Post-match: USA v. South Korea - September 6, 2025 - International Friendly

Pochettino and everyone else who has ever played the game. You don't know? Why the heck not?

You don't just show up and play 90 minutes in a World Cup match. You need to play regularly for your club over a long period of time.

 

Here's the very basic reality - South Korea went up by 2 goals on surgical transitional strikes off their press/trap and against ours. Then sat deeper & congested our offense. We got some cheapies in stoppage time because SK would have won anyway.

Context matters. It was pretty evocative of the Netherlands match in the WC. The opposing team hit us with efficient transitional play to exploit our mistakes and gaps in defense. Surrounding they let us fiddle with the ball, but especially after they took a multi-goal lead. Ultimately we could say look at our possession & xg accumulated in the 2nd half.

We need to add a # or 2 to CM in most games (433, 442 diamond, 352), have a more adept ball progressor or two to lean on in CM. Have Tyler or a dedicated d-mid hang back to thwart counters instead of roam fw & out wide with a press. Give the rest of our team target(s) who can run channels for some easier outlets. Control games better early & create several real chances, instead of later rationalizing how we did well because the opposing team already did their jobs.

 

Agreed.

My ranting comes from a place of sincere caring about the team, about the game in the USA, and about having something to bring unity to our country in 2026.

 

Yes, thank you! That Holland match is exactly what I thought of.
They couldn’t have scored without Son? Based on what? There’s no one else on that team that could create or a score a goal against us? All we do is give up goals and score very few, at least when it comes to good competition.
Son is overrated here. He’s very good, but the WC will be littered with players even better and we’re going to face them at some point. If we can’t handle Son, expect more of the same next summer.
At no point in time did I think we are the better team. Korea only did the bare minimum, if they needed to do more we weren’t stopping them, Son or no Son.
It’s going to be better Tuesday. The second match in a window always is. But to hear we were better and just didn’t finish depresses me, it’s the last thing to takeaway from that match. We got rope a doped. We hardly challenged.

Panama is better than our best because scoreboard but Korea isn’t because xg? Which is it?
Not winning because we can’t finish or we make costly mistakes in a match or two can be bad luck but at this point it’s just who we are. And what that equals is a bad team.

 

I don't know the definition of a full chance, so I probably shouldn't use that word. I don't really know what to use, but I generally gauge the gameplan and ball progression on basically scoring opportunities. They are somewhat subjective but close to what came out in that Herdman document that people fawned over -- basically, when do we have some level of advantage close to goal?

I mentally call it a chance but an actual chance has some formal definition I don't quite understand. Perhaps "creating danger" or "a scoring opportunity."

A good example of one that's not the other is that Christian and Luna (Dest?) early on had a nice one two and Christian received the ball in the box with no one directly on him. There were defenders in the box and between him and goal; it wasn't like "he should have scored" but it's absolutely a situation where people do get off a good shot with a decent xG -- I dunno, maybe one of those .15 xG level shots or something.

But that's far from nothing and if you grab 7-8 of those, something should go in. It was nothing like the ball that fell to Weah, or the Weah offside, or the seven Balogun kicks in a row or Chris Richards somehow missing ... but we eliminated a defender and got one of our best attackers into the box with no immediate pressure and while it wasn't clean on goal .. there also wasn't a wall in front of him.

So we may very well be seeing the same thing. That's been the issue with our team. In this case, Christian took a terribly heavy touch out of nowhere and it died. He has an okay touch and he gets a shot off.

We just have a lot of those -- an inch or two off here or there.

But if I'm measuring whether the midfield got the ball to the attack, or whether the attack generated chances or whether we just can't deliver on the final ball or two's execution ... our issue in this game was the latter, IMO.

 

There's a big problem with the latter (3-back trials):

1. We have tons of midfielders (Adams, Johnny, McKennie, Musah, Reyna, Tillman, Luna, Morris, Tessmann, Berhalter, McGlynn, Sands, Busio, Maloney, Roldan, etc. etc. etc.) for three starting midfield spots

2. We have one reliable CB (Richards) for two starting CB spots

3. Given those numbers we can't be starting 3 CB + 2 MF instead of 2 CB + 3 MF ... that just makes no sense given our current player pool.

4. Just work on finding the one more starting CB out of Banks, McKenzie etc. (I don't even know who else, Akinmboni, Wynder, Chase... Campbell?? Miles or Zimmerman? the Celtic duo?) while also figuring out who the best starting MF trio are... as it is we have 6 games over 3 windows after this until WC rosters, there is no time for other experiments, because in addition to answering those two very basic questions there is almost no time for those starters to gel afterwards.

