I never saw the Haiti game back in March, I just remember mostly reading about how crap we were. But I was looking at our lineup and saw that eight of the same players from that game suited up against Honduras: Sanneh Pope Bocanegra Gibbs Armas Beasley Convey Donovan So why was the wednesday's game so much more of a romp for us? Were these guys just uninterested? Or was Haiti more motivated than Honduras? Was it McBride? What exactly made the difference between those two games? BTW, it was this analysis and this thread (ratings by Andy Mead) that I was reading recently about Haiti. You may want to check 'em out for some sort of perspective.
If you recollect the domestic political problems in Haiti, I'd wager the Haitians were far more motivated for a friendly than the USA. Also Pope, didn't play against Honduras. The other 7 were essentially in off season form, while the Honduras match found most coming off a long season or being in MLS form. I see the Haiti match as one the players were essentially uninterested in, where's the motivation and the elvel of play and score displayed it. You can't treat the haiti match as an indicator of anything.
1. Players were out of season form. 2. The going to the box midfield seems to have worked very well for us.
I didn't get to see it, obviously, but it sure seemed to be a real fluke of a match. Even ol' Various would have to agree with this. We shouldn't even have wasted our time with Haiti or any teams on their level. We should have played a nation that would have handed it to us if we played so lethargically against them. The fact that we got a draw at all was a much more negative result than a loss would have been. We got something for nothing. It was a wasted game all the way around.
I saw the haiti match as an opportunity to get mls based players into a camp so arena can work with them.... the mental approach to haiti was more a gloriefied scrimmage than anything else... i do believe the political situation in haiti was on the minds of the haitians, but I don;t know if it was more positve than negative... as to emaningless friendlies...in the run up to wc 1998, mexico lost to a mexican college side... when matches count, then a true baramoter can be had, just like when honduras plays next, I think we see a more focused side.
True. I just have an issue with the idea of "meaningless" friendly. Even if it is purely for the sake of gathering inexperienced players and tossing them out there. That doesn't look to be what happened in the Haiti match, however. There were far too many experienced and established players on the field for this to have been the goal of the game. It brings to mind the old debates for a B system. One in which the assistant coach can gather 18 relatively low capped or completely uncapped prospects and schedule games against Haiti, Venezuela, Barbados, etc. and see what shakes loose. If Haiti was the last available opponant on that day then fine. Otherwise at least attempt to schedule a more skilled opponant for what was in truth very close to our A side.