USMNT
The 433 and why the USMNT is “forcing” a playmaking 6
The base formation for the USMNT under Berhalter has been the 433. That’s been unchanged. If you look around the world at some of the best teams, many seem to have the base of a 433. Man City, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Bayern, Barcelona, Ajax. Why is this structure or formation so popular?
I have a theory.
Formations and systems are trendy. It wasn’t that long ago that the 4231 was all anyone had been playing. In the last year, we saw a heavy use of 3 in the back systems across the major teams. Tuchel went from heavily using the 433 at PSG to using a 343 variant at Chelsea to great effect. Man City and Barcelona were seen using the 343 a lot this year too. The base still seems to be the 433.
Strengths and weaknesses
One thing most anyone who has coached soccer or studied soccer for any amount of time will agree on, is that there is no magical formation. Every system has weaknesses and most players and coaches learn those early on.
A few examples:
The advantages and disadvantages of a particular system can fill whole books and videos. There are lots of nuances, variations and adaptations as well. The point is- every system or formation has weaknesses and strengths.
If a team has one way of playing and one set of starting 11, then they become very easy to scheme against. A better talented team may still win. A team can even “punch up” if their particular personnel strengths play to another team’s particular weaknesses and that coach is poor at tactical schemes. But a team playing one starting 11 with the same starting 11, will always be at a disadvantage against a team that has multiple tools in the tool box and an understanding on how to attack your weaknesses.
Tactical Flexibility
Every coach knows the basic answers to a formation’s weaknesses. Therefore the best system is one that is highly adaptable. The 433 is one of the most adaptable systems you can play. With simple role changes, the system can look like a completely different system. (I am purposefully oversimplifying for the examples.)
If your opponent is troubling your 6 or if you’re having trouble with numbers in the midfield you can simply drop an 8 deeper.
The 433 has the most different versions. With one base system, tactically adept managers can get a lot of tactical flexibility. This is how managers like Pep and Tuchel can create so many different problems and solutions out of one team. They try to keep the changes simple and base the same. The run patterns, principles, and solutions to problems can all be the same and the requests of the players can change from game to game.
Fans often can’t see the trees because of the forest. A coach can tweak individual roles and keep the base the same. The forest shape looks different but it was changed with one tree.
Tactical variability
This tactical flexibility has led to a new form of Total Football. Total Football originally was all about interchanging players to different roles on the field. It requires players with the ability to play different positions in game. With the tools of diverse players and a system with flexible tactics, tactically adept managers can create new dimensions of problems to solve and solutions.
Modern soccer tactics have evolved beyond a single structure or formation. A team will use often use at least 4 structures these days. First, is their base. For the US this is the 433.
The second is one in possession that they want to use to break teams down. For the US this is most often the 2323.
The third is what they want to use in a transition and against a mid block.
The last is what they want to use in a low block. This seems to be a 4231 or 4141.
Out of one “formation,” common patterns of play, set solutions to teams attack/ defense patterns, a team can get an incredible amount of tactical variability. It’s why many managers struggle or scoff at the idea of what “formation” they play. They play many in different situations and different match ups. A key to winning close games in modern US soccer tactics is tactical flexibility.
Roles and Role Profiles
The next logical question is- if the US want to be that tactically flexible then why focus on player profiles at all? Why not just put the best 11 out there in the best system you can and play?
My theory is that the 433 creates the most diverse player profiles. If the goal of a system is to be tactically flexible then you need players that can cover a large range for roles. A tactical minded coach would want every possible tool in the tool bag.
This can be true for multiple roles from the 9 to even the GK. The most talked about recently for the US has been the 6. If I was writing a player profile and rating players on their ability to play the 6, it would look something like this:
From a recruitment and development standpoint, you want players that are 5 stars in every category. In the ideal world, you would then have at least 3 players deep at that role. One man is down, then another is up.
