i don't really understand your point, you're rationalizing the 2 allocations for CAF on the grounds that they were able to organize a team? giving them unwarranted entries to WC/Olympics that take place every 4 years can't possibly do much for women's football in Africa. creating more regular game opportunities for them would be better, like making the Africa women's championship annual instead of semi-annual, initiating more friendlies, more tournament involvement. Europe and Asia is loaded with competitive teams that should be rewarded for their excellence before some pity party of pseudo-development.
cloak, it's never going to be FIFA's job to guarantee that the best football is on show, for a rival tournament they have little interest in seeing become as important as their own big brand world championships. We don't see major youth and senior regional competition, U-17/20 global tournaments, and long drawn out senior level global qualification rounds, so the best nations in the world play at the Olympics . Yes the two CAF teams on show right now aren't the best nations in their region, but just like the UEFA, AFC, and CONMEBOL qualifiers, South Africa and Cameroon have simply taken advantage of the odd ball tournament participation criteria, to put themselves in the exact developmental scenario their confederation hoped to see. While this can be frustrating to some, this situation exists so FIFA's world championships rightly remains the focus of every women's program, making sure nations don't get lazy using irregular Olympic football, over the benefits of improving regional competition either. Implementing this, FIFA has seen it's most elite women's competitions become the global platform were the sports most significant strides forward take place, and the CAF region has been using these to gain steady progress too. In hopes of increasing the profile and awareness of the sport, and speeding up improvements towards the next WWC, Sepp and the old boys club will therefore allow the girls to use an open age category tournament for the Olympics, for the exact "pity party of pseudo-development" reasons your moaning about right now . The Olympics remain a preparatory tool towards the next big wave of progression, the kinds of progression we all get to see at World Cups, and that's why we get team GB instead of Germany, drug cheating DPR Korea, a U-23 Colombia, and two weak ass CAF nations, taking part in a global event where players don't even have to have names on the backs of their jerseys.
. If the youth levels remain good indicators of talent, I expect to see Nigeria make a few more tournaments as depressing as Canada's time in Germany. A lot of this growth though, may also depend on whether or not CAF's top female nations can remain as focused as they are right now towards eradicating the evils of lesbianism from their ranks, because if Nigeria's intellectually progressive WC coach is correct, this remains one of the main factors holding them back from truly competing at the elite level too .
US, GB, Brazil, Japan and Sweden are now qualified for the last 8. Only questions is in wich spot US, GB and Brazil all have secured at least 2nd place in their group, Japan and Sweden could end 3rd but with 4points bagged they will then be a "better" 3rd than the 3rd in E group (NZL and COL. both have 0 points and only one game left) and qualify as one of the two best 3rd placed teams.
Not entirely. If New Zealand and Canada make it in as 3rd place teams, then US (if they finish first in their group) would play NZ and Canada would play winner of NZ's group. If New Zealand wins and US beats North Korea, New Zealand is in unless Colombia beats France by exactly four goals (I think). Then it comes down to New Zealand's margin of victory over Cameroon and/or total goals scored. A tie suits both US and North Korea - the tie would guarantee 1st place in the group for the US and advancement for North Korea. Somehow, I don't see the US as being content with that although of course in the late stages of the game it could affect how they play. Canada is hardly guaranteed a result against Sweden either, come to think of it. They're probably safe goal-differential wise vis-a-vis both North Korea (those 5 goals that France laid on them is big) and Colombia. But if North Korea and the US tie then it could easily get into goal differential and goals scored vis-a-vis New Zealand. If Canada loses to Sweden by 2 and New Zealand beats Cameroon by 3 (entirely possible results), then New Zealand winds up with the better GD. * and in the counting your chickens before they hatch department - the US is hardly guaranteed points against North Korea. Should the US lose, they will likely finish 2nd in the group (presuming France beats Colombia by more than 1 goal).
