Men's Semifinal 1 Preview

NCAA Division III Men's Soccer - National Semifinal 1

Friday, December 2 — 11:00 am ET No. 13  St. Thomas (20-1-3) vs.  Tufts (13-5-2)

How they reached the Final Four

2016 Statistical Overview

St. Thomas Season Review

When St. Thomas went 12-7-1 last year and won two MIAC playoff games before falling 2-0 to St. Olaf in the MIAC tournament final it pointed toward the Tommies being contenders for an NCAA tournament berth this year. The Tommies romped through the regular season, going 7-1-2 in conference, the lone defeat coming in a 2-0 home loss to Augsburg on Oct. 29 in its last regular season game. And while having its first defeat come at such a crucial juncture may have knocked some teams' confidence, St. Thomas didn't have to wait long to get revenge, as they beat the Auggies in overtime just four days later in the MIAC semifinals. The MIAC final against Macalester was similarly tense, but the Tommies managed to get it done there, too, winning 1-0 at home and securing an automatic NCAA berth.

As hosts for the opneing weekend of the NCAA tournament, St. Thomas was close to a one-and-done appearance, trailing 1-0 with less than 3 minutes to play. But senior walk-on Tony Kuplic, a substitute with just just 8 appearances, played the unlikely hero, making his first collegiate goal an unforgettable one when he buried the equalizer with just 2:49 left in regulation before heading home a 109th-minute winner to send the home crowd into raptures. The next day, against Luther, Kuplic made it 3 goals in 2 games, as he scored the second goal in the team’s 2-0 victory, enabling the Tommies to advance to the Sweet 16 for just the second time in school history.

In cold and blustery Chicago, St. Thomas faced the tournament's Cinderella, Benedictine. The Tommies trailed 1-0 after a back-and-forth opening stanza in which the Tommies offense was tame and Benedictine was able to score off a rebound in the area. A second half stalemate was threatening to end their season when, for the second time in the tournament, an equalizer was conjured up with only a few minutes to spare to set up a double-overtime game-winner. Instead of facing their top-ranked hosts in the Elite Eight, a surprising Redlands awaited and once again the Tommies found themselves needing a comeback, this time from two goals down with a half hour remaining. Kuplic to the rescue once again with a header to start the fight back and, after an equalizer forced overtime, a left-footed blast to put St. Thomas among the final four standing.

Tufts Season Review

Tufts was difficult to gauge coming into the 2016 season. The 2014 national champions followed up with an inconsistent 2015 season, but righted the ship in time to make a strong run to the Sweet Sixteen. 2016 was new era, however, as most of the 2014 core graduated to the real world. The Jumbos did return stellar goalkeeper Scott Greenwood and leading scorer Nathan Majumder, but question marks surrounded the rest of the squad. A 0-2-1 start to the season sounded the alarm bells, and the only real bright spot in September was a double-overtime win in a street fight against Brandeis.

When the calendar turned to October, however, Tufts shifted gears. The catalyst was an eye-opening 3-0 blanking of defending champ Amherst, and the Jumbos followed up with solid wins over the NESCAC’s other top teams in Middlebury and Williams. Tufts wasn’t blowing anyone out, but they were finding the big-game form that propelled their recent NCAA runs. But inconsistency reared its ugly head again, and Tufts lost twice to Bowdoin by identical 2-1 scorelines just four days apart. Ranked wins were enough to secure an at-large bid to the tournament, but after a third straight NESCAC quarterfinal exit, Tufts was far from a sure thing heading into the opening weekend.

A first-round matchup with No. 18 Springfield was the cagey affair that was expected, remaining scoreless until Gaston Becherano tallied his fifth game-winner early in the second half with an insurance goal to follow. Playing the underdog role against No. 8 Rowan in round two, an early goal by Majumder, who has fallen victim to an injury-plagued senior season, would end up being the difference in a game that tilted back and forth with Tufts surviving the Rowan's late push for the equalizer.

Geography and upsets conspired to hand Tufts hosting duties for sectional play, and the Jumbos gave the home fans something to cheer about, even if they made them wait for the final whistle both days. In the Sweet 16, a short-handed Mass-Boston side would not go down easily, but after haftime Tufts began to take control and a deserved 68th-minute tally would be decisive. A quarterfinal match with Kenyon who ousted the Jumbos in the Sweet 16 last year, and the re-match did not disappoint. Kenyon created a few more chances to win in the scoreless stalemate that extedned into double-overtime, but with penalty kicks beckoning, Majumder scored the 108th minute winner to send the Jumbos to their second Final Four in three years.

