The Rondo USMNT Edition: How will Mauricio Pochettino change team, tactics, and 2026 World Cup expectations?

Tom Hindle: Under the circumstances, yes. Let's face it, they probably wanted Jurgen Klopp. When he said no, then it felt a bit like Crocker was scrambling for the next guy. And US Soccer seem to have found the right man for the job. Poch lacks international experience and doesn't necessarily have a trophy cabinet stuffed full of honors, but his tactical nous cannot be questioned. He's also coached a big name or two along the way - not a perfect hire, but pretty bloody good. He will undoubtedly make this team better, which is all you can ask for.

Alex Labidou: Outside of hiring Klopp, who was never realistic, yes, this is the best hire US Soccer could have made for several reasons. Pochettino's biggest success as a manager has been helping young emerging talent take the next step. Think Harry Kane, Dele Alli, Son Heung-min, Cole Palmer among others. His lack of major success at Paris Saint-Germain likely resulted from the fact it was a well-established team -- there's not much you can teach Lionel Messi, Neymar, and Kylian Mbappe. With a still relatively young core, it will be interesting to see if any American takes a step forward under Pochettino.

Off the pitch, Pochettino is also a win. Despite working under three chaotic ownership groups in Tottenham, PSG and Chelsea, the Argentine was almost politician-like in his public dealings. In short, he's the anti-Jurgen Klinsmann. There are still ripple effects from the German's time in American soccer as he was critical of seemingly every soccer institution in the country. Pochettino won't do that. Crocker has justifiably taken heat for not moving on from Berhalter quickly enough, but the Englishman has redeemed himself with this hire.

Ryan Tolmich: It may not be the perfect hire, but it's a pretty damn good one, isn't it? There really isn't a "perfect" candidate for this job because it is such a unique one. But given the choices, there aren't many better equipped for it than Pochettino. He's experienced at a high level, a good tactician, a fantastic man manager and he has experience doing a lot with slightly less than the world's elite. That is essentially his job for these next two years, heading to the 2026 World Cup on home soil: get the USMNT to punch above their weight. He was a master of that at Tottenham and, if he can bring that sort of mentality to the USMNT, this could be something special.

TH: In an ideal world, this will be a punchy, high-pressing unit that's loads of fun to watch. His Tottenham team, in particular, was an aggressive thing, capable of giant-killing and scoring goals in spades. Yes, he doesn't have a Kane or prime Dele to work with. Still, the principles should stick, and this USMNT is energetic, talented and athletic enough to cause problems for anyone with the right system in place. A 4-2-3-1 formation seems an interesting setup for this current group, too (despite the fact that there still isn't anyone here who can stick the ball in the net). Defensively, they might not be so assured, but you'd take the good with the bad. Expect goals - at both ends.

AL: It's too early to tell. Pochettino is a modern, progressive manager who has been known to utilize that 4-2-3-1 formation, but can he really do the same with a team that has question marks in every position but midfield? The reality is Pochettino will need to get creative with what he has. It's easy to play with gusto when you have Hugo Lloris, Jan Vertonghen, Toby Alderweireld all in their prime. It's another thing when you have a changing of the guard at center-back and no goalkeeper in form at the moment. He'll give a young player a chance if he feels like they're ready for that chance.

RT: As mentioned, Pochettino is known for playing an aggressive 4-2-3-1, which fits perfectly into how the USMNT is structured. The U.S. dabbled with the formation during the latter months of Berhalter's tenure, generally with great success. There's a No. 10 there in Gio Reyna, or perhaps Christian Pulisic, and there are several midfield options for that double-pivot in behind. Under Poch, this team will be aggressive and on the front-foot, although it's worth saying that the Argentine is flexible when the time calls for it.

TH: There's a lot of low hanging fruit here. Poch, of course, was a Spurs manager. And, unfortunately, he did a lot of Spursy things (0-4 in cup finals sums it all up). Still, he masterminded some truly memorable individual contests, and impressive UCL runs. The comeback against Ajax stands out as one, and should stand the U.S. in good stead with this whole "signature win" narrative humming away. Also worth noting that he handled the standard PSG madness reasonably well. Here's a weird fact: not everyone can win everything. That's OK.

