Teams

SGV Underdogs-Bui-Diamond Bar HS-SU10:30

2026 Winter Team Singles · SGV - Men 4.0

9 players · average NTRP 3.67 / SO.CALIFORNIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
W#1 SinglesMichael Pang vs Dastan Mazhetayev6-3, 6-2
L#2 SinglesLam Bui vs Alexander Pham2-6, 4-6
L#3 SinglesJordan Tatang vs Stephen Kim6-4, 2-6, 0-1
W#1 SinglesJames Phan vs Adam Yu6-4, 6-1
L#2 SinglesAndrew Arroyo vs Hans Yu0-6, 4-6
L#3 SinglesGEVORG KASABIAN vs Arturo Mateos3-6, 0-6
2026-02-28vs SGV Triforces-D.Li-WN/SU10Won 21
L#1 SinglesAndrew Arroyo vs Anthony Tsao1-6, 2-6
W#2 SinglesDerek Fu vs Sergio Ibarra6-1, 6-2
W#3 SinglesMichael Pang vs Trenman Yau6-1, 6-0
2026-02-15vs SGV Dare Doubles-Qian-WN/SU2Split 11
W#1 SinglesAndrew Arroyo vs Jonathan Mak6-3, 7-5
L#2 SinglesLam Bui vs Keane Tarrosa0-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesJames Phan vs Andy Miller6-2, 7-5
W#1 SinglesMichael Pang vs Yuxi Huang6-3, 6-0
W#2 SinglesJames Phan vs Keon Ha Hwang6-4, 6-4
W#3 SinglesLam Bui vs Jack Adeney6-1, 6-1
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 standings7 teams · SGV - Men 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1SGV LLW Flint Fighters- Ortiz Reyes-Flint Canyon/SA45113515138
2SGV Dare Doubles-Qian-WN/SU25111719158
3SGV Triforces-D.Li-WN/SU10339921160
4SGV Noobies B-Koh-San Marino HS/SU23381022166
5SGV Underdogs-Bui-Diamond Bar HS-SU10:30249918146
6SGV Noobies A-Han-San Marino HS/SU102481024164
7SGV Busy Beavers-Wang-Cal Tech/SA21551330186

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 3.51 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.

3.91
Michael Pang
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #3 Singles 40% · published
3.72
Derek Fu
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 4
3.64
Feibi Liu
published
3.46
GEVORG KASABIAN
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
3.39
Lam Bui
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · published
3.26
James Phan
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
Chinna Ponnaganti
published 3.5
3.23
Andrew Arroyo
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3.5
Jordan Tatang
usually #3 Singles 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.

Derek Fu + Michael Pang123 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.

Michael Pang
20W–9L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%73%27%
3.91
4
Derek Fu
12W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
6%92%2%
3.72
Feibi Liu
7W–4L career · no lines in 2026
16%83%<1%
3.64
GEVORG KASABIAN
1W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
62%38%<1%
3.46
Lam Bui
12W–13L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.39
James Phan
5W–4L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%3%97%
3.26
3.5
Chinna Ponnaganti
1W–4L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
3.5
Andrew Arroyo
1W–2L career · type S · 3 lines in 2026
5%92%2%
3.23
Jordan Tatang
1W–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.