Teams

Northern: Smith

2024 Tri Level Men · 4.0, 3.5, 3.0

18 players · average NTRP 3.75 / NORTHERN REGION

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2024-03-17vs HenningLost 01
L#3 DoublesKevin Hines / Aman Mundra vs Chris Bragg / Thomas Miller6-4, 2-6, 0-1
2024-03-03vs SportimeWon 21
W#1 DoublesRoberto Paladini / Jesse McGuire vs Jackson Regan / Chris Hanley6-1, 6-3
W#2 DoublesGregory Roe / Brent Smith vs Kevin Lau / Aidar Gosmanov6-2, 6-1
L#3 DoublesAnton Keller / Bryant Jarocki vs Gerard DeCusatis / Prince Karimalikal4-6, 7-5, 0-1
2024-02-11vs SportimeWon 20
W#1 DoublesRoberto Paladini / Varun Gandhi vs Paul Warren / Jackson Regan3-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJustin Tram / Logan Tichenor vs Luc Belikis / Daniel Bellcourt6-1, 6-0
2024-02-04vs HenningWon 20
W#1 DoublesVarun Gandhi / Connor Darcy vs Gary Henning / David Wells6-2, 6-3
W#3 DoublesKevin Hines / Aman Mundra vs John Powell / Shivasankar Karuppaiah6-0, 2-6, 1-0
2024-01-20vs SportimeWon 21
L#1 DoublesAndreas P. Christodoulou / Carter Flanigan vs Chris Hanley / Ali Albaker6-3, 6-7, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMark van Leuven / Gregory Roe vs Aidar Gosmanov / IMRAN SHAH6-1, 6-2
W#3 DoublesBryant Jarocki / Logan Tichenor vs Daniel Bellcourt / Gerard DeCusatis6-1, 6-2
2024-01-14vs Chin 4.5 TriLevelWon 21
W#1 DoublesAndreas P. Christodoulou / Carter Flanigan vs Gary Henning / Rajesh Padmanabhan6-3, 6-2
L#2 DoublesJustin Tram / Jesse McGuire vs Ryan Luna / Aaron Sinnott7-6, 6-7, 0-1
W#3 DoublesBryant Jarocki / Logan Tichenor vs Chris Bragg / Shivasankar Karuppaiah6-1, 6-2
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 standings3 teams · 4.0, 3.5, 3.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Northern: Smith6014410103
2Sportime2461230205
3Henning1571126179

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 3.65 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.

4.11
Carter Flanigan
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
4.03
Roberto Paladini
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.80
Logan Tichenor
usually #3 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published
Connor Darcy
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #3 Doubles 44% · published 4
3.67
Brent Smith
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.58
Mark van Leuven
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 4
3.46
Bryant Jarocki
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.45
Jeffrey Denney
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Aman Mundra
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.07
Anton Keller
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Andreas P. Christodoulou
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Gregory Roe
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
James Galliher
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Jesse McGuire
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Justin Tram
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Kevin Hines
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
TThomas Chin
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Varun Gandhi
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.

Brent Smith + Carter Flanigan6067% games+13.7% vs expected
Mark van Leuven + Brent Smith8358% games+7.1% vs expected
Jeffrey Denney + Mark van Leuven17557% games−0.7% vs expected
Aman Mundra + Kevin Hines4166% games−1.2% vs expected
Jeffrey Denney + Brent Smith224 matchesnot enough data
James Galliher + Varun Gandhi213 matchesnot enough data
James Galliher + Brent Smith123 matchesnot enough data
Roberto Paladini + Brent Smith123 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.

4
Carter Flanigan
25W–5L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%22%78%
4.11
Roberto Paladini
84W–90L career · 6 lines in 2024
no projection at this level
4.03
Logan Tichenor
23W–5L career · 7 lines in 2024
2%91%8%
3.80
4
Connor Darcy
19W–2L career · 9 lines in 2024
not enough data
4
Brent Smith
118W–41L career · 5 lines in 2024
12%87%1%
3.67
4
Mark van Leuven
104W–66L career · 7 lines in 2024
27%73%<1%
3.58
3.5
Bryant Jarocki
33W–23L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%63%37%
3.46
3.5
Jeffrey Denney
111W–87L career · 6 lines in 2024
<1%64%36%
3.45
3.5
Aman Mundra
16W–4L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
3.5
Anton Keller
86W–103L career · 4 lines in 2024
31%69%<1%
3.07
Andreas P. Christodoulou
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Gregory Roe
30W–14L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
James Galliher
46W–51L career · 6 lines in 2024
not enough data
Jesse McGuire
27W–8L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Justin Tram
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Kevin Hines
6W–1L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
TThomas Chin
2W–13L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Varun Gandhi
46W–10L career · 2 lines in 2024
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.