DAC/Littlefield-Sisk M3.5
2026 DALLAS TENNIS 40 & Over ADULT M Saturday · M3.5
17 players · average NTRP 3.25 / TEXAS
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule8 played
i
Flight standings19 teams · M3.5
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Mckinney/Suriyanarayanan M3.5 | 9 | 0 | 28 | 299 |
| 2Huffines/Yeoh-Solomon M3.5 | 8 | 0 | 27 | 295 |
| 3DAC/Littlefield-Sisk M3.5 | 7 | 1 | 34 | 300 |
| 4The Lakes/Lightfoot M3.5 | 7 | 2 | 43 | 364 |
| 5LB Houston/Gopinath-Khandelwal M3.5 | 6 | 3 | 46 | 405 |
| 6McKinney/Llambias-Wong M3.5 | 5 | 2 | 21 | 269 |
| 7Greenhill/Johnson-Sipes M3.5 | 5 | 4 | 53 | 417 |
| 8NTRC/Rojas-Sgotto M3.5 | 5 | 4 | 55 | 435 |
| 9Gleneagles/Forret-McNew M3.5 | 4 | 5 | 62 | 440 |
| 10Chandlers Landing/Deere-Meacham M3.5 | 3 | 4 | 43 | 329 |
| 11Canyon Creek/Jost M3.5 | 3 | 5 | 48 | 362 |
| 12RGAC/Miller-Smith M3.5 | 3 | 5 | 52 | 392 |
| 13Spring Park/Nolen M3.5 | 3 | 5 | 59 | 395 |
| 14The Nelson/Puklicz M3.5 | 3 | 6 | 55 | 422 |
| 15Lakes at Castle Hills/Boronski-Gerard M3.5 | 3 | 6 | 56 | 425 |
| 16The Lakes/Smith-Wallach M3.5 | 2 | 6 | 54 | 383 |
| 17Huffhines/Yeoh-Bonarji M3.5 | 2 | 7 | 65 | 457 |
| 18Cooper FC/Walker M3.5 | 1 | 7 | 65 | 420 |
| 19High Point/Vincent-Gardner M3.5 | 1 | 8 | 61 | 444 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.26 estimated across 17 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Travis Littlefield + Gavin Glenn | 5–1 | 58% games | +7.1% vs expected |
| Jason Edgerton + Matt Sisk | 4–3 | 54% games | +5.8% vs expected |
| Jason Schroer + Mike Ivey | 4–0 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Matthew Good + Jeffrey Hilliard | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Jason Edgerton + Travis Littlefield | 3–0 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Bryan Rader + Carr Carothers | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Zach Payne + Zach Jacques | 3–0 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.