gshc2020.com

Alexi Lalas Is Right About Mauricio Pochettino And The USMNT

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - JUNE 06: Alexi Lalas, former player of the 1994 United States squad, reacts prior to the international friendly match between United States and Germany at Soldier Field on June 06, 2026 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Omar Vega/USSF/Getty Images)

… %!s()

Getty Images

When Alexi Lalas dives into conservative politics on social media, he is particularly frustrating because he argues in bad faith.

He cherry-picks and misrepresents data, highlights the most absurd arguments against him, and mutes the far more credible ones.

For those old enough to remember Lalas as a player, it’s straight out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook (presumably minus the argument that soccer is communist propaganda).

But when it comes to his analysis for Fox at the World Cup, Lalas’ views are far more grounded than the cartoonish picture many have painted.

And his recent assessment of United States manager Mauricio Pochettino is entirely accurate, even if fans aren’t ready to hear it.

What Did Alexi Lalas Say?

In the aftermath of the Yanks’ 4-1 loss to Belgium in the round of 16, Lalas went on British radio outlet Talksport to discuss the USMNT’s elimination from the competition, and he said it was fair to define success based primarily on that fixture.

MORE FOR YOU

"When it comes to Mauricio Pochettino, you had one job. And it was the game against Belgium," Lalas said. "So I think that [U.S. Soccer] move on. I believe he's had a good time, but you had one job, and you blew it. And, you know, you live and die by that. Every coach understands that, every manager understands that, and certainly Mauricio Pochettino does."

While it’s impossible to be certain, the reaction to Lalas’ remarks feels more negative than positive. With a U.S. soccer fanbase that leans progressive and has become increasingly wary of any American influence on the sport, they might even boost Pochettino’s standing.

But a factual review makes it hard to refute Lalas’ argument.

The USMNT exited the World Cup at the same stage as each of their previous four appearances. Unlike those other sides, they failed despite playing with home-field advantage, something oddsmakers believe carries considerable weight.

And they did so in borderline humiliating fashion, suffering the largest margin of defeat in any World Cup match the U.S. has played since 2006, and the largest in an elimination game since a group of semiprofessionals lost 6-1 to Argentina in the 1930 semifinals.

Is Alexi Lalas Being Reactionary?

If you only watch soccer during the World Cup, Lalas’ remarks might sound reactionary. But the real reactionary position is that somehow the performance in other games represented significant progress.

For starters, the standard Lalas expressed to Talksport is more or less the same that he has espoused for nearly all of Pochettino’s tenure.

When other critics began circling during Pochettino’s rough start to the job in late 2024, Lalas consistently maintained Pochettino should be judged by World Cup performance and little else. The same was true a year later, when Pochettino’s team enjoyed their best run of results in a string of fall 2025 friendlies.

Meanwhile, the idea that America somehow made revolutionary gains tactically ignores the entire context of the expanded 48-team World Cup.

Yes, by 2026 standards, the U.S. had a difficult group. At the same time, Belgium was the only side the U.S. faced during the entire tournament that was ranked higher by FIFA than any of its five 2022 World Cup opponents (using pre-tournament rankings in both cases).

Yes, the U.S. handled Bosnia comfortably in the newly created round of 32. But that team was literally the lowest-ranked USMNT opponent at a World Cup since FIFA created its rankings in the early 1990s.

Alexi Lalas Is More Qualified Than You Think

The most circulated takedown of Lalas in this tournament came from the Guardian, which does plenty of excellent American soccer journalism.

But for a progressive-leaning outlet, the crux of its criticism -- that Lalas had little to offer because he lacked the playing pedigree of studio colleagues Thierry Henry and Zlatan Ibrahimovic, or the advanced intellect of Henry -- was weirdly elitist.

Fox’s TV numbers -- some of the largest for any non-NFL event this century -- mean the majority of the audience will probably struggle to follow Henry’s nuanced tactical analysis.

And when it comes to World Cup players, Lalas probably shares more traits with most of them than either of his more-decorated European coworkers who regularly competed at the zenith of the European club game.

Further, Lalas is more or less the only active American pundit (minus Marcelo Balboa, who works mainly in Spanish these days) who was part of the 1994 U.S. squad and understands the burdens of being a host player in this country.

But Lalas exists at a unique time in this country’s relationship with soccer where any connection to the U.S. game becomes discrediting.

