Teams

3HV-CLARKE 4.0M TEAM SINGLES FALL SEM

2023 SEM FALL TEAM SINGLES · MEN 4.0 SINGLES SEM

8 players · average NTRP 4.10 / S.E. MICHIGAN

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 →
Schedule5 played
W#1 SinglesMatthew Cuff vs Michael Fleischer7-6, 1-0
L#2 SinglesNoe Erasga vs Richard Allison1-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesGreg Clarke vs Prasad Shankar2-6, 3-2
L#2 SinglesNoe Erasga vs Michael Varner1-6, 0-6
W#3 SinglesGreg Clarke vs Timothy DeRosia Jr7-6, 5-1
L#1 SinglesJoel Abramson vs Vignesh Gouthaman1-6, 4-6
L#2 SinglesTodd Lucas vs Young Woo Kim3-6, 1-6
L#1 SinglesJoel Abramson vs Jose Arriaga2-6, 3-6
L#2 SinglesTodd Lucas vs Jonathan Batiu3-6, 4-6
L#3 SinglesKevin Konkle vs Kevin Li0-6, 2-6
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 standings7 teams · MEN 4.0 SINGLES SEM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
11FAC-CANTERBURY 4.0M TEAM SINGLES FALL SEM50114788
27CHIP-DOUGLASS 4.0M TEAM SINGLES FALL SEM329615108
34FAC-GORDON 4.0M TEAM SINGLES FALL SEM339917136
45BLOOM-MANEPALLI 4.0M TEAM SINGLES FALL SEM339919145
58EAST-KEAN 4.0M TEAM SINGLES FALL SEM237816125
62DEER-ROSEN 4.0M TEAM SINGLES FALL SEM000000
73HV-CLARKE 4.0M TEAM SINGLES FALL SEM0531223158

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 3.74 estimated across 7 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.

3.97
Todd Lucas
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
3.94
Matthew Cuff
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4.5
3.83
Joel Abramson
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
James Reid
published 4
3.75
Chih Lin
published 4
3.62
Greg Clarke
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 4
3.56
Noe Erasga
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 4
3.53
Kevin Konkle
usually #3 Singles 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.

Chih Lin + Noe Erasga7355% games+11.8% vs expected
Kevin Konkle + Joel Abramson224 matchesnot enough data
Greg Clarke + Todd Lucas303 matchesnot enough data
Greg Clarke + Noe Erasga213 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.

Todd Lucas
33W–19L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%59%41%
3.97
4.5
Matthew Cuff
74W–27L career · 1 line in 2023
69%31%<1%
3.94
Joel Abramson
42W–30L career · 2 lines in 2023
90%10%<1%
3.83
4
James Reid
6W–11L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
4
Chih Lin
137W–101L career · no lines in 2023
3%95%2%
3.75
4
Greg Clarke
54W–54L career · 2 lines in 2023
18%82%<1%
3.62
4
Noe Erasga
60W–82L career · 2 lines in 2023
32%67%<1%
3.56
Kevin Konkle
24W–37L career · 1 line in 2023
41%59%<1%
3.53

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.