CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA – MAY 31: Falarin Balogun of United States celebrates after scoring his team’s third goal during the international friendly match between United States and Senegal at Bank of America Stadium on May 31, 2026 in Charlotte, North Carolina. (Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images)
Getty Images
The United States men’s national team’s performance in Friday night’s 4-1 was stylish, dominating and even historic.
And yet for longtime USMNT fans and new arrivals the same who knew vaguely of the program’s history, there was a common sentiment:
Is this real?
While 1990s Teri Hatcher would indeed reply in the affirmative, the nagging disbelief is relatable. After all, this was the highest-scoring World Cup final performance in program history and its first three-goal win since the inaugural tournament in 1930.
But in an expanded World Cup Field, where the United States also received Pot 1 seeding as a co-host nation and played before a deeply partisan home crowd, the urge to recalibrate and throw water on the moment is also probably wise, given that amazing performances – was well as awful ones – often disguise a teasm’s true quality. And you can also only consider one team’s level if you also have an accurate sense of the other.
How Good Is The USMNT?
In the basic sense, it’s probably fair to say American fans should be re-adjusting their expectations upward, for two reasons.
The first is that Friday night’s performance pretty clearly showed that everything that came before from this group under Mauricio Pochettino was experimentation, with the primary focus of building to these three matches.
You don’t attack with the level of clarity and precision the Americans showed without a deliberate sense of your identity that has probably been known within the side for several weeks now, even as Pochettino tinkered around the fringes right up until the final tune-up friendly on June 6.
Many of the nerves among American fans in the buildup likely stemmed from performances whose unevenness owed to that inevitable tinkering. And while Pochettino – who has serious European credentials – has always known another job will await him after the USMNT, previous domestically developed head coaches haven’t had the same freedom.
U.S. fans are partly to blame for that dynamic. In the previous World Cup cycle, manager Gregg Berhalter enjoyed his height of support in the summer of 2021 prior to the 2022 World Cup, directly because he excelled that year in regional competitions against Mexico and other domestic rivals. His ability to defeat those teams had few ramifications for his true World Cup prospects against diverse global competition. But it was very important in terms of getting the base on board.
The second reason fans should probably raise their expectations is because, while it’s hard to identify quantitatively, the vibes surrounding the USMNT in the aftermath of the failure to qualify for the 2018 World Cup have skewed considerably more negative than the relative optimism of 1994 through 2014.
Some of that has been growing, legitimate recognition among the American public that its talent is still limited relative to the truly elite nations. But part of it is also status related; It has become a mark of knowledge and credibility among some soccer fandom circles to demean the USMNT as an entity in favor of more storied international sides or club teams.
Take the comparison that Pochettino himself has embraced, the 1980 Miracle On Ice. Most American soccer fans wouldn’t hesitate in saying that the United States winning the World Cup would clearly be a much bigger shock than the group of literal amateurs upsetting the greatest ice hockey team on watch at the 1980 winter games.
The only problem is that oddmakers, who know probability better than most of us, disagree significantly. The Americans were initially installed at roughly 50-to-1 odds to win the 2026 World Cup, depending on the bookmaker. That’s an exponentially better chance than betting analysts say oddsmakers would’ve given the 1980 American ice hockey team (likely in the 1000-to-1 range). It’s also better odds than teams that have actually won major international tournaments, such as the 150-t0-1 Greece side that won the 2004 European Championships.
How Bad Is Paraguay?
The second part of this equation is that, now matter how strong the United States looked on Friday night, it’s equally true that Paraguay looked just as poor. And it’s probably fair to consider that when evaluating the USMNT and temper excitement a little.
Even with the supposedly injured Julio Enciso’s surprise inclusion into manager Gustavo Alfaro’s XI, the Albirroja registered only two shots on target over the course of the match, and completed an astoundingly poor 73.4% of their passes. That lack of attacking bite came even despite a three-goal halftime deficit, when there was very little to lose by sending numbers forward after the break.
Those who want to be exceptionally bullish on the Americans will point out that Paraguay qualified out of Conmebol, one of the toughest regions on earth.
But the environment of South American qualifying – where two matches occur in a brief 10-day window, with many teams’ stars also facing grueling travel from other continents just to take part – are considerably different than that of a congruous tournament where all teams have a couple weeks of training to build into form.
The former is far more favorable to Paraguay’s extraordinarily defensive posture. As a whole, fixtures in South American’s 18-match round robin averaged only 2.03 goals per contest, a rate well below even the most dour World Cups ever played (Italia 1990 – 2.21, South Africa 2010 – 2.27). And Paraguay’s matches were even cagier, teams combining to score only 1.33 goals per match.
Put another way, Alfar’s squad had a positive goal differential and averaged less than a goal per game.
Paraguay may not be as bad as Friday’s result suggested. But their game model is certainly less pliable to tournaments where teams have time to build attacking chemistry. And once they went behind 2-0, If you’re coming from American football, it was akin to a triple-option running team falling behind by two touchdowns by the second quarter.