Goals scored so far in the tournament (after the first two group rounds): 3.08 goals per game. I find that misleading, however, when all the goal-scoring is coming from one side. In the 2nd group round, for example, a decent number of goals were scored but every game was a shutout (with the marquee match, Sweden vs Japan, a 0-0 double shutout). Therefore I find it interesting to calculate the goals scored with a capped goal-differential. Specifically, I'm using a capped goal-differential of 2. (Using a capped differential of two, a 4-2 game like US vs France counts as 6 total goals scored but a 6-0 game counts as only 2) Using a cap of 3 would also be reasonable, 2 is a little extreme but it seems likely to me that a 3-0 game is the product of a fairly one-sided game more often than a 4-1 or 5-2 game indicates a truly competitive shootout. With a capped goal differential, the goals scored per game so far is 2.25 Going back to the 2007 World Cup, here are the goals scored per game, both capped and uncapped: 2007 World Cup: total goals: 3.47 goals per game capped differential: 2.56 goals per game 2008 Olympics: total goals: 2.54 gpg capped: 2.35 gpg 2011 World Cup: total goals: 2.69 gpg capped: 2.47 gpg 2012 Olympics (2 group rounds): total goals: 3.08 gpg capped: 2.25 For comparison with the men I calculated the last World Cup (it would be interesting to compare with the Euros as well, both men and women). 2010 World Cup (men's): total goals: 2.2 gpg capped: 1.98 gpg
Interesting system, Kolabear. If I understand it, the 1991 Tournament had a goals per game of 3.65 with a capped differential of 2.57 gpg. That makes the differential nearly identical to 2007. Of course, those games were 80 minutes, so perhaps some adjustment would need to be made ( gpmin?) Then the adjusted GPG is 4.1
It gets rid of the anomalies like Germany beating something_stan 11-0. And yes, when the differential is capped, there's a fairly strong consistency over the years mentioned including 1991 which you calculated: 1991: 2.57 2007: 2.56 2008: 2.35 2011: 2.47 2012 (2 rounds): 2.25 Using a capped differential makes sense to me in measuring the general amount of offense in a tournament because if there's more offense in the game generally there should be offensive production by the losing sides and not just beat-downs by a handful of superior sides. So far in this Olympics, there's a case for using a capped differential of (2) rather than (3). With a cap of (2), so far this Olympics falls below the previous 3 World Cup/Olympics. With a cap of (3), the capped goals-per-game for this tournament shoots back up to 2.75 (compared to 2.94 in 2007, 2.46 in 2008, and 2.64 in 2011) making it seem like a more offensive tournament, whereas I think the reality is there is a somewhat greater imbalance in the teams overall, with 3 or 4 of the teams out of 12 being rather outclassed when it comes to their attacking abilities: South Africa, Cameroon, Colombia, and New Zealand. And North Korea may be considerably weaker than in previous years - but the jury's out on them.
USA will kill North Korea if they don't play sloppy football, as in 80 mins of the colombia game and the costa rica game several months ago. young teams with girls who have no problem playing bump and run, and slugging it out the usa find away to stay in games and make them look bad, which they are already look bad when it comes to pure football skills. france is too sophisticated for colombia, will play circles around like brasil does, especially with rincon sidelined. the game will be over in 30 mins, won't drag on like the left-footed usa vs colombia. the big game of the day is brasil vs GB. brasil wins and that sets them up with a potential semi-final game with the usa. they would end up with a 3rd place team in the qtrs at first, i thought they looked bad against new zealand, but someone reminded me that just several weeks ago new zealand more or less beat the usa in kansas city or utah ( i dont remember which city), so NZ is a rising star.
