I think maybe too many people pointed to the U.S. being undefeated against Panama in Gold Cup play. Way to jinx it, guys.

Anyway, the obvious storyline is that the central defense played badly in the first half. They certainly did, but there may have been a chain reaction up the field that helped contribute. Part of the reason Panama's forwards were able to give Clarence Goodson and Tim Ream so much trouble was something Kyle Martino pointed out in the broadcast, namely that the midfield was giving up too much space. Jermaine Jones seemed to struggle with this, in particular -- he made some good tackles here and there, but his read of the game seemed off.

Which, in turn, makes me wonder, why yield so much possessions in the center of the field? I have a hunch that Clint Dempsey and Landon Donovan (possibly the two players on the team most likely to take Panama lightly) might have been shirking their defensive duties, so both central midfielders would have been more tentative in committing so that Panama couldn't just march up the flanks. I'd have to watch the game again to be sure, and I'm not that kind of masochist.

And through what commentary I've seen on TV and online about the match, I haven't seen anyone point out how badly Goodson blew the offside trap on the first Panama goal. If it was just Carlos Bocanegra stepping with his arm up on the play, I would have thought maybe it was an ill-advised trap, but Ream looked like he was on the same wavelength. Stepping up after the initial effort on a set piece is pretty much standard operating procedure, but Goodson apparently didn't get the memo, and ended up keeping all three Panamanians on. So while his goal was well-taken, it wasn't quite enough to get him out of the doghouse on the night.

From last night's Revolution-Timbers match report, towards the bottom:

“The bottom line is we didn’t pass the ball well so it wouldn’t have mattered who we played tonight," [Revolution coach Steve] Nicol said. "We didn’t pass the ball at all, all night, and when that happens, you’re going to struggle.”

This may be the first time I've seen Nicol actually state that not getting a result was his team's fault, and not because of the refs, scheduling, sun spots, etc.

Is Nicol getting soft after so many years of failure? All I know is that if he ever does this after a Fire match, you know the apocalypse is nigh.

We're one game in the Chicago Fire's 2011 campaign, and what have we learned? After trying to play coy about his formation, Carlos de los Cobos did come out with a 3-5-2 that included "surprise" starts by Michael Videira over Baggio Husidic in the central midfield and Bratislav Ristic over Patrick Nyarko on one of the wings.

This, effectively, aligned the Fire (that's "the Fire," because it sounds completely asinine to just say "Fire" as the unfortunate consequence of that Europoseur habit leaving the "the" off when you use the full name of the team) in a 7-1-2 with three defenders, two fullbacks in the midfield and two holding midfielders. So it shouldn't come as any kind of surprise that players were running into each other throughout much of the first half, until de los Cobos had to replace Ristic with Nyarko due to injury and dropped Segares to left back.

Remember, this is the guy who was brought in because Denis Hamlett was too defensive.

Anyway, it did get sorted out, so some of this is my normal venting of bile about a head coach who I think is overrated and hasn't proved he can succeed in this league at all. I'm willing to entertain the notion that last year was a mismatch between players and coach, and that with all the roster turnover, de los Cobos has a team that can play his "style."

Then again, we were also outshot 12-2 in the first half despite that very conservative lineup.

Our two new Uruguayan forwards showed considerable promise, though. Diego Chaves scored a good, opportunistic goal off of a rebound, and almost had another in the second half. Yes, Gaston Puerari was stopped on a breakaway, but I don't think his decision to shoot with the outside of his foot was the wrong one. It was an excellent save from Kevin Hartman, who then came up huge on two long shots from Logan Pause and Marco Pappa to preserve the draw.

Speaking of Pappa, my biggest concern this year is that we will once again designate him the focal point of the Fire attack. He's a very good player, and capable of some sparkling plays, but the best way I can put it is that he's not the kind of attacker who can impose his will on a play, or on a game. So the more we expect him to, the more he's going to struggle like in the second half of last season. He flourished with Blanco on the field, because opponents had their hands full already. It was easier to pick his spots. If he's got to create his own spots, that's a totally different skill set, and one that I don't think the young Guatemalan has yet.

As for the other newcomers, I thought Michael Videira struggled in his starting role. Too many passes to the wrong team for my liking. The new-look backline of Mikulic, Anibaba and Gibbs eventually got settled, and showed why the team was talking them up after the preseason. Gibbs was steady, Anibaba showed his athleticism in going after a couple of tackles that might have been out of his reach, and Mikulic was a beast. He had one tackle after the Brek Shea red card that had the fans riled up, but it was clean, well-timed and righteously devastating.

That red card -- and that tackle -- were a couple of exclamation points on a physical matchup that finally got this rivalry back into the spirit of the Brimstone Cup. There was some bad blood out there, and there really hasn't been in a long time between these two clubs.

Could the Fire have escaped Texas with all three points? Definitely. How much of a letdown that is will be subjective, and based largely on how easy you think it is to shoot a soccer ball three feet farther to the left from twenty yards or place a ball 1-on-1 when you're at full speed, but if you came into the match asking if a point on the road against a team we've historically struggled against, I'd have taken it.