Teams

PATD - We Canh Do It 5.0

Adult Tri-Level League · Tri Level Men 5.0

13 players · average NTRP 4.33 / PHILADELPHIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-10-19vs Naylor's Run ParkWon 10
W#1 DoublesCanh Ho / Michael King vs Brandon Dinh / Kevin Weber6-3, 6-1
2025-10-12vs Naylor's Run ParkWon 10
W#2 DoublesHefei Liu / William Lyons vs Russell Chamberlin / Richard Chen6-2, 6-1
2025-10-11vs Naylor's Run ParkWon 10
W#1 DoublesCanh Ho / Charles Triolo vs Brandon Dinh / Kevin Weber6-3, 6-2
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 Tri Level Men 5.0 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 4.13 estimated across 13 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.

4.89
Rushi Amin
published
4.43
Stephen Le
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.38
Abhay Singh
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.36
Canh Ho
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.24
Charles Triolo
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.05
Allen Cheung
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.96
Hefei Liu
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.95
John McClurkin
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.94
Daniel Taboada
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.90
Jonathan Lu
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.90
William Lyons
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.88
Mohammed Nayeemulla
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published
3.83
Neal Rutman
usually #2 Doubles 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.

Mohammed Nayeemulla + Jonathan Lu224 matchesnot enough data
Neal Rutman + John McClurkin213 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.

Rushi Amin
30W–28L career · no lines in 2025
<1%80%20%
4.89
Stephen Le
6W–8L career · 4 lines in 2025
71%29%<1%
4.43
4.5
Abhay Singh
71W–18L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%82%17%
4.38
4.5
Canh Ho
255W–118L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%85%15%
4.36
4.5
Charles Triolo
44W–22L career · 2 lines in 2025
3%94%2%
4.24
4
Allen Cheung
61W–71L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%36%64%
4.05
4
Hefei Liu
24W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%62%38%
3.96
John McClurkin
13W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%66%34%
3.95
4.5
Daniel Taboada
112W–49L career · 6 lines in 2025
66%34%<1%
3.94
Jonathan Lu
68W–26L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
3.90
William Lyons
87W–51L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
3.90
Mohammed Nayeemulla
89W–27L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%82%17%
3.88
Neal Rutman
76W–32L career · 6 lines in 2025
1%90%10%
3.83

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.