No team has that in reality- not even the best teams. The question I get the most about the 6, is why are they forcing a playmaking 6? If they don’t have one, simply don’t play one. I truly think this is a simple misunderstanding of the 6 and how modern teams are constructed. The overall system of play is built with predefine answers to problems created by the opposition. Good teams want all of those tools in the tool bag to win any particular match up.
If you’re in the structure below the most, then playmaking ability becomes very important all over the field to break down a pack defense. Against Honduras late, they had them backed into a low block and needed Brooks to play extremely high up to make a play over the top to McKennie that leads to the winning goal.
Even earlier in the game, the US seemed to work to keep Honduras out of the low block by making plays deeper with their CB’s. Without Brooks playing fantastically and without Honduras failing to man mark him- the US may not win that game. Wanting a playmaking 6 in that scenario made a lot of sense. If you go back and watch how badly he missed lots of opportunities, it highlights the need for that attribute on the team rather than the reverse.
Even in a low block set up, transition play often starts with the 6 from deep. They either provide an outlet to start the attack or a quick counter pass to start the attack. Adams, who is somewhat of a specialist for RB Leipzig in this, is probably at his best in starting the counter- as a playmaking 6. That is a key attribute of the role. One reason the US struggled to counter, build or do much offensively against Mexico is Acosta is a better disruptor and wasn’t much of an asset in the attack. It’s a key part of the role profile and having that player profile adds tactical flexibility.
Let’s look at Nashville SC as a counter example. Their base formation has been a 4231. Dax is something of a modern 6 but Godoy is more of a 6/8 hybrid. He’s more comfortable tackling than driving forward with the ball, making line breaking passes, or linking play. He often plays as a 6/8 in front of Dax, but because their base formation is 4231, their player profiles hedged defensively. One could say its’ worked with the level of success they’ve had for an expansion side but that base has limited their tactical flexibility.
You can move Godoy to an 8 and play more of a 433, but the team will still be a more defensive team than offensive. It’s how they were constructed. The player profiles provide the template for the tools the team wants in the tool bag. Those tools can determine how a team plays as much or more than formation.
The #9 as a comparison
Would you say the same thing of the 9? If we don’t have a striker, just don’t play one? No- you specialize per match up.
We saw this a great deal with Chelsea (and Man City) and the #9 last year. What any team would want in a #9 player profile would be things like hold up ability, intelligent runs, poaching/finishing ability, aerial ability, speed to get in behind and playmaking ability to drop into the midfield to move the CB’s and create opportunities for others. Neither Chelsea nor Man City had a #9 who fit all of those attributes this year. So they used the players they had as specialist for particular match ups.
This is simply what good teams do. Giroud, Havertz, and Werner give you different attributes all by playing the same role, the same way but with different strengths. Havertz will do better coming back and creating. He’ll pull Cbs up and out more. Giroud will win headers, provide a target to combine with and Werner will stretch them vertically. They will do this though all playing the same patterns. The system needs to run the same so that the players quickly use the right solution to the right problem provided by the opposition.
You don’t tell Werner to stop trying to win aerial balls. You don’t tell Giroud to never drop into the midfield. You don’t change the team’s patterns of play based on who is available or preferred that game. You just pick the right players with correct attributes for a particular match up. When coaches get this right it makes these specialists look world class. When they get it wrong, you get fans thinking the players and coach are trash. This was seen a lot with Giroud last year and Jorginho and Kante through the years. Ask Kante to be the deeper playmaker and he seems a flawed player. Let him be a disrupter (either as a 6 or 8) and he looks world class. Same for Jorginho. Set him up to be a deeper play maker and positional defense expert, and he looks world class. Ask him to be a disrupter or destroyer and he looks horrible.
What managers who compete with the best teams and best managers in the world want, is that tactical diversity at the highest level. They then need to define what those attributes are so teams can recruit and acquire them.
