Teams

MPiland-HR

2025 Eno River Combo 40 & Over · 40 & Over Combo 8.5 Men Evening

11 players · average NTRP 4.17 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2025-09-21vs SNarayan-CHTCLost 01
L#2 DoublesMatt Piland / Christopher Siege vs Scott Benson / Stewart Bible6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2025-09-18vs EAnderson-DFCLost 01
L#1 DoublesEric Labow / Christopher Siege vs Edmund Malesky / Charles Wood3-6, 7-6, 0-1
2025-08-28vs EAnderson-DFCLost 12
L#1 DoublesEric Labow / Daniel Hill vs Edmund Malesky / Rod Snyder4-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesDavid Slack / Nate Brown vs Jeff Francki / Charles Wood6-3, 6-2
L#3 DoublesKyle Couch / Jeffrey Clough vs Edward Anderson / Brandon Garrett4-6, 3-6
2025-08-23vs EAnderson-DFCWon 10
W#3 DoublesKyle Couch / Christopher Siege vs Brandon Garrett / Edmund Malesky7-6, 6-1
2025-08-21Won 10
W#1 DoublesMatt Piland / Christopher Siege vs N/A6-0, 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 40 & Over Combo 8.5 Men Evening 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 3.99 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.

4.21
David Slack
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.13
Erik J Erikson
published
4.08
Jeffrey Clough
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
4.07
Jon Koceja
published
4.06
Matt Piland
published
4.01
Kyle Couch
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.85
Christopher Siege
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.79
Daniel Hill
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.69
Nate Brown
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Eric Labow
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Hien Jimmy Nguyen
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.

Matt Piland + Kyle Couch123 matchesnot enough data
Daniel Hill + Jeffrey Clough213 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.

4.5
David Slack
3W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
7%91%2%
4.21
Erik J Erikson
23W–9L career · no lines in 2025
18%81%<1%
4.13
Jeffrey Clough
15W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%27%73%
4.08
Jon Koceja
6W–10L career · no lines in 2025
30%70%<1%
4.07
Matt Piland
5W–6L career · no lines in 2025
33%67%<1%
4.06
Kyle Couch
2W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
47%53%<1%
4.01
4
Christopher Siege
126W–54L career · 4 lines in 2025
1%86%13%
3.85
4
Daniel Hill
8W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
2%91%7%
3.79
Nate Brown
3W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
9%90%1%
3.69
Eric Labow
1W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Hien Jimmy Nguyen
14W–10L career · no lines in 2025
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.