Connect with us

USMNT

USMNT First Qualifier Window: The Tactical Story

Published

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. 

Continue Reading

USMNT

Voices of USMNT on the World Stage

Published

on

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

Over the decades, the United States Men’s National Soccer Team has been accompanied by a wide range of voices behind the microphone, delivering some of the most memorable calls in World Cup history.

Along the way, several standout broadcast duos have helped shape the viewing experience and left a lasting mark on the USMNT landscape.

Here’s a look back at the voices that have defined US World Cup broadcasts since 1990.

1990 FIFA World Cup – Italy 

Network: ESPN

Play-by-play: Bob Ley

Color: Paul Gardner

Coverage of the USMNT at the 1990 World Cup was limited, particularly in the early rounds, but Bob Ley emerged as one of the defining voices of soccer on U.S. television during that era. His presence helped introduce a new generation of American fans to the international game, providing context and credibility at a time when the global stage still felt unfamiliar to much of the US audience.

1994 FIFA World Cup – United States of America

1998 FIFA World Cup – France

2002 FIFA World Cup – Japan / South Korea

Networks: ABC / ESPN

Play-by-play: JP Dellacamera

Color: Ty Keough

This play-by-play and color commentary duo called three World Cups for the USMNT, becoming the defining voice of the team during my peak viewing years. Ty Keough the former USMNT midfielder from the late 1970s and early 1980s.

JP Dellacamera stands out as one of, if not the, best play-by-play announcers and remains one of my favorites. While others on this list delivered memorable moments, they didn’t quite match that same level of longevity.

2006 FIFA World Cup – Germany 

Networks: ABC / ESPN

Play-by-play: Dave O’Brien

Color: Marcelo Balboa

New England native Dave O’Brien, widely known today for calling major sports across his career, had just one World Cup as the primary play-by-play voice for the USMNT. His run calling USMNT matches, primarily in the mid-2000s on ESPN, was relatively brief but still memorable. While he isn’t as closely associated with the USMNT as some other broadcasters, he was behind the mic for several standout moments during that era.

2010 FIFA World Cup – South Korea

Network: ESPN

Play-by-play: Ian Darke

Color: John Harkes

Ian Darke brought a global voice to American audiences as the lead play-by-play announcer for the USMNT during the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Already well known around the world, he made the tournament easy to connect with for U.S. fans and delivered one of the most iconic calls in American soccer history.

Darke’s iconic call of the USMNT game winning goal by Landon Donovan in must win final group stage match against Algeria to advance to the knockout stage of the 2010 World Cup gives me chills every time I see it.

2014 FIFA World Cup – Brazil 

Networks: ESPN / ABC

Play-by-play: Ian Darke

Color: Taylor Twellman

This duo might be my favorite to date. Ian Darke brought a clear, global voice to USMNT viewers during the 2014 FIFA World Cup, making the tournament easy to follow for US fans while elevating the biggest moments with calm, sharp, and memorable calls.

Alongside him, Taylor Twellman emerged as one of the most recognizable and influential voices of the modern era, primarily as a lead analyst on ESPN. His passionate, unfiltered style stood out, most notably with his unforgettable “What are we doing?!” reaction following the USMNT’s failure to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, a moment that’s still talked about today.

2022 FIFA World Cup – Qatar

Network: FOX Sports

Play-by-play: John Strong

Color: Stu Holden

If the USMNT had qualified for the 2018 World Cup, this broadcast team would have called their matches, marking what would have been a third straight World Cup cycle with the same primary commentary crew. It’s also likely he’ll be paired again with Stu Holden for USMNT matches at the 2026 World Cup.

John Strong has served as a lead play-by-play voice for U.S. soccer on FOX Sports since 2018, bringing a modern, high-energy style to the booth. Since taking on major international assignments, he’s become one of the defining voices for USMNT audiences in top competitions, known for his clear, sharp calls and a big-game tone that fits the moment.

Continue Reading

Club News

The Expanding Impact of MLS on the World Cup

Published

on

The growth and success of Major League Soccer has led to more players from around the world representing MLS at the World Cup, with this summer’s tournament expected to feature the highest total yet.