Poorer teams or national teams with less options to buy talent do a similar process but have to rely even more on specialists to fill roles. They are even less likely to get players who are the best at every attribute of a role. They rely more on specialists. Some teams are graced with Rodri who can do everything a role demands. Or teams like France who are simply more talented than everyone else. Many teams are not and what they do is select the right specialist for the particular match up.
The structure (formation) of a team can change from game to game and even within a game. The player profiles are the base players that a coach/manager wants to build around. With club teams, it’s who they recruit, transfer for, and develop. For national teams it’s really the same except transfer. It’s the base roles that they want to recruit (dual nationals), discover through scouting their profile, and develop by getting them recognized for bigger teams.
By having player profiles, a club can build a squad with the most tactical options. The weaker the team’s talent pool, the more reliant a team will be on specialists. The deeper the talent pool, the more tools a manager has in his tool bag to create problems for the opposition.
The US have unique problems as they have a huge drop off from most of their starting players to their depth. It creates more emphasis on getting those specialist right and much greater criticism when those specialist fail at their role.
The US are not forcing anything
The trick in the modern game is not having one tactical setup that you roll out every match. It’s how tactically diverse can your team be? They have to predict which structures will be used the most in a given game. Will we be in the low block the most? Will we be in the high press the most? Will we be breaking down the low block the most? How can we force the other team to be in the set up that we most want? Then- what player attributes do I have in my tool box to keep us in that formation and win the game? How do I ensure that I have the right variety of tools to match 90% of the problems we’ll see?
The US is not forcing a playmaking 6. They have a player profile for every position and then are attempting to choose the right tool for the right matchup. Yueill over Acosta to break down Honduras and make plays from deep (which he did poorly). Siebatcheu for Sargent to win balls in the air. Acosta for Yueill to add disruption and rangy press.
I think we can all expect this to continue and not stop as the player pool increases in talent. Right now Adams is levels better at most every attribute of the player profile at the 6, but even if we can get 23 players who are all world class- current modern tactics likely dictate a player will be chosen per match up rather than a simple depth chart. While fans love to create depth charts at every position, the reality of those depth charts are likely a lot more complicated.
Why the 433 and 433 profiles?
The 433 and its profiles fill out the tool bag and sets up a diverse operating template for the modern soccer chess match.
USMNT
Ranking the Most Impactful USMNT Players in World Cup History
Thomas Deschaine (@uskeeper on X and us_keeper on Instagram)
The U.S. Men’s National Team has played 37 World Cup matches across ten tournaments, producing no shortage of memorable moments and standout performances. Below is my ranking of USMNT players based on their World Cup impact, some from a single tournament, others across multiple appearances.
I’ve taken a few liberties with ties, as in several cases no single player clearly stood above the rest; instead, the moment itself, and the collective effort, defined the performance.
Honorable Mention:
Marcelo Balboa – Appearing in three consecutive World Cups (1990, 1994, and 1998), he anchored the USMNT defense throughout an important era of growth for the program. He also came close to one of the tournament’s most memorable moments with a spectacular bicycle kick attempt off a corner against Colombia that nearly found the net.
Michael Bradley – Across three World Cups (2006, 2010, and 2014), Michael Bradley was a driving force in the USMNT midfield, known for his engine, composure, and leadership. He delivered a crucial game-tying goal against Slovenia in 2010 and later provided the assist on Julian Green’s memorable strike in 2014, consistently stepping up in key moments on the world stage.
Cobi Jones – While Cobi Jones remains the all-time leader in USMNT caps and earned 11 World Cup appearances across three consecutive tournaments, he did not register any goal contribution in any of those World Cups.
Eddie Pope – Across three World Cups (1998, 2002, and 2006), Eddie Pope was a cornerstone of the USMNT backline, known for his composure, positioning, and aerial dominance. He played a vital role in the team’s run to the quarterfinals in 2002, anchoring a disciplined defense and providing veteran leadership against some of the world’s top attacking talent.
