3FAC-Gopalam 65 COMBO MEN F1
2025 cSEM FALL COMBO DOUBLES · MEN 65 COMBO SEM
17 players · average NTRP 3.36 / 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.
Schedule8 played
i
Flight standings17 teams · MEN 65 COMBO SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13LIB-Kornfeld 65 COMBO MEN F2 | 8 | 1 | 19 | 203 |
| 23FAC-Gopalam 65 COMBO MEN F1 | 7 | 1 | 15 | 155 |
| 31BT-Alkhalil 65 COMBO MEN F3 | 7 | 2 | 19 | 214 |
| 42TROY-Vondell 65 COMBO MEN F4 | 7 | 2 | 21 | 211 |
| 53EAST-Bonventre 65 COMBO MEN F4 | 7 | 2 | 23 | 205 |
| 64HV-Clark 65 COMBO MEN F2 | 6 | 3 | 24 | 200 |
| 71BT-Chukkapalli 65 COMBO MEN F1 | 5 | 3 | 21 | 202 |
| 84FAC-Alaimo 65 COMBO MEN F1 | 5 | 3 | 22 | 169 |
| 92FAC-Hsu 65 COMBO MEN F3 | 5 | 4 | 35 | 269 |
| 101PEACH-Tipnis 65 COMBO MEN F4 | 3 | 6 | 36 | 257 |
| 114DEER-Crowe 65 COMBO MEN F3 | 3 | 6 | 36 | 260 |
| 123FAC-Routhu 65 COMBO MEN F3 | 3 | 6 | 36 | 271 |
| 132MONY-Glenn 65 COMBO MEN F2 | 3 | 6 | 38 | 272 |
| 145WESS-Ma 65 COMBO MEN F1 | 2 | 6 | 37 | 241 |
| 152LT-Sanchez 65 COMBO MEN F1 | 1 | 7 | 41 | 266 |
| 161LIB-Reynolds 65 COMBO MEN F2 | 1 | 8 | 43 | 289 |
| 174EAST-Mitchell 65 COMBO MEN F4 | 1 | 8 | 44 | 289 |
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 3.25 estimated across 14 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.
| Hari Maroju + Mahesh Venukadasula | 12–0 | 69% games | +8.0% vs expected |
| SATISH BEJAGAM + Mahesh Venukadasula | 28–8 | 61% games | +7.2% vs expected |
| Francis Vatakencherry + SATISH BEJAGAM | 8–1 | 54% games | +4.6% vs expected |
| Venkat Adapa + Chandra Gopalam | 19–3 | 66% games | +4.5% vs expected |
| Rajashekar Kaukuntla + Phalgun Balasubramaniam | 6–0 | 59% games | +4.3% vs expected |
| Hari Maroju + Krishna Kottapali | 6–2 | 65% games | +2.7% vs expected |
| Chandra Gopalam + SATISH BEJAGAM | 3–3 | 51% games | −2.9% vs expected |
| Hari Maroju + Datta Sirigiri | 9–0 | 69% games | 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.