1998 was the first World Cup played after the launch of Major League Soccer. Here’s a breakdown of MLS-based players on World Cup rosters by year:

1998 – 18 (T-8th)
Tied with Liga MX for 8th most. This would the first and only time the USMNT World Cup roster  

2002 – 11 (18th)
All 11 were from the USMNT

2006 – 15 (14th)
11 of the 15 were #USMNT players.

2010 – 6 (25th)
The lowest total to date. Only 6 MLS players, with 4 on the USMNT. This coincided with the peak of US players based in Europe.

2014 – 21 (10th)
Less than half were USMNT players, though the US still led the way the 10 most notably DeAndre Yedlin (20) getting the call.

2018 – 18 (11th)
This number likely would’ve been significantly higher had the USMNT qualified, potentially pushing MLS into the top 7–8 leagues.

2022 – 36 (6th)
The highest total yet, just behind Ligue 1 for 5th. Also worth noting, rosters expanded from 23 to 26 players for this tournament and the first time that the USA didn’t have the most players 

Overall, the trend shows steady growth in MLS representation, both domestically and internationally.

MLS Pipeline Continues for the USMNT

It’s rare for a World Cup–qualified nation not to have a strong share of its players featured across tournament rosters. Canada was a recent exception in 2022, though their ties to MLS remain significant with multiple clubs in the league.

With roster selection less than a month away, it’s reasonable to expect that roughly a third of the #USMNT squad will come from MLS. Below is a positional breakdown of the MLS players Mauricio Pochettino has called in during his tenure as USMNT manager.

Goalkeepers

The USMNT is set to start an MLS-based goalkeeper at a World Cup for the first time, with all of the top options currently playing in MLS.

Chris Brady is one of the goalkeepers I’m most excited to watch in the coming cycles. He’s been performing at a high level in Major League Soccer and looks like a strong candidate to fill the long-term role as the USMNT’s primary starter over the next few cycles.

Chris Brady
Roman Celentano
Matt Freese
Patrick Schulte
Matt Turner

Defenders

Veteran center-backs Tim Ream and Miles Robinson seem likely to be selected with Blackmon a possibility depending on the health of the remaining pool. Arfsten seems to be almost a lock due to his ability to attack and create scoring chances with his crosses from the wing.

Max Arfsten
Tristan Blackmon
Tim Ream
Miles Robinson

Midfielders

The USMNT has strong depth in midfield, and Mauricio Pochettino’s recent roster selections suggest he’ll likely round out the squad with some of the players listed below.

One of the biggest gaps in this USMNT roster is the true dynamic, creative spark in the attacking third. Diego Luna stands out in that role, capable of unsettling defenses, breaking lines, and changing the rhythm of a match. He’s exactly the type of player who could thrive in a super-sub role, coming on against tired legs and making an impact at this summer’s World Cup.

Sebastian Berhalter
Diego Luna
Jack McGlynn
Cristian Roldan
Timothy Tillman

Forwards

Striker may be the toughest position for the MLS group to crack the #USMNT World Cup roster, but Brian White is making a strong case, scoring eight goals in his first nine MLS matches at the time of writing.

Brian White is a highly productive, “old-school” style striker for the USMNT, known for his elite positioning, relentless work rate, and ability to finish in a variety of ways. That combination makes him a strong option as a striker off the bench, where he could be especially dangerous against tired defenses at this summer’s World Cup.

Paxten Aaronson
Josh Sargent
Brian White

MLS Representation in the USMNT Player Pool

Since 1998, the last time the majority of a USMNT World Cup roster was composed primarily of MLS-based players, it has become increasingly clear that a meaningful portion of the squad still comes from MLS. Consistently, roughly 30–40% of the roster has been drawn from the domestic league, reflecting a long-standing and relatively stable trend in player selection over time which I don’t seen changing anytime soon.

Continue Reading

USMNT

The More Things Change, The More They Remain the Same

Published

on

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

Soccer star Pele in action during World Cup competition.

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?

Continue Reading

Trending