Teams

BSF:Polhamus/Green

2022 NCT Adult 40 & Over Men · 4.0 Adult 40 & Over Men

16 players · average NTRP 3.58 / NORTHERN CONNECTICUT

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
2022-05-07vs BTC:Warriors:MuraliLost 03
L#1 DoublesStuart Burwood / Hu Zhang vs Vineet Jaggi / Arvind Narayan6-2, 4-6, 2-3
L#2 DoublesSatish Annamaneni / Scott Paul vs Tom Allag / Chandrasekaran Murali2-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesIan Green / Frederic de Baeck vs Hariharan Kuppuraj / Vamshi Rachakonda2-6, 2-6
2022-04-30vs FV:Smashers:Srinivasan/SuttmeierLost 03
L#1 DoublesHu Zhang / Lutz Labisch vs Glenn Lavallee / Kevin Imbt2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesFrederic de Baeck / Scott Paul vs Peter Suttmeier / Andrew Wollner1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesBrett Zuraitis / Satish Annamaneni vs Sridhar Srinivasan / Jason Truskoski0-6, 0-6
2022-04-20vs FV:FVRC-Hall of Framers:ColemanWon 20
W#1 DoublesMichael Dugan / Frederic de Baeck vs Brooke Tyler IV / Chris Viscera6-4, 6-2
W#2 DoublesHu Zhang / Satish Annamaneni vs Mark Lescher / David Taylor7-6, 1-6, 1-0
2022-03-26vs BSF:NguyenLost 02
L#1 SinglesSatish Annamaneni vs Liem Nguyen3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesHu Zhang / Dawid Stasiowski vs Raul Valdes / Ted Krawiec6-4, 0-6, 6-7
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 standings4 teams · 4.0 Adult 40 & Over Men
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1BTC:Warriors:Murali3214614166
2BSF:Polhamus/Green1341225181
3EHTC:String Busters 4.0:Dejuan/Plochocki0311124152
4FV:FVRC-Hall of Framers:Coleman0401632197

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 3.36 estimated across 11 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.

3.73
Stuart Burwood
usually #1 Singles 78%, also #1 Doubles 22% · published
3.67
Lutz Labisch
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #3 Doubles 14% · published
3.61
Ian Green
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.32
Daniel Polhamus
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.32
Dawid Stasiowski
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.30
Stephen Jewell
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
3.30
Jarlath Connolly
published
3.26
Siddhartha Yenugu
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.26
Scott Paul
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Bryon Remo
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.24
Frederic de Baeck
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.97
Hu Zhang
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Brett Zuraitis
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Michael Dugan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Satish Annamaneni
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
Wael Sayej
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Dawid Stasiowski + Ian Green5258% games+6.6% vs expected
Scott Paul + Lutz Labisch4259% games+2.9% vs expected
Ian Green + Stephen Jewell4450% games+2.8% vs expected
Daniel Polhamus + Ian Green4454% games+2.6% vs expected
Daniel Polhamus + Lutz Labisch6452% games+1.5% vs expected
Scott Paul + Dawid Stasiowski5450% games+1.0% vs expected
Stuart Burwood + Ian Green6646% games+0.8% vs expected
Wael Sayej + Dawid Stasiowski4451% games+0.4% vs expected
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.

Stuart Burwood
105W–54L career · 9 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.73
Lutz Labisch
49W–33L career · 7 lines in 2022
9%90%1%
3.67
4
Ian Green
69W–54L career · 3 lines in 2022
20%80%<1%
3.61
3.5
Daniel Polhamus
88W–108L career · 7 lines in 2022
1%91%9%
3.32
3.5
Dawid Stasiowski
69W–57L career · 5 lines in 2022
1%91%8%
3.32
Stephen Jewell
28W–35L career · 4 lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.30
Jarlath Connolly
19W–61L career · no lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.30
Siddhartha Yenugu
30W–21L career · 4 lines in 2022
2%94%3%
3.26
Scott Paul
31W–54L career · 2 lines in 2022
2%95%3%
3.26
3.5
Bryon Remo
24W–27L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Frederic de Baeck
72W–107L career · 3 lines in 2022
3%94%2%
3.24
3.5
Hu Zhang
48W–53L career · 4 lines in 2022
60%40%<1%
2.97
Brett Zuraitis
0W–3L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Michael Dugan
7W–4L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Satish Annamaneni
22W–24L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Wael Sayej
20W–18L career · 3 lines in 2022
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.