Matt Turner – If Turner earns the starting role and delivers a standout performance during a deep USMNT run, coming up with game-changing saves, he could break into the top 10 while surpassing the current records for wins and shutouts.
#10 – 1930 USMNT Pioneers-TIED
Jimmy Douglas
World Cups: 1 (1930)
Matches: 3
Wins: 2
Shutouts: 2
Bert Patenaude
World Cups: 1 (1930)
Matches: 3
Goals: 4
Assists: 2
With limited historical data and in the context of the very first FIFA World Cup, I’m combining two true pioneers of the USMNT. Jimmy Douglas remains the only USMNT goalkeeper to record two wins and two shutouts in World Cup play, all achieved at the inaugural 1930 tournament, where the United States secured a third-place finish.
On the attacking side, Bert Patenaude scored four goals in that same tournament, including a hat trick in the U.S. second and final group-stage match. His performances were instrumental in helping guide the United States to its third-place finish in the first-ever FIFA World Cup.
#9 – 1950 USMNT Heros-TIED
Frank Borghi
World Cups: 1 (1950)
Matches: 3
Wins: 1
Shutouts: 1
Joe Gaetjens
World Cups: 1 (1950)
Matches: 3
Goals: 1
Assists: 0
Another historic meeting, shaped by similar circumstances to the first group, but what is known for certain is that the USMNT pulled off a stunning victory over one of the top sides at the 1950 World Cup. Frank Borghi delivered a remarkable performance in goal throughout the match, standing firm under relentless pressure.
The breakthrough came in the 38th minute when Joe Gaetjens scored a crucial goal to give the USMNT the lead. From there, the match shifted entirely onto the shoulders of the U.S. defense and goalkeeping, who held strong to secure a famous 1–0 victory over England one of the greatest upsets in World Cup history.
Earnie Stewart
World Cups: 3 (1994, 1998, 2002)
Matches: 11
Goals: 1
Assists: 0
#8 – 1994 USMNT Trailblazers-TIED
Eric Wynalda
World Cups: 3 (1990, 1994, 1998)
Matches: 8
Goals: 1
Assists: 0
Two of the USMNT’s early trailblazers, Eric Wynalda and Earnie Stewart, delivered defining World Cup moments on home soil at the 1994 FIFA World Cup. Both played pivotal roles in energizing a new generation of American soccer fans.
The USMNT’s first goal of that tournament came via one of the most iconic set pieces in World Cup history, earning a crucial draw in the opener. That momentum carried forward when Stewart netted the game-winner against heavily favored Colombia, securing the United States’ first World Cup victory since 1950.
.
#7 – Claudio Reyna
World Cups: 4 (1994, 1998, 2002, 2006)
Matches: 10
Goals: 0
Assists: 0
Named to four World Cup squads and appearing in three, Claudio Reyna was a cornerstone of the USMNT for more than a decade. While he didn’t record a goal contribution on the World Cup stage, his influence was undeniable, dictating tempo, providing composure in midfield, and serving as captain in both the 2002 and 2006 tournaments.
#6 – DaMarcus Beasley
World Cups: 4 (2002, 2006, 2010, 2014)
Matches: 11
Goals: 0
Assists: 1
DaMarcus Beasley is the only USMNT player to appear in four World Cups (2002, 2006, 2010, 2014), a testament to his remarkable longevity, versatility, and consistent impact across multiple generations.
He emerged on the global stage at the 2002 World Cup as an explosive, attack-minded winger, using his pace and direct play to stretch defenses and play a key role in the United States’ run to the quarterfinals. As his career progressed, Beasley reinvented himself, most notably transitioning to left back by the 2014 World Cup, where his experience, defensive discipline, and composure helped stabilize the back line against elite international competition.
