Teams

Qualifier Team

2026 Foothills Spring 40 & Over League · Men 3.0

15 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-05-03vs Howard/PC/FoothillsLost 02
L#1 DoublesWilliam Roork / Clarke Hobson vs Jason Howard / Jason Harris0-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesMarc Setzer / Eloy ROY vs Tim Wood / Matt Everley4-6, 3-6
2026-04-25vs Howard/PC/FoothillsLost 12
L#1 DoublesNeil Burkhead / William Roork vs Bradley Connor / Eric Geyer2-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 DoublesPerry Pao / Kevin Woods vs Jonathan Hata / Roger May6-3, 2-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesTimothy Gannon / Clarke Hobson vs JASON WINFIELD / Roger Irvin - (DQ)6-0, 7-5
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 3.0 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 2.85 estimated across 14 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.

3.19
Rob Owen
published
3.08
Tano Failla
published 3
2.93
Bruce Gibson
published 3
2.92
William Roork
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.91
Clarke Hobson
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.89
Timothy Gannon
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.88
Alan Black
published 3
2.84
Richard Williamson
published
2.77
Marc Setzer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.76
Perry Pao
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.74
Kevin Woods
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.70
Jeff Weiss
published
2.69
Eloy ROY
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.61
George VanDyne
published 3
Neil Burkhead
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.

William Roork + Timothy Gannon4157% games−0.5% vs expected
Marc Setzer + Eloy ROY0536% games−3.3% vs expected
Perry Pao + Richard Williamson134 matchesnot enough data
Perry Pao + Jeff Weiss033 matchesnot enough data
Tano Failla + Clarke Hobson213 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.

Rob Owen
22W–9L career · no lines in 2026
<1%7%93%
3.19
3
Tano Failla
54W–47L career · no lines in 2026
<1%27%73%
3.08
3
Bruce Gibson
45W–24L career · no lines in 2026
<1%69%31%
2.93
William Roork
19W–15L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%72%28%
2.92
3
Clarke Hobson
101W–51L career · type A · 2 lines in 2026
<1%75%25%
2.91
Timothy Gannon
8W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%80%20%
2.89
3
Alan Black
2W–12L career · type S · no lines in 2026
<1%83%17%
2.88
Richard Williamson
23W–30L career · no lines in 2026
<1%88%11%
2.84
Marc Setzer
10W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
2%94%4%
2.77
Perry Pao
12W–20L career · 1 line in 2026
2%94%3%
2.76
Kevin Woods
13W–13L career · 1 line in 2026
3%94%2%
2.74
Jeff Weiss
5W–27L career · no lines in 2026
6%93%1%
2.70
3
Eloy ROY
19W–23L career · 1 line in 2026
8%92%1%
2.69
3
George VanDyne
5W–12L career · no lines in 2026
19%81%<1%
2.61
Neil Burkhead
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2026
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.