Jamaica plays like underdogs must play--you park the bus and make it difficult for the superior opponent to score. Unlike every other sport, soccer gives underdogs a chance because it's hard to score, period, and doubly so when your opponent has 8/9 defenders in front of its box plus the keeper. I've seen a million games like Jamaica--Brazil, as every soccer fan has--and of course Germany is now astoundingly out of the tourney because Korea played the same way Jamaica played--not surprisingly--and also got a result. The thing is, these types of games are not good soccer matches and they're not entertaining either, IMO. You don't get good soccer when only one team wants to come out and play. I give Morocco credit because they apparently came out and played--at least to a certain degree--against Colombia. I didn't see but a small portion of the match late in the 2nd half--but the stats show that they came out and played. The Japan v. Spain game was similar but different: Japan sat back in a low block as well, but Japan is talented and smart and experienced, and they produced 3 counter-attacks that each resulted in goals in the first half. The score was a complete anomaly: Japan could beat Spain again if they played, but to score four goals with only 20 percent possession is practically unheard of. I want to see two good teams come out and play--and especially so in the WC. Parking the bus may get results, but it doesn't make for good soccer matches.
There are lots of sports where teams take a low risk, defensive oriented approach. Even today's NFl still has a few ground and pound, defensive oriented teams. Baseball, using 3-4 relief pitchers is a defensive-oriented strategy.
Jose Mourinho used this low block, counter attack style to win numerous league titles and champions league titles with teams that were loaded with talent - Chelsea, Inter Milan, Real Madrid among his former clubs. However, I agree that this strategy is most commonly used by teams that are over matched.
But. over matched teams, who are lower in the table, are there because they can't win enough games playing that way. They eventually crack and concede a goal or goals.
However, when you get a team that is really good at this style of play, it can be entertaining (unless you are pulling for the opponent). The Japan was a great game. I think the Brazil-Jamaica was interesting as heck. It was not like Brazil played a bad game. I was super attentive to Marta, given the chance this could be her last time on the world stage. She played well. Her movement off the ball was excellent. She did a great job maintaining possession pressure and she played some very dangerous passes to Debina and others. But nothing worked because Jamaica never lost track of a runner into the box, never failed to close down , and never lost their shape. It was a remarkable performance, even if they were not putting much effort into the attack. Shaw was not 100% because she did not have her usual burst on the counter attack, which took away much of Jamiaca's threat.
Just to be clear, I am not disagreeing with you per se but just pointing the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To compare to baseball, some fans love nothing more than a pitching duel, whereas others want to see high scoring game with lots of home runs. Both are equally legit aesthetic preferences. But, I am just speaking up for the aesthetic and athletic value of what Jamaica did. While it may be "hard to score" in soccer, it is also equally hard to keep a clean sheet because one mistake against a good team can lead to a goal.