We've seen this movie before: For Mauricio Pochettino, this USMNT was merely a rough cut of version to premiere at 2026 World Cup, as Mexico put on a blockbuster display
Pochettino maximized a limited roster, and ultimately the U.S. lost to a Mexico team that always should have won
Alexi Lalas looked sad in a cowboy hat at full time. He had every right to. The USMNT may have taken the lead but they were, in the end, fairly beaten by a Mexico side more experienced, gritty, talented, and, in fairness, more vocally backed. The Gold Cup final, technically, was held in the United States. It didn't sound, feel, or look like it.
But none of this was particularly unexpected. The U.S. were good. Mexico were better. The U.S. scored first. Mexico always seemed more likely to score the second and third. To be sure, there was a palpable excitement at NRG Stadium in Houston on Sunday night when the winner went in, 2-1 El Tri, and the release of 65,000 Mexico fans. But it was more anticipation of the inevitable than the ecstasy of the unexpected.
Mexico were supposed to win here. It was no surprise that they did. No USMNT miracles to be found.
Mexico had the momentum, the quality, the odds, the fans and the history – this was El Tri's 10th Gold Cup trophy, and the sixth time they have beaten the USMNT in eight meetings in the final. This tournament, more broadly, has been an odd bit of limbo for the USMNT. Sure, they have beaten who they should have beat, largely in manners befitting the circumstances.
And they have lost to the team they should have lost to. Very rarely are soccer odds so predictable, are narratives constructed so easily. Yes, they have shown the right mettle. Yes, they avoided capitulation. And those things, in this case, aren't insignificant.
No, the final loss doesn't reflect well. And no, there is no scoreboard for moral victories – especially when these to regional rivals meet. But if the Gold Cup was Mauricio Pochettino's redemption arc – dealt a poor hand and doing the most he could with it after losing four straight matches entering the tournament – then it is a job remarkably well done. Even if there is a sense of larger changes to come.
ImagnLearnings from the Nations League
The Gold Cup campaign arguably started on March 21 with the Nations League semifinal. The USMNT lost that day, falling 1-0 to a well-drilled Panama side that hit on the break at the exact right time. After the final whistle, the known U.S. soccer sphere exploded.
Here was a full strength side, 15 months out from – yes, we know – a home World Cup, losing to Panama. Again. These things aren't supposed to happen. The knives were, of course, drawn pretty quickly. Everyone was at fault: Pochettino, for not getting his tactics right. Christian Pulisic, for failing to beat 11 men single handedly. Somehow Gregg Berhalter, for not leaving earlier. It was all a bit of a mess.
Such is the cyclical nature of sports that the next focus was, well, whatever was next. And so the eyes turned to the Gold Cup. It didn't matter that this thing hadn't properly been consequential in years. It didn't matter that it would share a summer with the Club World Cup, at the same time, in the same country. It didn't matter that the U.S. knew they would be missing three vital players.
It's there, dudes, go win it.
And there was a bit of a misguided assumption that the rest of the soccer world would fall in line. The Gold Cup is an odd competition. It doesn't matter until you win it. But if you lose, so what? It's the Gold Cup. This should be CONCACAF's Euros or Copa America. Instead, it seems an afterthought, the backwater of a federation awkwardly trying to find its stop on the global stage.
AdvertisementGetty ImagesDoomed the moment Pulisic pulled out
And so it has proven. But, as it turned out, saying one thing and actually doing it are two distinctly different things. There were warning signs. Weston McKennie and Tim Weah were committed to Juventus in the Club World Cup. Several other key players, such as Antonee Robinson, were dealing with injuries.
But then came the Christian Pulisic saga. Played out first in the background, and then rapidly in public, Pulisic made it clear that he didn't want to feature in the Gold Cup, which is nothing new, really – he hadn't played in the tournament since 2019. He cited load management. U.S. soccer said Pulisic approached them about sitting out. The player said he asked to compete in the two pre-Gold Cup friendlies, but not the tournament itself. Offer declined. Pochettino reinforced that notion, albeit in more defiant terms.
