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
The More Things Change, The More They Remain the Same
Thomas Deschaine (@uskeeper on X and us_keeper on Instagram)
In light of the recent resignation of Matt Crocker, I revisited something I wrote nearly a decade ago, an early attempt to capture what I called the “Dark Decades of US Soccer.” At the time, the piece was overly long and packed with detail—probably more than today’s audience would stick with.
But buried in that work were meaningful patterns, clear, recurring behaviors that shaped how the federation operated more than 60 years ago. What stood out most, looking back now, is how familiar some of those patterns still feel today.
So, I went back, stripped the piece down, and pulled out the most relevant sections, those that highlight the parallels between past and present. The goal isn’t to draw conclusions for you, but to put those similarities side by side and let you decide: how much has really changed?
World Cup Momentum to the First American Soccer Boom
Photo of Pele at the 1966 World Cup
Photograph: AP Photo
After the success and popularity of the 1966 World Cup which saw over one million viewers of the tournament many America investors saw the vision and believed that there was the market for soccer in the United States and Canada.
The investors moved very quickly and in 1967 there were two American professional leagues making their debuts the USSFA-sanctioned United Soccer Association (USA) and the independent National Professional Soccer League (NPSL).
These leagues would only last one year and be merged at the request of FIFA into the North American Soccer League (NASL) kicking off in 1968 and relying on mainly on foreign talent. The American investors believed building the interest in soccer in the US would have a direct impact on the growth and performance of the US Men’s National team which and of course more money for the investors and federation.
First Attempt at Modernizing the USMNT
Phil Woosnam, in 1977 as the commissioner of the NASL.
Photograph: AP Photo
Off the back of the success of the inaugural NASL season, the U.S. Soccer Federation appointed Phil Woosnam, fresh off leading the Atlanta Chiefs to a championship and earning Coach of the Year honors, to take charge of the U.S. Men’s National Team.
Woosnam immediately shifted the structure of the program. Instead of a player pool selected by committee, he pushed decision-making toward the coaching staff, allowing selections to be based on performance and fit rather than geography or internal bias. The move was not universally welcomed, and it reportedly created friction with members of the federation’s leadership.
With professional players now more fully available, Woosnam’s approach helped assemble what was widely considered the strongest possible squad at the time. He also introduced organized training camps ahead of friendlies and World Cup qualifiers, an uncommon practice in that era, but one that clearly improved cohesion and preparation. Those changes contributed to the U.S. advancing further in World Cup qualifying than it had in previous cycles.
By early 1969, the USMNT appeared to be building real momentum toward a potential place in the 1970 World Cup. However, tensions between Woosnam and the federation began to escalate. Frustrated with compensation issues and growing interference from the USSF in team operations, Woosnam stepped away from the national team in the spring of 1969. become commissioner of the NASL.
Following his departure, assistant coach Gordon Jago took over as manager. His tenure began under difficult circumstances, with not being able to set up pre-qualifying friendlies, an important part of the progress made under Woosnam along with interference from USSF board members as it related to roster selection which created instability and morale issues on the field. The USMNT struggled in qualifying and ultimately fell short, losing both matches to Haiti, a team they had previously been competitive with in a series of friendlies in 1968.
The Crocker Era: Coaching Chaos and Course Corrections
Photo of Cindy Parlow Cone, Gregg Berhalter, Matt Crocker and JT Batson
Photograph: AP Photo/Lucas Peliter
It’s been roughly three years since the Matt Crocker era began at U.S. Soccer, when he stepped in as Sporting Director, replacing Earnie Stewart.
One of Crocker’s first major responsibilities was hiring the next U.S. Men’s National Team manager. In the previous cycle, the federation had reportedly operated with a narrow set of internal criteria, preferences widely believed to favor English-speaking and American candidates, which significantly limited the coaching pool and shaped the direction of the search.
Roughly two months later, during the Concacaf Nations League semifinal window, it was announced that Gregg Berhalter would be reappointed as USMNT head coach. The decision caught many around the program and in the media off guard, raising questions about how the process had ultimately unfolded.
More recently, in an interview with GiveMeSport, Jesse Marsch stated he was effectively told he was set to become the next USMNT head coach in the late spring of 2023, only for that opportunity to be withdrawn at the last moment, a shift that reportedly had ripple effects on a potential move to Leicester City that was nearing completion.
