USMNT
USMNT UNLOCKED
Last Tuesday, I watched the USMNT look toothless and confused versus a terrible version of the Saudi Arabia national team (all domestic, some from the Saudi 2nd division!). Then the next night, I turned on the US U20MNT versus Paraguay and saw something completely different. I saw a team that controlled the ball, dominated it, and produced scoring chances often and with regularity. It is exactly how you must think Berhalter wants the USMNT to play. So, why after almost four years with Berhalter as the coach, can the USMNT not muster any goal threat against super weak opponents, much less good ones, outside of a few games? I think I have the beginning of a reason, a key to unlocking the problem.
First, let us try and understand why the U20s look so good. I think there are two reasons: one is talent advantage and the other is highly technical players in all positions. There is no doubt the US U20s are better than the teams they faced (even though they lost a game they dominated to Mexico). But the USMNT has played games where they were much more talented, man for man, than the opponent with mixed results. The latest is against the Saudi Arabia domestic squad. Therefore, it is not so important to investigate the first reason as a deficit of talented players is not the problem.
The second reason, technical players in all positions, is a more fruitful avenue and the key to understanding why the USMNT struggles at times. Mikey Varas, the U20 coach, rotates quite a bit during the tournament, but he usually puts 10-11 technical players on the field. He accomplishes that, many times, by taking a large surplus of technical central midfielders and playing them at winger, striker, and defensive mid, if he has to. Just to clarify, when I talk about technical players, they don’t have to be Iniesta or Messi. They have to have three things: a good first touch, the ability to play on the half turn, the ability to pass to the correct foot for the teammate, and the situation.
If we look at some games where the senior team has looked as good as the U20s, versus games where they have looked lost, we can see that having technical players, and no weak links, is a minimum requirement to play how Berhalter, supposedly, wants them to play. Most USMNT rosters to date, though, do not contain 11 sound technical players. This is where we need to discuss a type of player that is common in pro soccer and on many USMNT rosters: the Riser. A “Riser” (could also be called a “Faller”, but let’s stay positive) is a player that can mostly do the technical things above, or do them most of the time. The key to the Riser is that they tend to do them most consistently when they are with technical players and on the best fields. When they are playing with non-technical teammates or on poor fields, they tend not to execute as well technically. Some also seem to have long stretches when they are technical then stretches when they are not.
Here are players from rosters since the pandemic shut down sorted into Technical, Risers, and Non-Technical:
|
Technical |
Risers |
Non-technical |
||
|
Pulisc |
Pepi |
Acosta |
||
|
Reyna |
McKennie |
Long |
||
|
Dest |
Miles R. |
Yedlin |
||
|
Richards |
Zimmerman |
Turner |
||
|
Scally |
Steffen |
Cannon |
||
|
De La Torre |
Horvath |
Morris |
||
|
Tillman |
Johnson |
Lletget |
||
|
Aaronson |
Jedi |
Zardes |
||
|
Ferreira |
Arriola |
Bello |
||
|
Weah |
Sargent |
Moore |
||
|
Musah |
Pefok |
Vines |
||
|
Adams |
McKenzie |
Roldan |
||
|
Hoppe |
||||
|
Williamson |
||||
|
Sands |
||||
It is possible that the U20s have Risers mixed in too. It will become clear that it is the ratio of the players that seems to matter. Any Risers on the U20s are blending in because they are surrounded by Technical players. We can also quibble about the above lists, but it won’t make a large practical difference if one or two players are in columns you have a problem with.
The first case study is to look at the Saudi game at the start and after Reyna is subbed for Arriola because of injury. If you look at the performance with Reyna it wasn’t great; but it was much more coherent and better at getting near the opponent’s box than the time after he leaves. To illustrate this, the USMNT had the ball at the feet of the attacker moving at the backline of Saudi Arabia six times in the roughly 30 minutes Reyna is on the field. Over the next 30 minutes with Reyna off the field, this occurred once.
Here is the lineup before and after:
Before After
Technical 4 3
Risers 3 4
Non-Technical 4 4
This is a small change, but the USMNT has tended to perform better when they have more Technical versus Non-Technical players. Especially, on good fields and at home, the Risers in these situations tend to play best and help.
At the 60 minute mark, the USMNT makes three subs and this is what the lineup breaks down as:
At 60’
Technical 5
Risers 4
Non-Technical 2
With Technical players again outnumbering Non-Technical, the USMNT generated six instances of attacking the backline with the ball.
