I told you I'd get to the Women's World Cup eventually, and today is that day. They did the draw about 10 days ago, and there wasn't really anything too surprising.
Although, because they did the same thing as the men and did the seedings strictly off the FIFA World Rankings, it did lead to some interesting potential pairings. Mainly, Japan and Brazil aren't currently ranked among the top six, while Australia and Canada are. So you had teams like Germany, the United States and England worried that they might end up with one of those two in group play. It actually worked out OK, though, since Brazil ended up with Australia. Japan is with England, but the other two teams in that group are weaker, so that will likely end up not being that big of a deal.
What we saw at the last Women's World Cup, the first one with the expanded field of 24, is that the top-to-bottom quality of women's international soccer still isn't quite the same as it is in the men's game. It has gotten better over the last four years, but those six teams that were in Pot 4, as well as some in Pot 3, are definitely weaker than the rest of the field. And, since four of the six third-place teams advance to the Round of 16, we should see all of the favorites get through, which will make for a great knockout round.
The third place teams add another dimension in that it makes the bracket a little uncertain for the advancing teams. They don't know which groups the third-place teams will come out of. Thus, they likely won't know the matchups ahead of time. They can only base it on projections. And, as Aly Wagner pointed out during the broadcast of the draw ceremony, the USA might be better off finishing second in its group and getting the easier draw that doesn't include France. Think that doesn't make a difference? Just ask Pretty Boy about Portugal's knockout round draw at Euro 2016.
This draw was also easier than last year's men's draw for Russia in one regard. The French women's team is ranked No. 3. So, they would've been seeded anyway. Which means Group A wasn't going to automatically be the "easy" group that the unseeded teams wanted to get drawn into. In fact, Group A looks like it'll be one of the more competitive ones.
Group A: France, South Korea, Norway, Nigeria-Even if the tournament wasn't taking place in France, the French team would be one of the favorites. This draw doesn't change that. Norway was the lowest-ranked team in Pot 2, and South Korea was the highest-ranked in Pot 3, so they actually managed to S-curve the draw without even trying. The fourth team is Nigeria, which must feel relieved to be liberated from the USA-Sweden group. And I actually think they have a decent chance of advancing.
Group B: Germany, China, Spain, South Africa-Unlike their men's team in Russia, we should see the Germans easily get out of group play here. Spain was one of the worst teams at the last Women's World Cup, but has improved immensely and should be able to advance no problem. Same thing with China, which finished second at the Asian Games and third at the Asian Cup. American fans will want to pay attention to that Spain-China matchup. Because second place in Group B plays the winner of Group F in the round of 16.
Group C: Australia, Italy, Brazil, Jamaica-That USA-Sweden thing has taken on such a life of its own that it was easy to miss that it's the same thing with Australia and Brazil. This'll be the fourth straight Women's World Cup in which they'll meet. Same group in 2011 and 2019, knockout round in 2007 and 2015. Italy is back in the Women's World Cup for the first time in 20 years, while Jamaica will make its debut. Great job by them to get the third spot out of CONCACAF, but, like the Panamanian men, they're probably the weakest team in the tournament.
Group D: England, Scotland, Argentina, Japan-Someone has a sense of humor with England meeting Scotland in the first game. With Japan in this group, too, that means we have the second- and third-place finishers from 2015 in the same group (kinda like when Spain and the Netherlands ended up in the same group for the 2014 men's World Cup). That means this group, at least at the top, is the strongest. Argentina's the lowest-ranked team of the four, but I can definitely see them beating Scotland for third place.
Group E: Canada, Cameroon, New Zealand, Netherlands-There were some people who thought Canada shouldn't be seeded, but, as critical as I am of FIFA's rankings, they're No. 5, so yes they should've. And it's not like Canada's group ended up being the easy one, either. That's because No. 7 the Netherlands also ended up in this group. The Dutch went undefeated at Women's Euro 2017, winning their first major title. They'll battle it out for the top spot, which will matter, since second place takes on either the USA or Sweden in the round of 16.
Group F: United States, Thailand, Chile, Sweden-You can't have a Women's World Cup without the USA and Sweden in the same group! They should seriously just save time and make them a package deal from the start. This'll be the fifth straight Women's World Cup in which they'll meet in group play. Although, somehow Nigeria ended up out of this group for a change and the fourth regular group member, North Korea didn't qualify, so it's Thailand and Chile instead. Neither of them should be a problem for the top two, but how much the USA and Sweden beat each of them by could determine which one wins the group. Even though finishing second might result in an easier draw for the knockout round, that shouldn't matter to either the U.S. or Sweden. Not after what happened the last time they played in the Olympic quarterfinals.
As was pointed out during the draw show, the United States has never won a Women's World Cup in Europe (at least the women have won a World Cup game in Europe, unlike the men). They'll still go into the tournament as the favorites, but not overwhelmingly so. Not with a very good French team playing at home and the Olympic champions from Germany also looking strong. I really like England, too, but a lot can happen in six months. June 7 is still a long way away.
No comments:
Post a Comment