 

He’s at the tail end of his career but I don’t think he’s being overrated at all. This is a guy who was consistently one of the best players in the EPL and even won the golden boot a few years ago. He was a world class player at his peak though he’s a bit older now.

 

I don't think it's totally unlike the Netherlands, either.

But my point was that they didn't dominate the midfield. They didn't rip us apart over and over. They had 2-3 chances and converted them, in part because of our mistakes but in part because Son is better than our attackers.

We did get more chances at the very end, but we were leading on most of those metrics long before they packed it in. We generated plenty of offense even before Son went off and South Korea definitely couldn't have scored at will and I question whether they could have really applied consistent pressure.

They defend and hope Son can score. That's their game. It worked, but people saying we got dominated or overrun in the midfield don't really seem to understand what those things mean.

Also, the push back on a press is weird to me. People have this visceral reaction to any counterattack at all, but South Korea's counterattack generated almost no real chances and zero of the goals. Both of those goals were against a set defense -- it was when we weren't pressuring the passer that we got killed because our passive, set defense is not coordinated well.

 

I'm not arguing best or better; it's a word that people interpret different ways so what's the point.

What I would argue is how this game was lost. We were not dominated. We did not lose on counterattacks. We did not get overrun in the midfield. We did not struggle to progress the ball. We didn't struggle to create chances all that much.

We didn't finish in the final third; a common issue for us. We made defensive mistakes that they took advantage of. Son is better than our attackers still; it's okay to say that, especially in terms of finishing.

Against Panama in March, we played very good defense and Panama got lucky in terms of scoring, but we didn't generate a ton of chances, IIRC, and so it was a bit different way to lose.

I think attempting to act like we were dominated in this game and only got stats because of the final 25 minutes is misleading. We led all those stats at halftime as well, and outplayed them in the second half as well before the switches came, aside from, you know, the score.

If you want to say scoreboard, that's fine. Finishing and not making mistakes are a big part of the game and no one is wrong to say South Korea were better. They were. But if you are trying to fix those, zeroing in on why you lost is important.

 

Why are you assuming that my comment that Ream is "well past it" is only based on the one play someone clipped from this game (I can only link what is there to link), and not various other data points from MLS and the USMNT over the last two years?

I have said elsewhere that I'm not even sure Ream is an above average player in MLS anymore. And there are 300 American players in MLS for Poch to draw from. For a half dozen spots on a 23 man roster. Simple math Ream doesn't make sense even if he wasn't 38 and in rapid decline.

 

The two guys you work in to that group are Malik Tillman and Johnny Cardoso, considering they just moved to Bayer Leverkusen (for $41 million) and Atletico Madrid (for $35 million)... not Sebastian Berhalter or Jack McGlynn who are pretty decent in MLS. Sorry to the "Badge FC" haters but even grade schoolers would get that and at this point there's no time left to explain it to the rest of you.

Adding those two gives you 6 midfielders, which is how many would make a 26 man World Cup roster. This time should be spent on figuring which trio works best together, not on giving Sebastian Berhalter 7 starts over the last 8 games.

 

OK, just watched it.

1 First and foremost - full credit to the US fans that were there. If ever there was proof that the "Salad Bowl" theory of the US is wayyyyyyy more accurate than the "Melting Pot," it was evident at that match. Major props to the US citizens that love the US.

2) On to the match. My second comment that will piss people off. The team looked damn good for having a manager that is playding call-up Yahtzee. SoKo was a well-oiled machine that has obviously played lots of matches together. We were a popcorn popper or random call-ups who've hardly, or never, played together. On the face of it, given that juxtaposition, you'd expect one team to dominate, the other to look like shit. That was farrrrrr from the case.

The problem isn't the players, the problem throwing 50 names into a bag and seeing which ones you pull out for any given camp.

The 94 team would smoke this team. Were they better? F no. They knew each other like the back of their own hand.

I think it is crazy that Poch thinks that by trying rando after rando, he's going to discover the surprise players that will advance our prospects. Settle on a 23, for f$ck's sake. The team will improve each camp, if there is familiarity with each other, and familiarity with the system. The team will be stagnant if it's a randomized new group each camp learning each other's names and learning the system. It's time to pick a f@cking 23. Nibble around the edges, ok. But, you need to build some cohesion.

