By Ridge Mahoney, Senior Editor

Nine goals scored and none conceded at the Gold Cup might suggest the U.S. national team has made significant strides, especially in light of its failure to garner a point at the Confederations Cup.

Yet all the U.S. has done is beat three regional rivals it should beat at a venue where it has never lost. (For this argument were are melding results at Foxboro Stadium and its gleaming replacement, Gillette Stadium).

No, whupping up on El Salvador and the islanders of Martinique and Cuba won't mean anything unless the Americans can beat Brazil's under-23 in the semifinals Wednesday.

Coach Bruce Arena has cited the Gold Cup's importance as a dry run in CONCACAF qualifying. To some extent, this makes sense. Many opponents will be the same.

But Gillette is nothing like a trip to Estadio Cuscutlan in San Salvador, or Estadio Ricardo Saprissa in San Jose, or Francisco Morazon in San Pedro Sula. Bad fields, fanatical fans and shaky referees often shape the results.

Rating a team's chances in CONCACAF qualifying off Gold Cup performances is risky. The U.S. stumbled in the Gold Cup quarterfinals in 2000 yet qualified for the 2002 World Cup; Canada won the 2000 Gold Cup but didn't even reach the Hexagonal, the final six-team group from which Mexico, Costa Rica and the U.S. made it to South Korea.

Reaching the Gold Cup semifinals by beating Costa Rica in the quarters didn't help Trinidad & Tobago when qualifying came 'round.

Of course, in the 2000 Gold Cup, the U.S. lost on penalties to Colombia following a 2-2 tie in the Orange Bowl. And Wednesday it again faces a South American guest team, one that is superior to many of the teams it faces within its region.

What will move the U.S. ahead is beating a young and outlandishly talented Brazil. It's a good matchup. The Americans have more experience, Brazil has more talent.

During the Confederations Cup, a reporter tried to goad Arena into admitting the Americans' poor record on European soil was a primary reason they lost to Turkey (1-2) and Brazil (0-1).

''The reason we lost is we're not good enough,'' retorted Arena. ''We're not as good as Brazil and we played a lousy game against Turkey. Those are the facts. It's not where we played the games or the fact we don't win a lot in Europe. Brazil won because they're better than we are.''

This is a better U.S. team than the one in France, but even though this Brazil team is younger it is nearly as good as the squad that beat the U.S., 1-0, in Lyons.

No nation can field a lineup of under-23s as can Brazil. Diego is 18, Robinho is 19, and they are light years ahead of where Landon Donovan and DaMarcus Beasley were in their late teens. They may be light years ahead of the young Americans now.

Kaka is only 21 and most managers would probably rate him more highly than Bobby Convey. If the U.S. midfield cannot hold the ball its defenders will be facing speedy, tricky attackers time and time again. The experienced American players will be required to withstand pressure and exploit openings.

Claudio Reyna has to orchestrate the play and control the tempo. Eddie Lewis and Donovan must get past tacklers and deliver quality crosses and shots. The speed and guile of Beasley, if he plays, will be vital, especially in the defensive half.

If the defenders are exposed too often, shots will pelt the U.S. goal. Kasey Keller pulled off a brilliant showing to deny Brazil in the American's 1-0 win in the 1998 Gold Cup semifinals. He may be called upon to do it again.

This will be a test for the Americans but is not a game they cannot win. If the game stays tight, the younger Brazilians might commit a decisive mistake.

By advancing to the final the U.S. can claim the Gold Cup is a success. Anything less must be regarded as neutral at best.