Why teams won't shut up shop in the World Cup knockout phase

There is an underlying tension in this World Cup — when is it going to start looking less like 1986 and more like 2010? Or, put another way, when is it going to stop being good and start being boring?

The barstool answer is “in the knockout stages.” After all, one theory goes, teams are freer to attack in the group stages because goal differential counts for quite a lot when they’re are tied on points.

Goal differential, for example, is what saw the United States go through to the round of 16 and not Portugal, both tied on 4 points each. Had the latter not coughed up four goals to Germany in their first group stage game, their 2-1 win against Ghana might have seen them through.

That sounds right, but several teams also won by two-goal margins even when the differential didn’t play a major role. Spain, already out of the tournament, beat Australia 0-3 in their final match. Colombia already qualified for the next round, yet hammered Japan 1-4.

This theory also doesn’t explain the comparatively low-scoring group stage matches four years ago in South Africa, in which three groups only featured one match where a team won by at least two goals. The group stage goal per game average that year was 2.1, compared to this year’s 2.83.

But we’re getting away from the issue. Goals are important, but what really matters is style. Though it’s foolish to make sweeping statements about 48 individual matches between 32 teams (just watch me), in contrast to 2010, this tournament has involved a lot of aesthetically pleasing counterattacking football, with sides dropping deep to defend only to use speed and quick thinking to score while the opposition tracks back to defend.

Perhaps they read a bit about game states and the importance of creating space to raise your chances of scoring in attack. Whatever the reason, the strategy not only works well for already dominant sides, but offers lesser teams a better option than the old “shell for penalties” approach, which has long marred international football at the World Cup.

That defensively conservative strategy worked well when it worked, but it was also very risky. Parking the bus, for example, doesn’t have much of an answer to the 80th minute goal.  

So back to the question: Will teams shut up shop and stop playing with abandon in the round of 16 in order to push the game to penalties?

A glance at the teams in the round of 16 reveals an array of attacking strength. Chile won’t shut up shop against Brazil because Brazil looks vulnerable and Chile, save for putting a heap of responsibility on Alexis Sanchez against Netherlands, isn’t built for 90 minutes of clogging the centre of the pitch.

Colombia will likely believe the attacking dynamism of James Rodriguez and co. will power them past a Suarez-less Uruguay.  

Algeria will use their speed to work the counter against Germany, much as Ghana did in their 2-2 group stage draw. Costa Rica will use the same brand of football to find a way past Greece, the U.S. will draw Belgium forward and then attempt to use speed and passing intelligence to find Bradley ahead of the play.

Or none of these things will happen, and the World Cup will go back to resembling the dirge it's sometimes become in recent years. While I doubt that will happen, we will always have the group stages.