The point isn't that the U.S. should always attempt to dominate possession. At this World Cup, there has been little correlation between possession and results, so sitting back and defending deep is a perfectly reasonable strategy.
The problem is that the Yanks aren't particularly suited to this style of play. They defend extremely narrow in midfield and force the opposition out wide but then appear nervous when defending crosses.
That was particularly obvious against Portugal -- see Geoff Cameron's mistake for Nani's opener and the fact Cristiano Ronaldo crossed for Silvestre Varela's late equaliser. Against Germany, too, there was a big problem when Jerome Boateng received the ball out wide, with Thomas Muller allowed a golden chance in this respect and Omar Gonzalez producing a Cameron-esque slice when trying to clear.
Nor, in fact, are the U.S. suited to counterattacking. The ball carriers like Graham Zusi and Alejandro Bedoya have performed competently, but no more. Michael Bradley, who has excelled at club level over the past three years with his ability to convert defence into attack smoothly, has covered a lot of ground but contributed little in possession. Up front, the absence of Jozy Altidore means the U.S. don't really have an out-ball -- no one to hold it up, no one to sprint in behind. They're just not suited to being a reactive side. They're more suited to playing high up the pitch, passing the ball well and getting the full-backs forward.
When the U.S. play football, they have been excellent. When they purely defend, they are never entirely confident. In the group phase, they allowed the opposition 55 shots -- along with Ecuador, more than any other side in the competition. It seems strange when you consider how much quality the U.S. have shown and their ability to (in spells) outplay Ghana and Portugal quite comfortably.