#5 – Brad Friedel
World Cups: 3 (1994, 1998, 2002)
Matches: 6
Wins: 2
Shutouts: 1
Brad Friedel’s World Cup legacy is defined by consistency, composure, and elite shot-stopping across multiple tournaments. He served as the primary starter at the 2002 World Cup, made a start at the 1998 World Cup, and was the backup to Tony Meola in 1994, providing a steady, reliable presence in goal during a pivotal era for the USMNT.
His standout performances came in 2002, highlighted by his penalty-saving heroics. Friedel recorded two penalty saves in the tournament (excluding shootouts), tying the World Cup record for most in a single edition. His ability to deliver in high-pressure moments played a key role in the United States’ run to the quarterfinals and solidified his place among the program’s all-time great goalkeepers.
#4 – Brian McBride
World Cups: 3 (1998, 2002, 2006)
Matches: 10
Goals: 3
Assists: 1
Brian McBride’s World Cup legacy is defined by big goals, relentless work rate, and a fearless, physical style that helped set the tone for the USMNT on the global stage. He scored the team’s only goal at the 1998 World Cup against Iran, rising to meet a corner kick with authority.
In 2002, he played a pivotal role in the opening-match upset of Portugal, constantly pressuring the defense and helping spark the historic win, before delivering again with a goal against Mexico in the Round of 16 to send the US. to the quarterfinals.
His grit and determination were on full display in his final World Cup in 2006, when he famously continued playing after suffering a broken nose and a bloodied face, an enduring symbol of his toughness, leadership, and commitment to the team.
#3 – Tim Howard
World Cups: 3 (2006, 2010, 2014)
Matches: 8
Wins: 2
Shutouts: 1
A starter in back-to-back World Cups, Tim Howard delivered on the biggest stage when it mattered most. From his record-setting 16-save performance against Belgium at the 2014 World Cup, widely regarded as one of the greatest goalkeeping displays in World Cup history, to his consistent ability to keep the United States competitive against elite opposition, he repeatedly elevated his game under pressure.
His shot-stopping brilliance, commanding presence, and calm leadership in high-intensity moments define a legacy that places him among the most influential goalkeepers the USMNT has ever had on the World Cup stage.
#2 – Clint Dempsey
World Cups: 3 (2006, 2010, 2014)
Matches: 10
Goals: 4
Assists: 0
From his goal just 29 seconds into the match against Ghana at the 2014 World Cup, the fastest in USMNT World Cup history, to his composed finish against England in 2010 World Cup that helped secure a crucial draw, to becoming the first American to score in three different World Cups, Clint Dempsey consistently delivered on the game’s biggest stage.
Those moments, combined with his toughness, edge, and ability to show up in key situations, cement his place as one of the most impactful USMNT players in World Cup history.
#1 – Landon Donovan
World Cups: 3 (2002, 2006, 2010)
Matches: 12
Goals: 5
Assists: 3
From his dramatic stoppage-time winner against Algeria that sent the USMNT into the knockout stage, to his goal in the “Dos a Cero” victory over Mexico that helped propel the team to the quarterfinals, to his deflected strike off Jorge Costa that contributed to him being named Best Young Player of the 2002 World Cup, Landon Donovan consistently delivered on the biggest stage.
Taken together, those moments make a strong case that he’s been the most impactful USMNT player in World Cup history, and it only adds to the “what if” of how much more he might have achieved had he been part of the 2014 squad.
USMNT
The Return of Third-Place Qualifiers at the FIFA World Cup
Thomas Deschaine (@uskeeper on X and us_keeper on Instagram)
The expansion of the 2026 FIFA World Cup from 32 to 48 teams will dramatically change the race to reach the knockout stage. Under FIFA’s new format, the top eight third-place teams will advance to the Round of 32 alongside the top two teams from each group.
For the past seven World Cups, only the top two teams in each group have advanced to the knockout stage. The last time third-place teams moved on was at the 1994 World Cup, where the USMNT benefited from the format before losing to eventual champions Brazil in the Round of 16.
So how many points will teams need to advance in 2026?
