Sometimes the game is not about the winning, but about the taking part and acquitting one’s self well. Sometimes that involves simply not getting beaten. Sometimes it involves only getting beat by 2 goals, when everyone else is expecting a rout.
I can see how this might not fit well with the American psyche, but life and games aren’t just about the clear-cut victory.
Because it’s far more simple to shut down an offence than create one. Look at Switzerland vs. Spain: the Swiss closely tracked the man with the ball and even opted for a man-to-man marking in some instances to deny the more creative Spanish players even the opportunity to receive the ball without hassle.
Both can be done by physically fit players who are vigilant and/or experienced enough to not fall easily for a trick. And if you add cooperation to the individual effort (a second defender close by in dangerous positions to ensure that the attacker can’t just push the ball forward to go around the defender without meeting another one, other team mates guarding the lanes for a dangerous pass etc.), any offense will have a hard time to score.
Basically, you don’t need particularly gifted players for good defence, it can be done with reliable and hard team workers – and you’ll find these guys everywhere in abundance; but to break them open, you need talent, training and a fitting counter-strategy.
Still, no defence can prevent chances for the opposing offence completely: either the defenders make a mistake or the offence finds a way in (there is always somewhere an open space for a vertical or diagonal pass, a quick attacker or a sharp shooter) but they still need to get the ball behind the line, which means: every missed chance is another opportunity irrevocably gone by in a limited amount of time while any mistake by the defence might still result in nothing but a brillant save or an embarrasing blunder.
So, the odds are in favour of the defence but defence neither wins games nor tournaments. Inter Mailand won the Champions League this year against far more offence oriented teams like Barcelona and Bayern München/Munich. But they wouldn’t have done so without a brilliant attack, perfectly suited for quick and decisive counter strikes.
North Korea vs. Brazil has shown the limits of a defence that isn’t unburdened from time to time by a competent attack that forces the opponent to reconsider its approach aka reposition its own defence to rather safeguard the own goal instead of focusing on a supporting role for the attack.
In comparison, Switzerland was less defensive oriented while Spain was less organized in their backward movement. The result was still a fluke, if they replay the game ten times, I doubt that the Swiss would win more than twice, but it wasn’t unfair: Switzerland earned it with hard work and Spain deserved it for their mediocre play.
Still, I am a bit surprised that defensive strategy is once again so much the focus of a team’s efforts. Spain demonstrated not just the beauty of a relentless attacking game two years ago but also its effectiveness even against tactically astute and disciplined teams.
But now quick offence powers like Portugal and Côte d’Ivoire show us positionally perfect defence while playing an offence that seems cluttered and slow.
But it’s only the first round; the offence will find ways to adapt to the present defensive plans. I still expect a better attacking game in the following rounds.
Whenever you have a generally low-score sport, lucky goals are going to be important sometimes. But i’d say that the basic point is that, even when a goal is lucky (or unlucky ;)), the situation that allowed that luck to happen was still the result of normal play. If a spot of luck goal crops up 1 time out of 10, that still requires your team to be able to create 10 opportunities on goal. Or to have such particular excellence in terms of a player or skill that they can make the maximum opportunity even of one chance. And once that lucky goal is in, you need to be prepared for what now is a yet more desperate counter-attack.
Just having the ball, even having a chance at goal, doesn’t mean anything if you’re not able to actually do anything with it.
Beyond that, it was just one match. There are others! 
Try the game about to start Argentina vs Korea Republic
That’s why I would recommend Americans watch the Champions League rather than the World Cup, at least for starters.
I command you to like soccer! :d
I’m still not sure he meant to shoot on goal. It looked more like a muffed cross that happened to be a perfect near-post shot to me - in fact just before the “shot” you can see him look back towards the center of the box for a cross target. Did Maicon ever come out and say he was shooting to score there?
As has been said, a low-scoring game doesn’t equate to tedium.
Each goal matters so much that every opportunity brings with it an immense burst of excitement. Even if no goal is scored.
For example. If I stood you up against a wall and let loose into the air with a sub-machine gun,you’d be perturbed but wouldn’t be too concerned by each individual shot.
The same wouldn’t be said if I started randomly firing a pistol in your direction. I suspect you’d find a great deal of interest in every squeeze of the trigger…hit or miss!
I’ll preface my comments with: I have nothing against soccer; I have enjoyed many a match on the TV and in person.
That said, I’ll tell you what is tedium, and by no means is this exclusive to soccer, but the scoring once early then playing keep-away for the 80 minutes remaining in the game. I understand it’s a viable strategy, especially if a team is really bad or physically outmatched, but games like that make me change the channel to golf or bowling or any other sporting event where something is actually happening.
The OP isn’t complaining about low scoring. He/she is complaining about low granularity of scoring, I think, which makes soccer scores a relatively poor reflection of the standard of the teams’ play. It’s a fair point, but things can lean too far the other way, so that you have sports where the stronger team is almost bound to win by amassing a higher number of less important scores.
If you really want to learn to love soccer, have a kid that plays at the youth level. You will learn the game inside out and will appreciate every contribution to every play by every player on the field.
I played football ( american ) and baseball as a kid. I didn’t know much about it when my own kid started playing soccer but I now, eight years later.
I’d write more but I gotta go. Mexico just scored!
Dude! Spoiler boxes are your friends.
I’m on a DVR schedule here.
Yep. As a sage of another game once said, luck is the residue of design. Good teams are not good because they are lucky so much as they are lucky because they are good.
Generally, the best team will win, but not always. Part of the attraction of Football is that upsets are always possible, as it’s low scoring and a single moment can change a game. Statistically, there are more upsets in football than in most major sports for this reason. This keeps the fans on their toes, they know not to take anything for granted.
This hasn’t been the most exciting world cup for a number of reasons. The first round matches tend to be a bit cagey, as teams don’t want to lose. It’s easier for a team to defend than attack, so we’ve seen many teams try to block out the opposition. If you genuinely want to give the sport a try, I suggest watching one of the more adventurous teams, like Argentina or Germany.
He sure didn’t strike it like a cross. Looked like a shot all the way to me. Hit it too hard for a cross and looked to me like he put the spin to bend it in. I think he was shooting.
He looks backwards to pick out an open man and opens his hips to pull the ball back across the goal. It was a mishit cross.