Um, you do realize that Brazil scored 3 goals in a half against Egypt and Italy right? And 3 in 62 minutes against the US. Thats not lucky. They’re really good.

Now that is spoken like someone informed about the game as is this fine writing by Andy again!
“Choke job” is just rhetoric from either those who never played the game or who just did not watch the replays. Brazil EARNED every single goal. There were no red cards or other “controversies” to blame this time. The turn-around goal from Fabiano was a goal of classic beauty, as our defender was not off him by much and yet still that was too much.
Brazil is so good that they can play an imperfect game and still win, whilst your team must play a perfect game to beat them.
This has been the case also historically with Brazil for the most part in the World Cup and at high levels of international play. The lone US win over a second-select Brazilian team in 1998 certainly is impressive nonetheless, but that was not the highest level of world play anyway.
The good news is that at last our US team is a serious threat to any team on the globe now such that we will not be taken for granted again by such teams.

Unfortunate that Brazil was up to the task. They are playing at an extremely high level right now and to get a 2 goal lead against them is something to work from.

Although I do not see where pace entered into Luis Fabiano’s first goal.

I was trying to say the goal happened quickly. Bad phrasing, I see now.

Although I do not see where pace entered into Luis Fabiano’s first goal. He excellently turned and struck the ball with the defender on his back, in the manner of Torres and Zlatan.

He peaked 2 years ago and stopped working. He’s gotten lazy, self-centered and overweight and still thinks he’s better than the rest of the pack.

Think of the Shaq post-three titles in LA but pre-trade to Miami.

And no, it’s not a choke job. 2-0 leads are not insurmountable in soccer at all — see: Liverpool v AC Milan 2005 for the easiest example.

No. And if I had, I probably would’ve spelled Sacha and Jonathan right.

Hutchins > Cardillo

Dear Andy,

Here is an excellent, and interesting, post by the Washington Post’s well known soccer blogger, Steven Goff:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2009/06/usa-brazil_rewind.html

It’s interesting because I think you could at least given him a hat tip or acknowledment since you stole your NCAA tournament analogy from him.

Also not stolen. I did read a few things on my own, though from none of the sources you’ve listed, but I came up with my own thoughts. If you want to go check my Twitter from last night, you can see I was yapping about that metaphor then, too.

Simply put: There’s a lot of soccer talk on the Intertubes right now. Much of it is going to overlap. Some of it may be lifted from other places. But mine isn’t. Thanks for asking, though.

“Without midfielder Michael Bradley, out thanks to a silly red card against Spain, his father/coach Bob had no go-to substitutes; Brazil’s Dunga could pluck Elano and Dani Alves from the bench.€

from the excellent That’s On Point soccer blog, since it stated the same point twice yesterday in very similar language:

” 2. Immediately after Brazil leveled it at 2-2, who were the subs Bob Bradley put in? Sascha Kljestan and Jon Bornstein. Not to single these two guys out. But on the other side Dunga is throwing on Elano and Dani Alves.€

http://thatsonpoint.blogspot.com/2009/06/tough-kaka.html

“As I mentioned before, Dunga had the likes of Dani Alves and Elano off the bench. Bradley had Sacha Kljestan and and Jonathon Bornstein.€

http://thatsonpoint.blogspot.com/2009/06/breaking-bad-or-good.html

No. And if I had, I probably would’ve spelled Sacha and Jonathan right. I do a lot of things wrong, I’m sure, but plagiarism isn’t one of them.