USMNT
USMNT vs Honduras: Chess not Checkers
Positional Play Scholar
We had a competitive game! USMNT won 1-0 vs Honduras in the semi-final of the Nations League. In a fantastic preparation for world qualifiers the super young USMNT got the job done. So why did we leave the game feeling more relieved than excited?
Summary
The biggest reason (aside from my pre workout red bull that didn’t completely get worked off) was that fans overreacted to some nervy moments. After taking some time away and rewatching the game in detail, I came to the conclusion that the US really dominated that game. A few mistakes made it nervy for fans. US couldn’t finish plays. But when you break it down the US had no problem in build up. They had no problem getting into final third. They had no problem except that last pass or shot.
This is just one really good example.
Honduras could do nothing against the US. There were two, maybe three really dangerous opportunities, all self inflicted. The most dangerous player for Honduras was Ellis. They first tried him in the middle and Brooks aggressively said, “nope.” They thought he could pick on the “weak” defensive option Dest. Dest manned up 1v1 and laughed. He rarely even tried Robinson who seemed to have been brought on as a defensive specialist.
The US did have a few moments that left fans incredulous. The two most obvious were Steffen coming off his line and completely missing the ball on a cross. It led to Sargent’s best play of the night, a defensive header. (oof). The second was Dest leaving his man (what felt like) 10 yards behind Brooks- on sides. Steffen sniffed out the 1v1 fairly easily. These bloopers aside, Honduras had nothing on their own. By the 60th minute mark while fans were fretting, Honduras knew it and started doing every CONCACAF trick in the book to get the game to penalties.
Chess Match
The most surprising thing on the rewatch were not individual players, it was the tactics. The US was in their usual 433.
Set up
Tactical matches between coaches is about predicting how the other team will try to attack/ defend you and developing counters. Ever since the Gold Cup in 2019, when our primary 6 was Michael Bradley, teams focused on man marking the 6. Depending on how they do that, you can counter that in a few ways.
Honduras did that with 2 strikers, zonally keeping Yueill out of the game.
In every game Berhalter depends on a deep lying play maker/ regista to control the tempo of the game and make plays to his attackers from deeper positions. A deep playmaker makes the field bigger.
Defenses want to make the field small and compact.
A deeper playmaker than can hit deeper passes and can stretch the defense both vertically (by playing balls deeper to guys running in behind) and horizontally to spread them wide to create space for combination plays and runners. A deep lying playmaker is crucial to opening up a low block. In the past, Berhalter ran his offense through a 6 as that deep lying playmaker. Mostly notably Michael Bradley
Honduras wanted to take that away. Mexico did it against the US in the GC. Canada did it to the US in first Nations League game. This was expected. It’s not a big deal for anyone that plays with a 6. There is simple tactical adjustment to this. Mexico plays the same way. In the Gold Cup, Berhalter had Mckennie mark their 6 and Tata made the expected adjustment. He dropped an 8 down.
This is why when people say to me the US should just play a 4231, I say not necessarily. The 433 is a very tactically flexible system. The difference in the 433 vs 4231 (or any formation really) is more about personnel selection than shape. This was the obvious adjustment. You can call this a shift to a 4231 if you want or a 433 with one 8 playing closer to the 6 to get number advantages.
Berhalter didn’t do that. Watching the game I was irritated. This was an obvious adjustment. Berhalter was again not adjusting in game. This wasn’t good.
Well I overreacted and was “less right.” (sounds better than flat out wrong).
Berhalter and his staff simply laughed and said JY is not our star player. Throughout the first half they used him as a decoy. Everyone, including myself, were wondering why the 8’s were playing so high. They weren’t just playing high. The whole team were focused on vertical interchange. The tactical adjustment that the US made was not in the form of numbers, they changed their player movement.
They worked to move the opponent with their movement to create space to exploit.
You see it all through the first half on both sides. People said the midfield didn’t play well. That’s simply false. They used their movement to open up spaces to attack.
They then had added wrinkles with Reyna and Pulisic routinely cutting inside. Every fast break, you’ll find Reyna and Pulisic inside on the break together. It was fantastic, the way they planned to get these two 10’s in the right spaces to work together on the counter. It was largely built off these vertical interchanges.
,
Consistently, they had Reyna and Pulisic cut inside off of these vertical interchanges. They used the forward movement of the cms, to create space for them to attack. This was best seen on fast breaks and quick transitions.
Why?
So why? Why did the US focus on these vertical interchanges instead of the simple adaption of dropping a deeper 8? That’s the chess match. In checkers, you think one move ahead. In Chess, you think two (or many more) moves head. The current Us coaching staff may not be good at checkers but they are excellent at chess.
What would be the reaction by Honduras if the US dropped the 8? We don’t have to guess. Honduras adapted to the vertical interchanges by half time and the US were getting fewer chances with their movments. At half time, the the US dropped their 8’s.
The result was Honduras in a deep block much of the second half. This was why Yueill seemed better and calmer. (he still had a bad game as a whole). It’s why the US started getting deeper as a team into Honduras final third.
