Teams

Hopkins - Serve Aces

2025 Loudoun Singles · Loudoun Singles 3.5 Men

10 players · average NTRP 3.38 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
L#2 SinglesJamie Holloman vs Adnan Karimi7-5, 3-6, 1-0
2025-10-21vs Nguyen - Stringing WinnersLost 12
L#1 SinglesNabil Ghadiali vs Tan Nguyen6-2, 5-7, 0-1
W#2 SinglesJeffrey Schreibman vs Doan Nguyen6-1, 6-4
L#3 SinglesMatt Whitfield vs Sunil Bedakihal1-6, 1-6
2025-10-19vs Nguyen - Stringing WinnersLost 01
L#3 SinglesJoseph Jacangelo vs Doan Nguyen7-5, 0-5
2025-10-12vs Cebulash - Who Is We? EvolutionLost 01
L#2 SinglesJamie Holloman vs Keming Wu3-6, 3-6
2025-10-11vs Paragas - HemidemisemiFederersLost 01
L#2 SinglesJamie Holloman vs Alexander Yang1-6, 2-6
2025-10-05vs Velasquez - TrailblazersWon 20
W#1 SinglesZachary Zurich vs Han Tzen Goh6-7, 6-3
W#3 SinglesJamie Holloman vs James Cheong6-3, 6-0
2025-09-27vs Cebulash - Who Is We? EvolutionLost 02
L#1 SinglesZachary Zurich vs SARATHCHANDRA SOMAYAJULA2-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesJamie Holloman vs Keming Wu1-6, 1-6
W#1 SinglesZachary Zurich vs Adnan Karimi6-1, 6-3
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 standings for Loudoun Singles 3.5 Men have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 3.17 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.

3.64
Kevin Conaway
published
3.37
Jeffrey Schreibman
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
3.36
Eric Hopkins
published 3.5
3.35
Jamie Holloman
usually #2 Singles 60%, also #3 Singles 40% · published 3.5
3.35
Zachary Zurich
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.03
Joseph Jacangelo
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3
2.66
Matt Whitfield
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
2.63
Patrick Gardner
published
Nabil Ghadiali
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Scott Kahan
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.

Eric Hopkins + Jamie Holloman4165% games+9.3% vs expected
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.

Kevin Conaway
11W–3L career · no lines in 2025
<1%14%86%
3.64
Jeffrey Schreibman
4W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%84%16%
3.37
3.5
Eric Hopkins
10W–9L career · no lines in 2025
<1%86%14%
3.36
3.5
Jamie Holloman
62W–30L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%87%12%
3.35
3.5
Zachary Zurich
29W–21L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%88%12%
3.35
3
Joseph Jacangelo
155W–162L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%42%58%
3.03
Matt Whitfield
2W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
11%88%<1%
2.66
Patrick Gardner
3W–7L career · no lines in 2025
16%83%<1%
2.63
Nabil Ghadiali
0W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Scott Kahan
5W–13L career · no lines in 2025
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.