Teams

Bridgemill - Rosenberger

Cherokee Fall ('25) - Southern Tri-Level 18 & Over · Tri-Level Adult 18 & Over 4.5, 4.0, 3.5 Men

8 players · average NTRP 4.25 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-12-04vs Cherokee/Matthew BuncichSplit 11
L#2 DoublesSteve Santandera / David Smith vs Alex Walton / Devon Schmitt2-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesUttam Narasimhan / George Walter vs David Boraks / Mike Munx6-1, 6-3
2025-11-18vs CTC - BalamuruganLost 02
L#1 DoublesPatrick Rosenberger / James Cagle vs Justin Akonful / Sean Vergara6-7, 5-7
L#2 DoublesChris Argano / Jerry Wood vs Balamurugan Karthikeyan / John Summers4-6, 4-6
2025-11-16vs Cherokee/Matthew BuncichWon 21
W#1 DoublesPatrick Rosenberger / James Cagle vs Santiago Robles / Matthew Buncich6-1, 6-4
W#2 DoublesJerry Wood / Steve Santandera vs Alex Walton / Tyler Deese6-3, 3-6
L#3 DoublesMark Hutton / George Walter vs David Boraks / Mike Munx1-6, 2-6
2025-10-13vs Cherokee/Matthew BuncichLost 03
L#1 DoublesJames Cagle / Erick Ward vs Santiago Robles / Michael Avery4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesChris Argano / Steve Santandera vs Matthew Buncich / Alex Walton1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesMark Hutton / Uttam Narasimhan vs Michael Shively / Mike Munx0-6, 7-6, 0-1
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 standings3 teams · Tri-Level Adult 18 & Over 4.5, 4.0, 3.5 Men
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Cherokee/Matthew Buncich4211717134
2CTC - Balamurugan339920149
3Bridgemill - Rosenberger1531531201

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 3.73 estimated across 8 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.

4.36
James Cagle
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.88
David Smith
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.78
Steve Santandera
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.72
Jerry Wood
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.65
Uttam Narasimhan
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.65
Chris Argano
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.52
George Walter
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.26
Mark Hutton
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.

David Smith + Steve Santandera213 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.

James Cagle
20W–6L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%83%17%
4.36
4.5
David Smith
26W–16L career · 1 line in 2026
81%19%<1%
3.88
Steve Santandera
44W–24L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
3.78
Jerry Wood
10W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
3.72
Uttam Narasimhan
4W–6L career · 2 lines in 2026
14%85%1%
3.65
4
Chris Argano
13W–9L career · 2 lines in 2026
15%85%1%
3.65
George Walter
8W–26L career · 2 lines in 2026
46%54%<1%
3.52
Mark Hutton
8W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%92%4%
3.26

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.