The Rondo: How stunning was USMNT's Nations League loss to Panama, how much is Mauricio Pochettino to blame, should alarm bells be ringing ahead of 2026 World Cup?

Tom Hindle: In the sense that there was a semi-relevant trophy to be defended, then it means something. With the USMNT, though, every win - every performance - is about redemption and program-building. Last summer, they lost to Panama to crash out of a home Copa America. A win here would have exorcised those demons a little bit and also served as a decent barometer as to just how far they have come. Beating the team you lost to last year is, objectively, a pretty good thing to do. That's more important than any meaningless medal. It's all a bit "back to square one vibes" at least for now.

Jacob Schneider: It was a wasted opportunity in the sense that Pochettino had the ability to win his first trophy. It was a wasted opportunity to show that Gregg Berhalter was in fact the issue, not the player pool. Now? Not so sure.

Alex Labidou: Wasted opportunity is obvious, as the U.S. only have one competitive tournament left - the upcoming 2025 Gold Cup - before the 2026 World Cup, and will miss several players in that competition due to the Club World Cup. Look at the reactions of former USMNT players ranging from Clint Dempsey to Taylor Twellman - they're pissed. And yes, they're paid talking heads who are employed to share hot takes but there was a common thread between them all, this was an embarrassing showing. Instead of ringing in a new era led by the highest-paid coach in U.S. soccer history, the Americans were flat, uninspired, and at times very one-dimensional in their first competitive match under Pochettino. There's been a lack of buzz around this team, which has been deemed for years as the "Golden Generation," and in part, it is due to what they have shown on the pitch. The USMNT needs to be better and the concern is there's not much time to put this all together before what should be a monumental World Cup for U.S. Soccer, and the sport in this country as a whole.

Ryan Tolmich: In one sense, you could say it isn't? The road to 2026 is about meaningful games and, while there might not be a trophy on the line, the USMNT has somehow stumbled their way right into a more meaningful game then even a Nations League finale might have been. This team is suddenly under immense pressure to perform, and failure to turn up in the third-place match against Canada on Sunday could lead to real consequences for players in this squad. That pressure is, ironically, exactly what this team needs. So in the grand scheme, this could end up working out, even if there isn't a trophy at the end.

TH: A little bit of blame. The first thing that needs acknowledging is that there are a lot of injury woes. A bit of pace from Antonee Robinson on the left, Yunus Musah in a more natural position, and a fit Ricardo Pepi would certainly have helped. Still, with the players at his disposal, he could have pieced things together a bit better. There were two puzzling tactical decisions here. First, having two defensive midfielders - Tanner Tessmann and Tyler Adams - was pretty baffling. You don't need to have two lads who move the ball sideways a lot against Panama. And this was a game absolutely crying out for Gio Reyna. Low blocks are hard to break down. Reyna is the only guy here who has that kind of magical final ball in him. He can't go 90? Then get him on for the last 30. Too cautious all round, and done as a result.

JS: The 5-4-1 formation is a difficult one to play. Not sure it was the correct call, it was almost too cute. No starting fullbacks and a third-string forward surely didn’t help, but it was just lifeless. The midfield couldn’t progress. The needle was never threaded, the final pass was never made. There was no width or dynamism. Pochettino deserves critique for sure, but at some point, the players themselves need to look in the mirror and ask what they’re doing.

AL: He gets a slight pass because he's still relatively new on the job and was missing a very important player in Robinson, who would've made a significant difference. And he's still has yet to see what he has in Johnny Cardoso or Folarin Balogun. Yet, Pochettino doesn't fully escape blame here. He went for a more cautious look with five in the back and while Josh Sargent wasn't great, the striker could make a case the system didn't give him much service. There were also some strange substitutions and tactical decisions. He was right to not have played Reyna, due to form and inconsistent playing time, but how does he explain keeping Matt Turner as starting goalkeeper? And if the USMNT needed a goal, wouldn't bringing in Diego Luna have helped in that case? He's been better form in MLS than Jack McGlynn has to start the season. This will be a valuable lesson in international management for Pochettino and hopefully, he can institute some immediate changes when the U.S. faces Canada.

RT: He gets his share, for sure. His substitutions didn't address the primary problem: Pamana's low block. The game was crying out for a creator and Pochettino waited too long to get one in. He admitted after that Reyna and Luna were being looked at for extra time - but the U.S. never got there. Given his salary and stature, Pochettino is expected to guide this team to wins in games they would otherwise lose. He didn't do that, and his personnel decisions were at least partly to blame for the defeat.