The abrupt reversal and eventual rehiring of Berhalter has been widely attributed to a mix of factors, including rumored influence from within the player pool, with U.S. Soccer ultimately reversing course. Roughly a year later, after a disappointing Copa América campaign on home soil, Berhalter was dismissed.
Crocker’s second opportunity to reset the program took a different direction. He first secured the high-profile appointment of Emma Hayes, one of the most accomplished managers in women’s football, to lead the USWNT. That move was followed by the hiring of Mauricio Pochettino for the USMNT, a tenure that has delivered mixed early results and will ultimately be judged through the lens of the 2026 World Cup on home soil but truly disappointed that Crocker wouldn’t see through what he helped build, and you have to ask yourself why?
USMNT
The No. 9 Timeline: A Historical Look at USMNT Strikers
Thomas Deschaine (@uskeeper on X and us_keeper on Instagram)
Each generation of soccer can be understood through overlapping eras, each one feeding into the next. Some produce deeper pools of talent, while others rely on a handful of standout players. In a recent piece, I looked back at past USMNT goalkeepers and their impact on World Cup teams. That led to a natural follow-up: a deeper dive into the history of USMNT strikers.
For this article, I’ve divided that history into three distinct eras, focusing strictly on past strikers rather than the current pool. I’ll wrap up, however, with some thoughts on where today’s active strikers fit into that broader timeline. For each era I will spotlight four strikers.
According to their media guide, the modern era of the USMNT begins with the 1990 World Cup cycle. While that framing makes some sense, it does gloss over some of the program’s more challenging decades. For the purposes of this, though, we’ll start there as well, especially considering that from 1974 to 1986, the USMNT averaged fewer than 20 matches per cycle and scored less than a goal per game across those four cycles.
Trailblazers: The Early Era of USMNT Strikers
The story of USMNT strikers stretches back nearly 40 years, to a time when goals were often hard to come by, but a handful of players still managed to leave a lasting impression. This was an era defined less by consistent production and more by moments, flashes of quality that stood out during a formative period for the program.
Players like Chris Sullivan, Eric Eichmann, Frank Klopas, and Roy Wegerle all played roles in at least one World Cup cycle and delivered important goals along the way. However, consistency and longevity at the international level proved elusive, reflecting the broader challenges the USMNT faced during this period.
Even so, these players helped lay the groundwork for future generations, establishing the foundation for what the striker position would eventually become.
Bruce Murray (1985 – 1993)
85 Caps, 21 goals, 11 assists
A quick, opportunistic forward known for his movement and ability to capitalize on chances, Bruce Murray was the type of striker the USMNT hadn’t truly seen before. He filled that role throughout the 1990 cycle and into the lead-up to 1994, emerging as the team’s leading scorer during that stretch and helping guide the U.S. to its first World Cup appearance since 1950. At the 1990 World Cup, Murray contributed a goal and an assist, highlighting his impact on the international stage.
Despite his contributions, Murray was ultimately left off the 1994 World Cup squad, one of the final cuts as the program began to turn toward younger options and players competing in Europe at the time.
Eric Wynalda (1990 – 2000)
106 Caps, 34 goals, 17 assists
The premier striker of this era for the USMNT, Eric Wynalda featured in three consecutive World Cups. A dynamic and confident forward, he combined technical ability with a powerful shot, making him a constant goal threat and the focal point of the U.S. attack.
His iconic set-piece goal against Switzerland in the USMNT’s opening match of the 1994 FIFA World Cup remains one of the greatest in tournament history and stands among the best goals ever scored by the USMNT. Wynalda not only delivered in defining moments but also set the tone and standard for the strikers who followed.
Earnie Stewart (1990 – 2004)
101 Caps, 17 goals, 10 assists
Earnie Stewart was a key attacking figure for the USMNT throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, bringing a blend of technical quality, intelligence, and consistency to the squad. Comfortable as both a striker and a second forward, his versatility allowed him to influence matches in multiple ways while effectively linking midfield and attack.
While not a traditional No. 9, Stewart’s movement, awareness, and all-around contributions helped shape the evolution of the USMNT’s forward line during a critical period of growth for the program. He appeared in three World Cups—the 1994 FIFA World Cup, 1998 FIFA World Cup, and 2002 FIFA World Cup—and delivered one of the most iconic moments in U.S. soccer history, scoring the game-winning goal against heavily favored Colombia on home soil in 1994.
Second Generation USMNT Strikers (1996-2010)
The next era of USMNT strikers following the 1994 World Cup produced a tough, hard-nosed group. Several featured in one or more World Cup cycles, led by Josh Wolff, who made both the 2002 and 2006 squads.
