Teams

WNCA Thompson (Brevard)

Combo 18 & Over USTA WNC 2026 · 18+ Men 6.5 Combo Mon

10 players · average NTRP 3.25 / NORTH CAROLINA

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-08-17vs WNCC Nelson (CCA)Lost 03
L#1 DoublesDaniel Spagnoli / Carl Michael Uy vs Peter Ripmaster / Briggs Schoen3-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesMichael Gilpin / Jin Choi vs Craig Nelson / Ian Mcansh0-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesEdward McMillan / Matt Cook vs Tait Piercy / Pete Pinholster1-6, 1-6
2026-08-03vs WNCC Still (HRC)Lost 03
L#1 DoublesDaniel Spagnoli / Jin Choi vs Dave Kroondyk / Matt Roland1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMiller Lane / Edward McMillan vs Winfield Brians / Josh Wright5-7, 1-6
L#3 DoublesThang Chu / Alfred Thompson vs Stephen Gay / Leon Tu2-6, 2-6
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 standings1 teams · 18+ Men 6.5 Combo Mon
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WNCA Thompson (Brevard)02061273

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 3.15 estimated across 9 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
Jin Choi
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.46
Thang Chu
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.43
Miller Lane
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.39
Daniel Spagnoli
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.29
Carl Michael Uy
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
3.02
Clark Lovelace
published 3.5
2.78
Edward McMillan
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.75
Alfred Thompson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.74
Michael Gilpin
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Matt Cook
usually #3 Doubles 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.

Thang Chu + Alfred Thompson123 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.

Jin Choi
11W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.52
Thang Chu
5W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%61%39%
3.46
Miller Lane
5W–3L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%70%30%
3.43
3.5
Daniel Spagnoli
4W–3L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
3.39
3
Carl Michael Uy
16W–12L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
<1%2%98%
3.29
3.5
Clark Lovelace
4W–8L career · no lines in 2026
45%55%<1%
3.02
Edward McMillan
13W–9L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
2.78
3
Alfred Thompson
6W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
4%93%4%
2.75
Michael Gilpin
7W–9L career · 1 line in 2026
5%92%3%
2.74
Matt Cook
0W–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.