I asked the question, but didn't wish to provide an opinion until a few responses came in. Will give my view now.
First, it's clear that only a handful of matches are candidates for "the best WC qualifying match under Hart", and that none of those matches are matches from this round of competition (meaning not versus Costa Rica at home and not versus Honduras away). As such, it boils down to performances versus the US, SVG and Guatemala.
There ought to be no argument that the performance versus St. Vincent and Grenadines away was not a fine moment. Similarly, although we replicated three points versus SVG in T&T, it was not a match that presented unsurmountable difficulty or a template for playing through WC qualifying (it was about erasing the close shave that occurred in Arnos Vale), and even so, it took us a considerable period into the match to start getting the job done.
There are only two matches that are candidates for the throne (Guatemala away and US at home). Having viewed both matches live (that is, not on TV, but at the respective stadia) and again subsequently recorded, I regard the match versus the US as the best of the lot. Nevertheless, that stated, I recognize the obvious worth and significance of our two away goals in Guatemala and the individual quality that produced them. However, as we celebrate those goals and their historical significance, there is the tendency to neglect the collective defects that were torturing SH in the technical area (people who read this forum would know what they are because SH was not shy about stating elements that were missing or that did not "come together". We were not sufficiently cohesive and we were not particularly fluent, but we did enough. On top of that, I can't ignore the late goal we conceded with stoppage time to play.
My best game was what was produced versus the US at home in the 0-0 draw. It was a branded match performance with which there can be little quarrel, only perhaps a quibble. The US was challenged comprehensively on both sides of the ball. Admittedly, we had a line of confrontation issue late in the game and an almost consequential issue with dealing with Jermaine Jones that in part stemmed from Michael Bradley's playing IQ, but we largely managed transition moments with application and there was a stamp of authority in the product.
While certainly an argument could be made that Trevin Caesar could have been introduced fractionally earlier, all of the substitutions transparently supported the product on display. There were all the right horses for that course.
I doh think there's a person who left the HCS without optimism and confidence that night.