Teams

Upper Dublin

Adult Tri-Level League · Men's Tri Level 3.0 to 4.0

20 players · average NTRP 3.50 / PHILADELPHIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2023-10-29vs Naylor's Run 10.5Lost 02
L#2 DoublesLee Conlu / Craig Kamen vs Danny Calise / Bocky Sannoh5-7, 3-6
L#3 DoublesRegis Carvalho / Julio Martin-Garcia vs Matthew Rowe / Yipin Wang6-4, 4-6, 0-1
2023-10-15vs Hoffman ParkLost 12
L#1 DoublesAndrew Kasmen / Venkat Ramamurthy vs Anthony Blansfield / Mohammed Nayeemulla2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesArland Hotchkiss / Joseph Booth vs Amrit Tewary / Mike Hill Jr1-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesMichael Foering / Julio Martin-Garcia vs Sk Azimuzzaman / Todd Orodenker7-5, 3-4
2023-10-07vs UMLY Tri 4.0Lost 12
L#1 DoublesShuang Zhao / Sanjeev Midha vs Syed Nasir / Craig Miller2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesVenkat Ramamurthy / Joseph Booth vs David Bethala / Dennis Krijt4-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesMichael Foering / Gary Kao vs Charis Felton / Rameshkannan Arumugam6-3, 6-2
2023-09-30vs ParksideSplit 11
L#1 DoublesRichard Alexander / Wei Shao vs Blake Rhood / Kyle Rhood0-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesRoy Kerney / Craig Kamen vs Robert Johnston / Lu Kang7-5, 2-6, 1-0
2023-09-16vs GCCLost 12
L#1 DoublesRichard Alexander / Venkat Ramamurthy vs Fabien Douillard / Parker Kitterman1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesArland Hotchkiss / Joseph Booth vs Shawn Smith / Patrick Mulhern4-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesDavid Brown / Regis Carvalho vs Jesse Cooper / Peter Rubincam5-7, 6-2, 1-0
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's Tri Level 3.0 to 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Hoffman Park6116512141
2UMLY Tri 4.05114411131
3Parkside5212921160
4WCGCC3361227174
5Naylor's Run 10.534101124197
6Upper Dublin0541124167
7Men of the Dam0521327167

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 3.28 estimated across 12 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.

3.69
Shuang Zhao
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.60
Wei Shao
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.50
Gary Kao
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.42
Joe Venneri
published
3.38
Richard Ransom
published
3.32
Michael Foering
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.29
Michael Cirasola
published
Andrew Kasmen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Craig Kamen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.12
Regis Carvalho
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.06
Arland Hotchkiss
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.01
Julio Martin-Garcia
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.97
Albert LaBrusciano
published 3.5
2.95
Al-Yassa Al-Mahi
published 3.5
Joseph Booth
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Lee Conlu
published
Richard Alexander
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Roy Kerney
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Tim Tirendi
published
Venkat Ramamurthy
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 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.

Gary Kao + Michael Foering9264% games+5.5% vs expected
Albert LaBrusciano + Craig Kamen81544% games−5.4% vs expected
Shuang Zhao + Wei Shao134 matchesnot enough data
Arland Hotchkiss + Joseph Booth033 matchesnot enough data
Andrew Kasmen + Craig Kamen033 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.

Shuang Zhao
63W–93L career · 1 line in 2023
7%92%1%
3.69
Wei Shao
8W–25L career · 1 line in 2023
21%79%<1%
3.60
3.5
Gary Kao
56W–18L career · 1 line in 2023
<1%49%51%
3.50
Joe Venneri
41W–21L career · no lines in 2023
<1%74%26%
3.42
Richard Ransom
29W–20L career · no lines in 2023
<1%83%17%
3.38
Michael Foering
29W–9L career · 2 lines in 2023
1%91%8%
3.32
Michael Cirasola
149W–110L career · no lines in 2023
1%93%5%
3.29
3.5
Andrew Kasmen
9W–20L career · 1 line in 2023
not enough data
3.5
Craig Kamen
27W–35L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Regis Carvalho
31W–40L career · 2 lines in 2023
19%81%<1%
3.12
3.5
Arland Hotchkiss
6W–14L career · 2 lines in 2023
34%66%<1%
3.06
Julio Martin-Garcia
22W–13L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%48%52%
3.01
3.5
Albert LaBrusciano
23W–52L career · no lines in 2023
60%40%<1%
2.97
3.5
Al-Yassa Al-Mahi
35W–60L career · no lines in 2023
66%34%<1%
2.95
Joseph Booth
17W–35L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
Lee Conlu
2W–4L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Richard Alexander
21W–40L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Roy Kerney
4W–9L career · 1 line in 2023
not enough data
Tim Tirendi
24W–14L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Venkat Ramamurthy
15W–22L career · 3 lines in 2023
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.