Teams

CDTA S A65M8.0 1River Trails Spangler Tue 6:30 $26

CDTA 1Summer Adult 65 & over · CDTA 65 & Over M 8.0

12 players · average NTRP 3.50 / CHICAGO

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 →
Schedule2 played
L#1 DoublesJoseph Lyden / Michael Schultz vs Jay Freedman / Jay Morgan0-6, 0-6
L#1 DoublesJoseph Lyden / Robert Hughes vs Rod Schroeder / Craig Williams1-6, 1-6
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 standings2 teams · CDTA 65 & Over M 8.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S A65M8.0 2River Trails Gilbertson Tue 6:30 $2660180037
2CDTA S A65M8.0 1River Trails Spangler Tue 6:30 $260601836217

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 3.33 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.

3.60
Howard Gartzman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.38
Daniel Robin
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.30
Joseph Lyden
usually #1 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 3.5
3.26
Andrew Pappas
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Alan Wolan
published 3.5
3.10
Clyde Woods
published 3.5
Gary Spangler
published
Harold Krent
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
John van Duzer
usually #2 Doubles 63%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
Mark MacDonald
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Nick Paterakos
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Robert Hughes
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.

Andrew Pappas + Nick Paterakos251856% games+3.3% vs expected
John van Duzer + Harold Krent7264% gamesnot enough data
Clyde Woods + Harold Krent6177% gamesnot enough data
Harold Krent + Daniel Robin6072% gamesnot enough data
Mark MacDonald + Harold Krent2353% gamesnot enough data
Howard Gartzman + Clyde Woods314 matchesnot enough data
Mark MacDonald + John van Duzer213 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.

Howard Gartzman
143W–63L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%24%76%
3.60
3.5
Daniel Robin
22W–19L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%80%20%
3.38
3.5
Joseph Lyden
66W–115L career · 7 lines in 2025
1%90%8%
3.30
3.5
Andrew Pappas
142W–94L career · 2 lines in 2025
3%92%4%
3.26
3.5
Alan Wolan
1W–0L career · type S · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Clyde Woods
58W–30L career · no lines in 2025
24%76%<1%
3.10
Gary Spangler
9W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Harold Krent
31W–22L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
John van Duzer
32W–14L career · 8 lines in 2025
not enough data
Mark MacDonald
17W–32L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Nick Paterakos
80W–51L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Robert Hughes
1W–12L career · no 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.