Argies looked good, first game was awesome, Ghana looked organised and good too, Denmark vs N'lands was very fast paced and competitive, Italy looked ok in the second half too, and we've yet to see the two favourites yet ..
Italy certainly didn't look ok, they created basically two chances and one of those was 30 yards out, ok maybe 3 chances, againts a fairly poor team, frankly they were abysmal in the first half and just less bad in the second. Up against a pretty average Paraguay side they were basically held.
They could have gotten an unlucky draw missing a dozen chances, but they couldn't create anything good.
Holland looked very poor again creating incredibly little. Denmark are a solid enough side, but a side looking to win the cup should have created a lot more chances and got more than a slim win against them.
Germany played at world cup winning level, only Argentina came close and they only managed it for the first 30 minutes then became pretty much crap. However they did create enough chances for it to have been 5-0 at the end and therein lies the difference between Argentina and the Dutch, Ghana, Italy.
Germany created a bag load of chances, and missed a sitter or two, and still won 4-0, Argentina created a similar number of chances but didn't finish them off, while looking no where near as good defensively, the rest haven't come close.
Though it also won't be that bad a world cup if it continues as is, people remember things in a different light to reality, international football is normally pretty poor with the majority of games in most world cups being just as poo as they have been so far.
Finals and semi finals tend to be teams that have played together longer and know each other better, and play better football. Much of what I really remember about world cup games is from the last few games everyone watches and thats what people tend to remember, rather than remember how damn poor the early group stage games were.