Connect with us

USMNT

USMNT First Qualifier Window: The Tactical Story

Published

4 years ago

on

The US made it out of the first qualifying window with the minimum points required to call it a success. The general rule for qualifying in CONCACAF is to win your home games and draw your away games.  That usually gets you at least in knocking distance if not all the way in.  For this set of matches, the US had two away games and one home.  If they won their home game and drew their away games, then that’s 5 points.

The US chose the harder path to 5 points. They drew one away game and their home game.  To get the minimum, they needed a win against Honduras.  They get it in dramatic fashion.  After looking disorganized and defeated in the first half with a score of 0-1.  The US came back and won 4-1. 

This window was stressful for fans.  The US started with a draw to El Salvador in what was a very winnable game.  Winning away in CONCACAF is hard.  Many veteran players defended the draw.  The fields are bad.  The environment is very hostile. The refs are questionable. There is no VAR and all our European based players were required to do a lot of travel. 

Fans went into the game with Canada with a lot of hope. I was at the USMNT vs Canada game in Nashville and the crowd was great.   We win this game and we’re on path to at least make par.  The US struggles all game to score and ends up with a draw at home.  

This is where I became very worried. I wasn’t worried because of the points.  It’s still very early in qualifying.  Weird things can and do happen. I was worried because of what I think I saw in the tactical story. 

The last two managers for the US have talked about pushing the USMNT into the new era. Under their leadership, the US would play attractive, possession based soccer.  There is a lot of debate about how much that should be a focus. Berhalter came in three years ago with that promise. It was so heavily stated that Lalas early on questioned if Berhalter was too romantic or practical enough to get wins. 

The first test of these ideas were in the first year.  Teams worked to press our backline. US struggled mightily to pass out of the back. Passing from our defensive third s to the attacking half is a first foundational piece of a possession game. We lost heavily to Mexico in a friendly trying to pass out of the back. That was a friendly, however and can be excused.  Then we lost to Canada in the Nation’s league. That rocked the boat. Was Berhalter so tied to a style of play instead of finding the correct tactical approach to win? 

The answer was no. They used direct play to find transition opportunities to punish Canada in the next game. They then used that tactic against every other team they faced over the next year that tried a pressing strategy. Whenever pressed, the US turned them into transition opportunities. 

The following year the USMNT added a high press to their toolbox. Again they were focused on pressing and winning the ball to generate scoring chances. This worked well in many games. It was again scoring via transition opportunities, though these were much more self created.

This is what the US has traditionally been very good at.  Most of my best memories are the US scoring on counters and transitions.  Many of our best players such as Pulisic, Reyna, Adams, and Mckennie, Robinson- all play for teams who excel in transition. Few of our players play day in and day out on teams that do anything else. Pulisic plays for Chelsea but struggles for playing time if it’s a game where he is unlikely to attack in transition. 

The US coach, coaching at the highest level for RB Leipzig, focuses on the press and scoring in transition.  

The US players, coaches and system simply do not have a history, reputation or extensive experience breaking teams down with possession. The only games I can think where we have done that have been against teams where the US had an immense talent advantage. 

This is why many fans and some coaches have said this should be our identity.  

Identity though is philosophy.  Tactics are about ideas to win games. Tactically, there are four phases of the game. Without the ball, with the ball, transitions, and set pieces. Transitions are only one phase and just about any decent team can focus and take away a strength in one phase of play. 

The Red Bulls soccer franchise has been built on the high press.  Yet before Jesse Marsch they hired Julian Naglesmann. He was brought in to bring more possession oriented attack to a franchise that struggled against teams that took away transitions. 

All of that is to say- Canada came into the game with the US with one goal. Take away the transition play.  Canada had already tried pressing the US into submission with poor effect. All the US did was play direct and create transition attacks.  If Canada tried to possess the ball, US pressed and turned those into transition attacks. 

