GOLD RIVER RC 65AM7.0A
2026 ADULT 65&Over · Men 7.0
14 players · average NTRP 3.50 / NO. CALIFORNIA
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings23 teams · Men 7.0
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1JOHNSON RANCH 65AM7.0A | 10 | 0 | 16 | 213 |
| 2MT TAM RC 65AM7.0A | 8 | 2 | 18 | 203 |
| 3FOSTER CITY TC/EDGEWATER PK 65AM7.0A | 8 | 2 | 19 | 224 |
| 4PINOLE PK 65AM7.0A | 8 | 2 | 23 | 256 |
| 5RIO DEL MAR 65AM7.0A | 7 | 3 | 21 | 191 |
| 6SUNNYVALE TC/SUNNYVALE MTC 65AM7.0A | 7 | 3 | 21 | 232 |
| 7WALNUT CREEK RC/Walnut Creek TC 65AM7.0A | 7 | 3 | 23 | 227 |
| 8RIDGEMARK G&CC 65AM7.0A | 7 | 3 | 29 | 237 |
| 9BAY TREES PK 65AM7.0A | 7 | 3 | 31 | 277 |
| 10GOLDMAN TC 65AM7.0A | 6 | 4 | 31 | 249 |
| 11LANEY TA/DAVIE STADIUM 65AM7.0A | 5 | 5 | 34 | 273 |
| 12ALMADEN VAC 65AM7.0A | 5 | 5 | 34 | 265 |
| 13SOLANO TA/CENTENNIAL PRK 65AM7.0A | 5 | 5 | 35 | 281 |
| 14HARBOR PT 65AM7.0A | 4 | 6 | 32 | 244 |
| 15NOVATO TC/PIONEER PK 65AM7.0A | 4 | 6 | 43 | 317 |
| 16PLEASANTON 65AM7.0A | 3 | 7 | 42 | 324 |
| 17CUPERTINO TC/CUPERTINO SC 65AM7.0A | 3 | 7 | 46 | 322 |
| 18MARIN TC 65AM7.0A | 3 | 7 | 47 | 315 |
| 19RIO DEL ORO 65AM7.0A | 3 | 7 | 48 | 330 |
| 20GOLD RIVER RC 65AM7.0A | 2 | 8 | 45 | 297 |
| 21SUNNYVALE TC/SUNNYVALE MTC 65AM7.0B | 2 | 8 | 46 | 311 |
| 22IMPERIAL TC 65AM7.0A | 1 | 9 | 55 | 342 |
| 23TRILOGY 65AM7.0A | 0 | 10 | 53 | 329 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.16 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Scott Heisler + Scott Ruffe | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Peter Sarantis + Steve Briggman | 0–3 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Jim McClain + Scott Ruffe | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.