USA at Copa America 2024

This summer’s Copa América was supposed to be something of a dress rehearsal for the USMNT, who are eagerly awaiting the prospect of co-hosting the 2026 World Cup and hosting the best of the best in international soccer. Having consistently proven their mettle in CONCACAF competitions, the United States welcomed the likes of Brazil and Argentina with the aim of finally flexing their muscles against top-tier opposition. The reality of the matter, however, could not have been more different, with Gregg Berhalter’s men crashing out of the group stage and becoming the first Copa América hosts to miss the knockout stage altogether. Their performance has done a real dent in the national pride surrounding the team, with many fans speculating whether their young talents have matured since the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

The United States’ early elimination only exacerbates the negative perceptions surrounding this current crop of American players, who missed their chance to test themselves against bigger opponents before the World Cup begins. A pre-tournament meeting with Colombia only served to heighten fears about the way they were run over, while their final group stage match against Uruguay left Berhalter’s team feeling helpless and unable to put up the fight needed to qualify. Another string of poor results eventually led the U.S. Soccer Federation to remove Berhalter from his coaching duties, only creating more disharmony within the squad. Perhaps one of the most damning stories to come out of the tournament was that the neighboring Canadian national team exceeded expectations and carried the torch for North American soccer.

This tactical analysis and scouting report will highlight some of the reasons why the United States fell at the first hurdle, wrong-footing themselves at crucial moments that would decide their fate. Our analysis will address their tactics on both sides of the ball, which proved unconvincing even when they tasted victory in their opening match against Bolivia.

Limiting the broad threat

Much of the pre-Copa América discourse revolved around Berhalter’s ability to recreate the attacking prowess of Sergiño Dest, with the full-back injured and missing from the starting XI. Joe Scally stood out as a worthy replacement, but his footballing skills are much more attuned to his work off the ball. It was clear throughout the tournament that the cornerstone of the United States’ attacking plan was to stretch their opponents and exploit their dynamic threat on both flanks. The U.S. ranked second among all Copa América teams in 1v1 attempts, with 25.76 per 90 to join their impressive 69.40% success rate. In their match on the day of reckoning against Bielsa’s Uruguay, just 24% of their attacking touches occurred in the middle third of the pitch, which was a clear signal of how they wanted to hurt their opponent.

Antonee Robinson was the one who reignited the United States’ attacking spark from the defensive line, with the Fulham left-back providing moments of innovation and individual talent. His attacking influence was evident in the opening two games, providing key overlapping moves against Bolivia and surprising Panama superbly to assist Balogun’s opening goal despite their numerical disadvantage. Robinson’s 3.67 His shot-creating exploits saw him ranked in the 98th percentile of full-backs at the Copa América, prompting Marcelo Bielsa and Uruguay to make a tactical change to limit his attacking threat when the two teams faced off in the final group stage.

Despite having everything on the line, the United States simply had to chase Uruguay down the field due to the physicality and comfort gap in their tactical system. Uruguay excelled in their man-to-man pressing style, with intense defensive contributions from Facundo Pellistri on the right wing, who committed to a deeper role when out of possession to counter Robinson’s attacking movement. This prevented the U.S. from doubling up Uruguayan right back Nahitan Nández, who was freed up to slide and break up the play in central channels or even step out and disrupt rotations and wider movements that the U.S. midfielders could use to pick up the ball.

It resulted in the United States being completely outclassed when out of possession, with Uruguay’s tactical maturity denying the US the opportunity to exploit holes in their marking structure. This was most effective in the wider areas, with the US still feeling the ravages of Timothy Weah’s suspension and the need for their attacking creation to rotate Pulisic in his absence. Such performances have fueled narratives suggesting that the United States had become too one-dimensional under Berhalter’s watch, unable to accurately read the state of the game and adapt their tactics to swing the match in their favor.

