Football: Five good reasons why football's greatest showcase is turning into a goalfest

Jurgen Klinsmann has the US playing a midfield diamond formation. Picture / AP

1. There are more teams with World Cup experience

World Cup novices - nations making their debuts or those whose players have no World Cup experience - score a lot fewer goals than established World Cup nations - less than half as many, on average, in tournaments since 1974.

And games involving novices have tended to be significantly lower-scoring on average, even taking into account the occasional thrashing (Portugal 7 North Korea 0, Yugoslavia 9 Zaire 0).

This pattern has become even more pronounced since 1990, widely regarded as Zero Hour for turgid, defensive World Cup football.

This stands to reason. Teams who are new to the World Cup are more likely to be weaker or inexperienced, and more likely to exercise caution. They have a greater incentive to make the game tight and try to keep the score down.

There is only one debutant this time round: Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is the same as in South Africa, when Slovakia were the only team making their first appearance.

But that tournament also featured a number of World Cup novices: Algeria were making their first appearance in 24 years, New Zealand and Honduras their first in 28, North Korea their first in 44.

This time, with the exception of Bosnia, every country has played a World Cup in the last 16 years. Every country except Bosnia has a player in their squad with previous World Cup experience.

This is unprecedented. And it may go some way to explaining why teams have been so much more comfortable going on the attack.

2. The overall standard of the field is higher, and there is a more even spread of talent
At this tournament, 22 of the 23 top countries in the world rankings are in Brazil. Ukraine (16th) are the only absentees. In South Africa, the countries ranked 10th, 11th and 12th (Croatia, Russia and Egypt) were absent.

Comparing the world rankings of the countries in this World Cup to the rankings of countries who were in South Africa reveals how much stronger this tournament is.

The gap between the best and the worst has narrowed. The best countries are not as good as they were in 2010, and the worst countries aren't as bad. The best team going into the 2010 World Cup was Brazil, with 1611 ranking points, and the worst North Korea with 285 - a difference of 1326. This time, the best team is Spain (1485 points) and the worst Australia (526) - a spread of 959.

Why is this relevant? Imagine you are a no-hoper going into the World Cup ranked 105 in the world. You have got three of the world's best teams in your group. What tactics are you going to play?

If you answered 5-4-1, then you are correct. North Korea in 2010 didn't so much park the bus as park an entire row of PT-85 tanks. It did not quite work, but at least they were able to return to their wonderful country at the first possible opportunity.

3. There has been a greater diversity of tactics
The last World Cup saw an overwhelming bias towards the prevailing formation of the time, 4-2-3-1. Naturally, there are different sorts of 4-2-3-1, but by and large that was blueprint, and only a few countries deviated from it, a handful of countries playing 5-4-1 with an extra defender.

This time, 4-2-3-1 may still be the dominant force, but other styles are beginning to evolve. The United States under Jurgen Klinsmann play a midfield diamond. Louis van Gaal used a reactive, counter-punching 3-4-3 against Spain. A lot of the smaller countries have gone with a variant of the two-striker system.

How is this playing out on the pitch? More direct football and more incisive passing. The average number of passes leading to a goal at World Cup 2010 was 2.91; this year it is 2.63.

4. This is a golden age of attacking football, and teams are not defending as well as they used to
This is hard to prove outright.

What is true is that in the big four European leagues - the English Premier League, La Liga, Serie A and the Bundesliga, where more than 50 per cent of the players at the World Cup play their club football - the average number of goals per game has been increasing for some years.

It is most noticeable in the Premier League, but it has been happening across the board.

We live in a glorious age of attackers - Messi, Ronaldo, Suarez, Ibrahimovic, Cavani, Bale, Aguero, Robben, Falcao, Van Persie, Neymar - and yet genuinely great defenders are thin on the ground.

5. More goals are scored in warmer weatherSouth Africa was cold.
This World Cup has been pretty warm. Uncomfortably warm, in parts. Perhaps the conditions might be contributing to games opening up.

"Certainly they're playing a part," Australia coach Ange Postecoglou said yesterday. "It's contributed to the openness of the competition, because games get spread in warmer climates."

If teams run less in hot temperatures, it would make them less effective at pressing, and covering gaps in the defence. And more open space on the football pitch generally translates to more goals.

Nothing concrete, it's just a theory.

Hard times for keepers
• 49 goals after initial 16 group games
• Average of 3.06 goals a game
• Average is higher than at any World Cup since 1958.
• In 2010 World Cup: 25 goals after initial 16 group games
• Scoring average at all completed World Cups: 2.86 goals a game.
• Highest scoring average at a World Cup: 5.38 goals a game (Switzerland, 1954).