Defense
Not much has changed here. Most teams operate with a flat back four zonal defense. At most one team appears to be playing with three defenders, that being Chile. Definitely no more sweepers. Central defenders by and large maintain their position, with the exception of Lucio from Brasil who does venture forward occasionally. The outside defenders do move wide, mostly for the purpose of building the attack from the back making themselves available for an outlet pass. Surprisingly, there aren't as many overlapping runs by outside defenders because...
Midfield
Most teams play with two central, largely defensive (or holding) midfielders. Their job is to win the ball in the middle of the field and quarterback the attack. Usually one is more defensively oriented while the other is more adventurous in moving forward. A good example of flexibility in this position is Germany. With Ballack out, Schweinsteiger and Khedira take turns with penetrating runs through the middle while the other then stays back.
There are two predominat styles using the two central midfielders. One is within the classic 4-4-2 offering two wide midfielders. The other, seemingly more popular, is playing with three attacking midfielders in front of a single striker. Two of the three usually play wide while one supports the striker more centrally. The key observation is that in the better teams these three midfielders interchange position thus making covering them more difficult. Another benefit are quick runs through the zonal defense thus avoiding off-side and getting into scoring positions or crossing positions from within the penalty box.
A few teams play a 4-3-3 on paper, although when looking how it functions it looks more like a 4-5-1, the notable exception was Paraguay against Slovakia, playing with the three true forwards - reminiscent of days long gone by.
Attack
As mentionned above, usually one or two strikers. It would seem that the lone striker system is only effective when one of the central midfielders supports them. Which then raises the question: Why not play with two strikers in the first place? It also seems that teams that play this 4-2-3-1 revert to a 4-4-2 when they need to score.
Transition
We are seeing about an equal amount of slow , possession style build-ups from the back and fast break transitions. It seems to depend on the amount of defense facing the team with the ball. Spain in their first half against Switzerland played the slow build up almost (if not totally) to a fault. When they needed to score in the second half, they played a much faster and more effective game. No coincidence that this was helped by a second all out striker. Surprisingly, Brasil is playing the ball out of the back much faster than they used to. Germany is playing a mix of possession with sudden penetrating runs/passes through the gaps in the defense, and fast break attack when the opponent isn't regrouped defensively.
Opinion
I can see why lower ranked or underdog teams play a 4-2-3-1 - it gives them the best chance of not getting scored on - witness New Zealand against Italy. Skilled and better teams have no reason to play a slow possession game and act with one striker. Every time they do, they slow themselves down. When they need to attack, they quickly switch to two or even three strikers and dominate the opposition. Why not start out that way and set the tone from the beginning. I believe a lot of scores are close because the better teams are actually too afraid of the underdogs, too worried about being embarrassed.
Enjoy the rest of the tournament
Our Practice Books And Resources
Kids Soccer Drills & Practices
Youth Soccer Drills & Practices
Competitive Soccer Drills & Practices
Fast Break Soccer - Competitive Pro
Soccer Goalie Drills & Practices