So Canada decided to remove those transition attacks. They did this by doing a few things.  One, they attacked directly with no intent to score with possession.  Second, when they lost the ball, the attackers immediately counter pressed to keep the US from attacking quickly.  This meant that as soon as Robinson or Adams wins the ball, a Canadian attacker was in his face. This forced the US to make a choice.  Try to beat that attacker 1v1 in your own defensive 3rd (very dangerous) or pass it backwards and move it around the pressing player.  If they all out pressed, the US players can keep doing that until they find a man free enough to hit a direct (longer) pass.

Canada didn’t all out press though. A US player couldn’t win the ball, pass to a teammate and then attack directly to punish it.  As soon as the first line of press was broken, they fell back into a low block and took away the space behind them.  The direct option was rarely there.  They were particularly watchful of Pulisic. 

This forced the US to progress more slowly up the field. It forced the US to try and win the game via possession.  The US simply couldn’t do it.  They could not break Canada down. The one time the US scored, it was a rare transition opportunity.  

I’ll go into later what the US tried and why it didn’t work. The point being- they could not break a decent (not stellar) team with possession. 

This seemed to shake the US confidence.   I was personally concerned this could turn into a criss.  Soccer tactics are about problems and solutions. Defense creates problems and offense has to find solutions (or ideas) to solve those problems.  Throughout the last 3 years, for every problem presented to the US, they found a solution tactically but it was almost always a way to score in transition or set pieces. 

Canada has provided the US with a boogeyman. The problem to solve is how can the US break down a decent team and win with possession?  Of  course other teams would copy this.  Honduras was already averaging 30% possession going into the match.  If the US did not solve this problem- a problem we have spent years trying to solve-  qualifying could be at risk.  It had players, such as Pulisic, saying things like they needed new ideas.  New ideas is soccer speak for they needed new ways to solve this problem. 

So the US came out against Honduras with a whole new formation and with multiple new personnel. They came out with a slew of new ideas to tackle this problem. They put in 3 good CB passers to break the lines and spread the ball. They put in Sands (a good deep passer) at the 6. Acosta next to him who is also a good deep passer. They put in Bello, a creative player, who can attack in the halfspace.  They started two strikers to take up defenders and create more connections and space for our creative players such as Pulisic.   I have to think their training session(s) were evolved around breaking the low block. 

Then Honduras surprised us all with a pressing strategy.  The result was first half mayhem.  Sands, a very good passer, suddenly is trying to cover a lot of space.  The answer to pressing is to play direct. So CB’s are trying to play long balls. Strikers and wings are trying to get in behind.   The chaos spread out the backline from the attackers. This created more midfield problems. Already ill suited to cover space, players like Sands were having to cover more space.  

Then the unthinkable happened.  As CB’s tried to play direct and attackers tried to get in behind, our cm’s struggled to cover ground. Sands in particular,  a very good passer but with more CB speed, slipped and slid all over the field trying to keep up with attackers. This opened up space in the midfield. Brooks correctly stepped up but missed the challenge. Honduras broke our defensive line and the attacking oriented Bello was slow to react.  Honduras scored first. 

The team looked defeated. Their energy dropped. Their tactics were confused and our best players started trying to play hero ball. 

At half time, Berhalter righted the ship. He switched out the players who were in their to beat a low block and went with a pressing strategy.  Aaronson for Sargent. He plays for RB and knows how to win the ball and attack.  Robinson who is fast, aggressive and good defensively replaced the creative Bello.  Llegett came on for Brooks so we could add more midfield stability and move away from the back three. All moves geared to win the ball, transition and score. 

If Honduras dropped back into a low block, the US could have faced the exact same problem they faced against Canada. For some unknown reason, Honduras didn’t drop back into a low block.  The US could play right into their strengths with aggressive transition play.  We won the game 4-1 through turnovers, transitions, and excellent play from the subs.  

Mostly I think fans felt relief. It was a solid win away for game most of us penciled in as a draw before the window started.  We had 5 points total. It didn’t go at all to plan but we have the minimum needed to feel like the window was successful.  We’re sitting in good shape in the table with a plethora of easier games and home games available. 

A big looming question remains for the US. This is supposed to be a golden generation.  It’s supposed to be the pivotal world cup cycle when the US talent pipeline opens up and we start to see who we can become as a soccer nation.  The team says they want to change how the world sees the US when it comes to this sport. 

