Ian Kennish asked 'What went wrong with Harvard?'
 
Richard Hungerford posted a well-written, thorough analysis.
I won't bother quoting from it, there was too much good,
relevant material. I'll just add my own opinion.
 
Harvard lost Sean McCann (22 goals), Derek Maguire, and Lou
Body from the defense - two All-Americans and a solid, reliable
veteran, respectively. Add the loss of Aaron Israel, which, if
nothing else, put a ton of pressure on Tripp Tracy. In addition,
the Crimson lost Brian Farrell (29 goals) and Chris Baird
(38 assists). Baird, Farrell, McCann and Maguire were four-fifths
of one college hockey's best power plays (with Steve Martins).
 
So Tomassoni was faced with A) rebuilding the defense, B) retooling
the power play.
 
What did he have as replacement partes?
 
Up front, he added Doug Sproule - a great talent, and probably
the next Steven Flomenhoft, although a better skater - and
Henry Higdon, a good but not great prospect. Other players,
particularly Brad Konik and Cory Gustafson, did not acheive
the kind of goal totals that were expected (particularly
on the power play - where teams learned to overplay Martins).
 
In back, he added three highly recruited freshmen - Geordie
Hyland, whose progress was impeded by mono and injury,
Jeremiah McCarthy, who was very steady throughout, and
Brian Famigletti, who didn't progress as expected. That left
Michel Breistroff (a forward until two years ago), Bryan
Lonsinger (injured for much of the season but played
through it impressively), Geb Marett (also injury-plagued)
and Peter McLaughlin to provide the 'experience.'
 
This year's Harvard team reminded me of 1989-90, when
the Crimson were 13-14-1. The talent was there, but
the combination of losses/injuries and inexperience
were just too much to overcome. Tomassoni certainly
adjusted the team's style to emphasize defense, but
I think the struggles of the power play were as much
a part of the team's inability to score.
 
Is Harvard less skilled than previous years? I think
so, although not by a ton. Brown and Princeton have
been and will continue to eat away at the Crimson's
monopoly on bright young hockey players with skill.
Team chemistry was also bad, as Richard suggests.
That may have been a function of the other struggles,
and it may have been a result of the seniors'
inability to handle some adversity. Harvard loses
some great players to graduation, but looks like
it is having a good recruiting year. It will
be interesting to see if team chemistry improves.
 
Geoff Howell
The Trenton Times
Drop the Puck