Interesting Observation

That is an interesting observation. I believe that Nigeria was the only quarterfinalist from four years ago that didn't manage to advance this time around.

 

Nigeria was in group with Sweden and USA, so 7 was optimal to begin with.

 

The observation is good and correct, but what does it mean?
... That nothing has changed in Women's football?
... That the 7 teams are incrementally better than the others?
... That the WUSA has really had no impact?

The continuing trend seems to favor those nations that put money towards the women's soccer programs.

Besides the US, I think Canada might be the next highest country to have increased spending in women's soccer.

 

Yes it did.

WIth the exception of Russia I believe that the WUSA has improved the Women's game. These 7 countries had players that could play in the WUSA. (Canada really needs to say thank you to the WUSA.) I think that Germany is a much stronger side than in 1999 and the WUSA is a stong reason for that since key players are in the league. China is having more trouble than expected, is that because the players did not get to test themselves this season against the best on a weekly basis (granted that the at Chinese camp you have great players, several distinguished themselves in the WUSA prior to 2003).

With the number of quality players in the USA, some countries cannot have players make it in the league. These players may be in the W-League such as with the Northern Virginia Majestics.

 

Talked to the Hampton Roads Piranhas coach at the Nigerian/North Korea game. Certainly the W-league has helped out the Nigerian team.

 

W-League Helped Nigeria

The US team is deeper and better than 1999. Given that, did Nigeria lose again to the USA 7-0? I think not Nigeria's play did improve, even the US players say that.

 

No, that's true. But they were in a tough group.

 

I'd say the tide has risen from 1999 to 2003 for female soccer in general.

The technical level is better all around.

The elite 3, USA, Norway and Germany, the advance in quality might is marginal, but there are MORE good players in each of the three

 

Re: Yes it did.

Agreed. Hooper is going to be a handful (the diver).

It bears noting that, in many of the games I saw, the WUSA had a major impact. The 1-1 draw between France and Brazil? Scorers were Pichon (Philadelphia) and Katia (San Jose). Nuf sed. And there are many other examples.

Major exceptions: Russia, NoKo, SoKo, and Catherine Reddick.

 

WUSA Definitely Helped the Norwegian Squad

The WUSA most definitely helped improve the Norwegian squad both directly and indirectly. Prior to the first WUSA season, Dagny Mellgren was best known for her late match heroics against the U.S. and was more of a "Ole Gunnar Solskjær" supersub. Now Mellgren is the leading scorer and the captain of Norway's squad.

For Bente Nordby, her four months playing in the WUSA during the 2001 season was not a very good experience, but it ended up helping to motivate Bente to play some of the best soccer of her career. After Bente returned to Norway she signed with the Norwegian club Kolbotn and only allowed 9 goals in 18 matches as Kolbotn won their first-ever league title.

Marianne Pettersen had decided last fall to retire completely from playing soccer and concentrate on her graduate studies in the field of psychology. When the WUSA contacted her and offered to give her the highest salary that they could give to a foreign player, Pettersen ultimately decided against playing in the WUSA, but was still very flattered by the offer. A few months later Marianne decided not only come back and play one more season for the Norwegian club team Asker, but also to play for the Norwegian National Team as well.

 

Answering Myself

To answer myself:
The games I've seen on tv, in person, on Matchcast or read about show a general increase in skills and abilities for most teams. But, those teams that had more than one or two players in WUSA seemed to increase their depth and overall abilities over those teams that did not.

While a team like the US increased their depth, Ghana increased their skill; an example of incremental increase in technical abilities based on the # of players in WUSA or playing more games at higher international levels.

Then there are teams that have other issues: DPRK not playing outside their country, Argentina's economic conditions, Australia's coaching and football governing, China's possible burnout.

I can't say it's one thing that have made teams better, but I have seen better games this time around and think the women's game will only get better. I hope that more countries recognize this and give their players a chance (like France did) to compete on a similar level as the elite teams.

 

One other thing, how does Russia and Japan fit into the model of: Increase in playing in the WUSA or internationally would increase the overall technical abilities of the players and thus, the teams.

 

Japan did have Homare Sawa who played for the Beat and over-the-horizon Japan is supposed have an improved women's league. WRT Russia, there could be another factor at work, could their federation have looked at the number of teams that compete at the highest level and realize that with a push the Russians could be at that level?

In comparing the US game to the others that I saw, the US game is more aggressive and uptempo. Just look at the differences in the throw-ins. Most of the teams have these soft short throws, the US tends to have long powerful throws that are quickly moved to attack. I think that playing in a league that consistantly pits the best against the best encourages the more uptempo style. If players are competing against lesser tallent it is very difficult to improve because there is so much that you do not get to see in the games that you play.

I think that the visibility of the WUSA (or knowing that there is a high level women's league) is an encouragement to girls every where as are the Nike & Gatorade ads with Mia (and Bend it like Beckham showing Mia playing for the Freedom).