Brian Ching and Eddie Johnson were also key figures, earning spots on the 2006 roster, with some arguing they were overlooked later in their careers. Other notable names from that period include Casey Coner, Ante Razov, and Taylor Twellman, players who all had opportunities with the USMNT, but whose form and timing didn’t quite align with World Cup selection. Twellman, in particular, still believes he should have been part of the 2006 squad.
Joe-Max Moore (1992 – 2002)
100 Caps, 24 goals, 14 assists
This was always a bit of a sneaky one for me. Joe-Max Moore was a consistently reliable attacking option for the USMNT during this era, even if he didn’t always get the spotlight. Currently ranked seventh all-time in USMNT goals, Moore contributed across three World Cup cycles and remained a steady presence in the attack.
He’s also one of just five USMNT players to score four goals in a single match, a standout performance that came against El Salvador in 1993. Despite his overall production and longevity, however, Moore was never able to find the back of the net on the World Cup (1994, 1998 and 2002) stage.
Brian McBride (1993 – 2006)
95 Caps, 30 goals, 11 assists
A traditional No. 9, Brian McBride was physical, relentless, and dependable, with a dominant aerial presence in the biggest moments. He put everything on the line for the USMNT, scoring in multiple World Cups (1998 and 2002) and cementing himself as a fixture at the striker position.
One of his most iconic moments came at the 2006 World Cup, when he was elbowed in the face by Italy’s Daniele De Rossi, leaving him bloodied and in need of stitches, yet he still played the full 90 minutes.
Clint Mathis (1998 – 2005)
46 Caps, 12 goals, 9 assists
While Clint Mathis had a relatively brief run with the USMNT, his impact on the attacking position was undeniable. Often deployed as a second striker behind Brian McBride, Mathis was anything but traditional—he thrived as a free-roaming attacker capable of changing a match in an instant, highlighted by his ability to score spectacular long-range goals.
He played a key role for the U.S. at the 2002 FIFA World Cup, scoring a memorable goal against South Korea in the group stage and adding an assist, helping power the team’s historic run.
The Evolving Striker Pool (2009 – 2018)
The striker pool from this generation is an interesting mix, some players were only involved with the USMNT for brief stretches, while others carried over from the previous era and overlapped with this group.
Strikers like Edson Buddle and Hercules Gomez, both part of the 2010 World Cup roster, had limited opportunities and production at the international level. Their inclusion was shaped in part by circumstance, as Charlie Davies’ recovery from his car accident less than a year before the tournament ultimately ruled him out of contention.
Looking ahead to 2014, Aron Jóhannsson and Chris Wondolowski earned World Cup roster spots but struggled to make a lasting impact in the biggest matches against top-tier opponents, which limited their long-term roles with the national team.
Players like Jordan Morris, Jesús Ferreira, and Gyasi Zardes emerged and saw increased opportunities following the failure to qualify for the 2018 World Cup. It’s easy to imagine that at least some of that younger group could have factored into the roster had the U.S. made it to Russia.
Clint Dempsey (2004 – 2017)
141 Caps, 57 goals, 19 assists
Clint Dempsey delivered some of the most iconic striker moments in USMNT history, big goals, clutch performances, and a relentless ability to show up when it mattered most. While he wasn’t a traditional target striker, his movement, instincts, and technical ability made him one of the most dangerous attacking players the U.S. has ever had.
He scored against top-tier opponents like Spain and Brazil at the 2009 Confederations Cup, found the net against England at the 2010 World Cup to help secure a crucial draw, and famously opened the scoring just seconds into the 2014 World Cup. He also delivered in the 2016 Copa América, with key goals against Ecuador in the quarterfinal and Paraguay in the group stage.
Dempsey wasn’t just a scorer, he was a moment-maker. Whether it was a scrappy finish, a composed strike, or stepping up in the biggest matches, he consistently delivered when the U.S. needed him most.
Jozy Altidore (2007 – 2019)
115 Caps, 42 goals, 14 assists
Jozy Altidore had a unique USMNT career, less about highlight-reel volume and more about physical presence, hold-up play, and stepping up in key moments. At his best, he was the focal point of the attack and a difference-maker. Jozy’s work ethic seemed to impact later stages of his club and USMNT career and impacted him becoming the all-time leading scorer in USMNT history.
