Teams

GreyHawk / Powell

2025 Collier Adult 18 & Over Winter · 3.5 Adult 18 & Over - Men

10 players · average NTRP 3.50 / REGION_7

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
L#1 DoublesTroy Baker / Randy Powell vs Robert Folger / Al Hazard2-6, 3-6
L#1 SinglesKevin Havel vs Gregory Beard4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesTim Dahlby / John Schommer vs Don McWaters / Sarkis Etoian2-6, 7-5, 0-1
L#2 SinglesJason Dean vs Miguel Pinto4-6, 6-7
L#3 DoublesRyan Toth / Jason Welsh vs Tim Gordon / Grant Gutwein1-6, 5-7
L#1 DoublesRyan Toth / Randy Powell vs Gregory Beard / Tim Gordon3-6, 4-6
L#1 SinglesJason Dean vs Stanislav Savov1-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesTim Dahlby / Philip Hussey vs Robert Folger / Al Hazard3-6, 4-6
L#2 SinglesBrady Nehf vs Miguel Pinto6-1, 3-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJohn Schommer / Troy Baker vs Andy Mintz / Grant Gutwein3-6, 4-6
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 3.5 Adult 18 & Over - Men 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 3.22 estimated across 8 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.

3.37
Jason Dean
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
3.30
Troy Baker
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.27
Randy Powell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.22
Philip Hussey
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.20
Jason Welsh
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.20
Brady Nehf
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.11
John Schommer
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.06
Ryan Toth
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Kevin Havel
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Tim Dahlby
usually #2 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.

Randy Powell + Jason Welsh3347% games+5.3% vs expected
Jason Welsh + Ryan Toth044 matchesnot enough data
John Schommer + Troy Baker123 matchesnot enough data
John Schommer + Ryan Toth033 matchesnot enough data
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.

Jason Dean
12W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%85%15%
3.37
Troy Baker
4W–6L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%93%6%
3.30
Randy Powell
4W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.27
Philip Hussey
6W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
4%94%2%
3.22
Jason Welsh
4W–21L career · 1 line in 2025
6%93%1%
3.20
3.5
Brady Nehf
1W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
6%93%1%
3.20
John Schommer
2W–14L career · 2 lines in 2025
19%81%<1%
3.11
Ryan Toth
3W–20L career · 2 lines in 2025
33%67%<1%
3.06
Kevin Havel
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Tim Dahlby
4W–5L career · 2 lines 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.