TH: Please, no more comments about "intensity" or "desire" or "grit" or "passion"... It's actually rather funny to see American soccer dragged down into the English rhetoric of "these lads just don't want it enough!" Of course they want to win a football match. Finding it really difficult to break down a solid defensive team without the players to do so? Have you considered merely trying harder? No, the issue here isn't that there isn't a Landon Donovan or Clint Dempsey to point and shout. The USMNT just doesn't have the right profile of player for these sorts of games. Different nations produce different kinds of footballers. Spain, traditionally, have a load of unbelievable tacticians but not much bite. England, recently, have printed excellent attacking midfielders, and wingers, but don't have a No. 6. The U.S. has brought in a generation of athletic, technical and hard-working footballers - Weston McKennie, Musah, Adams, Robinson, Pulisic - but doesn't have any real creators. So, this is a tactical thing. Poch has to figure out how to get around that issue, or rely on a moment of magic from someone. "Trying harder" will not solve the problem.

JS: Actually, what's missing is leadership. Self-awareness. Grit. Anger. A sense of passion. Desire. The team lacks the traits of winners. The team lacks what makes the world’s best, well, the best.

AL: On-the pitch leadership is a big one. This group of footballers might be the most talented collection of talent the U.S. have ever seen, but they clearly lack the grit of some of their predecessors. Let's make one thing clear: Pulisic is the greatest American club soccer player who has ever played the sport. He gets an unprecedented amount of pressure and scrutiny on a club level, but on national level, he has seemingly dodged criticism for how the U.S. have played in the last 12 months. If this was Donovan, Dempsey, Tim Howard, or Jozy Altidore, they'd almost call to it themselves. Pulisic isn't the only one - McKennie, Tim Weah also share the blame. But if Dempsey, Donovan, Howard, Carlos Bocanegra were out there, the U.S. certainly wouldn't have came out as flat as it did. Players need to take accountability.

RT: "Intensity" was the buzzword. "Confidence" might be another. The big thing, though, is another match-winner, someone besides Pulisic that can put this team on his back and go win a game. Maybe that's Pepi or Balogun when those guys are healthy but, in this current group, no one has shown the willingness or ability to be the guy that goes out there and does what this team needs in the final third to win. It's a problem, one that has bitten this team several times. If Pulisic is off, so is everyone else. They need to find that secondary option and, if not, that's how you end up with results like this.

TH: Sure? Maybe? Who actually cares? It's a platitude that doesn't really mean anything, a pretty arbitrary talking point that gets no one anywhere (which is what makes it funny.) This is a generation of pretty good footballers who are more tactically intelligent and technically skillful than the ones who came beforehand. That's probably more the natural evolution of a footballing culture than a "Golden Generation." Odds are, another wave will come through, and they, too, might be better. Golden? Probably not. And it really doesn't matter.

JS: Not sure this term is even thrown around anymore. A "Golden Generation" of footballers was 2014 Belgium. This group? They’re not at that level. This was never generation was never golden.

AL: No. This is still the best group of talent the U.S. have ever put together. They have players who are in leading roles at AC Milan, Juventus, Fulham, Real Betis. By comparison, look at the U.S. roster from 2010. Read some of the clubs they played on - IK Start, AGF Aarhus, Watford (in the Championship at the time). In the early 2010s, it was a dream to see Americans playing in Champions League or Europa League. In 2025, that's the expectation.

RT: That label was premature to begin with, but it's also premature to rip it away. Ultimately, this team is midway through the journey, not at the end. The moments that will define their legacy are still on in front of them. Regardless of what they have done or will do, it'll all come down to how they perform next summer at the World Cup. We can reignite this conversation then and decide, either way, if they deserve to be remembered as something better - or worse - than their predecessors.

TH: We can take away two things. The first is that even a fun, funky and intelligent new manager with top-tier experience can still get beat on an agreeable Thursday night in Los Angeles. The second is the problems with the group in terms of the players available don't change with a manager - there will still need to be tweaks to figure out how to win these kinds of games. Does this change anything in terms of 2026? Not really. If anything, you probably take a lot more from the embarrassing losses than a middling victory. Yes, it's all about "winning cultures" and developing the right "mentality" but you can't do that without knowing what your best team is - or how to set them up. So yeah, this looks silly for now. But there are some good things learned. Just win the damn third-place game, yeah?

JS: The U.S. still get two games under Pochettino this window. They’ll still face a really talented Canada side on Sunday, and have a chance to help right their wrong. It doesn’t change anything for 2026 beyond the acknowledgement that they are not ready. This group of players lacks a winning mentality - and that needs to be instilled or they’re going to face an early exit. It starts before they even take the pitch. They need to own this.

AL: It vastly impacts 2026 because it was U.S. Soccer's opportunity to announce it was back. People undersell the marketing aspect of this all, but it is very real and Pochettino's arrival was supposed to bring optimism. Even if the U.S. win the Gold Cup this summer, there will still be questions due to the absences and the level of competition. The only thing the U.S. can do at this stage is control what it can, find the best XI and weed out players who aren't a fit. The clock is ticking.

RT: The result proved that there's still a lot of work to do, and not just by the coach. The hiring of Pochettino wasn't a panacea - it was a Band-Aid, one ripped away by Panama's low block. A coach can add the extra 10 percent to a team that can make the difference, but you need to be in a position where that 10 percent matters. Either way, this team still isn't there yet, and time is running out. We'll see how much progress they can make over the next 14 months.