Head Coaches

Seniors' 4-year Record (through Nov. 20)

Players to Watch

St. Thomas: D Mark Heydt (Sr.) – 7g, 10a, 16 ShO | M Shae Bottum (Jr.) – 6g, 4a | F Christian Elliehausen (Jr.) – 5g, 3a | D Johnny Mulvahill (Sr.) – 3g, 0a, 16 ShO | GK Aidan Hogan (So.) – 0.881 Sv.Pct., 0.33 GAA, 10 ShO

Tufts: F Gaston Becherano (Sr.) – 12g, 1a | D Daniel Sullivan (Sr.) – 1g, 1a, 11 ShO | M Zach Halliday (Sr.) – 0g, 2a | GK Scott Greenwood (Sr.) – 0.884 Sv.Pct., 0.46 GAA, 11 ShO | F Nathan Majumder (Sr.) – 4g, 0a

Analysis

By Ryan Harmanis

Our first matchup features two teams that are, in many ways, mirror images of one another. St. Thomas and Tufts are big, organized, well-coached teams that do not beat themselves. They defend set pieces and are incredibly difficult to break down. Just look at the numbers: combined, these teams let in under one goal per game (0.44 goals against for St. Thomas, 0.53 for Tufts). At the other end, both teams like to get the ball on the floor and play when they have it, and both feature athletic front lines that can score in a variety of ways.

Where the programs differ, however, is in experience. This is St. Thomas’s first rodeo; they had never even won their conference tournament before this year. Tufts, on the other hand, won the 2014 title in dominating fashion and has gone 12-1—that’s not a typo—in the past three NCAA tournaments. When you think about preparation, then, Tufts knows exactly what they’re walking into Friday morning. St. Thomas is focused, no doubt, but we’re all waiting to see if they can handle the moment.

Still, between the squads, St. Thomas has been more consistent. The Tommies rolled through a solid (if unspectacular) non-conference schedule before winning the MIAC. The worry was that, while St. Thomas beat every team it should, it merely tied the best team it played (Colorado College) and you weren’t sure the Tommies were national contenders yet. They convinced me in the conference final, grinding out a 1-0 win over a good Macalester team, and took off from there. The thing I still wonder is how they’ll handle a team as battle-tested and elite as Tufts, because they haven’t seen anyone like the Jumbos.

Tufts, on the other hand, has often played up (or down) to the competition. The Jumbos had a rough start, but took out the other top three teams in the NESCAC, and aside from Achilles heel Bowdoin, Tufts has won every single big game—all by shutout. Winning big games has become a habit, and that’s terrifying for other teams. But Bowdoin raised a concern, because St. Thomas is similar in their ability to negate the things the Jumbos do well. And Tufts hasn’t blown anyone out, so in a tight game, anyone can win.

Looking at matchups, both defenses have their work cut out for them. St. Thomas hits you from every direction, from Shae Bottum and Pierce Erickson up top to their leading scorer, defender Mark Heydt (7g, 10a). The wild card is walk-on senior Tony Kuplic, who plays like a seasoned and deadly veteran rather than a first-year guy. He has five goals in the NCAA tournament, including a bomb to send the Tommies to the Final Four. Tufts similarly has no drop-off up front, with Gaston Becherano and Nathan Majumder splitting time and putting pressure on centerbacks for a full 90 minutes.

But this game will be fought in the midfield. I think Tufts, led by Zach Halliday, will carry a little more of the play, but I’m not sure that matters much. Both teams are comfortable playing without the ball, and St. Thomas in particular is really good in transition. This has all the makings of a grind-it-out, 1-0 game. When you face your doppelganger, what else would you expect?

The question then becomes how either team reacts to falling behind. A month ago, I would have said that St. Thomas had to score first, as they don’t bang in a ton of goals. Then the Tommies came from behind in three of their four NCAA games. So an early Tufts goal might not spell doom.

Tufts, on the other hand, has not shown they can come from behind, because they haven’t had to. In their biggest wins—Amherst, Middlebury, Williams, Brandeis—Tufts pitched a shutout. They have yet to concede a single goal in the NCAA tournament. So can they come from behind? They couldn’t do it against Bowdoin, which scored first-half goals in both contests and won 2-1. And St. Thomas is, in many respects, a better version of Bowdoin, and a team that is very, very good at closing up shop once they go in front.

I expect a good, tight game with few chances, similar to Amherst-Oneonta State last year. In such a game, set pieces become crucial, but both teams are good at defending them, led by Greenwood (Tufts) and Hogan (St. Thomas) controlling their boxes. The difference, in my opinion, will be one mistake or one moment of brilliance. From that angle, St. Thomas has had a few more match-winners in 2016, which might give them the edge. But this is what Tufts does, their defense has been unbreakable of late, and most would label them the favorite. So is it experience, or consistency? Is it continued NESCAC dominance, led by its most recent flagship program, or the rise of a new power? We’ll know soon enough.

Comments or feedback for the author?  E-mail Ryan Harmanis.