Teams

CDTA S 55&OM6.0 1.Wilm Mesh-1 Sat 11 $20

1Summer 55&O WN · WE

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / CHICAGO

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 →
Schedule4 played
L#1 DoublesJohn Compton / Jeff Siegel vs Michael Tribble / Mark Brodner6-7, 6-3, 0-1
L#2 DoublesGregory Franzo / Eric Esancy vs Earl Stoner / Andrew Rubanovich3-6, 6-5, 0-1
L#2 DoublesGeorge Engeln / Lawrence Levin vs Mark Brodner / Michael Tribble1-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesJeff Siegel / John Compton vs Earl Stoner / Deane Johnson6-4, 6-1
W#2 DoublesEric Sanders / Jeff Siegel vs Earl Stoner / Mark Androw6-3, 4-6, 1-0
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 standings2 teams · WE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S 55&OM6.0 2.Wilm Mesh-2 Sat 11 $20329615104
2CDTA S 55&OM6.0 1.Wilm Mesh-1 Sat 11 $20236919127

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 2.67 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.

3.08
Bernardo Hees
published 3
2.89
John Compton
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.76
Eric Esancy
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
Eric Sanders
published 3
2.66
Don Duszynski
published 3
2.60
Jeff Siegel
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.60
Alan Mesh
published 3
2.50
Gregory Franzo
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.47
Anthony Balzano
published 3
2.43
George Engeln
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
Lawrence Levin
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.

Lawrence Levin + Anthony Balzano21926% games−3.2% vs expected
Jeff Siegel + John Compton6748% gamesnot enough data
Alan Mesh + John Compton2735% gamesnot enough data
Alan Mesh + Eric Sanders3435% gamesnot enough data
Alan Mesh + Jeff Siegel0533% gamesnot enough data
Don Duszynski + Alan Mesh044 matchesnot enough data
Alan Mesh + George Engeln044 matchesnot enough data
Lawrence Levin + Gregory Franzo224 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.

3
Bernardo Hees
14W–12L career · type S · no lines in 2026
<1%27%73%
3.08
John Compton
56W–88L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
2.89
3
Eric Esancy
154W–187L career · 1 line in 2026
2%94%3%
2.76
3
Eric Sanders
23W–20L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
3
Don Duszynski
6W–26L career · no lines in 2026
11%88%<1%
2.66
Jeff Siegel
48W–83L career · 3 lines in 2026
23%77%<1%
2.60
3
Alan Mesh
51W–167L career · type A · no lines in 2026
23%77%<1%
2.60
3
Gregory Franzo
108W–133L career · 1 line in 2026
50%50%<1%
2.50
3
Anthony Balzano
16W–58L career · no lines in 2026
59%41%<1%
2.47
3
George Engeln
1W–24L career · 1 line in 2026
70%30%<1%
2.43
Lawrence Levin
17W–78L career · no lines 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.