Teams

5 Hermitage Gardner

2024 Richmond Adult 40 & Over Weekend · Richmond Adult 40 & Over 4.0 Weekend Men

14 players · average NTRP 3.90 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2024-07-21vs 7 Lakeside Advantage HowellWon 10
W#1 DoublesTodd Furbee / John Reifsnider vs Lyman Brown / Brian Cox6-1, 7-6
2024-07-19vs 4 MRTC - FinnLost 01
L#3 DoublesKelby Morgan / Andrew Bolyard vs Heath Flohre / Michael Blackburn3-6, 4-6
W#1 DoublesTodd Furbee / John Reifsnider vs Ram Raghavan / Lee Brooks6-7, 6-1, 1-0
2024-06-29vs 2 Woodlake MossWon 10
W#1 DoublesTodd Furbee / John Reifsnider vs Wieslaw Gumulak / Geoffrey Stoltz6-3, 6-1
W#2 DoublesJohn Reifsnider / Todd Furbee vs Bert Foreman / John Evko6-2, 6-3
2024-06-18vs 8 ACAC HollomonWon 10
W#1 DoublesTodd Furbee / John Reifsnider vs Marc Oosterhuis / Cliff Heller6-3, 6-0
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 standings for Richmond Adult 40 & Over 4.0 Weekend Men have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 3.65 estimated across 11 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.

3.94
Todd Furbee
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 4
3.87
Mac Stuckey
published
3.67
Bryan Fisher
published 4
3.67
Sanjeev Vohra
published
3.64
Kelby Morgan
published
3.62
Daniel Sadusky
published 4
3.61
Bart Nasta
published 4
3.60
William Cosby
published
3.60
Steve Hamant
published
3.59
John Reifsnider
published
3.35
Andrew Bolyard
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Mark Westman
published
Philip Rackliffe
published
Will Martin
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.

Mac Stuckey + Bryan Fisher8160% games+3.6% vs expected
Steve Hamant + Kelby Morgan044 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.

4
Todd Furbee
72W–53L career · 5 lines in 2024
<1%67%33%
3.94
Mac Stuckey
14W–5L career · no lines in 2024
<1%85%15%
3.87
4
Bryan Fisher
12W–3L career · no lines in 2024
10%90%1%
3.67
Sanjeev Vohra
2W–6L career · no lines in 2024
10%90%1%
3.67
Kelby Morgan
10W–15L career · no lines in 2024
14%86%<1%
3.64
4
Daniel Sadusky
4W–7L career · no lines in 2024
18%82%<1%
3.62
4
Bart Nasta
4W–4L career · no lines in 2024
21%79%<1%
3.61
William Cosby
11W–17L career · no lines in 2024
22%78%<1%
3.60
Steve Hamant
1W–8L career · no lines in 2024
22%78%<1%
3.60
John Reifsnider
8W–3L career · no lines in 2024
24%75%<1%
3.59
3.5
Andrew Bolyard
126W–78L career · 1 line in 2024
<1%87%13%
3.35
Mark Westman
1W–0L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Philip Rackliffe
2W–0L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Will Martin
2W–1L career · no lines in 2024
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.