Imported Article – 2026-07-08 22:44:12

Three years ago, the U.S. Soccer Federation released a report that still surprises me for being made public. Titled “A BREAKDOWN OF THE RIGOROUS PROCESS IN THE SEARCH FOR THE USMNT HEAD COACH,” it detailed how the federation utilized “advanced data analytics, sophisticated metrics, and cutting-edge hiring methods” to select the next manager of the U.S. men’s national team.

The federation showcased Matt Crocker, who was hired after his stint with the English Football Association and Southampton, claiming he brought a fresh outlook and a rigorous approach to finding the best coach for the USMNT.

However, after the 2022 World Cup, it took U.S. Soccer six months and a plethora of “practical and psychological tests” to determine that it simply wanted to keep Gregg Berhalter as coach. Berhalter received a new three-year contract, but was dismissed twelve months later as the team exited the Copa America in the group stage.

In an unexpected turn, rather than undergo another intricate, data-driven process for a coaching replacement—risking the sophisticated metrics to circle back to Berhalter—U.S. Soccer opted for simplicity, banking on its strengths in creating celebrity and generating wealth.

The federation aimed for a renowned coach, leading hedge fund manager Ken Griffin of Citadel to financially back a $6-million-a-year contract for Mauricio Pochettino.

Pochettino stands out as one of the most successful coaches in recent years, with teams characterized by a high-pressing and risk-taking style, dominating their matches by asserting their game intensity.

Until this summer, the USMNT had never played that way. Following Crocker’s departure to Saudi Arabia, Pochettino transformed the team into an aggressive, high-pressing squad, scoring goals and showcasing a new playing style.

Unfortunately, this transformation did not yield success. On Monday, the U.S. was eliminated from the World Cup in the round of 16, repeating the fate of previous appearances. Regardless of employing advanced analytics, hiring top consultants, or securing billionaire support, the outcome remains the same: the coach alone cannot save the national team.

Why Pochettino Achieved Success with the USMNT

Head coaches in any sport have the essential task of elevating their players’ performance beyond their individualized talent. Achieving this often involves aligning the best players on the field to leverage their strengths and mask weaknesses.

While this can be straightforward with certain player combinations, it often presents challenges—especially when top players do not fit well together or when essential positions are lacking. The U.S. men’s national team faced this reality.

Pochettino found a way to solve this conundrum, often relying on a simplistic approach at the international level, which typically emphasizes defensive organization and conservative possession.

Many teams default to such methods, leading to frustrating matches, such as France’s 1-0 win against Paraguay. A team might suppress the opponent’s offense by stacking the defense, while superior teams struggle to penetrate due to a lack of cohesive play and a reluctance to take positional risks.

The U.S. team, however, dismantled negative tactics, displaying dominance in their opening match against Paraguay with a 4-1 victory and achieving similar success against teams like Australia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Pochettino implemented a strategy that allowed the U.S. to function like a club team, maintaining high pressure and aggressive play.

The U.S. had an outstanding defensive metric—ranking higher than most teams in defensive actions in the opponent’s half, and controlling 61.4% of the possession in the attacking third across the matches, even while managing challenges such as players missing or being reduced to ten against Bosnia.

Typically, teams that press high struggle to convert opportunities into goals, often resorting to poorly-timed, long-distance shots. The U.S. was an exception, demonstrating a readiness to take risks usually reserved for club teams.

This was exemplified by players like Weston McKennie and Malik Tillman, who strategically pulled wide and made runs into the box, enhancing the attacking dynamics.

This tactic allowed the U.S. to capitalize on their territorial advantage, converting it into goals. When the ball was lost, the press was effective in regaining possession.

Pochettino’s approach also aligned well with the current player roster. Modern teams often feature a versatile defender capable of adapting to various formations as needed. Alex Freeman filled this role for the U.S., enabling Sergiño Dest, an offensive player with defensive limitations, to have additional support.

This setup empowered Antonee Robinson, an athletic left-back, to operate on his own, echoing the successful back-three formation used by Chris Richards at Crystal Palace and mitigating Tim Ream’s defensive challenges.

In turn, Ream’s passing abilities allowed players like Tillman and McKennie to focus offensively. Meanwhile, Tyler Adams, playing as the holding midfielder, effectively managed defensive responsibilities, while Dest’s flexibility addressed a positional gap for a quality winger opposite Christian Pulisic.

