Even if I have to start it up myself.

How's this for a potential story-line: the US Men's National team, having now out-played the two greatest European soccer dynasties at the two most recent World Cups, gets a chance to pull the trifecta on another dynasty, Brazil, in the second round?

Yes, I know I'm getting a game ahead of myself, but I legitimately believe that we will beat Ghana, and that Italy has the depth and youth to recover quicker than an aged Czech side and beat them as well, sending us both through to the second round. There of course, we would be meeting Brazil. But even more, a somewhat lethargic-looking Brazil so far.

Not that Brazil is likely to remain lethargic up to our potential meeting. Brazil has such skill and raw ability to win that they can seemingly turn it up just enough to most of the time guarantee a win at a minimum, and usually when it counts, a stylish win at that (1994-edition excepted).

And no matter what you do, you can't possibly over-state the enormity of task that would then be upon us.

• Brazil's results in the 7 tournaments since 1958 that they didn't win (5 times they won):
  
  • 1966 didn't advance out of group play
  • 1974 lost 2-0 to Cruyff's Netherlands
  • 1978 lost on goal differential at second group phase to Argentina
  • 1982 lost to eventual champions Italy in second round
  • 1986 lost to Platini's France
  • 1990 lost to semi-finalists and defending champions Argentina in second round
  • 1998 lost in Finals to France.

  To be blunt: only great teams beat them once they get out of their group.
  

  • The US has only one second round win in the modern era (doesn't matter if you start in 1950 or 1990, since there was nothing in between!).
  • Ronaldinho, Adriano, Kaka, Carlos, Cafu, Dida, Emerson, Robinho, and on and on, not even including a woefully out-of-form Ronaldo.
  • Keller, Reyna, McBride, Donovan, O'Brien (?), Dempsey, Onyewu, Johnson, Beasley, Convey, and that's about it right now that I think have really proven themselves. Lewis and Cherundolo just haven't taken advantage of the opportunities they've gotten to put dangerous balls in, and Bocanegra I just haven't seen enough of. Unfortunately, I'm done with Eddie Pope. Mental mistakes should be the sorts of things you don't have to worry about veterans making. To say that there's a gulf in the comparative salaries and reputations of the respective rosters is still probably understating the difference.
  • The US still hasn't scored a goal in the tournament, and has only even taken but a handful of shots. A couple shots that were certainly dangerous, but at some point in order to win games you've got to be directly responsible for at least one or two of the balls that wind up in your opponents nets.
  • The US to-date has yet to win a competitive match on European soil, not that that means much, and I think that will have changed by the time a Brazil game is possible, but it's still true right now.

  So I think that probably puts the scale of the job-at-hand (or to be more accurate, nearly-at-hand) in proper perspective. So what about that story-line?

  Despite the fact that the US lost to Germany in 2002 and only tied Italy this year, almost universally observers considered the US to be the better team on the day. Being able to say that you were the "better team" in a World Cup game than the two teams second and third respectively on the list of all time championships is a pretty nice accomplishment. Not as nice as being able to say that you actually BEAT them mind you, but still highly remarkable.

  Everybody says things come in 3's, both good and bad, so why not Brazil as our third? Yes it might be early for us to get our third wonderful result so soon after our second (and as satisfactory as beating Mexico is to me personally, they are historically an underachiever, not proven champions, and thus don't count), and even moreso presumptuous to hope for it to come against Brazil, but why not?

  I'm feeling list-happy today:
  

  • Once you are in the knockout rounds, the saying goes that anything can happen, and this is one of those clichés that actually is true.
  • Kasey Keller was in the nets the one and only time we beat Brazil in a "competitive" match, 1-0 in the 1998 CONCACAF Gold Cup
  • The benefits of having a young and fearless team, especially that has been recently given a personal object lesson why you don't play timidly at the World Cup, may legitimately be about the best you can hope for until we start cranking them out year after year like Brazil does.
  • That being the case, this is a beatable Brazil, and our team is absolutely capable of beating them as well. If we somehow figure out how to shoot in the Ghana match.
  See (One Earned, Three Left to Claim) if you want to get a little more exercised.