Criticism of USMNT's effort and "want to win" are largely off the mark, yet there remain a litany of tactical issues to be addressed

Welcome to the U.S. men's national team panic sphere, where this team is suddenly "in crisis." It's a tragic place for a soccer team to reside. It doesn't really anything. What it does do, though, is fuel the kind of nonsensical rhetoric so often found around this most puzzling of footballing entities.

On Thursday night, the U.S. lost 1-0 to Panama in the CONCACAF Nations League semifinals. It was a pretty bad one. Mauricio Pochettino got his tactics wrong. Panama defended very, very well. Throw in some poor goalkeeping from Matt Turner at the death, a couple of puzzling non-subtitutions, and it was the perfect storm – a picture-book international smash and grab from the Panamanian perspective.

The U.S., as a result, will not play for the opportunity to defend their Nations League crown. Instead, they will face Canada in a not-really-that-happy-to-be-here third-place match at 6 pm ET Sunday at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles. This, in the eyes of many, means the U.S. soccer world is ending. There have been cries for more "intensity" and "grit" and "passion."

There are references to the good old days, when mid-table Premier League players such as Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey, plus a plucky bunch of MLS fillers and European exiles willed their way to a series of dramatic, heroic failures by simply shouting at each other and wanting it more.

And so the rhetoric rumbles on around the national team. These are common themes, this central idea that American ideals – a "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" style of soccer – is needed to push this overtly European looking side to victory.

Even Pochettino said after the loss that the USMNT "need to find a way to compete better. I don't like to say that. We are the USA, but you can't win with your shirt. You cannot win because you play here or there. You need to show and you need to come here and be better and suffer and win duels and work hard."

But that continuous insistence on "fight" is a vast oversimplification of a far more complex problem. These are a lot of good footballers who really do want to win when they step on the pitch. The Panama fixture was far more indicative of a lacking player pool and poor tactical nous – weighed down by an expectation of excellence that is unrealistic to place on a series of talented yet flawed players.

Getty ImagesThe burdens of the past

The United States has a puzzling history when it comes to its men's national soccer team. Like many nations, it has a series of signature moments. There was the famous 1-0 win over England at the 1950 World Cup, the "Dos a Cero" over Mexico 52 years later, Donovan's winner against Algeria, Tim Howard's 16 saves in defeat to Belgium.

Soccer is relatively new in this country, its culture still brewing, but there are still touchpoints to be found.

What it lacks, though, is a clear soccer identity. And that is the problem. There is no recognizable game-model to fall on, or signature style to harken back to. Spain keep the ball and pass you to sleep. Germany run and press. Brazil are more technically skilled. England – also quite good at losing in big moments – are stronger.

But modern football requires a top-to-bottom set of principles as to how a team should play with the ball. Instead, the U.S. seems to run off platitudes. They are going to "fight harder" than you. They just "want it more." They have that "dog" in them. And, ironically, for some time, that was enough. The United States made a living in the early to mid 2000s off being the plucky underdog side that could dig in, win its tackles, defend the box, and hit on the break.

For a generation of players, that was a calling card. Mix that intensity with a few talented individuals playing above the level of everyone else, and it worked a charm. Donovan, Dempsey, Howard, Michael Bradley – total Champions League appearances, 10 – were treated like national heroes. These guys became known for their fighting spirit, mostly because it was the way they could win.

AdvertisementGetty Images SportChange, change, change

The irony is, playing off emotion can only last for so long. It also relies heavily on the assumption that each wave of players thinks, acts and responds in the same way. But these are abstract qualities that don't exist in every footballer.

The U.S. was, in some senses, lucky that a group of players with similar mentalities came through at the same time. There was a collegiality here that really counted for something. Still, look at the results, and there isn't much to fall back on. The actual material stuff in the trophy cabinet holds little value.

The USMNT have won the Gold Cup – a competition that is increasingly a glorified set of summer friendlies between reserve teams – seven times. Elsewhere, they have slightly overperformed in the occasional World Cup, but always lost at the expected time (thus explaining the hunt for an elusive "signature win.") Tim Howard's performance against Belgium is remembered fondly in American circles, but came in a 2-1 loss to a vastly superior team.

Expectations, we are told, should be different now. In this generation – and no, it is not "golden" – the U.S. has its most talented group of footballers ever. Position for position, on quality alone, they would likely beat any other era of American side.

Getty Images SportA program revamp and the expectations

The difference, now, is that there is pressure on a manager to get it all right. And the U.S. has tried and failed for some time. That famous loss to Trinidad and Tobago that ushered out the "dog" era came with a new face in the dugout and a litany of new names worked into the mix. But even that soon turned stale.

The last 18 months of the Gregg Berhalter era felt like a sporting funeral procession. There was an understanding among many observers – often unspoken – that the former Columbus crew manager was not good enough to carry the U.S. through another World Cup cycle. He was considered, in some ciricles, fortunate to be in charge for Copa America.

And he proved as such in 270 minutes at that tournament. The U.S., of course, went out in the groups, losing to – and here's the kicker – Panama, in one of the more underwhelming major tournament performances from a host nation in recent memory. Berhalter went unceremoniously, and there were very few who felt particularly bad about it.

A new face had to come in. So arrived Mauricio Pochettino, experienced club manager, expected to play savior. The early signs were good. A win over – you guessed it – Panama opened his reign with promise.

A comprehensive defeat in Mexico was cast aside and tagged down, fairly, to a litany of injury issues and player absences. Jamaica were handily done away with in November, before January camp was negotiated with the kind of sigh appropriate for a 10-day period in which nothing of consequence ever happens.

Getty Images SportPanama and what went wrong

The Nations League is a curious thing. For non-host nations, there are implications associated with seeding and World Cup qualification. For the USMNT, hosts of the 2026 World Cup along with Canada and Mexico, it serves as more of a pin in an imaginary board, a date circled on a calendar.

There is a vague importance to all of this, if only because there is a game to be played – and the USMNT had never lost in the tournament. This new generation had another shot to prove that it could shake off the burdens of the old.

Pochettino himself stressed the importance of defending the Nations League title, both near and long-term.

"I want to win the competition," he said earlier this week, "because that is going to help us to build our confidence and trust in the way that we are going to need. At the same time, we need to be intelligent, to try to discover the best players and to build a strong core of the team that has the possibility to fight for big things. That mentality is about now, winning."

"The objective is the World Cup, and I think we are translating the idea that we need to compete in our best way and win the tournament because I think it's important for the future. In one year, we want to compete for the big trophy: the World Cup."

And as a result, Pochettino, groovy, shouty, and all, sincerely tried here. There was a formation in place, with footballers assigned to play them. What looked like a five at the back on paper turned into something resembling a 4-2-3-1 in possession. Yunus Musah looked like a right back on the team sheet, but spent a good portion of the game playing as an extra center midfielder or floating in the high right half space. There were, to be sure, ideas.

But Panama were good – very good. Like any shrewd opponent playing away from home, they set up to lose. Two banks of five parried away every U.S. attack with relative ease. They never really tried to keep the ball, and ensured that they didn't have it in areas where they could be pressed.

They completed 320 passes to the USMNT's 645. And when Cecilio Waterman, a 33-year-old forward who plays his football for Coquimbo Unido of the Chilean League, was given his chance in the 94th minute, he buried it. This was counter-attacking football in all of its whimsy.