Women's Euro 2009: total goals: 3,00 gpg (2,96 not counting goals on extra time) capped: 2,72 gpg (2,68 not counting goals on extra time) Men's Euro 2012: total goals: 2,45 gpg capped: 2,26 gpg
Thanks, Jan, for doing the homework. So the Women's Euro 2009 has the highest differential-capped goals-per-game of the tournaments listed so far; although if you go by total goals (uncapped), it would be 3rd after the 2007 World Cup and the current Olympics with games to date (2nd round). This makes sense to me because the bottom-ranked teams in the Euros are usually much stronger than the bottom-ranked teams in World Cup and Olympic play. I don't have the world rankings handy for the teams at the 2009 Euros but I would expect the worst team there to have been in the top 25 teams in the world rankings at the time. Whereas Cameroon is currently ranked #50 and South Africa #61 (with New Zealand at #23 and Colombia at #28) Moreover, besides the rankings, the difference in FIFA ratings is more dramatic in the Olympics. This is aimed for those of you somewhat familiar with the basics of Elo-type ratings: the FIFA rankings are not, properly speaking an Elo rating yet there is some probability-based factor in their calculation. So there is, at least very roughly, a probability-factor on how two teams will fare against each other depending on the difference, not in their rankings, but in their ratings. Australia is the 10th ranked team with a rating of 1956. There are currently 14 European teams with ratings at least 1756 or above, that is within 200 points of 10th place or above. New Zealand ranked #23 is within that 200 point range at 1772 but there's a fairly big gap a team or two below New Zealand; Colombia at #28 is only 5 ranking places behind New Zealand but it is more than 100 rating points back at 1651. In Elo-type thinking that's a considerable jump in ratings that isn't conveyed by the difference in rankings. And Cameroon and South Africa are another 200 to 300 points below at 1470 and 1377 respectively.
The play off is a handome sight. All native english speaking countries on one side and the rest on the others. One Quartefimal to decide which is the best non-english language team in Europe and one to do the same for teh rest of the World. And then we got one semifinal to decide the best team in the english speaking world and another for the rest of the World.
Quarterfinals predictions: United States 3 - New Zealand 0 Great Britian 2 - Canada 1 Sweden 3 - France 2 Brazil 1 - Japan 0
With the group games completed, here are the goals-per-game averages: uncapped: 2.67 goals per game capped-differential: 2.11 goals per game Comparing the capped-goals with three previous World Cup & Olympics in the group stage and final tournament totals: 2007: group (capped): 2.56 entire tournament (capped): 2.58 2008 group (capped): 2.11 entire tournament (capped): 2.35 2011 group (capped): 2.21 entire tournament (capped): 2.47 2012 group (capped): 2.11 entire tournament (capped): ? If this Olympics follows the form of these last three tournaments then we should see the goals-per-game average rise by the time the gold-medal game is over.
GB 1 - Canada 0 - GB at home won't give up too much in front of goal, and Canada won't be utilising a style of football much different to what British players have always known growing up either. Both teams see each other a lot, but this years England + Little, now have more weapons on show to score the goals that probably takes them through. Sweden 3 - France 2 - Having seen Japan own Sweden with neat intricate football, France will probably dominate large periods of this game too, but I really don't have the same confidence for the heart of the French defensive line versus players who know them all very well. Whatever happens though, this will be a game decided by attack and not great defence, as both teams have shown periods of mental tiredness which has cost them very sloppy goals, or helped them concede numerous and unnecessary dangerous periods of play. Brazil 1 - Japan 3 - Even though their world champs, nobody seems to rate Japan, but having seen both teams during group play, it's actually Japan who go into this game having cruised through what should have been a relatively tough group. Brazil aren't the team we remember so vividly from the not so distant past, but their best chance will always lie with the individual play of their star players. So Brazil keep the game tight, and hope Japan cough up errors, they could nick a goal to scare Japan, but their defending will have to significantly improve if their to win by a mere single goal margin too.
I wouldn't be shocked to see Japan win this match, but I would be amazed if they score three goals. Despite almost universal prejudice to the contrary, Brazil defends well. Maybe they don't get top marks for artistic impression, but this isn't figure skating. They get the job done. Brazil haven't given up more than two goals in a competitive match in this millennium. They had the lowest goals against average at last year's world cup. Moreover, Japan have only found the net twice so far in this whole competition. I see this as 1-0 one way or the other, or perhaps decided on penalties after a 0-0 draw.
