Perhaps the biggest factor is the team's health. With six months to go until the tournament kicks off, head coach John Herdman is having to prepare himself for the possibility that his side will be without both Diana Matheson and Lauren Sesselmann, two players that have been absolutely crucial to the team's success in recent years.
And while the meteoric rise of Kadeisha Buchanan has somewhat mitigated things on the back end, depth is undoubtedly a concern for the Canadian team. Another injury to one of the club's veteran defenders between now and the World Cup could throw the team's entire plan into disarray.
Matheson has been the beating heart of this team for a decade, and cannot be easily replaced. Jessie Fleming has already shown the intelligence and attacking spark that could make her a linchpin of the side for years to come. But she is 16 years old. It is not fair or realistic to expect that she will step into a starring role next summer (though, get back to me about that in time for the 2019 tournament).
Another huge factor affecting Canada's fate will be the answer to the question: Which Christine Sinclair will we see?
It's not an exaggeration to say that much of the team's success over the past 10 years has been due, in some part, to Sinclair's otherworldly talents. It's also been abundantly clear to those who've watched the team since the Olympics that she has lost a step. The way in which she could -- and routinely would -- grab a game by the scruff of the neck simply hasn't been evidenced over the last 18 months.
To be clear, she is still a massively talented player. And at 31, she is not "done" by any stretch of the imagination. But if Sinclair is at less than her full powers, one of the most pressing questions for Canada becomes "where will the goals come from?"
The answer, based on 2014, might be Sophie Schmidt -- she bagged nearly half of Canada's goals this past calendar year (six of 14). Will this turn out to be an anomaly, or is Schmidt merely striding into her goal-scoring prime (as a midfielder)? That remains to be seen, but it's somewhat troubling that just three of those 14 goals came from Canadian strikers (one each for Sinclair, Adriana Leon and Jonelle Filigno).
Melissa Tancredi appears to have rounded back into full match fitness, but like Sinclair, she seemed to be providing a once-in-a-lifetime performance at the London Games. Can Tancredi, who'll be 33 next summer, recapture that magic?
Now, given the extent to which this tournament is -- in Canada, anyway -- built on the troublesome narrative that Canada is going to breeze its way into the deep stages of the tournament, a la its heroic run in London, questions such as these make some people uncomfortable.
After all, these are Canada's sweethearts, right? This is all going to come together in front of the home fans, right? This is one of the world's top teams and anyone questioning their ability to reach the podium is simply a "hater", right?
Well... yes, maybe and no.
So many people seem to forget (or perhaps never knew to begin with) that just a year before the London Olympics, Canada finished dead last at the 2011 Women's World Cup. It was, more or less, the same roster. The most significant change was John Herdman replacing Carolina Morace as head coach. And while that transition surely had a profound impact, there's another factor at play as well.
In short tournaments, you just never know.
World Cups don't, much as they may claim to do, determine the "best" team in the world. Sure, you need to be a very, very good team in order to win. But you also need to have, somewhere along the line, been the beneficiary of some good fortune, either on or off the field.
That begins with the health and form of your players. It extends through the draw, which determines which other teams you'll match up against. And it carries through the competition where, with so few games to separate the teams, every tiny event -- a fluctuation in weather,a key referee's decision, players' individual movements at vital moments in the game -- can have huge ramifications.
France utterly humiliated Canada at the 2011 Women's World Cup. One year later, they were the team that fell short of bronze thanks to Matheson's dramatic last-minute winner. And while Canada earned that medal by playing a great tournament, they were also the beneficiary of some good fortune -- specifically, France's utter inability to finish the myriad scoring opportunities it created in that third-place showdown.
All of this may seem like a way of indirectly saying that Canada is doomed to fail at this tournament. So let me make it very clear -- that is not what I'm saying.
After all, this is a team that -- despite missing Sesselmann and Tancredi, and despite Sinclair's slide in goal-scoring production -- was able to play solid, competitive matches against the world's top three teams (USA, Germany and Japan) over the course of the last 12 months.
That is not coincidence. Canada is not at the level of those teams, but our ability to hang with them is a sign that, when the stars align in our favour, we can be a dangerous squad.
So yes, it is entirely reasonable to think that Canada will defeat China, New Zealand and the Netherlands. And it is entirely reasonable to think that, should that happen, Canada will also defeat whichever third-place team we meet in the Round of 16.
Then you've got the quarterfinals. Two wins away from the final. That's when the prime-time teams start stepping up. That is the stage where Canada -- if we make it that far, which again is no sure thing -- will most likely be the underdog.
But, once more, it's a short tournament. As I've said before, Team A might be able to beat Team B on 99 occasions out of 100, which would logically mean that Team A is the better team. But if Team B is able to get the stars to align in just the right way, at just the right time, in the knockout stages of a big tournament... that's when everything changes. We almost saw that happen in the semifinals back in London.
We should win our group next summer. We should challenge for the quarterfinals.
But the narrative that Canada is destined to march into the semifinals or even the finals is, to put it quite simply, fluff. Today's draw doesn't change that fundamental fact.
Fluff is fine for those whose job it is to move tickets. But you shouldn't need such fluff to convince you this tournament is worth following, or that this team is worth supporting.
Cheer for Canada because it's our team, not because anything is guaranteed about how they're going to do.
And support this tournament -- i.e. buy some tickets and get to the stadium(s), if it's feasible for you to do -- because it's the best opportunity that Canada has had to show the world that this sport means something to us.