Yet Canada found a weakness in this golden generation.  Canada not only successful achieved a draw in a game the US needed to win, but they rattled the team.  They caused them to overcompensate going into the next game. That overcompensation almost caused a loss that would have erased all the good will and excitement generated by two domestic trophies.  

Right now, qualifying for the World Cup may hinge on the US solving the one problem that has eluded us for decades. When we get into the next window, who will have learned more? The US or our opponents?  Can the US win games against good opponents without transition play?

Can the US win with possession against good teams?

Time will tell.  I hope so. 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

USMNT

From Maradona to Messi

Published

2 days ago

on

October 31, 2025

By

From Maradona to Messi: A Quick Look at World Cups 1986–2022 

Thomas Deschaine (@uskeeper on X and us_keeper on Instagram)

A quick look back at the last ten World Cups reveals how the world’s greatest sporting event has evolved and grown through the decades. With over 200 days until the 2026 FIFA World Cup kicks off, here’s a high-level recap of the tournaments that shaped its legacy, and a glimpse of what’s next.

1986 – Mexico


Diego Maradona delivered a World Cup for the ages, scoring both the “Goal of the Century” and the infamous “Hand of God” in the same match, then leading Argentina past West Germany to claim their second World Cup title.

1990 – Italy

** FILE ** Argentina’s Diego Maradona and West Germany’s Guido Buchwald tangle with one another during the World Cup soccer final in Rome on August, 7, 1990, won by the Germans 1-0. Argentina and Germany will meet Friday June 30 in Berlin in a quarterfinal match of the 2006 soccer World Cup. (AP Photo)

The USA returned to the World Cup after a 50-year absence in what became the lowest-scoring tournament in history, as West Germany edged Argentina 1–0 on a late penalty. It marked West Germany’s final World Cup before reunification.

1994 – United States

The USA hosted its first-ever World Cup, setting all-time attendance records as Brazil defeated Italy in the tournament’s first final decided by a penalty shootout in front of the largest crowds in US since the 1984 Olympics.

1998 – France

FIFA’s first 32-team World Cup saw host nation France capture its first-ever title, becoming the seventh country to win the trophy. Led by Zinedine Zidane triumphed on home soil with a commanding victory over defending champions Brazil.

2002 – South Korea/Japan

The first World Cup with co-hosting nations saw South Korea stun many by reaching the semifinals, while Brazil claimed their fifth title, powered by Ronaldo’s two goals in the final against Germany.

2006 – Germany 

Germany came up short on home soil, losing in extra time to eventual first-time finalist Italy in the semifinal. Italy went on to claim its fourth World Cup, edging France on penalties in a final forever marked by Zidane’s infamous headbutt in extra time.

2010 – South Africa

The first World Cup hosted by a CAF nation, South Africa, saw the host nation become the first ever to fail to advance past the group stage. Meanwhile, Spain captured their first World Cup, showcasing their tiki-taka mastery and defeating the Netherlands in extra-time with Andrés Iniesta’s decisive goal.

 

2014 – Brazil 

Host nation Brazil reached the semifinals on home soil but suffered a shocking 7–1 defeat to Germany and then fell 3-0 to the Netherlands in the third-place match. Germany went on to defeat Argentina in extra time, with Mario Götze scoring the decisive goal, while Lionel Messi claimed the Golden Ball as the tournament’s best player.

2018 – Russia

France’s golden generation, spearheaded by tournament Best Young Player Kylian Mbappé, captured their second World Cup title with a thrilling 4–2 victory over Croatia, led by Golden Ball winner Luka Modrić.

2022 – Qatar

Soccer Football – FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 – Semi Final – Argentina v Croatia – Lusail Stadium, Lusail, Qatar – December 13, 2022 Argentina’s Julian Alvarez celebrates scoring their second goal with Lionel Messi, Rodrigo De Paul and Nahuel Molina as Croatia’s Dominik Livakovic and teammates look dejected REUTERS/Carl Recine

The 2022 World Cup, overshadowed by controversies over migrant worker treatment and extreme heat, which pushed the tournament to November and December, ultimately delivered a historic finale. Lionel Messi achieved crowning glory as Argentina triumphed on penalties in a thrilling 3–3 final against France, highlighted by Kylian Mbappé’s hat-trick.