Two of the most extreme differences in performance during qualifying was Away to Panama and Home to Panama. In the former, the team was lifeless and didn’t record a shot on goal. In the latter, the team was ball dominant, incredibly dangerous, and routed Panama 5-1. The former was probably the worst performance and the latter one of the better. Let’s look at how the lineups for the two sorted out between our three player types:
Away Home
Technical 2 5
Risers 3 5
Non-Technical 6 1
The technical skill between the two lineups is glaring. In the Away match, we actually had more Non-Technical players than Technical and Risers added up. In this case, Risers will be Fallers because almost all the other players are Non-Technical. This might be one of the most non-technically proficient lineups we have played outside the Gold Cup. That last bit is interesting and I will discuss it at in the next case study.
Other factors are on the road, on the road in Concacaf, and poor field and a hostile crowd for the Away match. I believe these kinds of variables just make Risers into Fallers. The US U20s have played in Mexico twice, Argentina and Honduras and have not really looked any worse than the few games they played in the USA. So, I don’t believe a team of almost all or all Technical players has problems with fields, crowds, and travel as a team with Non-technical and Risers, like the USMNT.
The second case study is between the 2021 Gold Cup Final and the Home World Cup Qualifier versus Mexico. Both games were at home, on good fields, and both were good results but accomplished two very different ways. Here are the lineups broken out:
GC Final WCQ
Technical 0 4
Risers 5 6
Non-Technical 6 1
Here are the stats from the two games
Stats Summary: GOLD CUP WCQ’ing
Shots: 14 / 22 18 / 8
Shots on Goal: 5 / 5 5 / 4
Corner Kicks: 6 / 11 5 / 3
Fouls: 31 / 20 12 / 13
Keep in mind that the Gold Cup Final went 120’ while the Qualifier only 90’. But it is easy to see that while the USA won both games, they were very different games. In the Qualifier, the USMNT dominated Mexico in a way never seen before. Frankly, they looked like the U20s vs Paraguay or like Bayern Munich versus Augsburg. Playing Mexico, at home, on a good field turned all the Risers into the best version of themselves. The lack of Non-Technical teammates was also a big reason. When you know your teammate will control the ball and do something productive with it, every time, you can play faster and move off the ball in anticipation.
The USA won the Gold Cup with what is a lineup even worse than the lineup that would lay such a dud in Panama a few months later (many of the players were the same too!). Not only did they win, but they controlled the game, but did not dominate the ball. What is different between that game and the Panama away qualifier is that the tactics were different. Berhalter adapted to his non-technical roster by not playing how he tried to play in Panama or against Saudi Arabia. The team didn’t play it out of the back, they used long balls and pressing to control the game and scored on a set piece to win it.
There is nothing wrong with playing that way. Whether it will, “change the way the world views American soccer,” is not really the point. No view will change if we play like we did against Saudi Arabia and exit the World Cup quickly. Well, the views of the few fans of the team that will be tuning in to the World Cup will change, for the worse. Berhalter has to field teams of mostly technical players and fill in only when necessary with Risers. Unfortunately, the USMNT talent pool lacks Technical players at every position and injuries have repeatedly sapped many in every window.
This brings us back to the Gold Cup. When Berhalter is forced, through his own negligence in finding and integrating Technical players, injuries, and suspensions to field teams with a large number of Risers and Non-Technical players, he needs to adjust the tactics to those of the Gold Cup. Not continue to send the players out to execute a game plan that they cannot execute.
We have the key! When the lineup allows, this team can play beautiful Total Football and be ball dominant. When the lineup doesn’t allow that, Gregg needs to change tactics or we will lose.
USMNT
One Home or Many? The Debate Over a Primary Venue for U.S. Soccer
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.
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.
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.
Club News
The constructing of a World Cup roster
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.
USMNT
Launching Caring Excellence in Northern Kentucky
One Home or Many? The Debate Over a Primary Venue for U.S. Soccer
The constructing of a World Cup roster
Launching Caring Excellence in Northern Kentucky
-
Club News1 year agoAmerican Transfers: Stock Up & Stock Down
-
USMNT2 years agoUSMNT Kits Come in Different Styles and Colors
-
Club News6 years agoJulian Vincente Araujo
-
Club News5 years agoCJ dos Santos, Benfica
-
USMNT5 years agoA Hidden Gem: Barça Residency Academy
-
USMNT1 year agoIs the MLS Specifically Targeting Expansion to USL Cities?
-
USMNT3 years ago
World Cup Format History
-
USMNT6 years ago
MLS Quota