2017 Season Preview: #19 MIT Engineers

Happy Thursday, boys and girls, and welcome to another episode of Talented but Troubled: Season Preview edition. For as difficult as the academics are for so many of the top tennis programs in DIII, MIT might have them all beat. Perhaps that’s why this team seems to perennially underachieve. Do you know what Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have in common? Neither of them graduated from MIT. However, IT’S ALMOST TIME TO BUCK THE TREND. With a super sophomore class, and another talented freshman class this year, I think we finally have a the makings of a trustable MIT team.  In a year after losing one consistent starter, the Engineers possibly gain two. Combine that with another year for Cauneac, Barr, and Ko and Assistant Coach Nick White is likely smiling somewhere while brushing the “blond” hair back from his face. If MIT had another monster recruiting class coming in next year, it’d be tough to stop myself from making some sort of bold prediction for two years down the road, but as it is we’re stuck focusing on the 2017 squad. The development of the sophomores is beyond crucial for the continued success of this program, especially as they become leaders on this young team.

Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts

Coach: Dave Hagymas, 12th year as MIT Head Coach

ITA National Ranking: 19th

ITA Regional Ranking: 7th

Blog Power Ranking: 16th

Twitter Handle: @MITTennis. Bad for in-match updates, good for post-match scores.

Key Losses: Kevin Wang (#2 singles, #2 doubles),  Dennis Garcia(#6-7 singles), Jeffery Bu (#6-7 singles).

Key Additions: Victor Cheng (4-star from California), Albert Go (4-star from Florida).

Realistic Best Case Scenario: Sophomores develop, freshmen contribute, MIT sweeps its conference matches and wins four of its five top-25 non-conference matches, soars to a national ranking around #10 and earns a high #2 seed at NCAAs.
Realistic Worst Case Scenario: Sophomores regress, freshmen stumble, MIT still sweeps its conference matches but wins zero of its five top-25 non-conference matches, barely holds onto a top-30 ranking, and enters the NCAA tournament as a weak #3 seed and gets blasted 5-0 by a #2 seed in an NE region.
Scenario Review: While I’m bigger on MIT this year, the worst-case scenario is far more likely to happen than the best-case scenario. NCAAs are always a good goal for a team, but with the other top NEWMAC teams (basically Babson) on a down year, MIT should be able to sleepwalk their way to the tournament. Bates and Brandeis present challenges, but if this team is actually on the road to bigger and better things, they need to win those matches. Once they consistently do that, I will give them a better shot against teams like Wesleyan and Amherst.

Lineup Prediction:

#1 Alex Cauneac, sophomore, UTR=12.09, range #1-2. After an absolute monster of a freshman year, Cauneac’s fall has been somewhat disappointing. Last year he went 12/4 at the top of MIT’s lineup, including wins over Solimano (Amherst graduated), Tercek (projected Bowdoin #1), Murad (projected Colby #2) and Glickman (Tufts graduated). This fall he beat Raghavan (projected Williams #4-6) and Ostrovsky (projected Brandeis #4-7), but fell in bigger matches against Arguello (projected Brandies #1-2) and Burney (projected Amherst #2-4), without winning more than five games in either match. Doubles tells a similar story. Last year Cauneac and Lilley went 13-2 at #1 and #2 doubles, including wins over Bowdoin, Amherst, Tufts, Stevens and Brandeis. This fall, Cauneac is 2-0 against Bowdoin but 0-2 against Amherst. The issue? The Bowdoin teams beaten were likely the #3-5 teams, and the victorious Amherst teams were probably in the #2-#3 range. I expect Cauneac to bounce back in the double department, but he is a prime candidate for at least a slight sophomore year regression.