History suggests that five points should safely secure a place in the knockout stage. Across the past seven World Cups, every team with five or more points advanced out of the group stage.
Three points, however, has almost never been enough. The only team to advance with just three points during that span was Chile at the 1998 World Cup.
Four points has produced mixed results. At the 2022 World Cup, three groups featured two teams finishing on four points, but only one team from each of those situations advanced. Similar scenarios also occurred at the 2010 and 2002 World Cups.
Overall, 46 teams have finished the group stage with four points since 1994, but only 20 advanced to the knockout stage. The USMNT accounts for three of those successful four-point campaigns, advancing in 1994, 2002, and 2014.
1986 World Cup
Semi-Finals Match between Belgium and Argentina
The 1986 World Cup was the first tournament with 24 teams to allow four third-place group stage teams to advance to the knockout round. While the 1982 World Cup also featured 24 teams, it used a different format with a second round made up of four groups of three teams, with only the group winners advancing to the semi-finals.
One of the most notable aspects of the 1986 World Cup was that two teams advanced to the knockout stage with just two points, something that seems highly unlikely under the format for the 2026 World Cup.
Among the third-place qualifiers, Belgium made the deepest run, reaching the semi-finals before losing to eventual champions Argentina.
1990 World Cup
World Cup Final Argentina against Germany
At the 1990 World Cup, every third-place team that advanced to the knockout stage finished with three points. The biggest surprise was Argentina, the highest-ranked third-place team, making an incredible run all the way to the World Cup Final before falling 1-0 to Germany.
1994 World Cup
The 1994 World Cup was arguably the most fascinating tournament when it came to the impact of third-place teams advancing to the knockout stage and likely played a major role in FIFA’s decision to expand the tournament to 32 teams in 1998.
Here’s a look at the top five FIFA World Cup group stage tiebreakers, which will almost certainly come into play this summer, especially when it comes to ranking the third-place teams.
- Overall Goal Difference: The greatest goal difference in all group matches.
- Overall Goals Scored: The greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.
- Head-to-Head Points: The greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned.
- Head-to-Head Goal Difference: Superior goal difference in the group matches between the teams concerned.
- Head-to-Head Goals Scored: The greatest number of goals scored in the group matches between the teams concerned.
Both Group D and Group F saw three teams finish with six points, something that has not happened at the FIFA World Cup since. That created dramatic tiebreaker scenarios that ultimately determined where all six teams finished in their groups. Of those six teams, only two reached the quarterfinals, with Bulgaria making the deepest run by reaching the semi-finals.
Group E may have been the most fascinating group of the 1994 World Cup. Mexico, Ireland, Italy, and Norway all finished with four points and an identical goal differential of zero. Norway was eliminated after scoring just one goal, the fewest in the group.
Italy, meanwhile, advanced as a third-place team and went all the way to the World Cup Final before losing to Brazil in a penalty shootout, an incredible run considering how close they came to being eliminated in the group stage.
Will the 2026 World Cup Deliver Another Chaotic Group Stage?
With the World Cup expanding to 48 teams, the traditional “group of death” may not carry the same weight at the 2026 tournament. Still, that doesn’t mean the group stage will lack drama. Fans will be hoping for the kind of chaotic and unpredictable scenarios that made the 1994 World Cup so memorable, where final group matches carried massive stakes and teams were fighting for survival until the final whistle.
From an entertainment perspective, more meaningful matches late in the group stage would be a huge boost for the tournament, but only time will tell if the expanded format can truly deliver that same level of tension and excitement.
USMNT
The USMNT’s World Cup Legacy: Highs, Lows, and Defining Moments
Thomas Deschaine (@uskeeper on Xhttps://x.com/uskeeper/ and us_keeper on Instagram)
The USMNT’s World Cup story stretches back nearly a century to the inaugural tournament in 1930. The 2026 FIFA World Cup will mark the United States’ 12th appearance on soccer’s biggest stage.
