WWC 2007 Seeding Thread

Discussion in 'Women's World Cup' started by SJJ, Jan 2, 2007.

  1. hasselhoff

    hasselhoff Member

    Mar 22, 2005
    In at least the last four world cups for men and the last two for women, FIFA has always used the term 'seed' to refer to the top teams in pot #1, while the other pots are drawn up geographically. I suspect they'll use the same procedure this year.
     
  2. DCUPopeAndLillyFan

    Apr 20, 2000
    Colorado
    Only the remaining top two seeds will be determined by the rankings (China and Germany are seeded as hosts and holders). I suspect it will be as someone else posted (assuming US and Norway are remaining two #1s):

    England,Sweden,Denmark - drawn into US, China, and one of the Euro seed groups

    Japan, N Korea, Australia - drawn into the non-China groups

    Canada, New Zealand - drawn into China group and the Euro group without 2 Euro teams

    Brazil, Argentina, Nigeria, Ghana - drawn straight across the board

    Of course, teams from the same confederation cannot be grouped together (except for one group with two Euro teams). In the above setup, the US cannot get drawn with New Zealand.
     
  3. SteinL

    SteinL New Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    Norway
    This may very well prove to be the case, but FIFA has been a bit ambigous on this point. In this press release from Oct 16 last year, they state quite clearly that "the FIFA Women's World Ranking will be used to decide the other seeds". Many newspapers, at least in Norway, has interpreted this as meaning *all* seeds.

    However, in this press release from Feb 2nd, they seem to be a bit ambigous:

    So except with UEFA, two countries from the same federation cannot be drawn into the same group. But the procedure of the draw also "depends on the FIFA Women's World Ranking for March 2007 and the remaining play-off matches", whatever that means.
     
  4. DCUPopeAndLillyFan

    Apr 20, 2000
    Colorado
    The playoff matches are done - Japan took the last spot over Mexico.

    FIFA normally doesn't announce the draw procedure more than a day or two ahead of the draw, so we're just speculating. The pots (other than the top seeds) usually are based more on confederation alignment than rankings.
     
  5. SteinL

    SteinL New Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    Norway
    It is fully possible to have pots based entirely on rankings, yet have a rule that teams from the same federation should not be in the same group.

    If the pots were based on the FIFA Women's ranking, we would have:
    Pot #1: Germany, China, USA, Norway
    Pot #2: Sweden, Denmark, Korea, Brazil
    Pot #3: Japan, Canada, England, Australia
    Pot #4: New Zealand, Nigeria, Ghana, Argentina

    The draw procedure would be something like this - I really do hope that FIFA will do something similar:

    Pot #1: Germany in Group A, China in Group D. USA, Norway drawn into group B and C.
    Pot #2: Sweden, Denmark, Korea, Brazil. Sweden and Denmark drawn into the USA and China groups. Korea and Brazil drawn with Germany and Norway.
    Pot #3: Japan, Canada, England, Australia. Japan & Australia not in the same group as China & Korea, Canada not in the same group as USA
    Pot #4: New Zealand, Nigeria, Ghana, Argentina. Argentina not in group with Brazil.
     
  6. hasselhoff

    hasselhoff Member

    Mar 22, 2005
    I like the procedure you describe. I'm not sure FIFA would use it for a few reasons. First, it's not how they've conducted draws in the past. Second, I've never seen any evidence FIFA has the collective intelligence to use such a scheme. Last, I'm not sure that maximizing competitive balance in the groups is one of their goals. I think FIFA likes having a Group of Death, because it makes the group stage more interesting. If they can gain some media and audience attention by sacrificing a bit of fairness, I'm sure they'd be happy to do that.

    Of course they have to balance that against eliminating teams that draw the most interest in the early rounds. There's an art to these things, at least as conducted by FIFA.
     
