Teams

Terrebonne/Slidell/5.5/SEPT24

2024 Slidell Southern Combo 18 & Over - Men · 5.5 Slidell (18&O) Men

8 players · average NTRP 3.00 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2024-09-26vs Slidell/5.5combo/HJC/SliWon 30
W#1 DoublesRichard Armond / Chris Cougle vs Brian Baker / Scott Bonson6-1, 6-1
W#2 DoublesJoseph Bernal / Ladson Poole vs Benny Milligan / Philip Walsh6-1, 6-1
W#3 DoublesChris Terrebonne / Kevin Pearson vs Don Daigrepont / James Owen4-6, 6-4, 1-0
2024-09-19vs Slidell/5.5combo/HJC/SliSplit 11
L#1 DoublesLadson Poole / Chris Terrebonne vs Scott Buras / Joe Mitchell3-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#2 DoublesChris Cougle / Jacob Prezbindowski vs Brian Baker / Scott Bonson6-2, 6-1
2024-09-12vs Slidell/5.5combo/HJC/SliWon 30
W#1 DoublesRichard Armond / Kevin Pearson vs Don Daigrepont / James Owen4-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 DoublesChris Terrebonne / Ladson Poole vs Brian Baker / Scott Bonson6-3, 6-4
W#3 DoublesJacob Prezbindowski / Joseph Bernal vs Benny Milligan / Philip Walsh6-0, 6-1
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 5.5 Slidell (18&O) 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 2.83 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.

3.19
Ladson Poole
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.11
Richard Armond
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Chris Cougle
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.66
Kevin Pearson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.65
Joseph Bernal
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.56
Chris Terrebonne
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
Jacob Prezbindowski
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Stephen Deep
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.

Ladson Poole + Richard Armond213 matchesnot enough data
Ladson Poole + Chris Terrebonne123 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.

Ladson Poole
33W–16L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%9%91%
3.19
Richard Armond
16W–22L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%21%79%
3.11
3
Chris Cougle
4W–6L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Kevin Pearson
7W–18L career · 2 lines in 2024
13%86%1%
2.66
Joseph Bernal
6W–9L career · 2 lines in 2024
15%84%1%
2.65
3
Chris Terrebonne
5W–20L career · 3 lines in 2024
34%66%<1%
2.56
Jacob Prezbindowski
2W–0L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Stephen Deep
1W–5L 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.