One of the hardest things to do is break down a deep block. This season Jorginho scored an own goal against Arsenal. Chelsea spent the whole game trying to beat a deep block. One reason the 3 in the back is more popular is that teams are using their CB’s more as passing playmakers. Brooks was that again and again and again against Honduras. By design. Throughout the first half, Jackson Yeuill occupied two attackers high up the pitch and allowed Brooks to pick them apart from deep.
If they had gone early to dropping the 8’s, Honduras would have spent a lot more time in the low block. We would have had to push numbers forwards to break it down and spent a lot more time vulnerable to the counter.
The US intentionally kept Honduras from falling into that low block for the first half by making plays and runs from deeper. They opened several opportunities throughout first half. Then when Honduras stopped biting on the midfield movement, the US adapted by dropping the 8’s and pushing numbers forward.
Late Game adjustments
At the end of the game with the game still tied 0-0 and Honduras mostly in the low block, the US made further adjustments. These are the best in game adjustments I’ve seen from Berhalter since he became the US coach.
Siebatcheu for Sargent because Sargent was horrible. I’ll try to get into that in a later article.
Acosta for Yuiell because Yueill was also very bad. JY was not bad for the reasons most think though. In short he wasn’t bad because he’s not press resistant or because of his technique. His technique was as good as most on the US (who were oddly bad all game) and the US doesn’t ask their 6 to be press resistant. If they get in a situation where they have to be- something went wrong. I’ll try address that later. For now- he was bad because of these.
When the game was on the line, Berhalter couldn’t trust Yueill to hit the pass. He hit some. It wasn’t all bad but in the last 10 minutes it became crucial that Yueill not play tentative with his passing. So he added Acosta for better range and cover and moved Brooks higher for his DLP skills.
Also huge – for me was Cannon for Robinson. These adjustments drove fans crazy. They want, badly, dynamic impact subs that an do something different. Berhalter and his staff are more likely to change how they want to attack the defense than hope on a supersub.
In this case, they moved Dest to left. This is something I was hoping to see. I’ve said before that the understanding of space and movement is superior by our two best players which currently are Pulisic and Dest. Reyna is a fantastic talent who mostly had a very good game. He’s just not to their level of understanding of those things yet. He’s much better than he was. He did a much better job of both cutting into the halfspace and going wide.
This is a classic zonal interchange that we’ve seen since 2019. Very slick movement by Mckennie to pull two defenders to the wide zone. Mckennie goes wide and Reyna goes to the halfspace slot. Great read and run of Reyna to the space and nice pass slotted into that space. This suits Reyna who I’ve said has a magnet attached to him and the goal. This is more of the “system” at work.
He’s not as good wide though and his instincts to go to goal can get a little predictable.
By adding Cannon and moving Dest to the left, they get these types of things more often. They get better overloads on the left that open up space on the right. As Honduras fell back into a deep block, they needed more zonal fluidity on both sides but particularly left;. They needed more than every to spread out Honduras or they would have to start relying on deep crosses which rarely end well.. just ask Chelsea.
https://twitter.com/goal/status/1375150195181285393?s=20
Similar to this- though this was an overlap. Honduras were doubling Pulisic all game. With Dest and Pulisic together that becomes increasingly difficult to do AND keep defensive integrity across the back four.
Then you get this.
https://twitter.com/BleacherReport/status/1400627001313042433?s=20
Overload of 1v1 talent on the left created a 1v1 with Weston Mckennie and a free man in Cannon. Wes beats his man and it’s a goal.
He brought in Cannon to overload the left. He brought in Acosta to push Brooks up for his DLP skills and he brought in Siebatcheu to get better finishing.
Check Mate.
Concerns
The biggest concern I have is not Jackson Yueil to most fans chagrin. He was mostly a non-factor for me. My biggest concern is related though. My biggest concern is the over reliance on John Brooks. Without Brooks we don’t win that game. We don’t even get half the chances we got and are a lot less dominant.
Mckenzie was pretty poor in deep distribution. He didn’t hit the passes necessary but mostly he didn’t see or try them when they were there. It was not the plan during the vertical interchange to only focus on Brooks. It happened that way because he was the only one that could consistently play the pass.
Sargent is not finishing chances. The below was the worst for me. He finally loses his defender. How does our top striker prospect not beat the cb there? Mount beat Pique in a championship final but our #1 striker prospect can’t beat a Honduras defender. And if you look closely, it looks to me like he just whiffs. Sargent simply wasn’t finishing chances. He got a fantastic ball from Robinson and puts in right at the keeper. I think this is a concern.
We need more players than Brooks to unlock teams from deep and we need a 9 who can score. I would be surprised at this point if Sargent starts next game and I’m concerned with what Tata will come up with to shut down Brooks. I expect Adams back at the 6. He was on the bench this game and I think they’ve been saving him and Musah for Mexico.
The positive side is Berhalter and his staff planned an excellent game against Honduras. They adapted well. Despite some poor finishing and lots of wtf play from just about every player on the field, the US dominated. Most optimistic take away from this game was that the coaches got the tactics right from the start and made pin point adjustments throughout. Those adjustments were huge in winning the game. Let’s hope they can do that vs Mexico.
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