  7. btharner

    btharner Member

    Jan 22, 2007
    Sunbury, Pa.
    Here would be my pots for the draw:
    1) seeded teams China PR, Germany, USA, Norway
    2)Brazil, Sweden, England, Denmark
    3)Australia, DPR Korea, Japan, Canada
    4)Nigeria, Ghana, Argentina, New Zealand (probable OFC qualifier)

    I'd also like to see FIFA declare that teams cannot be drawn together in the same group for the third consecutive WC. This would eliminate three-peats such as USA-Nigeria, USA-DPR Korea, Nigeria-DPR Korea, China PR-Ghana, Australia-Ghana or Canada-Japan (couldn't happen if above scenario is used). Since Australia is now an Asian team, the cannot face China PR for the third time in succession. I personally want to see fresh match-ups, though difficult when 13 of 16 teams are back from 2003.
     
  8. DCUPopeAndLillyFan

    Apr 20, 2000
    Colorado
    In this setup you're guaranteeing Canada will go into China's group, and that Brazil will go to either Germany or Norway (unless you're allowing for a group to have no European teams).
     
  9. btharner

    btharner Member

    Jan 22, 2007
    Sunbury, Pa.
    Okay, we'll make a stipulation that each group has to have at least one European team, so Brazil will have to go into the group of Germany or Norway. Canada would have to go to the group of China because all the other teams in that pot are AFC teams. I doubt FIFA would go for my idea anyhow because it would complicate the proceedings. I can visualize them pulling a ball out of the pot and then standing there deciding if the team can be actually be put in that particular group.

    Incidentally, I played around with that thread that was posted earlier which mixed up the teams. The first draw put Germany and Sweden in the positions that would have them playing in the opening match. It would be interesting to see the finalists from one WWC playing the opening match in the next.
     
  10. greenlion

    greenlion Member

    Apr 22, 2004
    CHINA
    Club:
    Beijing Guoan
    Nat'l Team:
    China PR
    Official Pots from Chinese media:

    World Cup seeding:

    Pot A: USA, Germany, Norway, China
    Pot B: Sweden, N.Korea, Denmark, Brazil
    Pot C: Japan, Canada,England,Austrlia
    Pot D: Negeria, Argentina,Ghana,New Zealand

    The basic draw principles, which have been approved by the FIFA Committee for Women's Football and the Women's World Cup, chaired by Worawi Makudi (Thailand), comprise of the following:
    - The hosts, China, will occupy position 1 in Group D (D1);
    - The reigning world champions, Germany, will occupy position A1;
    - The USA and Norway, first and third in the FIFA World Ranking for March 2007, respectively - Germany are ranked second - have been seeded. The draw will determine the group in which they are placed (B or C) as well as their position in their group;
    - No group may contain more than one team from the same confederation, except UEFA (maximum two teams in a same group).
     
  11. SteinL

    SteinL New Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    Norway
    Meaning that all seeding groups are based on the last Women's World Ranking. The draw procedure should be something similar to the one I outlined earlier:

     
  12. SteinL

    SteinL New Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    Norway
    They pull out a ball with the name of a country on. Then, that country goes into the first group it can go into, obeying the rule that countries from the same federation are not grouped together. FIFA have had draws like this before, it is not complicated at all.
     
  13. toepunt

    toepunt Member

    Aug 24, 2003
    North America
    This is what Tina Theune-Meyer had to say about countries with a chance of winning during an interview with Fifa.

    'I regard the USA and Germany as the big favourites. The USA looked like potential winners at the Algarve Cup. The younger players are coming on extremely well, look at Carli Lloyd for example. But it's obvious Denmark, Norway and Sweden are on the up as well. They're always there or thereabouts at the top. And we shouldn't go writing off China. They have a new coaching team, the crowds will be right behind them, and they could go a very long way. North Korea could be the surprise package, and Brazil. Australia, Argentina, Nigeria and Japan are always good for a surprise.'
     
  14. Skoergal

    Skoergal Member

    Feb 19, 2004
    California
    I am surprised she didn't mention Canada--didn't they knock off Sweden in the last year and take the US to the last minute of overtime at the Gold Cup?
     
  15. hasselhoff

    hasselhoff Member

    Mar 22, 2005
    Very interesting. I'm really surprised that FIFA would use such a sensible system. Good call, SteinL.
     
  16. CAFAN

    CAFAN Member

    May 30, 2003
    Yes, Canada did beat Sweden 4-2.
    Yes, the USA beat Canada in the Gold Cup on a pk in the last minute of double overtime.

