I'm wondering why head-to-head results aren't placed higher on the tiebreakers list. If two teams are tied in points and one team beats the other, why shouldn't they get the advantage even if they had a worse goal difference(like Sweden over Uruguay in '70 or Scotland over Holland in '78)?
IMO, there were plenty of games in the first set of group games where teams settled for a 1-0 loss to limit the goal difference.
Well, they don't want to completetly ignore that good defenses is important and should still be rewarded. I think the reality is that GD is probably the best single stat to dictate performance in the knockout rounds, and since decided who is the best to move into the KO rounds is the entire point of the group stages, I think they have it about right. Fluky stuff can happy in the WC. get sent off with a red card, PK decides a game, key player get injured, etc. GD gives you an average of performance over several games.
If you have a team settling for a loss instead of taking a "risk" of going for a draw for the fear of losing 2-0, then the tiebreaker is wrong.
I don't think any team is "settling" for being down a goal in the group stages unless they are a minnow playing against one of the top teams. The chance they come back and beat such a superior team is nearly zero. But what does it matter if the win is only going to give you an edge head to head with the team you are going to beat/lose to? There are two other teams, too. You would be happy winning with 1-0, instead of trying to pad your GD.