AL: Everyone is going to say Tottenham, but in the interests of being Mr. Contrarian, let's point to his work at Chelsea. He took over a Chelsea side that appeared rudderless when he joined and managed to get them back into Europe and positioned Palmer as the club's new focal point. To do that while knowing you're probably not the long-term fit, shows a manager who is confident in his approach and willing to put a strong system in place, ownership be dammed. The only concern is Poch's record in cup games, but that's a conversation for another day.

RT: Big picture, it was his entire body of work at Tottenham. At Spurs, he took over a team that was always on the outside. They were the lesser north London team. They weren't contenders. They weren't dangerous. Under Poch, they became a legitimate threat, one that regularly went toe-to-toe with the elite and regularly beat them, too. Did he get them over the hump? Not quite. They finished second in the Premier League and lost a Champions League final, which has been held against him, but if you look at where Tottenham were before he got there, you realize how much work he did. It's not about one game, one moment or one result, but rather the consistency he built in that team during his tenure.

TH: Win the whole bloody thing! OK, kidding. It depends on the next 18 months, really. Certainly, having a better manager at the helm would seem to boost the USMNT's chances of a successful tournament, but everyone calm down, please. A quarterfinal appearance is still pretty much allowed. Anything further than that is just a bonus. Fundamentally, get the guys playing some good stuff, make Pulisic look like the star he is, and instill some hope, and he's done his job. One should feed into the other.

AL: Semifinals or bust. That's the one byproduct of hiring a big name, it raises expectations. Just getting out of the group stage is no longer acceptable for this program.

RT: When you take a big swing, you can't afford to miss. A lot of money will have been spent on this hire - now the expectations have to match. The U.S. made it to the Round of 16 last time around, and they'll have to go further than that to call this a success. Is this team a legitimate contender? Probably not. A coach can only do so much with the talent he has, and this team isn't France, Argentina or Spain. Pochettino, though, should be expected to make the difference against those B-to-A-minus-level national teams. If he doesn't, then what's the point?

TH: In terms of prestige? Sure. In terms of drama? No way. The Klinsmann thing was all a bit mad in 2011, U.S. soccer on an apparent mission to hunt down the legendary German. Klinsmann's resume wasn't bad, either, and U.S. soccer did pretty much everything they could to woo the guy (without much success, ultimately, to show for it - which is admittedly funny). With Poch, though, there's a sense that he still has a lot to offer, and is still on the cutting edge of tactical evolution in the sport. Is this the circus of 2011? Not even remotely. Is Poch a better manager, brought on while his ideas are still fresh? Certainly. That can only be a good thing.

AL: In terms of accomplishments, yes, but from a buzz and hype perspective, it still has to be Klinsmann. He was a very public figure in the American soccer scene, even having several TV spots, and in the running for the role for five years. He was trendy, cool, and hip and the U.S.'s flirtations with him definitely undermined then-coach Bob Bradley - who was a good coach under the circumstances but didn't have the former World Cup winner's panache. When U.S. Soccer ultimately decided to move on from Bradley after a disappointing 2011 Gold Cup final loss to Mexico, they went on the offensive employing strategies one would see an NBA team use to acquire a blue-chip free agent.

Visits to his California mansion? Check. A whopping $3.3 million in compensation? Yup. A glitzy mega press conference at New York's Niketown? You bet. U.S. Soccer believed they had found the right leader to take the next step, but despite his occasionally valid criticism and inspiring ideas, Klinsmann struggled in the role he was generously paid to do: coach. Pochettino, on the other hand, almost seemingly came out of nowhere as U.S. Soccer was seemingly linked with at least a dozen high-profile coaches as part of the process. Maybe that will work towards his benefit.

RT: It's either Poch of Klinsmann, right? Klinsmann's hiring came after a prolonged courting process. For years, he was U.S. Soccer's dream hire. However, for as much success Klinsmann had as a player, he was never the caliber of manager that Pochettino is. For the first time ever, the U.S. truly has one of the game's elite minds in charge of the national team. Perhaps they never get Pochettino without Klinsmann, who did change the game in many ways. However, in terms of coaching credentials, this is the biggest move yet.