    In all, Canada played 10 matches against higher ranked teams last year and lost only 3 - all 3 losses to the USA. Wins were over Sweden, France and Italy (twice).

    Tina may not have had time to really think about her answer - or Canada may truly not be on her radar.

    After knocking off China in the 2003 Word Cup 1/4 finals, Canada came within minutes of doing the same to Sweden in the semi's and then lost the Bronze medal match to the USA by a 3-1 score.

    No question, Canada was the surprise at WWC '03 - and the surprise could have easily been much bigger. Canada's 2003 team was built around a rock-solid back line. When all 4 starters were injured before the WWC, Pellerud was forced to cobble together what he could. As it was, only a late-game defensive collapse against Sweden kept Canada out of the Gold medal match. One can only guess how far Canada would have gone with its real back line.

    The 2007 team is stronger all over the field, with the possible exception of defence. It's also has greater depth and will likely be better prepared than the 2003 squad. That being said, Canada could easily finish better or worse than last time - the luck of the draw, the luck of the bounces and ref calls/non-calls play a big part in the outcome. Hopefully in 2007, injuries will remain out of the equation.
     
  17. FCMB

    FCMB Member

    Nov 26, 2006
    Beirut, Lebanon
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    Nat'l Team:
    Lebanon
  18. hasselhoff

    hasselhoff Member

    Mar 22, 2005
    Ah, now that's more like the FIFA we all know! The draw procedure:

    1. Is incredibly vague, leaving lots of room for on-the-spot reinterpretation.
    2. Appears to allow for incredibly unbalanced groups competitively speaking.
    3. Contains an extra rule (Korea DPR goes to Group B) that serves no discernable purpose.
    4. Was apparently devised last night only after all the committee members were roaring drunk.

    All they are missing is a subclause that allows Sepp Blatter to, at his whim, conduct the draw via a round of darts.

    Of course, it's 5 AM here. Maybe I'm missing some subtle genius.
     
  19. btharner

    btharner Member

    Jan 22, 2007
    Sunbury, Pa.
    I just did a mock draw using the procedures mandated by FIFA. I think my groups came out relatively balanced.

    A) Germany, Australia, Canada, Nigeria
    B) Norway, England, New Zealand, Korea DPR
    C) USA, Argentina, Japan, Sweden
    D) China PR, Denmark, Ghana, Brazil

    In the earlier post, I hoped we could avoid having the same teams meet in the group stage for the third consecutive World Cup. The only instance in this mock draw is China PR-Ghana. I would be satisfied if this was the real draw. But, with all the variables, it could be way off what comes out of those pots tomorrow.
     
  20. FawcettFan14

    FawcettFan14 Member+

    Mar 19, 2004
    Colorado
    After taking a look at the past WWC results, I noticed that they changed up the brackets between 1999 and 2003. In 1999, the teams from groups A and B met in a semifinal (USA and Brazil), and the teams from C and D met (China and Norway). Compare that with 2003, when they rearrannged the structure, I assume to insure that teams who played in the group stage would not meet until the final. In any case, the teams from groups A and C met in the semi's (USA and Germany), while A2 and C2 (Sweden and Canada, becase no B or D teams made it that far) played each other. In the 1999 format, USA v Sweden, and Germany v Canada would have been the semi's.

    I assume they'll stick with the 2003 format to keep rematches from occuring till the final.

    By the way, WTF is up with North Korea automatically being placed in group B? I certainly hope there is a better explanation forthcoming from FIFA, although I'm not holding my breath.
     
  21. hasselhoff

    hasselhoff Member

    Mar 22, 2005
    Yea, I don't get that it all. They couldn't have been in D anyway, so in effect FIFA is saying N. Korea and Germany will not be in the same group.
     
  22. DCUPopeAndLillyFan

    Apr 20, 2000
    Colorado
    FIFA didn't change it's mind at all - the Chinese media made a false assumption like others on these boards did. I think this setup is fine except for the placement of DPR Korea in Group B

    I'm confused as to why Group B for North Korea. They play their first two matches in Chengdu, which is the site that's furthest from N Korea itself. Security issues? However, there is a 2 in 3 chance they would play their final group match in Tianjin, the closest site to N Korea (and Tianjin is not being used for the first two matchdays) so maybe they're trying to guarantee a game close to home? They did this in 1999 and 2003 when they ensured China played on the west coast of the US and in 2002 when they ensured the Chinese men played in Korea. I'm not happy that FIFA is making this a habit.

