Teams

Smith, Nathan

2025 Combo 18 & Over-JXN · Men 5.5

13 players · average NTRP 2.50 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-09-09vs Walker, TylerWon 21
L#1 DoublesTaylor Byrd / Kenny Pilgrim vs Stephen Baldwyn / Parker Fowler7-5, 5-7, 0-1
W#2 DoublesThomas Tynes / Robbie Holt vs Walker Loflin / Carlton Reid6-0, 6-2
W#3 DoublesSuresh Alexander / Gage Rodriguez vs Grady Champion / Tyler Walker7-5, 6-2
2025-08-05vs Walker, TylerWon 21
W#1 DoublesNathan Smith / Matthew Reece vs Walker Loflin / Stephen Baldwyn6-1, 6-4
W#2 DoublesJeremy Hutto / DeMarcus Johnson vs Tyler Walker / Parker Fowler6-3, 6-2
L#3 DoublesRobbie Holt / Phillip King vs Michael Pardue / Grady Champion3-6, 5-7
A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.
i
Grouped by tie — one fixture, several lines. A line shows only when a player on it is someone we have indexed, so an early-season tie for a newly-added team can look short. This also means the line count here will not match the header, which counts individual player appearances.

Flight standings for Men 5.5 have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

ScoutingWhere each opponent usually plays

Signed-in extra: whether this captain plays strict strength order or mixes it up, from every doubles line they have put out. Create a free account to see it.

Roster averages 2.68 estimated across 10 rated players. No lineup is published in advance, so the column below is where each player has actually been used — a captain's habits are the best available forecast. Sign in and claim your record to see who you have played.

2.90
Matthew Reece
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.86
Matt Ferrell
published
2.80
Jeremy Hutto
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.74
Suresh Alexander
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.71
Michael Barnard
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.60
Thomas Tynes
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.58
Robbie Holt
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.56
Gage Rodriguez
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.55
Kenny Pilgrim
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.48
DeMarcus Johnson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Mike Leo
published
Phillip King
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Taylor Byrd
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Established pairs

Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.

Robbie Holt + Thomas Tynes6545% games−1.4% vs expected
Roster

Ordered by our estimated dynamic rating, which is why two players at the same published level are not tied — a published 4.0 says nothing about where inside the band someone sits. Lines played in this team’s season are shown beside each name.

Matthew Reece
8W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%78%21%
2.90
Matt Ferrell
6W–10L career · no lines in 2025
<1%85%14%
2.86
Jeremy Hutto
8W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
1%93%6%
2.80
Suresh Alexander
20W–23L career · 1 line in 2025
3%95%2%
2.74
Michael Barnard
16W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
5%93%1%
2.71
Thomas Tynes
13W–23L career · 1 line in 2025
21%79%<1%
2.60
Robbie Holt
19W–32L career · 2 lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
2.58
2.5
Gage Rodriguez
11W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
0%31%69%
2.56
Kenny Pilgrim
15W–29L career · 1 line in 2025
36%64%<1%
2.55
2.5
DeMarcus Johnson
6W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
0%55%45%
2.48
Mike Leo
2W–5L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Phillip King
0W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Taylor Byrd
3W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data

Three percentages are where each player stands right now: the chance they are below their band, inside it, or above it, on the way they are playing this season. The number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. This is today rather than a forecast of December, because a forecast has to assume future matches and cannot know whether someone will even be offered them. Percentages are blank where a player has too few matches this season, or at a level where the model does not yet beat a base-rate guess; the estimate is a weaker claim than a probability and survives where those do not.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.