2026 – United States/Mexico/Canada

The 2026 World Cup will feature a major expansion from 32 to 48 teams and, for the first time ever, be hosted by three nations. Mexico will make history as the first country to host matches in three different World Cups, while the United States becomes the sixth nation to host at least twice. What unforgettable moments will define this landmark tournament?

Continue Reading

USMNT

One Home or Many? The Debate Over a Primary Venue for U.S. Soccer

Published

2 weeks ago

on

October 16, 2025

By

Thomas Deschaine (@uskeeper on X and us_keeper on Instagram)

The logics of the United States make it almost impossible for the USMNT or USWNT to have a primary venue to play all of their home matches but a trend of playing in a handful of stadiums has been developing over the last couple of cycles. US Soccer says there are specific factors behind where matches are played, some make sense, while others come across as lazy or lacking creativity.

If and when Major League Soccer aligns with the FIFA calendar and observes international breaks, more MLS stadiums could become available for matches. While not all MLS venues currently feature natural grass, US Soccer has indicated they would be willing to invest in installing grass, though at a cost of around $500K and with potential concerns about surface reliability.

Global Approach to Scheduling

Many of the top-tier international teams play their World Cup qualifiers and other critical matches in a primary venue or two. Here’s a sample of some of those countries and generally where they play based on my research.

Here are some of the more notable nations that play nearly all of their home matches at a single venue, a setup made practical by their smaller size and simpler logistics, which also makes it easier for fans.

Germany and Spain are known for rotating their non-critical home matches across multiple venues.


Argentina-Estadio Monumental (River Plate)

Belgium– King Baudouin Stadium (Brussels)

Colombia-Estadio Metropolitano Roberto Meléndez

England-Wembley Stadium

France– Stade de France (Saint-Denis, near Paris)

Italy-Stadio Olimpico

Northern Ireland-Windsor Park (Belfast)

Norway-Ullevaal Stadion (Oslo)

Portugal– Estádio da Luz (Lisbon)

Republic of Ireland-Aviva Stadium (Dublin) 

Scotland-Hampden Park (Glasgow)

Uruguay-Estadio Centenario

Wales-Cardiff City Stadium

What’s in a location?

Here’s a look at the past few cycles, highlighting the USMNT’s home matches and the venues they’ve used. While US Soccer has clarified that they don’t control Gold Cup or Nations League venue selection, a point still under debate, they do manage the locations for Friendlies and World Cup qualifiers and continue to review and adjust those choices.

2026 Cycle (Matches Scheduled Through the end of 2025) – 46 Home Matches – 30 unique cities

So far, half of the USMNT’s home matches in the 2026 cycle have been held across eight venues. Only two more windows, March and May/June, remain for Friendlies before the 2026 World Cup.

  • 4-AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas
  • 4-Energizer Park, previously CityPark, St. Louis, Missouri
  • 4-Q2 Stadium, Austin, Texas
  • 3-Inter&Co Stadium (previously Orlando City Stadium and Exploria Stadium, Orlando, Florida
  • 2-Allegiant Stadium, Paradise, Nevada
  • 2-Geodis Park, Nashville, Tennessee
  • 2-Rentschler Field, East Hartford, Connecticut
  • 2-TQL Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio


AT&T Stadium, Arlington, TX

2022 Cycle – 43 Home Matches – 24 unique cities

I can almost give US Soccer a pass on city and venue selection during the 2022 cycle, given the global circumstances at the time. That said, it’s interesting that they scheduled three consecutive home World Cup qualifiers in Ohio, with final round two matches in Columbus. Columbus has been a recurring choice, hosting multiple qualifiers in 2014, 2018, and 2022, handling one match each during both the semifinal and final rounds of qualifying in 2014 and 2018.