    Otherwise they did it pretty much as I did but flipped Brazil and New Zealand (I potted Brazil with Argentina for simplicity, but FIFA's way makes more sense by the rankings). I didn't bother drawing 'Pot X' into B and C but the effect is the same.

    I believe this means the US cannot get drawn with Brazil. Whatever Pot X team gets drawn into Pot B will automatically go into China's group and the US has to get a European team out of Pot C. Thus, no US-Brazil group matchup. Other than DPR Korea-Germany now, I think this is the only group matchup that's not possible (other than not being grouped with another team from your confederation of course).

    I'll digest this more later today. I think the setup is fine except for placing DPR Korea - but at least it's out in the open and they're not sticking ping pong balls in freezers.
     
  23. DCUPopeAndLillyFan

    Apr 20, 2000
    Colorado
    You're right on all counts. The 1999 setup was highly irregular - they did it that way so that the US knew what stadiums they would be playing in (assuming they advanced) regardless of whether they finished first or second in their group. It also ensured it would run all potential US opponents for the final ragged across the country but that's another story. FIFA did the same thing in 2002 to ensure that Japan and S Korea stayed at home through the semifinals (if they made it that far) regardless of whether they finished first or second in their group. In 1999, all group winners won their quarterfinals so no rematches anyway. In 2002 Brazil and Turkey met again in a semifinal. 2007 will use the standard format.
     
  24. kolabear

    kolabear Member+

    Nov 10, 2006
    los angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You guys are good! Were you all veteran Kremlin-watchers back in the day?

    I didn't get this at first but I think you're right about no US-Brazil.

    In addition, though, for the same reason that US must draw a European team out of Pot C, so does China. The "Pot X" team (Brazil or Canada) drawn into Pot C must go into either Norway's group or Germany's.

    Therefore, Brazil and Canada can't wind up together in China's group. (You think Canada might be happy about that?!)

    So far:

    No Germany vs North Korea (for absolutely obscure reasons)
    No US vs Brazil
    No Brazil vs Canada

    I think China is the team that gets the shaft from this. In addition to having one of the European teams (Sweden, Denmark, England) guaranteed in their group, they're also going to have either Brazil or Canada. Their group may not turn out to be the Group of Death but it's going to be a tough group and, because of these procedures, neither can they get a much weaker pool than they could have otherwise hoped for.

    At best, they're going to have Canada and England, both strong and improving sides.

    Of course, the US benefits from not having to worry about Brazil in their group.

    But Germany is the team that benefits most. Because of the baffling decision to arbitrarily put North Korea in Group B, the only teams Germany can draw from Pot B are Japan or Australia, good teams but not Top Ten.

    In fact, Germany is the only team guaranteed of not being in a Group of Death, which I think of as one where there at least 3 seriously strong teams, teams that you expect to see in the quarter-finals.
     
  25. DCUPopeAndLillyFan

    Apr 20, 2000
    Colorado
    A couple of oddball items I pulled off US Soccer's page. If true, one wouldn't mean much. The other could be significant.

    FIFA indicates China and Germany are locked into the #1 positions in their groups, but it seems the US and Norway will be drawn randomly into a position in their group. Unless one of them has some strong preference to play in B1/C1s assigned stadium in their final group match or the start times of the first two matches, it really doesn't matter. But it seems strange that they are bothering to do this instead of just placing them B1 and C1 like every other draw I can remember.

    What's up with that second bullet? I'm assuming US Soccer screwed this up somehow, but is China being considered an AFC team here? Or are they being considered a "Host" team (Which they're listed as in FIFA's draw procedure) that can possibly draw Japan or Australia? If the latter, it opens up the possibility of US-Brazil again. It may also explain why N Korea was allocated to another group - so they couldn't get drawn with China for whatever reason.
     

Share This Page