Teams

Knight 40s 6.5M Combo Tues PM

2026 Piedmont Combo 40 & Over · 6.5 40 & Over Men Tuesday PM

9 players · average NTRP 3.17 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-09-02vs Hilliard 40s 6.5M Combo Tuesday PMLost 12
L#1 DoublesKevin Kemp / Rod Mendoza vs Michael Raley / Lars Oestergaard2-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesChris Sigley / Brant Davenport vs Anthony Delligatti / Arick Tuhro6-1, 6-3
L#3 DoublesNathan Smith / David Apple vs Vikram Penumalli / BRAD VANNOY4-6, 7-6, 0-1
2026-08-25vs Whichard 40s 6.5M Tuesday PMLost 03
L#1 DoublesTim Mounce / Brant Davenport vs Aravindh Raj Sankara Narayanan / Dan Horan3-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesChris Sigley / Donald O'Brien vs Luke Rhoten / William Stecker3-6, 6-7
L#3 DoublesNathan Smith / Tom Lipscomb vs Ashley Fuquay / Eric McFarlin2-6, 3-6
2026-08-18vs Laughlin 40s 6.5W Combo Tues PMLost 03
L#1 DoublesDon Knight / David Clowers vs Vince Credle / Glenn Gorman0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesRod Mendoza / Brant Davenport vs David Rachels / RICHARD LUGO1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesChris Sigley / Douglas Reece vs William Johnson / Garland Hilliard2-6, 6-3, 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 6.5 40 & Over Men Tuesday PM 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 3.06 estimated across 6 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
Tim Mounce
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.34
Chris Sigley
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.05
Brant Davenport
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.93
Don Knight
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.83
Douglas Reece
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.80
Rod Mendoza
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
David Apple
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
David Clowers
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
Tom Lipscomb
usually #3 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.

Rod Mendoza + Brant Davenport224 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.

Tim Mounce
15W–13L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%73%27%
3.42
3.5
Chris Sigley
56W–25L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%88%12%
3.34
3
Brant Davenport
27W–11L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%36%64%
3.05
3.5
Don Knight
7W–13L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
72%28%<1%
2.93
3
Douglas Reece
7W–20L career · 1 line in 2026
1%90%9%
2.83
Rod Mendoza
18W–15L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%93%6%
2.80
3
David Apple
1W–3L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
3
David Clowers
2W–18L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Tom Lipscomb
0W–2L 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.