Bobby Wood (2013 – 2018)
43 Caps, 13 goals, 3 assists
If it weren’t for Jürgen Klinsmann’s support after Bobby Wood secured a new club in Germany, it’s unclear whether his international career would have continued. While his peak was relatively brief at both club and national level, Wood made his mark with clutch moments, most memorably scoring game-winning goals in back-to-back 2015 friendlies: a 4–3 comeback victory over the Netherlands and a 2–1 win against Germany.
The Next Generation: Assessing the Future of USMNT Strikers
The current USMNT striker pool remains very unsettled. At the moment, Ricardo Pepi is the only regular forward to reach double-digit goals, with 13. He’s followed by Folarin Balogun with eight and Haji Wright with seven. Other notable names in the mix include Josh Sargent and Patrick Agyemang, each of whom has contributed five goals at the international level. However, Agyemang suffered an Achilles injury and has been ruled out of the World Cup, a significant setback given his recent form. For the USMNT to be successful at the 2026 FIFA World Cup their strikers will be a key role and contributing to the teams’ goals scored.
From a club perspective at the time of the article, Balogun is in excellent form, and the hope is that continues through the 2026 FIFA World Cup. At this point, it feels clear that Balogun and Pepi have established themselves as the top two striker options. The bigger question, though, is who else will step up to provide the depth and quality needed to sustain the position in this cycle and beyond.
USMNT
Entry into US Men’s National Fandom
Thomas Deschaine (@uskeeper on X and us_keeper on Instagram)
Every soccer fan has a player or a moment or signature win that pulls them into the game and binds them to a team, no matter how high or low the journey becomes.
For me, that moment was tied to the U.S. Men’s National Team hosting the 1994 World Cup, along with my own recent introduction to the sport as the starting goalkeeper for my school team. Tony Meola, in particular, stood out as one of many important icons and trailblazers for the USMNT during that era.
I imagine there are countless young fans around the world who have already had, or will soon have, that defining moment over the last few years: discovering their first international team and the players they’ll root for and follow for years to come.
Before the 1990 World Cup cycle, those moments were rare for the USMNT. The United States hadn’t even reached the final round of CONCACAF World Cup Qualifying. Their closest opportunity came during the 1986 cycle, when all the U.S. needed was a draw at home against Costa Rica, a result they had achieved just five days earlier on the road in Costa Rica.
In the 1980s, the USMNT qualified for the Olympics three times, once automatically as the host nation in 1984 and twice through the qualifying tournament. It’s also worth noting that Mexico was disqualified during both the 1980 and 1988 qualifying cycles.
Despite qualifying, the U.S. withdrew from the 1980 Olympics in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In the tournaments they did play (1984 and 1988), the USMNT struggled to make an impact, failing to advance out of the group stage and managing just one combined win across both competitions.
USMNT on the Rise (1988-1998)
This generation of trailblazers put the U.S. Men’s National Team back on the map—ending a 40-year World Cup drought, hosting the 1994 World Cup, and advancing further than the world expected.
1989 WCQ neutral side in Honduras vs El Salvador
A rare win away from home soil keeps US in hunt to qualify for 1990 World Cup.
1989 – Qualification at Trinidad & Tobago
The win in Port of Spain sends the US to its first World Cup since 1950.
1990 – Return to the World Cup (Italy)
Results were tough, but simply qualifying restarted the program on the world stage.
1991 – USA 2–0 Mexico (Gold Cup)
The USMNT’s first “Dos a Cero” win against Mexico to advance to the first Gold Cup Final.
1993 – USA 2-0 England (U.S. Cup)
The USMNT first win against England since the 1950 World Cup.
1994 – USA 2–1 Colombia (World Cup)
One of the biggest upsets in World Cup history; launched U.S. soccer into the mainstream.
1995 – USA 3-0 Argentina (Copa America)
The apex win for this generation of USMNT trailblazers.
1998 – USA 1-0 Brazil (Gold Cup)
The USMNT only win over Brazil to date.
Earning Respect from the World (1999-2010)
After a disappointing performance at the 1998 World Cup, the USMNT reset by hiring American coach Bruce Arena. That decision, combined with the emergence of impactful young players, helped restore credibility and earn growing respect on the global stage—culminating in a deep and memorable run at the 2002 World Cup.
1999 – 2-0 Win over Germany (Confederations Cup)
USMNT second win over Germany in 1999.
2001 – First “Dos a Cero” vs Mexico in Columbus (World Cup Qualifier)
A rivalry-defining moment and a psychological turning point.