Over that time, the Americans have played 37 matches, earning 9 wins, 8 draws, and 20 losses, while scoring 40 goals and conceding 66. The U.S. has advanced to the knockout stage in seven of those tournaments.
Five different USMNT goalkeepers have recorded clean sheets at the World Cup, Matt Turner and Frank Borghi with two each, and Tim Howard, Brad Friedel, and Jimmy Douglas with one apiece.
The USMNT’s top World Cup scorers, Clint Dempsey, Landon Donovan, Brian McBride, and Bert Patenaude, all netted multiple goals in a single tournament, cementing their places in U.S. soccer history.
1930 – Uruguay
The inaugural World Cup in Uruguay saw the USMNT surprise the world by reaching the semifinals before falling 6–1 to Argentina. The U.S. dominated the group stage, defeating Belgium and Paraguay 3–0, with Bert Patenaude making history as the first player ever to record a hat trick at a World Cup. The Americans ultimately finished third, still their best result on the world stage to this day.
1934 – Italy
The USMNT’s 1934 World Cup appearance would be a brief one. Just days before the tournament began, the Americans secured qualification by defeating rivals Mexico 4–2 in Rome. Drawn straight into a knockout format, the U.S. faced host nation Italy in their opening match, falling 7–1. Aldo Donelli scored the team’s only goal, following up his remarkable four-goal performance from the qualifier.
1950 – Brazil
The USMNT pulled off arguably the greatest upset in World Cup history, and certainly their biggest win to date, by defeating England 1–0, thanks to Joe Gaetjens’ famous goal. Despite that historic triumph, the Americans fell 3–1 to Spain in their opener and 5–2 to Chile in their final group match, ending their tournament at the group stage.
1990 – Italy
After a forty-year absence, the USMNT returned to the World Cup with a young, hungry, and largely untested squad. Despite a rough start, suffering a 5–1 loss to Czechoslovakia, the Americans rebounded with a hard-fought 1–0 victory over host and eventual third-place finisher Italy before narrowly falling 2–1 to Austria. The invaluable experience gained at this tournament would help lay the foundation for the team’s performance at the 1994 World Cup.
1994 – United States
After several attempts to host a World Cup, the United States was finally awarded the 1994 tournament. The USMNT faced a very tough group but showed determination in all three matches. They opened with a 1–1 draw against Switzerland, with Eric Wynalda scoring a brilliant set-piece goal, still considered one of the best in World Cup history. In their second match, the Americans secured a 2–1 victory over a strong Colombian side, marking their first World Cup win since 1950. A narrow 1–0 loss to Romania in the final group match didn’t stop the U.S. from advancing to the Round of 16, where they were eliminated 1-0 by eventual champions Brazil. The 1994 World Cup had a lasting impact, helping to inspire and shape soccer culture in the United States.
1998 – France
It was an up-and-down cycle for the USMNT, but their fourth-place finish at the 1995 Copa América had fans optimistic about the team’s potential heading into 1998. However, the shocking omission of longtime captain John Harkes, who had worn the armband 30 times, raised serious questions. Meanwhile, trailblazers from earlier cycles struggled to make an impact: Alexi Lalas didn’t play a single minute, Marcelo Balboa saw just eight minutes of action, and Eric Wynalda featured in only two matches for a total of 51 minutes. The Americans went on to lose all three group-stage games, finishing last among the 32 teams.
2002 – Korea / Japan
After a hard-fought qualifying campaign, the USMNT made a memorable run at the 2002 World Cup, advancing to the quarterfinals after a historic 2–0 win over regional rivals Mexico. The Americans put in a strong performance against Germany but were denied a potential equalizer when a clear handball went uncalled, ending their dream run with a narrow defeat. Landon Donovan’s breakout performance earned him the tournament’s Best Young Player award.
