Teams

FCCC RED

2025 TRIO - NOCO · MEN 4.0 - TRIO - NOCO

6 players · average NTRP 4.00 / COLORADO

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
2025-04-26vs HMTC BLUELost 12
L#1 DoublesJoseph Lillis / Paul Gronewoller vs Jameel Chohan / Thomas Munoz6-1, 1-6, 0-1
W#1 SinglesGregory Gibbs vs Eric Chambers6-1, 6-1
L#2 DoublesMark Kramer / Matthew Hoeven vs Forest Dixon / Alan Krech6-1, 3-6, 0-1
2025-04-12vs CSU GREENWon 21
W#1 DoublesMark Kramer / Joseph Lillis vs Peter Corran / David van Thuyne6-4, 7-5
W#1 SinglesGregory Gibbs vs Dan Bikos6-1, 6-0
L#2 DoublesJosh Shelby / Matthew Hoeven vs Michael Baker / Jim Kelly2-6, 5-7
2025-04-05vs HMTC BLUELost 12
L#1 DoublesJosh Shelby / Mark Kramer vs Sebastian Baumgaertel / Thomas Munoz1-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesGregory Gibbs vs Eric Chambers6-0, 6-0
L#2 DoublesPaul Gronewoller / Matthew Hoeven vs Alan Krech / Forest Dixon2-6, 4-6
2025-03-29vs MLF NAVYWon 21
W#1 DoublesJosh Shelby / Joseph Lillis vs Wil Buchanan / Tyler Hempstead2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#1 SinglesGregory Gibbs vs Benjamin Schlicting6-4, 6-1
L#2 DoublesPaul Gronewoller / Mark Kramer vs Adam Less / William Freet2-6, 7-5, 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 standings for MEN 4.0 - TRIO - NOCO 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 3.72 estimated across 5 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.

4.01
Gregory Gibbs
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.74
Joseph Lillis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.68
Josh Shelby
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.64
Matthew Hoeven
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.51
Paul Gronewoller
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
Mark Kramer
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Paul Gronewoller + Matthew Hoeven61146% gamesnot enough data
Paul Gronewoller + Josh Shelby2438% gamesnot enough data
Paul Gronewoller + Gregory Gibbs213 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.

Gregory Gibbs
44W–20L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%47%53%
4.01
Joseph Lillis
9W–9L career · 3 lines in 2025
4%92%3%
3.74
4
Josh Shelby
48W–51L career · 3 lines in 2025
9%89%1%
3.68
4
Matthew Hoeven
30W–57L career · 3 lines in 2025
15%84%1%
3.64
4
Paul Gronewoller
90W–93L career · 3 lines in 2025
46%54%<1%
3.51
Mark Kramer
13W–15L career · 4 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.