#2 Tyler Barr, sophomore, UTR=12.12, range #1-3. Tyler may have had the best fall (probably either him or Cheng), but that was sadly a low Barr (i hate myself). He crushed Lil’ Raghavan (projected Williams #6-7) and Levitin (projected Amherst #5-7), but lost the two tougher matches he played against Urken (projected Bowdoin #2) and Chen (projected Wesleyan #1). Both losses were close, and the Chen match involved two split tiebreak sets and 6-4 in the 3rd. However, like Cauneac, this was not the Tyler Barr or yesteryear. Barr had an undefeated regular season against DIII competition, including wins over Ali (projected Tufts #2), Yaraghi (Amherst graduated) and Arguello (projected Brandeis #1). MIT needs that Tyler Barr if they are going to compete with the regional big boys. This may sound dumb, but the difference between #3 and #2 is bigger than just one spot (like the difference between #2 and #1). Cauneac, Barr and Ko all had great years, but they will all need to continue to get better if MIT is going to achieve its goals.

#3 Sean Ko, sophomore, UTR=11.88, range #2-4. People were very excited about Ko as one of a handful of 5-star recruits in DIII, and then all of a sudden people weren’t. I really don’t understand it. A lot of people, including a particularly boisterous blogger, saw Ko as a disappointment last year, but all the dude did was go 12-1 against DIII competition, and only one of those 12 wins came in three sets. He played mostly #4 last year, but this year will likely play #3 ahead of Cheng. His fall wasn’t a big step forward, with losses to Derbani (projected Midd #3), Samson (projected Wesleyan #3-4) and Carstens (projected Bowdoin #6-7). The losses to Samson and Carstens were in a 3rd set, but the Derbani loss was quick and to the point. Sean did get a win over Rohan Gupte (projected Tufts #1), which was a great win, but MIT fans will need him to do better than 1-3 against NESCAC foes this spring.

#4 Victor Cheng, freshman, UTR=12.20, range #3-5. Cheng was MIT’s highest ranked recruit this year, and flashed some promise in the fall. He paired with Ko in doubles and the two won a good match against two fellow highly rated recruits (Kaplan/Fung, Amherst) at the ITA. Cheng also beat Lebowitz (projected Williams #6-7), Schaff (projected Tufts #5-7) and Kaplan (projected Amherst #5-7) at the MIT tournament. His fall losses both came against Bowdoin, Roddy (projected #5) & Urken (projected #2). Cheng’s UTR may be slightly inflated from his junior wins, but he will be a tough out as he continues to develop, and should be a heavy favorite to sweep his NEWMAC matches.

#5 Albert Go, freshman, UTR=11.53 (73% reliability) range #3-7. Go’s only fall action came at the MIT tournament, where the freshman won one round in both draws. Paired with Barr, the MIT duo had a nice win over Indrakanti/Raghavan (Williams), before falling to a Wesleyan team in the 2nd round. In the singles draw, Go had the unfortunate luck of drawing De Quant (Midd projected #2 and tournament finalist) in the 1st round, where he fell 3&3. But, Albert won a consolation match 2&0 against Dwivedi (projected #6-7 for Brandeis), before losing to Cam Daniels (projected Wesleyan #4-7, and the winner of the back draw). If Go plays well this year, he and Cheng have the opportunity to provide MIT with young depth, something the Engineers haven’t had in a long time.

#6 Kenny Gea, senior, UTR=10.86, range #5-7. Finally an upperclassman! We all know Kenny Gea has one of the best names in the sport, but he also might be able to provide some leadership at the bottom of the lineup. He didn’t have a wonderful fall, losing 1&1 to Sadowsky (Williams projected #5-7) in his only main draw match, but unlike the majority of his lineup we have years of other results from which to draw upon. Gea went 2-3 against ranked teams last year at #’s 5&6, but has experience playing closer to the top of the lineup during his early years at MIT. While that likely makes him the frontrunner for a lineup spot, the Sax man is only 2-11 in dual matches against ranked opponents over his four years at MIT. That means that if he stumbles early, Coach Hagymas might not wait to try out another option…