2002 – USA 3–2 Portugal (World Cup)
The world took notice. One of the greatest performances in USMNT history.
2002 – USA 2–0 Mexico (World Cup Round of 16)
Dominance over rival Mexico on the biggest stage.
2002 – World Cup Quarterfinal run (loss 1–0 to Germany)
Even in a loss the USMNT deepest World Cup run got attention from most.
2005 – USA 2-0 Mexico in Columbus (World Cup Qualifier)
USMNT WCQ win over Mexico qualified them for the World Cup.
2007 – Gold Cup Final: USA 2–1 Mexico (Gold Cup)
A signature win in Chicago with a classic Donovan goal.
2009 – USA 2–0 Spain (Confederations Cup)
Ends Spain’s 35-match unbeaten streak in a historic semifinal upset.
2010 – Donovan vs Algeria (90+1’)
The most iconic goal in USMNT history; dramatic group-stage escape.
The Klinsmann Era (2011-2017)
When Jürgen Klinsmann was hired to replace Bob Bradley, he introduced a new mindset for the USMNT, challenging players to compete at higher levels with their clubs. The opponents he scheduled during his tenure reflected that philosophy, consistently pushing the team against stronger international competition.
2012 – USA 1-0 Italy (Friendly)
A key road win for the USMNT under Klinsmann.
2012 – USA 1-0 Mexico (Friendly)
The Americans first ever win at Azteca in Mexico.
2013 – USA 4-3 Germany (Centennial Match)
Celebrating their centennial match in style with a win.
2013 – USA 4-3 Bosnia-Herzegovina (Friendly)
A comeback road win against the 13th ranked Bosnia-Herzegovina.
2013 – USA 2-0 Mexico (World Cup Qualifier)
Nothing better than Dos a Cero that qualifies you for the World Cup.
2014 – USA 2–1 Ghana (World Cup)
Revenge at last, with a clutch John Brooks header helping to advance from Group of Death.
2015 – USA 4-3 Netherlands (Friendly)
A thrilling comeback victory on the road against the Netherlands.
2015 – USA 2-1 Germany (Friendly)
Days after beating the Netherlands, the USMNT topped Germany in a hard-fought match.
2016 – USA 2-1 Ecuador (Copa America)
A quarter-final win for the Americans who advance to the semi-finals of Copa America.
The Rise of a New Generation (2018-Current)
After the failure to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, the USMNT landscape began to shift. A greater emphasis was placed on integrating younger players into the national team, even as it became increasingly difficult for the U.S. to schedule friendlies against top-level opponents from Europe and South America.
2021 – USA 3-2 Mexico (Nations League)
This extra-time win sparked a period of dominance over Mexico.
2022 – USA 3-0 Morocco (Friendly)
A victory over the eventual fourth-place finisher at the 2022 World Cup.
2022 – USA 1-0 Iran (World Cup)
A first-half strike from Christian Pulisic propels the U.S. into the knockout stage.
2023 – USA 3-0 Mexico (Nations League)
A dominant semifinal win preceded Gregg Berhalter’s rehiring.
2024 -USA 2-0 Mexico (Nations League)
Another victory over El Tri, extending the unbeaten run to seven matches.
A Chance to Win will bring in New Believers Ahead of 2026
The USMNT has a prime opportunity to build momentum and attract new supporters ahead of the 2026 World Cup, with upcoming friendlies against European powers Belgium, Portugal, and Germany, along with AFCON champions Senegal. These high-profile matchups offer a rare spotlight and a chance to measure themselves against the world’s best.
A deep World Cup run, reaching the quarterfinals or beyond, would go a long way toward winning and retaining new fans. But to truly grow the fanbase, success must be consistent, with fewer lapses and a standard of performance that reinforces belief long after the tournament ends.
The More Things Change, The More They Remain the Same
The No. 9 Timeline: A Historical Look at USMNT Strikers
Entry into US Men’s National Fandom
-
Club News2 years agoAmerican Transfers: Stock Up & Stock Down
-
USMNT2 years agoUSMNT Kits Come in Different Styles and Colors
-
Club News6 years agoCJ dos Santos, Benfica
-
USMNT6 years agoA Hidden Gem: Barça Residency Academy
-
Club News6 years agoJulian Vincente Araujo
-
USMNT3 years ago
World Cup Format History
-
USMNT2 years agoIs the MLS Specifically Targeting Expansion to USL Cities?
-
MLS4 years ago2022 Youth Series: MLS Club Youth Talent Rankings