEBOL: 2 slots (Chile, Venezuela) OFC: 1 slot (Papua New Guinea) UEFA: 1 slot (Wales)
Ready the South American groups qualifiers for the 2023 World Cup . According to the information, the first 3 of each group will go to a second round where they will play: Match for fifth place, semifinals, match for third place and final. That would indicate that there would not be a final hexagonal with matches between all. https://copaamerica.com/news/los-grupos-de-la-conmebol-copa-america-femenina-2022/
Is it more likely than not? Sure - there are more "contenders" from UEFA than any other confed. But is it very likely? Nah. First, the next WWC is outside of Europe, and UEFA teams historically do worse outside of UEFA (average less the four teams in the top eight) than they do in UEFA-hosted tournaments (average more than five teams in the top eight). Second, UEFA's top contenders have all shown cracks of their own recently in qualifying, what with GER's loss, SWE's draw and many narrow one-goal wins, FRA's series of their own narrow wins, and NED's set of draws. ENG and ESP are looking pretty good, but if only two of UEFA's top nations are really looking in-form, I wouldn't say that UEFA has the next WWC in the bag at all. Granted, this is all talking about form, and that can change in a year - both for UEFA teams and for anyone else.
From one very long term stats perspective, the likelihood of a UEFA team winning is 37.5% -- a UEFA team has won 3 times and teams from other federations have won 5.
Or 75% if one do not believe USA will win since of the times USA has not won a UEFA team have won 75% of the time (3 out of 4).
I mean.... if you're gonna tweak stuff on the idea that "X team won't win"... UEFA has a 1/6 record if you ignore Germany. Then it's just Norway vs Japan if you ignore both USA & GER. The fact that only four teams have ever won (and there are only eight "winners" overall) makes the "who won" statistics very easy to manipulate to wild swings. Hence why I went with the more robust QF numbers earlier.
And that you respond to the second but not the first that use the more easily manipulated data do indicated that you have an agenda. Any objective person would respond to the first one.
Also what are your predictions for top 4 in the Concacaf w championship?. Will we Mexico suffer another upset like in 2018?
By "first one", do you mean cpt's unmaipulated "winners" data, or the QF stats I had posted first and you quoted? Because, either way, your response doesn't make much sense to me. If cpt's winners, I simply responded to your manipulation of the data, not to the original unmanipulated. That's nowhere near showing any inherent agenda. How easily the original facts *can* be manipulated isn't that much of a talking point compared to picking and choosing how to manipulate them, because reporting the original numbers are simply how things happened. Now, to be fair, it's entirely reasonable to respond to the raw winner numbers by saying "that's not enough data for you to make strong conclusions from that". That's what an objective response would be - and that's exactly what I did in the second half of my response post. The reason I quoted you and not cpt directly was because A) you already responded to cpt, and B) manipulating the data is a much more egregious example of having an agenda and thus deserved the direct quote more than the raw numbers. If by "first" you meant my original QF stats.... Then that's even more off base. Robust is always better than not.
Well look how many friendlies the conmebol teams are playing right now with each other since early 2021. Hopefully the road to the 2027 world cup for Conmebol can start in late 2024 just like for the men.
Sorry, I was unclear. But you do mention that you use the QF stats since they where more robust. Therefore I though it would be obvious to any fairly intelligent person that I referred to the first time someone in the thread draw conclusion from far less data since that was the post i answered to with the post you jumped on. Sorry, unlike you I don't like to be a killjoy and tend to assume that most of the readers are not idiots so prefer to playfully point out how easy statistic can show something else when they are not robust. Sorry that you do not approve. It is pretty obvious I didn't mean that, only way you can even get to that conclusion is so far I can see to either assume I that I am a total idiot or if you are one. So I do take that as a personal insult since it would be rude to assume you are one.
Pulling this out because now your responses are even more confusing to me, because I did exactly the same thing and even used a silly face to emphasize my playfulness in my original response before explicitly describing the ease of manipulation (instead of implicitly pointing it out with the manipulations - because clarity is good). How you concluded I had an agenda from that is what baffled and offended me. It's not obvious when the original intent doesn't make sense.