Attacking wise, most definitely. Defending wise, not a chance. I'd almost say it's a wash because they won in 2008 because of their defending and Solo and their best chance at winning in 2012 is to just rack up the goals.
definitely better. the defense is not as good. the midfield is a bit better - especially with cheney in lloyd's place. the forwards are way better with abby and alex unstoppable in the last few months. doesn't mean much. all the other teams are also better.
except the chinese team hasn't been in the top 10 for quite some time and they used to be one of the top women's teams 15 years ago
Do you really think so? Japan has improved. France 2012 is essentially Brazil 2008. While Brazil 2012 is essentially Germany 2008. Norway 2008 and Britain 2012 are probably a wash. I don't think Sweden has really improved from 2008. I don't think Canada has really improved either. North Korea, who knows, but I doubt they are much different than 2008. New Zealand got no better either. With the newcomers, do you really think collectively Cameroon, South Africa, and Colombia are better than Nigeria, Norway, and Argentina? I really don't think people can argue other teams have gotten better. Sure, a few have. While some have gotten worse. But collectively better? No way.
Ah yes I did forget Germany in that part at the end. But just because they aren't at the Olympics automatically makes them a worse team than those at the Olympics? Yes, women's teams from around the world have been getting better. But in this tournament there is no way that this is a better group of teams than those that were in 2008.
I'd say it automatically makes you worse than the teams in your confederation that earned selection, yes. Had GB not hosted and England been able to field an Olympic team, Germany would have been 4th in UEFA. England tied their quarterfinal match. And they were pretty shaky all through the 2011 cup.
So you are saying that if Sweden vs. Germany were playing today you would choose Sweden because they are at the Olympics and Germany isn't? Look, my original statement was that these teams that are currently at the Olympics are not a better group than those that were at the 2008 Olympics. As I have said, Brazil is weaker, Sweden and Canada haven't changed much, sure Japan improved and France qualified but they are just taking the places of the Old Guard. If you took the 2012 teams of Colombia, South Africa, and Cameroon.. they would not have beaten the 2008 teams of Nigeria, China, and Argentina. The disparity between all of the teams in 2008 was closer than all of the teams in 2012. In the group stages of the 2008 tournament only 5 of the 18 games were won by 2+ goals. Already in 2012, we've had 4 of 6 games won by 2+ goals.
I thought I was pretty clear in what I said. You want to talk hypotheticals, I'm talking facts. Teams that finish fourth in their confederation in qualifying, whatever the method, can't claim greatness. If you want to include a discussion about teams who are better and worse, you need to include the teams who were factors in either tournament. Germany was there last time, they aren't there now. They are worse. Since you want to bring in Argentina, both teams are in the same boat. Your talking about Cameroon and argentina has no bearing on who will medal. You just looking for ways to deflect the discussion. Just accept that Germany is not in the elite anymore. They will have to get results in order to show they still belong. Winning a tournament will help. 9-0 friendlies against Kazakstan aren't part of the picture anymore than Argentina not qualifying.
They would have had to beat the eventual world champions to finish higher than fourth. Seems rather unfair to blame them for something no one else could manage, either.
It might seem harsh, but it seems unfair that they should take credit for a superiority they don't have, doesn't it? Any claims they are better don't wash. They didn't lose to Japan in a previous cup, and if you want to make comparisons with the USA in the WWC, I'll point out that the cup was won in a shoot out. The match stands as a tie. They will have their chance to redeem themselves in four years. I'm not buying any arguments that they are better than any of the teams in the Olympic tournament. They are a non factor. Perhaps this line of thought will meet with a better reception on the international threads than on the USA forum threads. I'm sure they have a better sense of fairness.
that wasn't the question. they could be better than 2008 (i think they are) without winning anything if other teams improved more than they did.
as their fan base has been singing since yesterday, they know how to comeback. they are no better than the 2011 WC team if they don't win the olympics, aren't better than a team, which actually won a tournament. Dont worry they have baby horse , the most deadliest striker in the world.