Andrea had a good game vs GB, imo. I would be very surprised to see Brazil go down to a multi-goal defeat. I think the GB game might be a wake up call that gets them going in a way fans of other countries don't want.
That got me wondering if Brazil had ever lost a group game in the Olympics or World Cup until yesterday, at least in the Marta Era. Except for the US (2004 Athens), I don't think they ever had although France tied them in 2003, Marta's first World Cup at the tender age of 17.
Andreia is an extremely good keeper, whose play is often overshadow by avoidable blunders made by her back line. Note that neither goal that went to the US in last year's match up was not really her fault. Daiane scored the first OG and got in Andreia's way in the second goal. I was really big on Barbara in the past but Andreia is the real deal--very is solid. She also seems to be rather quiet( I guess given she speaks Portuguese), so we don't hear much about her the way we do other players in the same position.
I don't think Brazil are a bad team, but were all witnessing the first stages of a rebuilding phase to peak for Brazil home Olympics. Versus Japan, I can see Fabianna and Formiga making them a better attacking unit than the side we saw face England, but the defence gets moved around way too easily for me, and they'll be facing a team with an ability to maintain movement based possession better than any other international team currently on the women's scene. Christiane and Marta up top are still capable of great individual play, with Formiga and Thais doing a decent job behind them. However the big problems still remains a true link to control the run of play as well as Daniella used to do within the 5 -3 -2. As a compact unit I can see them attempting to press Japan as high and physical as possible, but I'm not sure if that works against Japan as much as it used too, so quality width is a must to stop Japan's wing backs from involving themselves in the games attacking play. Bruna likes to play up against physical opponents, but the instant she has to leave her position, spaces begin to open all over the place. Erika and Costa do a decent job of remaining composed in these situations as they fill in, which is an upgrade on Aline and Diane, but Japan's front two are quality players who are way better than the tournament scoring charts suggest. At the end of the day though this is football, and as we all know in football, anything can happen.
The semifinals obviously gave a boost to the goals-per-game average. Using the capped-goal differential method and comparing it with previous tournaments: 1991 (WC): 2.57 2007(WC): 2.56 2008(Oly): 2.35 2010(Euro): 2.72 2011 (WC): 2.47 2012 (Oly thru semis): 2.38 Fairly consistent, , isn't it? The Olympics run a tad lower than World Cups and Euros. (Thanks to cliveworshipper and JanBalk for the '91 and '10 figures). I think it's a truer indication of the general offensive output of the tournaments between competitive teams than using uncapped numbers. Here's the uncapped numbers: 1991 (WC): 3.65 goals per game 2007(WC): 3.47 2008(Oly): 2.54 2010(Euro): 3.00 2011 (WC): 2.69 2012 (Oly thru semis): 2.79 Using uncapped numbers, this tournament is running on the slightly high side among the last 4 tournaments listed (post 2007 WC). Using capped numbers, it's on the slightly low side - and that seems a truer indication to me because some traditionally good teams have struggled to score (for example Brazil and Sweden). On the other hand, a couple shootouts (like the US/Canada semifinal) have given some welcome "spice" to this tournament and that's now reflected in the capped numbers not deviating too far from the established norm, whereas after the quarterfinals it was languishing at 2.11 capped goals per game. As much as "purists" love defensive low-scoring soccer, for most of us (and for the sake of the tournament), it's nice to see some goals scored like they were in both semifinals.
I just remembered to put in final numbers for the tournament: Goals per game with capped differential: 2.31 Uncapped: 2.69 Especially with the capped average, the Olympics was on the lower end of the range of compared recent tournaments (women's) but still very much in the established range.
A little bit of statistical analysis of both the men and women's Olympic soccer tournaments at Prozone. A couple selections: