Location: Cambridge, MA
Head Coach: Carol Matsuzaki, 18th year
Twitter Handle: @MITWTennis
2013 National Ranking: #23
2014 National Ranking: #13
2015 National Ranking: #9
2016 Pre-Season National Ranking: #9
Intro:
Happy New Year beautiful people!
As @D3WestWomens would say, TECH! That’s right, I’m going to be previewing the MIT Engineers today. This is a team that is still on the rise. They were ranked at #30 four short years ago, and just when we thought MIT had peaked, they took another big step forward late last spring by beating a senior laden and red hot Washington & Lee team (ranked as high as #4), to find themselves in the NCAA quarterfinals. I looked back at my MIT preview from last year and here’s what I said as one of the ‘Keys’ to their success:
#3. How do they take that next step up – MIT has been taking a lot of steps in the right direction in order to consistently beat teams ranked in the 20s these past couple of years. In order to take that next big step, more than anything, they need to win that ONE MATCH against a team ranked above them.
So I’m going to repeat that for this year and say that in order for MIT to take yet another step forward, they need to get a win over a team ranked above them. But I’m going to add that they need to beat a team ranked above them IN THEIR OWN REGION. I don’t know if this will happen this year or the next or the next but that’s their next step. Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, and Bowdoin have had a stronghold on the Northeast Top 4 since 2012 (the great Julia-Browne-era-Tufts was in the mix before that). There has been a noticeable gap between the top 4 NE teams and whoever comes next, so let’s see who can crack into the NE Top 4.
MIT plays in the NEWMAC, one of the few conferences that play their conference matches and championship in the fall (why?!). They were able to secure their Pool A bid for NCAAs with a 5-4 win over #31 Babson (looks like Babo is legit? Anyone seen them play this year?), so in a sense it takes the pressure off them but it’s a dangerous thing to rest on your laurels! Other than Babo, it does not look like anyone was able to challenge MIT too much, but they will get plenty of competition in the spring.
Lineup Analysis:
Let’s take a look at my projected lineups for Coach Matsuzaki’s Engineers. Because they’ve already played a bunch of dual matches in the fall, we have an idea of what their lineup looks like.
UTR Power6 Rating (the sum of the supposed top 6 players on a team): 49
#1 Singles: Elysa Kohrs, junior, 8.85
Kohrs has been solid at the top of the lineup for the Engineers. Looking at her record, she hasn’t lost a dual match at #1 since mid-April. And looks like her ITA regional results don’t tell us much, as she lost by default (injury?) in the second round. Her NEWMAC conference matches look pretty straightforward.
#2 Singles: Kelly Zhu, freshman, 8.80
Last year MIT’s weak spots in the lineup were at #2 and #3. With a freshman pushing everyone down, let’s see if they can at least be stronger at #3 against the top tier teams. Zhu had an up and down fall but was still pretty solid. She won all her dual matches except for the second time she played against Babson. At the ITA’s it looks like she retired as well in the first round, so not much information there.
#3 Singles: Dora Tzeng, sophomore, 8.16
Tzeng played primarily at #4 last year, where she was probably the most dependable point for MIT.
#4 Singles: Sonya Das, sophomore, 7.37
Das moves down from #2, where she didn’t have a lot of great results last year. Playing at #4 should boost her confidence a bit.
#5 Singles: Cindy Liu, sophomore, 7.82
Liu was all over the lineup last year but it looks like she mostly played at 5, where she didn’t lose a dual match until the very last match, which is pretty incredible. Another reliable spot for the Engineers.
#6 Singles: Wendi Kong, junior, 7.67
Kong was everywhere in the lineup as well, but wound up at #6 last year. Another fairly dependable spot for MIT.
As you can see, the Engineers are solid all the way up and down the lineup, a step up from last year. I wouldn’t say they have any “weak” spots but at the same time I wouldn’t say they have any of the spots “in the bag” against the top teams.
Doubles:
As I’ve said in the other previews, doubles teams are very hard to predict but here is what the Engineers mostly went with this fall:
Kohrs/Tam
Das/Zhu
Tzeng/Lai
and some other combinations. They all had solid results in the fall. Let’s see how they do in the spring.
Schedule Analysis:
Here’s MIT’s schedule: http://mitathletics.com/sports/w-tennis/2015-16/schedule
2/26-2/28 ITA Indoor Nationals
4/2 #8 Bowdoin
4/6 #24 Tufts
4/9 #3 Amherst
4/15 at #1 Williams
4/16 at #21 Vassar
4/23 #5 Middlebury
They’ve already played half their matches in the fall, but the only ranked teams they played were #31 Babson (2x) and #32 Wellesley, both of whom they beat. As with the other Northeast teams I’ve previewed so far this season, this team has a very high strength of schedule. They play every team in the region ranked above them, which on the one hand are great opportunities, but on the other hand can make for a long season.
They start the season off with a bang at Indoors!!! If I’m not mistaken, this might be their inaugural appearance at Indoors. Given that they are the lone representative of the Northeast region, they will face some of the best out-of-region competition in the country. It’s so early in the season that anything can happen. I just took a peek at the ITA site and the teams playing at Indoors are: #6 CMU, #7 Pomona, #9 MIT, #10 W&L, #11 Hopkins, #12 Sewanee, #13 Washington Univ, and #14 DePauw. Not a bad slate of teams! We will most likely be writing a preview article about Indoors as we get closer to the event, so I’ll save my thoughts for until then.
The rest of their schedule is against the top teams in the Northeast. As I said, if the Engineers want to take that next step, they need to get a win against one of the top 4. At this point, Bowdoin might be their best bet, but it’s still a tough tough match to take against a solid, experienced lineup, and the Engineers are definitely the underdogs. Amherst is a wildcard to me. I thought they would have had a down year last year, as their star studded class graduated (Brewer, Devlin, Newman, Pangalos), but they proved me wrong by finishing in a strong 3rd at NCAAs. However, this year they laid an egg in an 0-9 loss to Williams in their lone dual match of the fall. What was most surprising about that loss was that none of their doubles teams got more than 4 games in a match, and doubles is usually their strong point. Anyway, I digress.
Tufts is starting the year at #24 but they will no doubt move up and that will be a tough team (although filled with freshmen) looking to avenge a bunch of losses. They had an absolutely disastrous spring last year that started out with a lot of promise but ended with a heartbreaking loss to Trinity that kept them out of NESCACs for the first time ever. They will be a dangerous team to play. Tufts and MIT have had some close matches in the recent years and I don’t think this year will be any different. The two other NESCAC teams that MIT plays are Middlebury and Williams, in my opinion, the two top teams in the NESCAC this year. MIT can look to score points here and there, but again, they are the big underdogs. Against a down-year Vassar (they graduated studs Schapiro and Sadeghi) MIT should take that match.
D3NEW’s 3 Keys to MIT’s Season:
#1. Beat a Northeast team ranked above them. If not this year, maybe the next, and at least make those matches close matches.
#2. Have good matches at Indoors. It’s so early on in the season, and all the teams are good, so each team there should aim to play good tennis. There should be a lot of close matches this year.
#3. Get a favorable draw at the NCAA Regionals. Last year, because of geography, MIT got sent to the Atlantic South for their “Regional”. Boston area schools who are ranked pretty high sometimes get sent to the DC/Virginia area because it’s just under the NCAA 500 mile mark – in 2011 Tufts (the Jumbos!!) was sent down to Maryland and defeated Hopkins 5-1 to get to the Elite 8 for the first time in history. I’m not sure if the NCAA will send MIT out again, but if they can get a win against one of the NE Top 4 they might even be able to host one of the three regionals so that they don’t run into them again until the quarterfinals.
Well, that’s all from me for now, enjoy!
NEW
Are you familiar with the playing styles of any of the MIT players? Any thoughts on how those might influence players’ successes at various spots in the lineup? Last year I remember watching an MIT player with an underhand serve – seemed frustrating to get the hang of for her opponent.
What types of players do you think succeed at the different spots?
My thoughts off the top of my head:
1. Assertive, Gives nothing for free, can win points in multiple ways.
2. Really good at 1 style of play, not quite as dominant or flexible
Somewhere in here there is the best athlete, the most consistent, the hard hitting but inconsistent player.
6. Best competitor if they don’t hit that hard.
I really like that question d3 alum. I did get to watch MIT play and I know who you’re talking about as there aren’t too many underhand servers. I think in D3 there are many playing styles that actually work. Matchups and how players use them to their advantage (or get exploited) will always play a huge part in these matches.
In general I think that players higher up in the lineup tend to be more aggressive without missing too much. As you go down the lineup, you may see a combination of aggressive/not as consistent or not as aggressive/consistent.
As the season starts and we start getting into matches, it would be very interesting to talk about the individual matches that are going to be played, so please keep reading, commenting, and tweeting the blog.
Specifically, with the underhand server from MIT, her serve did frustrate her opponent but I remember seeing her as a pretty consistent player as well, which makes her a pretty good middle of the lineup player.
She was top 60 in the country early in high school.