Other contenders: Bryan Lilley, senior, UTR= 10.69 (80% reliability), range #5-7 & Henry La Soya, sophomore, UTR = 10.44, range #6-7). Unlike teams like Amherst, MIT’s realistic other options section is probably a bit shorter. Two guys come to mind, Lilley and La Soya. Lilley is known more for his doubles prowess, and will likely pair with Cauneac to be the #1 team this spring. Last year, Lilley played fewer than 1/2 the matches in the singles lineup, including losses against the two best teams he played (at #5), Amherst and Babson.  The year before that he did go 11-5, but 0-4 against ranked teams. He is one of the few upperclassmen on the team, which could give him an edge, and he did push Bunis (projected Brandeis #2-3) to 6-4 in the 3rd set this fall. The other option is Henry La Soya, who played some #6 last year and mainly handled his business against worse teams. This fall La Soya lost to Niemiec (projected Tufts #5-7) in the main draw, and Cole Sutton (projected Midd #7) in the consolation. Not the most inspiring fall, but given his lineup experience and the fact that one excited commenter listed him as “improving” (take it however you’d like), La Soya will likely get his opportunity at some point this spring..

Schedule Analysis: http://mitathletics.com/sports/m-tennis/2016-17/schedule

Two very soft opening months coupled with a frantic April will determine MIT’s 2017 postseason fate. The February matches come against BU, Navy and Bentley, so no real harm or foul here. Just a good way to get your guys some D1 competition. Going against Coach Garner at Navy is an interesting subplot though. March brings more of the same with one exception. MIT will host Bates in early March with both national and regional ranking up for grabs. MIT has lost four of the last five matches between these two teams, but they might well have been an underdog in all five matches. This year, as a favorite, could be different.

April brings something more than showers to Cambridge, as MIT will play 12 matches that month, and no two matches on the same day. I see no issue with them breezing through their Liberty League schedule en route to the #1 seed in the conference tournament, but they do travel to Bowdoin and Wesleyan to start the month, and host Amherst and Brandeis later in the month. If MIT wins two matches of the five big non-conference matches on their schedule (those four and Bates), they will very likely stay in the top-20, but winning only one probably isn’t good enough. The flip-side of that is that if they can pull the upset and take down either Wesleyan or Amherst in addition to Bates and Brandeis, the Engineers could be looking at their highest national ranking in recent memory.

Keys to Success:

1. Sophomores. Cauneac, Barr, and Ko, the projected top-3 players in the Engineers’ lineup, are all sophomores this year. Some other bloggers are very high on Tyler Barr, but decidedly less so on Sean Ko. If all three sophomores can take their game to another level from last year, MIT will be very very tough at the top, and have their chance to upset any team on any day. However, singles isn’t the only aspect of the game where these sophomores need to find success.
2. Doubles. MIT has had some talented singles players in the past (D3AS mandated shoutout to @BlackSwanTennis), Ko and Barr played good doubles last year, but didn’t played together this fall. This fall, the three sophomores were split up and all played with different partners (Lilley, Go, and Cheng respectively.) None of the three teams had spectacular falls, and no matter how formidable the top 4 or 5 of this lineup might be, they cannot afford to fall behind after doubles against higher ranked teams.
3. Non-conference matches. I talked about this in scenarios, I talked about this in the schedule analysis, and I’ll bring it up for a final time. MIT should be able to run through their conference for the 879th straight year. Their national ranking and NCAA seeding will be influenced by their five matches against top-25 opponents, none of whom are in the Engineer’s conference. If MIT can win 3 matches from Bowdoin, Wesleyan, Amherst, Brandeis and Bates, they will be a team that will have a realistic shot (even if it’s small) at upsetting their #1 seed at NCAAs and busting through to the quarterfinals…

Season Prediction: MIT has won an NCAA tournament match in seven of the previous eight years, but they were likely the favorite in all seven of those matches. No matter how MIT does against the five ranked teams I’ve mentioned in this section, they will likely be well on their way to winning an eighth match in nine years and pulling the NESCAC #1 or #2 in the Sweet 16. That’s exactly how I see this season playing out. MIT is good, and they are well on their way to possibly making a bigger impact on the national level, but I think they need another impact freshman next year if they are going to beat not only the likes Brandeis and Bates, but also Amherst, Wesleyan, or even Bowdoin.