Teams

ACAC McFadden

2025 Richmond Adult 55 & Over Men · Richmond Adult 55 & Over 7.0 Men

11 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-08-12vs Barila's GorillasWon 21
W#1 DoublesThomas Wilson / Venkatachelam Regulagedda vs William Carnahan / Doug Blouch7-6, 7-5
L#2 DoublesRobert McElroy / Randolph Moore vs Ravi Ravichandran / Tom Barila4-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesMarshall Forbes / Anant Singh vs Rusty Dean / Jeff Given6-3, 6-1
2025-07-15vs Westwood Lemco/WestWon 21
L#1 DoublesMarshall Forbes / Anant Singh vs Harry Turton / Mark Wickersham2-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesRobert McElroy / Randolph Moore vs Scott Dillard / John Szalay6-1, 6-4
W#3 DoublesDave Bucheit / Ed Shropshire vs Craig Dober / Alan Shaia3-6, 6-0, 1-0
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 Richmond Adult 55 & Over 7.0 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 3.27 estimated across 7 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.

3.42
Anant Singh
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.35
Venkatachelam Regulagedda
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.34
Dave Bucheit
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.24
Thomas Wilson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.23
Randolph Moore
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.17
Joseph Cipolla
published
3.14
Ed Shropshire
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Marshall Forbes
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Robert McElroy
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Scott McFadden
published
Steven Larue
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.

Marshall Forbes + Anant Singh6452% gamesnot enough data
Dave Bucheit + Anant Singh3348% gamesnot enough data
Randolph Moore + Thomas Wilson224 matchesnot enough data
Anant Singh + Thomas Wilson033 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.

3.5
Anant Singh
33W–31L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%74%26%
3.42
Venkatachelam Regulagedda
11W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%87%13%
3.35
3.5
Dave Bucheit
19W–20L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%89%11%
3.34
Thomas Wilson
24W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
3%94%2%
3.24
Randolph Moore
22W–26L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.23
Joseph Cipolla
7W–9L career · no lines in 2025
10%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Ed Shropshire
10W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
14%86%<1%
3.14
Marshall Forbes
7W–6L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Robert McElroy
3W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Scott McFadden
1W–0L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Steven Larue
1W–0L career · no 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.