Teams

CIN Indy Tri Level 3.0-4.0 M, Team 2

USTA Central Indiana Tri Level · Tri Level 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 Men

9 players · average NTRP 3.33 / CENTRAL INDIANA

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 →
Schedule6 played
L#2 DoublesVitaliy Koval / Carson Pocock vs Abhay Kaul / Jordan Winn2-8
W#2 DoublesVitaliy Koval / Carson Pocock vs Michael Hehmann / Morris Yang8-2
W#3 DoublesDivyat Agarwal / Kevin Curnow vs Mark Dittmer / Mike Petry8-6
L#1 DoublesMicah Lacefield / Jon Piganelli vs John Boggs / Michael Daniel3-8
L#2 DoublesVitaliy Koval / Carson Pocock vs Kevin Dedrick / Jack Waggoner6-8
W#3 DoublesDivyat Agarwal / Kevin Curnow vs Jacob Hauck / Darren Ratliff8-1
W#2 DoublesJames Jackson / Chris Zale vs Frank Winegar / Matt Zacarias8-4
W#3 DoublesJohn Cuthbert / Ryan Page vs Brent Brunnemer / Armando Rodriguez8-4
2023-08-26vs CIN Indy Tri Level 3.0-4.0 M, Team 4Split 11
L#2 DoublesJames Jackson / Chris Zale vs Michael Hehmann / Morris Yang6-8
W#3 DoublesJohn Cuthbert / Ryan Page vs Mark Dittmer / Mike Petry8-5
L#2 DoublesJames Jackson / Chris Zale vs Kevin Dedrick / Jack Waggoner3-8
L#3 DoublesJohn Cuthbert / Ryan Page vs Lloyd Daley-Graham / Jacob Hauck6-8
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 standings4 teams · Tri Level 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 Men
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CIN Indy Tri Level 3.0-4.0 M, Team 351117792
2CIN Indy Tri Level 3.0-4.0 M, Team 142999100
3CIN Indy Tri Level 3.0-4.0 M, Team 23371111110
4CIN Indy Tri Level 3.0-4.0 M, Team 40631515131

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 3.24 estimated across 5 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.

3.58
Micah Lacefield
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.45
Vitaliy Koval
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.37
Chris Zale
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Carson Pocock
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.23
Divyat Agarwal
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.56
John Cuthbert
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Jon Piganelli
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Kevin Curnow
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Ryan Page
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.

Vitaliy Koval + Carson Pocock123 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.

Micah Lacefield
90W–133L career · 4 lines in 2023
28%72%<1%
3.58
Vitaliy Koval
56W–44L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%64%36%
3.45
3.5
Chris Zale
19W–28L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%84%16%
3.37
3.5
Carson Pocock
2W–10L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
3
Divyat Agarwal
25W–12L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%4%96%
3.23
John Cuthbert
9W–19L career · 3 lines in 2023
31%69%<1%
2.56
Jon Piganelli
0W–3L career · 1 line in 2023
not enough data
Kevin Curnow
17W–6L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Ryan Page
16W–3L career · no 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.