Lower.com, Columbus, Ohio

2018 Cycle – 47 Home Matches – 33 unique cities

During the 2018 cycle, the USMNT played in a wider variety of cities and venues. Aside from four matches in Carson, California for the January camp, they only repeated a location eleven times.


Dignity Health Sports Park, Carson, CA

2014 Cycle – 43 Home Matches – 29 unique cities

During the 2014 cycle, the USMNT repeated cities twelve times, but only two cities hosted more than two matches: Carson, California, where two of three games were for Camp Cupcake, and Kansas City, Kansas, which hosted three matches.


Children’s Mercy Park, Kansas City, Kansas

2010 Cycle – 35 Home Matches – 18 unique cities

One of the leanest home schedules in recent cycles saw the USMNT play in just 18 different cities, with 11 of them hosting only a single match. Over half of their home games were concentrated in four cities: Carson, California (7 matches); Chicago, Illinois (5 matches); and Foxborough, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. (3 matches each).


Soldier Field, Chicago, IL

2006 Cycle – 44 Home Matches – 24 unique cities

The USMNT played eight matches in Foxborough, Massachusetts—double the number held in the next two cities, Columbus, Ohio, and Miami, Florida, which each hosted four matches. Notably, the team has excelled in Foxborough, losing only once in 22 games played there.


Foxboro Stadium, Foxborough, MA

2002 Cycle – 38 Home Matches – 16 unique cities

During the 2002 cycle, California was clearly a preferred destination for the USMNT, hosting matches in five different cities across twelve games. Foxborough, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C. each hosted five matches as well. 

GENERAL VIEW OF THE CROWD AND THE STADIUM 1994 WORLD CUP FINAL BRAZIL V ITALY FOOTBALL ROSEBOWL LOS ANGELES USA PHOTO: CRISPIN THRUSTON ©SPORTING PICTURES (UK) LTD TEL:+44 020 7405 4500 FAX:+44 020 7831 7991 www.sportingpictures.com Mandatory Credit: Action Images / Sporting Pictures


Rose Bowl Stadium, Pasadena, CA

1998 Cycle– 40 Home Matches – 21 unique cities

Washington D.C. was the city of choice for the USMNT during the 1998 cycle playing six matches. The USMNT would also play more than two matches in Los Angeles, California (5 matches), Foxborough, Massachusetts (4 matches) and Pasadena, California (3 matches) while playing only one match in twelve other cities.

Southeast (Washington DC) RFK Stadium

RFK Stadium, Washington, DC

Long Term Venue Strategy

While US Soccer may favor a single venue for most USMNT and USWNT matches, doing so would limit access for thousands of fans across the country. However, with the move to Georgia and the Arthur M. Blank U.S. Soccer National Training Center set to open in early 2026, ahead of the World Cup, it’s likely that future matches will focus on venues within three to four hours of Atlanta. We can expect the majority of games to continue taking place in roughly ten to twelve core cities.

Continue Reading

Club News

The constructing of a World Cup roster

Published

2 months ago

on

September 13, 2025

By

Thomas Deschaine (@uskeeper on X and us_keeper on Instagram)

With the September FIFA window now in the rearview mirror, and only three more windows left before final rosters are set in late May or early June 2026, Mauricio Pochettino has drawn a clear line.

He’s stated that September’s camp was the “last camp to have the possibility for new faces.”

If we take him at his word, the nearly 70 players who’ve been called across six camps and the Gold Cup will form the pool from which he selects the 2026 World Cup squad.

Of the 60 players named to the 2025 Gold Cup provisional roster, only five, Maxi Dietz, Richie Ledezma, Tim Tillman, Caleb Wiley, and Griffin Yow, have yet to appear on a #USMNT roster under Pochettino.

Comparing the 2025 Nations League provisional roster to the Gold Cup list reveals over a dozen different players, raising the question: are these minor differences simply the edges of the player pool Pochettino intends to draw from?

Goalkeepers 

Nine goalkeepers have been called into Pochettino’s camps, but it’s clear that Matt Freese is his first-choice right now, with Matt Turner likely the No. 2 as we sit just 10 months from the World Cup.