This comprehensive strategy made sense, worked effectively—until the U.S. faced a team with superior talent.

Why Pochettino Fell Short with the USMNT at the World Cup

There can be instances where tactical maneuvers lead to unexpected outcomes in soccer matches, such as one team exploiting the distinct weaknesses of another. Conversely, sometimes a manager’s conservative decisions can hinder their team’s potential. (Hello, Netherlands.)

The U.S. loss to Belgium was defined not by tactical failures but by a collective lack of performance among the American players.

While the U.S. controlled some possession, the match dynamics skewed in their favor due to an early deficit. Ultimately, the U.S. recorded just twelve touches in the opponent’s box compared to Belgium’s twenty-two, and attempted only seven shots throughout the game, with their first open play attempt coming at the 79th minute from Sebastian Berhalter.

It wasn’t a match that involved just a few unfortunate bounces; the U.S. simply was outperformed.

Each dot indicates a shot (in purple) or goal (in orange), with size reflecting each attempt’s expected goals (xG) value.

Significantly, the U.S. entered this match as favored to win, facing a Belgium team that had performed poorly leading up to the knockout stages. Their best player, Jérémy Doku, played only the final half-hour. Meanwhile, Kevin De Bruyne, one of the best midfielders of all time, didn’t play at all. Despite facing a diminished Belgian squad, the U.S. struggled to defend, failing to run effective plays in offensive zones.

There is a temptation to label the USMNT as “naive,” asserting they should’ve played conservatively, focusing on defense and utilizing counterattack opportunities. But in reality, what transpired with Ream defending the penalty area illustrated a broader issue: the U.S. players fell short.

Ream, who once was an integral player for the U.S., is now 38 years old—past his prime. His presence on the field reflects the lack of suitable alternatives at his position.

Despite the growing number of Americans in European leagues, the talent pipeline has yet to produce a genuine superstar able to secure a starting position on a top world team.

While it may be premature to react heavily to one disappointing outcome, it’s clear that several U.S. starters would likely perform better in a rematch—factors like Balogun’s suspension may have disrupted their dynamic.

The four matches played by the U.S. in the World Cup suggest a player pool that thrives against lesser talents but struggles against stronger competition.

Goalkeeper Matt Freese faltered under pressure, underscoring his continued presence in MLS. Ream’s strength lies in his passing, which shines during aggressive play yet falters during defensive duties. Richards excels as a solid defender, but may not match elite opponents in either stopping them or effectively distributing the ball.

Robinson’s notable athleticism allows him to contribute defensively, but he does not carry the game offensively. Meanwhile, Dest remains in PSV and not at Barcelona, due to his lack of clear positional identity.

On a positive note, Freeman is making a name for himself and shone against Belgium, leading the U.S. with ten progressive passes in the round of 16, according to Futi.

As a versatile defender, he possesses the potential to become a standout player in future competitions.

In midfield, Adams excels as a cleanup player rather than as a tempo controller. Tillman and McKennie perform best among complementary talent but struggle when expected to dismantle defensive lines or maintain possession against opposing midfielders.

Balogun, the best U.S. striker to date, lacks that star power needed to shift game momentum. His strengths emerge when space is available, something that Pauses when the team struggles to create opportunities.

Pulisic’s need to minimize distractions cannot be overstated; despite being with AC Milan, he remains inconsistent and often injured.

This summer, Pulisic’s sporadic performances and injury woes compounded his struggles against stronger defenses.

When the U.S. system fails to yield scoring opportunities—particularly against stronger opponents—Pulisic becomes a crucial player. If he cannot perform effectively, the results can be disastrous.

Managers often acknowledge their limited impact on match results. Legendary figure Johan Cruyff once remarked, “If your players are better than your opponents, 90% of the time you will win.” Giovanni Trapattoni captured it succinctly: “A good manager makes a team 10% better, and a bad manager makes it 30% worse.”

Statistical analyses consistently affirm these sentiments among coaching professionals.

As Ian Graham, Liverpool’s former head of research, noted in his book, a good manager can enhance a team by a few points per season—minor compared to the significant impact of player talent.

Thus, while criticisms of Pochettino’s performance may be warranted, it’s evident that overcoming the deficit of talent is an insurmountable challenge that coaching alone cannot rectify.

Ultimately, the narrative remains unchanged. As much as a remarkable coach could potentially elevate the U.S. team, the prospect of becoming a true contender hinges on the development of world-class talent—an aspiration that currently seems distant.