Revisiting Michael Orozco

It's quite possible that I was a little hard on Michael Orozco earlier today. Especially as some of the comments were trying to defend Orozco's actions in the third minute.

Yeah, it was a harsh call by the referee. If I were him, I would probably only caution Orozco for that elbow. Regardless, he threw one and then the ref tossed him.

But of course, lost in my post earlier today was the fact that Team USA played hard, played well and really should have tied the Nigerians in the waning moments of that game.

Somehow, the United States out-hustled and out-paced Nigeria in the last 15 minutes and probably deserved an equaliser at the least. If Charles Davies only got a good strike on the ball; if Benny Feilhaber's header was an inch lower; if the U.S. had capitalized on the open goal late in the game, then we'd see the Americans playing in the quarterfinals.

But they aren't. Effort wasn't good enough on this day.

And it's not to say that it's all on Orozco, cause it really isn't. That's kind of the superficial reason as to why the U.S. lost.

There were a few times during the game, especially in the first half, that I thought that the U.S. was a little leggy and where their tactics failed them. In the first half, Team USA played too low, didn't get up field enough and that created the pressure that had the Americans on their heels when that first goal was scored.

Same thing happened on the second goal for Nigeria.

The U.S. could have tied. They could have salvaged a point. They could have been in the quarterfinals. And maybe that's why I and most everyone else who watched was so upset.

Orozco is the easy scapegoat. Bad luck and a few mental lapses is the real reason why the Americans did not advance.