"With Christian, he explained that he wanted to be involved in the two games and, knowing that, I respect and understand him,” Pochettino said. “I understand him, but I don’t need him to understand our decisions. My position is that I am 53, with a lot of experience in football, and I was a player before I was a coach. If you want to understand this, it’s really obvious."
And so a broken campaign began. There were no illusions here: Pochettino was working with a group of largely inexperienced players, the majority of which will not be on the World Cup roster next year. He entered the tournament with a B or perhaps even C team, a talented yet flawed group of players either too old, too untested, or not quite good enough – with a couple certain starters sprinkled in.
There was something perhaps charming about the rag-tagness of it all. Of course, charm is one thing and results are another. Two brutal pre-Gold Cup losses to Switzerland and Turkey – both of which brought near-full strength teams – set the tone. Expectations were low. Winning the group helped ease the nerves. Quarter and semifinal wins, both in gritty, traditionalist, verging-on-capitalistic style brought the good vibes.
And in the final? Mexico were just better on the day.
AFPSome tactical principles?
The good news here, though, is that having the same group of players together for more than a month has fostered some sense of style.
International managerial tactics are strange. They're basic. The kind of thing you teach kids. There is, indeed, a reason that club managers seldom venture into national management. You don't get days on end on the grass. There are no double sessions to work on pressing structures or video reviews of how to employ your double pivot. There are very rarely asymmetrical 4-4-2s with inverted full backs (if you're into that sort of thing).
This is perhaps why Pochettino has struggled in the one offs – see Panama in the Nations League, Mexico in the Gold Cup final, for more. This is a manager who likes minutiae. That's why he's such a good club coach.
So, this tournament was, in theory, a good test drive. Is the player pool its deepest? No. But this was, in some ways, a shot at vindication. Could his style work at the national level? Could the U.S. play a 4-2-3-1 with creative wide players, a central striker, reliable defensive midfield duo and full backs that attack? Could they be passable without the ball? This is the rudimentary stuff.
And Pochettino, over the course of the month, has something resembling vindication. The U.S. were good going forward, scored some nice goals, beat the teams they should have to reach a record 13th Gold Cup final.
Defensively, there wasn't one clear way to beat the USMNT, either. There was no flaw in the system, no glaring gap. They were simply outdone by a better side who had better quality in crucial moments. Max Arfsten is not an international quality left back, let's be honest. That cannot be coached in mere weeks.
ENJOYED THIS STORY?
Add GOAL.com as a preferred source on Google to see more of our reporting
Getty ImagesPochettino 'gets it'
And as a result, Pochettino looks pretty good here. This, remember, is an Argentinian, who has spent his coaching career in Europe, getting paid big money to manage in America. He has admitted that he likes Chick-fil-A and basketball.
But he was otherwise fairly unfamiliar with the soccer culture he was walking into. He has been vocally baffled during the tournament about the lack of fan support during the Gold Cup, imploring the U.S. faithful and going as far as to say Sunday night that "football without fans is impossible."
Culture shock was inevitable here, and there's certainly been some of it. Pochettino has managed to get through much of the last nine months on pedigree and aura alone.
That has a shelf life. But he navigated things smoothly during the last month. Pochettino got the basics right in terms of his setup and marketing of the side. He has said all of the right things about "grit." This is a markedly more likable team. Pochettino called them "nice guys." They are a bit scrappy, almost charmingly so. And that's what American fans desire.
They like a sense of arrogance. They like Diego Luna's bloodied and broken nose against Costa Rica in January. They like the arbitrary notion that this team will "fight for the badge." They will point to Pochettino's fairly standard exuberance after his side won a penalty shootout as evidence for the fact that he "gets it."
The cultural reset – whatever that actually means – has pleased the old heads, many of whom were aggressively critical of the team during the Pulisic saga and four-match losing streak.
"He elected to change the culture," Landon Donovan said on FOX Sports last week. "With his decisions, the same starting XI, with his press conferences, what he said about players not picking and choosing which games they come into, how he's used Diego Luna as an example of what he wants his players to be – he's changing the culture, and he's saying this is what I expect. If you want to play for me, this is how it goes."