  • Chris Brady
  • Drake Callender
  • Roman Celentano
  • Matt Freese
  • Ethan Horvath
  • Jonathan Klinsmann
  • Diego Kochen
  • Patrick Schulte
  • Zack Steffen
  • Matt Turner

Fullbacks

Outside of Sergiño Dest and Antonee Robinson, the USMNT’s fullback depth remains a concern. Pochettino appears high on MLS defenders Alex Freeman and Max Arfsten, while Caleb Wiley, though yet to feature in a USMNT camp but named to recent provisional rosters, could still be on his depth chart.

  • Max Arfsten
  • Sergino Dest
  • Alex Freeman
  • Marlon Fossey
  • DeJuan Jones
  • Kristoffer Lund
  • Shaquell Moore
  • Antonee Robinson
  • Joe Scally
  • John Tolkin

Centerbacks

Center back remains another position with uncertain depth. Chris Richards and the veteran Tim Ream look like locks for now, leaving three spots up for grabs. If Pochettino opts for a back three, that tactical shift could influence which players ultimately make the cut. Notably, Jackson Ragen and Maxi Dietz are the only center backs from the recent provisional rosters who haven’t been called into a USMNT camp.

  • Noahkai Banks
  • Tristan Blackmon
  • George Campbell
  • Cameron Carter-Vickers
  • Mark McKenzie
  • Tim Ream
  • Chris Richards
  • Miles Robinson
  • Auston Trusty
  • Walker Zimmerman

Central Midfielders

The central midfield position is the deepest for the #USMNT, with many players in the pool capable of also playing fullback, center back, or winger. Although Richie Ledezma has primarily played as a right back and right wing-back for his current club and for PSV last season, USMNT coaches view him primarily as a midfielder. This likely explains why he hasn’t yet been called into a USMNT camp.

  • Tyler Adams
  • Sebastian Berhalter
  • Gianluca Busio
  • Johnny Cardoso
  • Ben Cremaschi
  • Luca de la Torre
  • Emeka Eneli
  • Jack McGlynn
  • Weston McKennie
  • Aidan Morris
  • Yunus Musah
  • Tanner Tessmann
  • Sean Zawadzki

Attacking Midfielders

There are several players at this position who could add real quality and play pivotal roles for the #USMNT at next summer’s World Cup. Gio Reyna remains a major question mark, but his talent is undeniable. With his recent club change, there’s hope he can return to the high level of form we’ve seen from him in the past.

  • Brenden Aaronson
  • Paxten Aaronson
  • Brian Gutiérrez
  • Djordje Mihailovic
  • Matko Miljevic
  • Gio Reyna
  • Malik Tillman

Wingers

The winger position remains thin for the #USMNT, though several players there can also slot in as attacking midfielders, strikers, or even fullback. Notably, two young wingers, Cole Campbell and Griffin Yow, appeared on provisional rosters but have yet to be called into any Pochettino camp.

  • Cade Cowell
  • Diego Luna
  • Christian Pulisic
  • Quinn Sullivan
  • Indiana Vassilev
  • Tim Weah
  • Haji Wright
  • Alejandro Zendejas

Strikers

Another area of concern for the USMNT is striker depth. While the top options have all produced well for their clubs when healthy, injuries have kept the pool thin. If everyone is fit, the primary competition for the starting role likely comes down to three players: Folarin Balogun, Ricardo Pepi, and Josh Sargent. Haji Wright and Tim Weah can also step in as center-forward options if needed.

  • Patrick Agyemang
  • Folarin Balogun
  • Damion Downs
  • Jesus Ferreira
  • Ricardo Pepi
  • Josh Sargent
  • Brandon Vazquez
  • Brian White

Conclusion

It’s tough to read Pochettino’s mindset right now. Many expect fewer MLS players to be called for the October window, partly because the league continues through FIFA dates and the regular season ends mid-October.

Most World Cup rosters largely select themselves, with only a few surprising omissions, think of the 1994 squad, which left out several players many felt deserved a spot.

But with Pochettino still showing a shaky grasp of the USMNT player pool, this cycle could produce more notable snubs than ever, though there’s still time for him to get it right.

Continue Reading

Trending