Teams

1FAC-MAHMOOD 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F1

2022 SEM FALL TEAM SINGLES · MEN 4.0 SINGLES SEM

5 players · average NTRP 4.25 / 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 →
Schedule9 played
2022-12-10vs 3HV-CLARKE 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F1Split 11
L#1 SinglesBranden Clements vs Timothy Brewer1-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#2 SinglesJohan Mahmood vs Todd Lucas6-3, 6-4
W#1 SinglesJingkang Wang vs Dharshan Medonza0-6, 7-6, 1-0
W#2 SinglesWilliam Hackett vs Timothy Brewer6-4, 6-4
2022-12-02vs 2FAC-DEMICK 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F1Split 11
W#1 SinglesBranden Clements vs Richard Allison6-1, 6-3
L#2 SinglesJingkang Wang vs David Bilson6-2, 4-6, 0-1
W#1 SinglesJingkang Wang vs Todd Lucas6-2, 6-4
W#2 SinglesJohan Mahmood vs Colin Wilcox6-2, 6-2
W#1 SinglesBranden Clements vs Armen Kadian6-1, 5-3
W#3 SinglesJohan Mahmood vs James Douglass6-1, 6-0
W#1 SinglesJohan Mahmood vs Austin Lentz6-0, 6-3
W#3 SinglesJingkang Wang vs Richard Allison6-7, 5-0
W#1 SinglesBranden Clements vs Victor Michaels6-3, 6-1
L#2 SinglesWilliam Hackett vs Keanu Lee Chip Sao4-6, 5-3
W#3 SinglesJohan Mahmood vs Armen Kadian6-1, 6-0
W#1 SinglesJingkang Wang vs Richard Allison6-4, 6-3
W#2 SinglesDaniel Carlson vs Alexander Demick7-6, 3-1
W#3 SinglesJohan Mahmood vs David Bilson6-3, 4-3
W#1 SinglesBranden Clements vs Daniel Ferreira7-5, 4-3
W#3 SinglesJohan Mahmood vs Thomas Rhodes6-0, 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 standings9 teams · MEN 4.0 SINGLES SEM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
11FAC-MAHMOOD 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F18121612161
21EAST-KEAN 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F27118613128
34DEER-ARENS 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F24312921158
45BEV-ROSEN 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F243111024181
53HV-CLARKE 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F145111634234
62FAC-DEMICK 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F135121223181
74CHIP-DOUGLASS 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F12671736238
82PEACH-CUPPLES 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F21441121146
93BLOOM-MANEPALLI 40 M FALL SINGLES SEM F21651632203

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 3.93 estimated across 4 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.

Daniel Carlson
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 4.5
4.17
Jingkang Wang
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #2 Singles 20% · published
3.93
Branden Clements
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4
3.83
Johan Mahmood
usually #3 Singles 57%, also #2 Singles 29% · published
3.81
William Hackett
usually #2 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.

Johan Mahmood + Daniel Carlson404 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.

4.5
Daniel Carlson
23W–16L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Jingkang Wang
83W–38L career · 5 lines in 2022
9%90%1%
4.17
4
Branden Clements
54W–24L career · 5 lines in 2022
<1%71%29%
3.93
Johan Mahmood
124W–56L career · 7 lines in 2022
91%9%<1%
3.83
William Hackett
36W–25L career · 2 lines in 2022
1%92%7%
3.81

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.