Teams

Ar.Rubin65C

2026 Capital Combo 65 & Over · 7.5 Men

10 players · average NTRP 3.67 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-08-20vs Ch.Brignac65CLost 02
L#1 DoublesRobert Kent / Edward Poyo vs Ray Goldberg / Dayn Harum6-7, 3-6
L#2 DoublesAlan Crews / Arthur Rubin vs Mike Cockrill / Daniel Knox4-6, 2-6
2026-08-13vs Ch.Brignac65CLost 12
L#1 DoublesRobert Kent / Edward Poyo vs Daniel Knox / Steven Miller3-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesAlan Crews / Arthur Rubin vs Ken Nowell / David Zatz3-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJohn Winn / Kenneth Gillespie vs Ray Goldberg / Dayn Harum1-6, 4-6
2026-08-06vs Ch.Brignac65CLost 12
W#1 DoublesMichael Hamlett / Kenneth Gillespie vs Ray Goldberg / Ken Nowell6-3, 6-3
L#2 DoublesAlan Crews / John Mitchell vs Daniel Knox / Steven Miller7-5, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesArthur Rubin / Kurt Ihly vs Ken Dehaven / Daniel Murphy2-6, 6-3, 0-1
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 · 7.5 Men
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Ch.Brignac65C3072666
2Ar.Rubin65C032715101

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 3.48 estimated across 8 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.

3.87
Michael Hamlett
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.80
Robert Kent
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Kurt Ihly
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.71
Alan Crews
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.40
Kenneth Gillespie
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.38
Edward Poyo
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.32
Arthur Rubin
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.25
John Mitchell
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.11
Rod Boyle
published 3.5
John Winn
usually #3 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.

Rod Boyle + Edward Poyo5265% gamesnot 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.

Michael Hamlett
8W–8L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%82%18%
3.87
Robert Kent
7W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.80
4
Kurt Ihly
65W–35L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
4
Alan Crews
18W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
3.71
3.5
Kenneth Gillespie
51W–63L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%76%24%
3.40
3.5
Edward Poyo
144W–61L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%80%20%
3.38
3.5
Arthur Rubin
11W–14L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
3.32
John Mitchell
4W–3L career · 1 line in 2026
3%93%4%
3.25
3.5
Rod Boyle
64W–73L career · no lines in 2026
22%77%<1%
3.11
John Winn
0W–2L career · 1 line in 2026
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.