These Foreign-Born Analysts Agree with Alexi Lalas

It’s an overcorrection from earlier years that were too insular, which perhaps played a role in U.S. qualifying failure in the 2018 cycle. And if that’s your argument for retaining Pochettino, then consider that the foreign-born analysts most connected to U.S. soccer share Lalas’ opinion.

The Argentine-born Andres Cantor, America’s Spanish-language voice for World Cup coverage since the 1990s, called the nature of the the USMNT’s performance “disgraceful” in a social media post.

Former Germany World Cup winner turned Germany and United States World Cup manager Jurgen Klinsmann, who made no secret of U.S. soccer shortcomings when he was manager, called Belgium beatable during multiple segments for ESPNFC.

And the Italian-born Gabriel Marcotti called out the idea that Belgium simply possessed far superior talent, saying five USMNT players would’ve made his combined best XI between the teams.

If you’re going to seek foreign influence only to write off those educated opinions, you’re really concerned with status over knowledge or results. And if connecting yourself to U.S. soccer for any length of time automatically lowers your status, what’s the point of trying to build U.S. soccer in the first place? %!s()

Phillies Flip $130 Million All-Star Exit Into 23-Year-Old SEC Standout

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA - AUGUST 24: Ranger Suarez #55 of the Philadelphia Phillies smiles in the dugout after finishing the seventh inning during a game against the Washington Nationals at Citizens Bank Park on August 24, 2025 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Phillies won 3-2. (Photo by Hunter Martin/Getty Images)

… %!s()

Getty Images

The Philadelphia Phillies never appeared too eager to re-sign All-Star southpaw Ranger Suarez, but his decision to join the Boston Red Sox in free agency was still hard to bear for many fans.

While the Phillies did offer Suarez a one-year, $22 million qualifying offer to return, it never seemed likely that he would accept it as he was clearly worth much more on the open market. And, indeed, he quickly found a long-term deal with the American League East club.

"The Boston Red Sox have agreed to a five-year, $130 million deal with left-hander Ranger Suarez,” ESPN reported during the offseason. “Suarez was tendered a $22.025 million qualifying offer by the Phillies, which he declined by the Nov. 18 deadline. Because he signed with a new team, Philadelphia will receive a compensatory draft pick after the fourth round."

And on Saturday, the Phillies utilized that compensatory pick on a standout college player who might one day help fans forget about the loss of Suarez.

ForbesBlue Jays’ 7-Year Veteran Questions ‘Void’ Left By Phillies’ Don MattinglyBy Peter Chawaga

Philadelphia Phillies Flip Ranger Suarez Exit Into New Pitcher

The Phillies received pick No. 135 in compensation for Suarez’s exit and that compensatory pick became University of Kentucky right-hander Jaxon Jelkin, a notable starter who has previously been drafted by both the Los Angeles Dodgers and the New York Mets.

"Kentucky pitcher Jaxon Jelkin was selected in the 2026 MLB Draft by the Philadelphia Phillies in the fourth round with the No. 135 overall pick, the final selection of day one of the 20-round event,” the University of Kentucky reported. “Jelkin, from Omaha, Nebraska, was perhaps the most indispensable piece on the roster this season, particularly in conference play."

MORE FOR YOU

Though Jelkin missed last season with an injury, he returned for this past campaign as one of the most effective pitchers in the competitive Southeastern Conference.

"Overall, he went 8-3 with a 4.08 earned run average and a save,” the University of Kentucky added. “He struck out 106 in 97.0 innings and opponents hit just .243 as he turned in seven quality starts (defined as three or fewer earned runs in 6.0 or more innings). He is only the second Wildcat in the past 15 years to strike out 100 or more batters in a season."

Philadelphia Phillies’ New SEC Standout Brings Strikeout Ability To System

Jelkin’s numbers from this past season help explain why the Phillies targeted the 23-year-old with their extra Day 1 selection.

Although replacing a pitcher of Suarez’s caliber won't happen overnight, Philadelphia has now converted the loss of a $130 million All-Star into another high-upside arm. %!s()

Why Relevance Is Your Greatest Competitive Advantage

One of the best examples of irrelevance is the story of how Blockbuster lost to Netflix.

… %!s()

getty

Irrelevance is more than the opposite of relevance. It’s also the opposite of success, or another word for failure. It happens when “nobody cares.”

