← Teams

THPRD-Soifer

2021 Adult 55 & Over · 8.0 Men

8 players · average NTRP 3.79 · USTA/PACIFIC NW / NORTHERN OREGON

View scouting list →
Scouting

Roster averages 3.51 estimated across 5 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.

3.77
Carlin Jackson
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 4
—
Patrick Harkin
usually #3 Doubles 88%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published 4
—
Rick Collins
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.47
Tom Lonergan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.46
Neil Soiffer
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.43
Joe Entler
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.42
Craig Mills
usually #3 Doubles 88%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published 3.5
—
Michael Sheridan
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 0
Results9 ties
2021-06-26Won 2–0
W#2 DoublesJoe Entler / Tom Lonergan vs Joseph Battaglino / Steve Hutchins6-2, 6-2
W#3 DoublesCraig Mills / Patrick Harkin vs Chris Blankenship / Mark Alderson6-2, 7-6
2021-06-25Lost 0–2
L#2 DoublesCraig Mills / Patrick Harkin vs Vincent La Cava / Robert Sheppard6-2, 6-0
L#3 DoublesTom Lonergan / Joe Entler vs John Ferry / Rob Green6-1, 6-4
2021-06-24Lost 0–2
L#2 DoublesNeil Soiffer / Joe Entler vs John Williams / Doug Conboy6-3, 6-1
L#3 DoublesCraig Mills / Patrick Harkin vs Duke Dixon / Terry McHugh6-1, 7-6
2020-11-07Won 3–0
W#1 DoublesNeil Soiffer / Tom Lonergan vs Robert Ferek / Frank Olson6-4, 6-4
W#2 DoublesCarlin Jackson / Joe Entler vs Dave Vinik / Scott Eliason7-5, 7-6
W#3 DoublesPatrick Harkin / Craig Mills vs Len Morales / Bob Lehman6-3, 6-1
2020-11-01Won 2–1
L#1 DoublesJoe Entler / Michael Sheridan vs John Hall / William Hergenhan6-3, 6-0
W#2 DoublesNeil Soiffer / Carlin Jackson vs Bill Henderson / Donald Brenneman6-2, 6-0
W#3 DoublesPatrick Harkin / Craig Mills vs James Ringelberg / James Hockley6-3, 3-6, 1-0
2020-10-31Won 2–1
W#1 DoublesTom Lonergan / Carlin Jackson vs Frank Olson / Robert Ferek6-4, 6-2
L#2 DoublesNeil Soiffer / Joe Entler vs Tony Khamsouk / Scott Eliason7-5, 6-4
W#3 DoublesPatrick Harkin / Craig Mills vs Bruce Yang / George Young6-1, 6-4
2020-10-18Won 3–0
W#1 DoublesCarlin Jackson / Tom Lonergan vs William Hergenhan / John Hall4-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#2 DoublesNeil Soiffer / Rick Karlin vs William Campbell / Jonathan Barg6-4, 6-2
W#3 DoublesPatrick Harkin / Craig Mills vs Jeffrey Krum / Bill Henderson6-2, 4-6, 1-0
2020-10-03Split 1–1
L#1 DoublesNeil Soiffer / Joe Entler vs Robert Ferek / Dave Vinik6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesRick Collins / Michael Sheridan vs Tony Khamsouk / Frank Olson6-4, 5-7, 1-0
2020-09-19Won 2–1
W#1 DoublesCarlin Jackson / Tom Lonergan vs William Hergenhan / James Ringelberg7-5, 6-4
L#2 DoublesMichael Sheridan / Rick Collins vs Jeffrey Krum / Bill Henderson2-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#3 DoublesPatrick Harkin / Craig Mills vs Rudy Martinez / James Hockley7-6, 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.
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.

4
Carlin Jackson
134W–66L career
0%99%0%
3.77
4
Patrick Harkin
88W–69L career
not enough data
—
4
Rick Collins
14W–46L career
not enough data
—
3.5
Tom Lonergan
104W–99L career
0%87%13%
3.47
4
Neil Soiffer
96W–138L career
44%56%0%
3.46
3.5
Joe Entler
28W–42L career
0%89%11%
3.43
3.5
Craig Mills
58W–89L career
0%91%9%
3.42
0
Michael Sheridan
37W–37L career
not enough data
—

Three percentages are the year-end projection — chance of moving down, staying, moving up — and the number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. 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.