There should be maybe one new call in, from here on in. If he'd built the structure for a roster, you could have more. But, not now. He needs to start building a team. The time for picking a team is over. The difference in ability between all the various players he's called in is miniscule.

3) I've said from the get-go that Zendejas is muuuch better for us centrally.

4) I like Arfsten. Of course, he's not ahead of Jedi. But, I like him.

5) Freeze is good enough

6) Pick a damn team.

7) Pulisic, who is the only player who I'd have as a dead to rights, solid starter in our pool, should (channeling Taylor) never ever ever ever strike another dead ball for the US again. Ever.

8) Fullllll props to the US fans that were there.

9) Pick. A. Damn. Team.

 

Bang on

 

Should Freese have done better on either goal? Particularly the first one? Not saying it’s his fault. But does he play them correctly?

 

Have johnny and tyler ever played played a game together

 

Yes, of course, but he’s past his peak, that’s the point.

 

i thought the problem was not being clinical?

 

I think you can take a glass half full view of this game. The team mostly played ok, and they might even have looked better than ok after Balogun and Richards came on. They just switched off a couple times defensively, and SK took advantage. You could talk yourself into the idea that they might even look good if Richards and Balogun start, Robinson comes back to replace Arfsten, Tillman comes back to replace Luna, and one of McKennie, Cardoso, Musah, Tessmann, etc. replace Berhalter.

I think, though, I still tend towards the glass half empty view. For a few years now with different coaches and very different lineups, we still keep seeing the same things--ok-ish performances marred by instances of switching off defensively, lackluster goaltending, stupid red cards (Dest and Weah), and lack of a final pass/shot/dribble in the final third to capitalize on promising offensive opportunities. They still have time to turn it around before the WC, but it's pretty long trend now of middling performances where you have to work to find things to be happy about.

 

Yes, we have, and I think that has something to do with the fact that we are no longer looking to play like a minnow, and are only marginally good enough to forego playing that way, and partly that this group of guys have somehow just got used to not playing well together.

They play well with their club teammates, often against better competition than we usually face. But this group, together, is somehow lacking for some reason(s) that we just can't QUITE nail down, and that's why we went and got a guy like Poch to coach us at our home WC even though it's clear that he didn't know the player pool as well as he might've thought when he took the job.

 

Ditto.

I think my biggest disappointment in this team right now, apart from the fact that this team has been my biggest sports interest for around the past 30 years, is that I feel that we as a sport and as a culture need something big and positive right now. In theory this really should be it, you'd think that it would be it, and yet I feel it's all being squandered (both on and off the pitch). In previous WC cycles, most people were tuned out and didn't care if we weren't playing well. This time it's almost as though the fans at home are rooting against us, and not just Mexican-American El Tri fans, but Premier League fans and so forth, and this sort of mediocrity is reinforcing that. It's toxic. We might well be outnumbered in the stands at our own WC without needing to face Mexico (or Brazil, or Argentina, etc.) Can you imagine drawing Korea into our group, for example, and then getting outnumbered by their fans in a group game at SoFi in LA? I can. Just a few years ago, when we landed this tournament, I really naively believed that this event, and the talent that we had coming up, would cure all ills, or at least most of them.

 

They actually weren't, you're grading on a curve because we expect less from them…

 

I was disappointed we were so outnumbered against Korea. At home!

I think many of us hoped we’d have momentum coming into this World Cup. But it seems like quite the opposite. As a country, it would be good for us to have something to share in common in 2026.

 

There's a lot of off-the-field stuff that can put a bad taste in the mouth about this tournament, as well, but I won't get into that here. For years I've been looking forward to this singularly, and right now it all feels like a giant dud in the making.

 

Agreed. One of the worst things is FIFA using dynamic pricing to try and squeeze every last penny out of us for World Cup tickets. They have only announced one ticket price so far, a Category 1 ticket to the final, which will be $6,730 in 2026. That same ticket was $1,607 in Qatar in 2022, which was already the most in history, but only up from $1,100 in Russia in 2018. The winning bid book for hosting the 2026 World Cup estimated that Category 1 ticket price for the final would be $1,550. There should be some outrage over this extreme rip off, or at least journalists asking FIFA to explain the outrageous price increase.

 

Surprised FIFA doesn’t try and have the WC in the USA every time.

The American consumer can afford insane prices relative to basically any other country in the world and most people who travel for WCs are rich enough to not be put off by the high prices.