The Swiss may not have invented what came to be called the "Swiss Lock" or "Bunker" defense, but it was used very effectively in the matches between USA and Iran
See the data below for your analysis

Historical background:
• USA and Iran National mens team met in the World Cup 1998. The USA and Iran were Political Rivals during the1970s up till the early 1990s.
• The same two teams met again in January 2000 in the Rose Bowl, California, in a sporting event that would have been unheard of in the past.
• In the 1998 World Cup , The USA mens team lost 2-1 to the Iranians.
• The traditionally neutral Swiss played an important part in this drama. In the 1950s, the Swiss were widely known for their use of the "Swiss Lock" or "Bunker" defense and according to the game data captured by SoftSport the same defensive tactic was used by Iran in both matches against the USA mens team.
• In the FIFA ranking system, Iran is placed much lower than the USA, and yet in the two match ups between Iran and USA, the Iranians pulled off a win and a tie.
• SoftSports data shows that both games played by the USA were almost identical as shown in the four diagrams of completed and lost passes. The Iranians surely liked their win during the WC98 against the USA and could not be blamed for trying to duplicate the feat in the Jan 2000 match.
• The data shows that the USA team had the advantage over Iran in most of the categories but could not translate them into opportunities. The diagram shows that the USA team completed many of its passes around 25-30 meters in front of the goal, but could not penetrate the penalty area of Iran ( it looked like a wall stopped the USA attack - the "Bunker Defense of Iran")

From the data we can see that the USA attack in both matches was very similar :
• They incorporated the same strategic players: Hejduk, Jones, Reyna and McBride
• They utilized the same style of game in both matches with long passes into the Penalty area in front of the goal aiming for McBride to head the ball in the goal.
• It is very obvious that the strategy did not work against the Iranian "Bunker" defense. The ball was repeatedly intercepted in front of the goal .

• This brings several questions to mind
• Would a different type of attack have produced better results?
• Would an attack down the goal-line from the sides crossing the ball into the penalty area have created more opportunities to score?
• Would an attack with more short passes than long ones in the air have created more opportunities for them to keep possesion of the ball?
• Were the American Coaches aware that they had been "bitten" by an older but classic defense?
• If the USA coach had became aware of the "bunker" during the game, could he have done anything about it?
• Would a different combination of players have done the trick?
• Did the American Coaches in the second match learn nothing from history?