Teams

RN-STONE

2025 · 2026 MATA USTA Adult 40 & Over - Fall

9 players · average NTRP 3.25 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-09-30vs HOCO-LAMOTHESplit 11
L#1 SinglesKen Leyne vs Rob Crain3-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesMatt Stone / Jeffrey Moody vs Manoj Shah / Terry Jones6-4, 6-2
2025-09-23vs HOCO-LAMOTHESplit 11
L#2 DoublesRandy Griffin / Andrew Russell vs Kelvin Oliver / CHRISTOPHER HUNTER2-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#3 DoublesMatt Stone / Christopher Wright vs Scott McClain / Manoj Shah6-4, 6-2
2025-09-09vs HOCO-LAMOTHEWon 10
W#2 DoublesMatt Stone / Andrew Russell vs Scott McClain / Randy Moss6-4, 6-2
2025-09-02vs HOCO-LAMOTHELost 02
L#2 DoublesMatt Stone / Christopher Wright vs Kelvin Oliver / CHRISTOPHER HUNTER1-6, 6-7
L#3 DoublesRonald Burd / Charlie Lanphier vs Brooks Fox / Terry Jones0-6, 4-6
2025-08-26vs HOCO-LAMOTHELost 02
L#1 SinglesMatt Stone vs ERIC ADAMS3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesRonald Burd / Christopher Davis vs Brooks Fox / Randy Moss2-6, 1-6
2025-08-19vs HOCO-LAMOTHELost 03
L#1 DoublesChristopher Wright / Ronald Burd vs Rudy Lamothe / Daniel Thompson0-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesMatt Stone vs Rob Crain0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesRandy Griffin / Charlie Lanphier vs Scott McClain / Chip Stork2-6, 1-6
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 standings2 teams · 2026 MATA USTA Adult 40 & Over - Fall
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1HOCO-LAMOTHE61171123194
2RN-STONE16111738281

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 3.17 estimated across 4 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.

3.52
Richard Ricks
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
3.33
Norm Pearson
usually #1 Doubles 58%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.20
Christopher Wright
usually #2 Doubles 38%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
2.62
Charlie Lanphier
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
Jeffrey Moody
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published
Ken Leyne
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Matt Stone
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
Randy Griffin
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Ronald Burd
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
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.

Richard Ricks
8W–11L career · 5 lines in 2026
45%55%<1%
3.52
Norm Pearson
22W–19L career · 12 lines in 2026
1%88%11%
3.33
3.5
Christopher Wright
5W–9L career · 8 lines in 2026
8%91%2%
3.20
3
Charlie Lanphier
14W–12L career · 9 lines in 2026
19%80%<1%
2.62
Jeffrey Moody
7W–9L career · 7 lines in 2026
not enough data
Ken Leyne
1W–1L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Matt Stone
3W–3L career · 6 lines in 2026
not enough data
Randy Griffin
0W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Ronald Burd
0W–5L career · 3 lines 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.