Midfield mess

Many would believe that the United States’ midfield would be the crown jewel of their team, with vast European experience in the likes of Adams, McKennie and Musah. However, American fans have suggested that their midfield line has been largely absent throughout the tournament, and may be suffering from an identity crisis with the trio not necessarily suited to their roles in the international team.

You could argue that the American midfielders showed intriguing effectiveness in their limited attacking opportunities, but the real problem revolved around their defensive contributions. For example, Panama’s equalizer in the second group stage match, in which 3 Panamanian players were allowed to occupy important spaces between the lines – which eventually resulted in Cesar Blackman picking up the ball and firing it in from the edge of the penalty area.

It reinforced a recurring problem for the American midfield: they are often second-best when it comes to maintaining possession and disrupting play in the middle third of the field.

One of the key features of the American midfield during the run-up to and group stage of the Copa América was the fact that they looked incredibly frustrated when Musah dropped deeper to get the ball as a No. 6. Even when the Americans trusted the AC Milan midfielder to take on the role of a holding midfielder, we saw repeated incidents where both Brazil and Uruguay were able to apply pressure and force high turnovers, with Musah unable to carry the ball forward.

As a collective, the American midfielders delivered a disappointing performance 4 out 16 successful ground duels in the most crucial match of their tournament, with a 28.6% winning percentage through the air is also not something to be proud of. The United States’ defensive game plan seemed to provoke pressure from the opposition, with the US ranking 2nd for PPDA with 15.61along with the worst challenge intensity of the entire tournament (4.4). But on the occasions when we saw them desperately pushing up the pitch, their uncoordinated effort could easily have been bypassed, creating plenty of space for the opposition midfielders to fire the balls into the penalty area.

Bright sparks

Despite their humiliating Copa América exit, the USMNT’s next coach won’t have such a major overhaul on their hands, with the U.S. showing some signs of flair and looking like a top-tier soccer nation. It’s not all doom and gloom, with emerging stories suggesting the U.S. may have been one Timothy Weah red card away from a comfortable path to the round of 16, only to be smothered by Panama’s extra man.

When looking at the tournament data, some may find it surprising that the United States had a greater presence in the opponent’s penalty area than eventual champions Argentina. 17.27 The number of touches in the penalty area per 90 minutes would indicate that they have certainly played consistent periods in the most dangerous attacking zones of the pitch, although this figure may be exaggerated by their continued dominance against Bolivia, who are ranked 84th in the FIFA rankings.

However, there is no denying that the US pressed the issue and dominated the early proceedings against a top Uruguayan team, relying on individual talent and combining for some inspiring attacking sequences. In this example, the movement of the US midfield stripped away any Uruguayan resistance, with Musah’s quick deep run allowing Adams to penetrate space and receive the ball between the lines. They also showed how effective they could be when Uruguay were drawn out of their resilient defensive shape, finding success in transition as they created chances to fire the ball across goal.

But crucially for the US, the top teams in world soccer have the tacticians and know how to adapt to these alarming situations, minimizing such opportunities and delivering more laborious attacking performances – especially if they want to get back into the game. Unfortunately, a 66.1% the accuracy of their passes into the final third was far more representative of the weaker sides in the tournament, with the US unable to create the necessary chances to match their wastefulness in the penalty area. For all their attacking threat in the penalty area, the current example of Haji Wright perfectly encapsulates their lack of attacking intelligence, which saw them falter in front of goal, with the Coventry striker opting to take an ambitious contested shot rather than work the ball across the box to an unmarked teammate.

Conclusion

As the U.S. races to hire its next great head coach, they must seek a managerial profile that can nurture their young stars while recognizing the overwhelming expectations placed on those who wear the stars and stripes. While the Copa América was certainly disappointing for U.S. fans, they hope to see an improved and mature squad once again when they welcome the world’s best players in 2026. With many of their players reportedly reaching their prime, adding to the increased comfort within the national setup, the World Cup represents a crucial opportunity to finally live up to the expectations they have so far failed to live up to.