Recently, I had a conversation with Scott McKain, a bestselling author and business expert who helps his clients build lasting relevance. He says, “If customers can compare you, they can replace you.” We talked about the concept of irrelevance and how it happens. He mentioned a quote by business coach Marshall Goldsmith, who said, “What got you here won’t get you there,” to emphasize how companies become irrelevant. McKain paraphrased, saying, “What got you here will keep you from getting there.”

McKain’s take is that change and innovation aren’t optional. Some of the world’s best brands became irrelevant because they thought what got them to the top would keep them there.

Two Ways Brands Become Irrelevant

There are two ways a company can become irrelevant. Both start when a company is successful, which is another word for being relevant. The company has a product or service and a customer experience that their customers want. And when they fail their customers, it is usually due to one of two reasons:

First, they fail to innovate their products to keep up with their customers’ expectations and/or don’t pay attention to the competition. One day, leadership notices competitors are chipping away at their market share. Whatever used to set them apart is gone.

Second, companies fail at customer service and the customer experience (CX). Regardless of how good a product is, if you don’t give the customer the experience they expect, they will find another company that will. My 2026 customer service and experience research finds that three out of four customers (73%) are likely to switch companies because of an overall bad customer experience. That number jumps to 82% if the company’s employees exhibit rudeness or apathy. And customers’ tolerance for bad experiences is lower than ever, giving just two chances before they deem you unworthy of their hard-earned dollars. In other words, they deem you irrelevant.

MORE FOR YOU

I’ll argue that the faster of these two ways to irrelevance is a poor customer experience.

Blockbuster and Netflix

One of the best examples of irrelevance is the story of how Blockbuster lost to Netflix. Both brands provided a way for their customers to watch movies from the comfort of their homes. The short version of the story is that Blockbuster didn’t continue to innovate the experience. A small competitor, Netflix, had the idea that, rather than making customers go to the store to rent movies, they would send the DVDs through the mail. And, unlike Blockbuster, they didn’t charge late fees.

Even though their products were basically the same, the approach was different. One company found a way to create a more convenient customer experience. Netflix’s innovation came from reducing friction. Customers didn’t have to drive to a store to pick up a movie. They just had to walk to their mailbox.

It didn’t take long for Blockbuster to fall behind Netflix, and unfortunately, it never caught up.

Disruption Creates Irrelevance

There are many obvious examples of irrelevance, and similar to the Blockbuster/Netflix story, they come from disruption:

• Amazon.com became a disruptor to the traditional retail bookstore industry and, eventually, to the entire retail industry. Convenience became the major reason for disruption.
• Best Buy disrupted Circuit City’s market share, but Circuit City’s biggest mistake was trying to recapture its lost sales by focusing on dollars over customers. The company replaced more than 3,000 experienced sales associates with a lower-paid, less knowledgeable staff, thereby eliminating the biggest competitive advantage for which they were known: expertise and customer service.
• Uber disrupted the entire taxicab industry. While there are still taxis out there, the introduction of Uber (and eventually competitors like Lyft) has forever changed consumers’ transportation habits.

None of these stories are about a company coming out with a better product. Amazon sold the same books as the retail bookstores. Best Buy sold the same TVs as Circuit City. And Uber was just a different way to run a taxicab business. But what all three brands did was create a different—as in better—experience. Customers rarely wake up looking for a different company to do business with. They’re looking for an easier company to do business with.

Self-Disruption Avoids Irrelevance

Back to Netflix. If the company had tried to stay in the DVD delivery business, it would have become irrelevant. As convenient as it was for the customers, Netflix saw another way to deliver a better experience, and that was streaming video. They saw it coming, and while they didn’t know it, they were embracing the wisdom of McKain and Goldsmith. What got Netflix to where it was would not get it to where it needed to be to remain relevant and successful. The decision was to replace its original business model with a more relevant model.

Final Words

This short article is meant to get you thinking about your relevance. Are you innovating in the right places?

McKain has a question he asks the business leaders he works with to help make them not only stand out in their market, but also keep them from becoming irrelevant: Are you focusing on your customers of today, or are you focusing on your customers of 2030?

My take is you need to do both.

If you focus on today’s customers, you’ll eventually wake up and discover their expectations have changed. Worse is when you realize a competitor figured that out before you did. But if all you do is focus on tomorrow, you risk losing current customers.

The companies that remain relevant do both. And none of the disrupting companies mentioned won because of a better product. They won because they delivered a better experience. %!s()

Sen. Lindsey Graham, influential lawmaker and Trump ally, dies at 71 after a brief illness

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) talks to reporters after speaking on the floor of the Senate Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 30, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images