5DEER-ARENS 75 MEN COMBO SEM F2
2022 SEM FALL COMBO DOUBLES · MEN 75 COMBO SEM
12 players · average NTRP 4.00 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule7 played
i
Flight standings16 teams · MEN 75 COMBO SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11FAC-MAHMOOD 75 MEN COMBO SEM F3 | 7 | 1 | 14 | 181 |
| 21EAST-ZAMPARDO 75 MEN COMBO SEM F2 | 7 | 1 | 20 | 223 |
| 32EAST-STUDDERS 75 MEN COMBO SEM F2 | 6 | 2 | 18 | 181 |
| 42VTC-MOSELEY 75 MEN COMBO SEM F1 | 6 | 3 | 24 | 225 |
| 51LIB-STPIERRE 75 MEN COMBO SEM F1 | 6 | 3 | 26 | 217 |
| 64HV-BREWER 75 MEN COMBO SEM F1 | 5 | 4 | 34 | 272 |
| 74PEACH-SELLERS 75 MEN COMBO SEM F2 | 4 | 4 | 18 | 158 |
| 84WESS-WEINGARDEN 75 MEN COMBO SEM F3 | 4 | 4 | 26 | 206 |
| 92BLOOM-MANEPALLI 75 MEN COMBO SEM F3 | 3 | 3 | 21 | 176 |
| 103LTF-ARIMA 75 MEN COMBO SEM F2 | 2 | 6 | 39 | 258 |
| 115DEER-ARENS 75 MEN COMBO SEM F2 | 1 | 7 | 34 | 247 |
| 123BEV-ROSEN 75 MEN COMBO SEM F3 | 1 | 7 | 43 | 283 |
| 133FAC-XU 75 MEN COMBO SEM F1 | 1 | 8 | 41 | 290 |
| 14drop 9.1 762619 EAST-MITCHELL 75 MEN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 15drop 9.6 0P 756027 PEACH-HOMBREBUENO 75 MEN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 16drop 9.6 0P 759652 MONY-SZYMANSKI 75 MEN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 4.00 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Mark Marison + Joshua Lattie | 7–0 | 65% games | +8.9% vs expected |
| Joshua Lattie + Steven Arens | 22–5 | 57% games | +4.4% vs expected |
| Joshua Lattie + Connor Hoch | 4–3 | 59% games | not enough data |
| Jeffrey Seilkop + Ronald Puzio | 4–2 | 55% games | not enough data |
| Mark Marison + Connor Hoch | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Mark Marison + Steven Arens | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Thomas Pauly + Steven Arens | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Thomas Pauly + Jay Ekelman | 3–0 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.