The Women's World Cup

I'm writing this sitting in a bar (where else?) in the Vienna Airport watching Das Erste (how it's being beamed into Wien, I don't know) and waiting for the second half of the Australia-Norway game to start. The deal is that the Norwegian ladies (who have one star on their jerseys, from 1995, I believe) need a win to progress to the quarterfinals; the Aussies just need a tie. By the time I finish this post, the game will be over. [UPDATE: Australia won 2-1; they now face the Germans in the quarterfinals.]

In the five previous Women's World Cups, the USA has two titles, the Norwegians have the aforementioned one, and the deutsche Frauen have the last two, plus a home field advantage for this tournament. I was in the stadium for last night's Germany-France game; I gotta say I was impressed with how it went.

First off, they can play. At this level, it's a great show. It's definitely not as flashy as the Brazilian men with their crazy footwork or as rough as the athleticism of the US men's team, but it is also mercifully devoid of the diving and rolling that characterizes the World Cup in even years not divisible by four. I don't know if this is due to women's higher threshold of pain, their capacity for honesty, or their inability to exaggerate their emotions. In any case, it is a relief to watch a game without screaming "YOU PANSY!" at the TV.

If the play itself is comparable, it's like watching a men's game as though it was played on a slightly larger field -- beautiful passes and great timing are a greater advantage in the women's game, and the opportunity for breakaway counterattacks is higher. In this respect, it seems more like hockey or basketball, and it's truly exciting. Your writer and his entourage were treated to an evening with far more corner kicks and breakaways than was to be expected. (Indeed, the game also included a red card for the French goalkeeper, which was unusual in any circumstance, and that definitely spiced things up as well. But that was exceptional.)

So enough about the "Gee, can girls play?" question. Sure they can. What about the rest of it? Why is it that Norway, a country not known for its worldwide athletic prowess outside of curling and biathlon, is a perennial favorite? If we look at the sixteen teams, what does it say about those countries that are in, and those countries that aren't?

Obviously, there is a huge correlation between the "Westness" of a country and its likelihood of playing in this tournament, with the curious exception of North Korea -- a curious exception in many respects. But Japan is here, along with the Australians and the Kiwis, and NAFTA is here. France and Germany are representing Europe's southeast coast. There is actually an unusual correlation in that countries that have great women's soccer programs are also those that tend to do well in the Winter Olympics. Perhaps it's the old Weberian Protestantism, perhaps it's the cultural liberalism in which that flourishes, but to a large extent, cultural patterns seem to show a greater correlation for success than athletic tradition.

Perhaps the wild card in this respect is the traditional (men's) soccer powerhouse of Brazil. But it shouldn't really be surprising that a country of that size with that kind of history wouldn't have a few girls who tagged along with their big brothers and eventually (after no doubt being last picked!) earned some respect from the boys. And, boy, did they learn to play, too. [UPDATE: they play the USA in the next game. Should be interesting.]

So the tournament continues. Should be fun, and should be worth watching. And maybe even the US Ladies will add a third star to their jerseys.