2006 – Germany
The USMNT entered the 2006 World Cup brimming with confidence, dreaming of another deep run. But drawn into a brutal Group of Death, those hopes quickly unraveled. A 3–0 loss to the Czech Republic stunned the team, though a fierce 1–1 draw with Italy briefly reignited belief. Then came heartbreak, a controversial penalty on Oguchi Onyewu doomed the US to a 2–1 defeat to Ghana and a shocking early exit.
2010 – South Africa
Riding the momentum of their 2009 Confederations Cup runner-up finish, the USMNT entered the 2010 World Cup with real belief and growing hype. Every match in South Africa was a test of grit and heart. The opener against England ended 1–1, with Clint Dempsey’s late first-half strike shocking the favorites. In their second match, the Americans stormed back from two goals down to draw 2–2, keeping their hopes alive. Then came one of the most iconic moments in U.S. soccer history, Landon Donovan’s stoppage-time winner against Algeria, sealing a dramatic 1–0 victory and a place in the knockout stage. But the dream ended in heartbreak, as Ghana once again eliminated the U.S. in extra time, 2–1.
2014 – Brazil
The mood heading into the 2014 World Cup was cautious after Jurgen Klinsmann’s shocking decision to leave Landon Donovan, the team’s all-time leader in goals and assists, off the roster. The USMNT opened against familiar nemesis Ghana, who had eliminated them in the previous two tournaments. This time, redemption arrived when substitute John Brooks headed home a late winner to seal a thrilling 2–1 victory. In their second match against powerhouse Portugal, the Americans came within seconds of back-to-back wins before a last-gasp equalizer from Silvestre Varela snatched away the dream. A 1–0 loss to Germany in the final group game proved enough to advance on goal difference. In the Round of 16, the U.S. faced Belgium’s golden generation, pushing the match into extra time behind Tim Howard’s record-breaking 16 saves, but ultimately fell 2–1 in a valiant defeat that earned global respect.
2018 – Russia
An aging and uninspired USMNT failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, marking one of the darkest moments in American soccer history. Bruce Arena later suggested that, had the U.S. made it, the roster would have looked much younger and more dynamic. Still, it’s hard to imagine that group advancing past the group stage, unless teenage sensation Christian Pulisic had delivered a breakout performance on par with Landon Donovan’s heroics in 2002.
2022 – Qatar
A new generation of USMNT players brought back the energy and passion missing in recent cycles. After a turbulent qualifying journey, the Americans opened the World Cup with a 1–1 draw against Wales, Tim Weah’s first-half goal canceled out by Gareth Bale’s late penalty. A gritty 0–0 result against England kept hopes alive before Christian Pulisic’s heroic goal against Iran sent them to the knockouts. Out of gas in the Round of 16, the U.S. fell 3–1 to a superior Netherlands side.
2026 – United States / Mexico / Canada
One thing is certain; the 2026 FIFA World Cup will be unlike anything the world has ever seen. It’s destined to break records, captivate audiences, and redefine what soccer means in America. But the story still to be written is that of the USMNT. Can they rise to the moment, ignite a nation, and make a historic run on home soil, proving once and for all that soccer in the United States has arrived and is here to stay?
Ranking the Most Impactful USMNT Players in World Cup History
The Return of Third-Place Qualifiers at the FIFA World Cup
The USMNT’s World Cup Legacy: Highs, Lows, and Defining Moments
-
Club News6 years agoCJ dos Santos, Benfica
-
Club News2 years agoAmerican Transfers: Stock Up & Stock Down
-
Club News6 years agoGive: Support Chasing a Cup by Supporting our Cause
-
Club News6 years agoJulian Vincente Araujo
-
USMNT2 years agoUSMNT Kits Come in Different Styles and Colors
-
USMNT2 years agoGregg Berhalter’s Legacy
-
USMNT2 years agoMedals on their Minds
-
USMNT6 years agoA Hidden Gem: Barça Residency Academy