4HV-BAHROU AD40&O 35M WED SEM F2
2023 SEM ADULT 40 & OVER NIGHT MEN · 3.5 MEN WED PM SEM
19 players · average NTRP 3.56 / 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.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings18 teams · 3.5 MEN WED PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14HV-BAHROU AD40&O 35M WED SEM F2 | 8 | 1 | 23 | 316 |
| 24BRC-ALOUSI AD40&O 35M WED SEM F1 | 8 | 1 | 28 | 281 |
| 31BT-DAYANANTHAN AD40&O 35M WED SEM F4 | 7 | 1 | 27 | 275 |
| 46LIFE-ARIMA AD40&O 35M WED SEM F3 | 7 | 1 | 40 | 344 |
| 53NAC-FITZPATRICK AD40&O 35M WED SEM F4 | 6 | 2 | 29 | 280 |
| 65PEACH-SELLERS AD40&O 35M WED SEM F3 | 6 | 2 | 37 | 313 |
| 72LIB-STPIERRE AD40&O 35M WED SEM F2 | 6 | 3 | 42 | 367 |
| 86SCWB-WOODS AD40&O 35M WED SEM F4 | 5 | 3 | 40 | 345 |
| 91TROY-SINGH AD40&O 35M WED SEM F1 | 5 | 4 | 50 | 404 |
| 103SCWB-MAYORAS AD40&O 35M WED SEM F3 | 4 | 4 | 31 | 289 |
| 111DEER-GURN AD40&O 35M WED SEM F3 | 3 | 5 | 47 | 359 |
| 123DCD-MILLER AD40&O 35M WED SEM F1 | 3 | 5 | 51 | 385 |
| 133VTC-inside-MINTZ AD40&O 35M WED SEM F2 | 3 | 6 | 65 | 464 |
| 145SCWB-GAY AD40&O 35M WED SEM F4 | 2 | 6 | 52 | 375 |
| 152BOH-CONTI AD40&O 35M WED SEM F1 | 1 | 7 | 58 | 398 |
| 161CHIP-JONES AD40&O 35M WED SEM F2 | 1 | 8 | 71 | 478 |
| 174EAST-COBAU AD40&O 35M WED SEM F3 | 0 | 8 | 66 | 438 |
| 184WESS-CHAUDHURI AD40&O 35M WED SEM F4 | 0 | 8 | 76 | 467 |
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 3.34 estimated across 14 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.
| David Peng + Ned Staebler | 8–0 | 69% games | +10.0% vs expected |
| Gideon Rothschild + Ned Staebler | 7–0 | 67% games | +9.2% vs expected |
| Tim Enright + Roman Giger | 6–2 | 55% games | +5.7% vs expected |
| Srinivasa Shankar + James McKenzie | 6–2 | 61% games | +0.7% vs expected |
| Rajesh Jayaraman + Srinivasa Shankar | 3–2 | 52% games | not enough data |
| Kamran Diba + David Peng | 4–1 | 61% games | not enough data |
| Tae-Hwa Chun + James McKenzie | 4–1 | 59% games | not enough data |
| Kamran Diba + Jeremy Carroll | 2–2 | 4 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.