So until Germany's (very fortunate) win on PKs a few hours ago you didn't consider the Germans among the best teams in the world then either?
I'm results, not poll driven. Ratings are great, but to be elite you need results. Since 2007 Germany has one one game past the quarters, for a bronze Olympic medal in 2008. That's more than France. If you want to know if players were on elite teams, see what hardware they have 'round their necks at their retirement parties. That's how the men do it. I don't consider getting to the quarters all that big a deal. It's a third of the field this time. Last time Germany got to the quarters it was half the 16 team field. They got no further. In the Olympics, getting to the quarters just meant you weren't in the bottom third the last two times. So, yeah. If Germany hadn't won this match, they wouldn't have made my cut. I hold the USA to the same standard ( or tougher). If the USA had lost in the quarters, would they be on your list? If they lose the next two matches, will you be celebrating the USA as among the best in the world? I sure won't. In 2008 Germany won Bronze in Beijing, so they are borderline. Lost in the semis, won the consolation match. They did make the Quarters in 2011, but lost at home and did no better than France did this time and didn't Qualify for 2012. . so in the last three FIFA tournaments they got a bronze (12 team tournament) , made top 1/2 of the field ( 16 team tournament) , and didn't qualify ( 12 team tournament) . They are knocking on the door, certainly, but Japan and Brasil and the USA have had better results. Canada and Sweden have more recent third place finishes. But a bronze is a bronze, even if it is five years old. So ok, they are sorta among the best, I guess. If they win their next match or even the consolation match, they will have hardware again. Do you have a broader criteria for " among best in the World?" Why not just include everyone in the final tournament, then?
The most accomplished teams and best teams are not necessarily the same thing...not for me anyway. Would you rate the Miami Heat as one of the best teams in the NBA this season because they won the title the previous year? I judge the best teams as those teams currently playing a standard of football that makes them present day contenders for top placings at the highest levels of the sport. So my list would include Germany, France, USA, and Japan as clearly in the group. Until this tournament I would have had Sweden in that group. I have Canada just hanging on in that group. It's possible I may be soon adding Australia to that group.
Then we may be closer than you think. If you think it's Canada is hanging on, it means their last medal means something. Anyway, it's more recent than Germany's. If it's possible you may be adding Australia, it means you too are looking at what they do in quarterfinals and beyond. Germany was a great team 8 years ago. They haven't shown that level in world competition since. Maybe they will, but not yet. Norway was a great team once, too. France is knocking, but I said before this match they start strong and have never finished strong in the tough matches. That's something they still haven't gotten past. Fun to watch, though.
I'm thinking of adding Australia not just because of how far they've advanced in the tournament. But how well they've played and the quality of their opponents. The way you seem to rank teams is strictly based on past results. Whilst this approach is the most objective (within it's limitations) it is also deficient for numerous reasons if you're ranking the current best teams. Not simply the most accomplished. Because of the inherent assumptions made you often may have an inaccurate reflection. Anybody who'd never watched a women's soccer match in their lives could rank teams this way with just a few clicks of a mouse. I use the eyeball test, assessment of current talent, quality of opposition, etc in addition to current relevant information. If a team wins a major championship then most of their best players and their coach subsequently retire then what? Should we automatically assume it's the same product and team on the field the following year? If the next version of their team sucks then they suck. What the other players and coach did last year or two years ago doesn't matter. Your approach is strictly quantitative. Mine is very much qualitative. For instance, if France had the fortune of playing on the other half of the draw a trip to the finals would be very possible, even likely. I don't assume a balanced draw but a ranking such as yours which only acknowledges placing does. Soccer is a sport where one bounce or one call changes everything. Yet your approach to defining the best teams treats France the same whether they lost a heartbreaker in pks against the run of play or whether they got trounced 5-0. Nevermind the quality of their opponent. The BCS rankings and the computer component in CF were a disaster but even despite it's limitations even that system took into account quality of opposition and margins. So as a result under your criteria Sweden is rated as a better team than France. Ultimately results do matter. But I don't view them in a vacuum. So in my estimation France is clearly a better team than Sweden. I would also have Brazil among the top teams. I remember Norway very well in the 90s. They are on the cusp of my top teams in the world now. They may be on the verge of jumping into that group. I would have liked to see how they fared with two of their critical players (speedy striker Hansen and midfielder Isaksen both missed the WC due to injury).