Teams

LCTA70/Garvin/Maybank

70 & Over Doubles · 3.5 Men

13 players · average NTRP 3.25 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2026-04-09vs LCTA (A) 3.5M 70 & Over (Peiffer)Lost 12
W#1 DoublesGreg Garvan / Mark Laskowski vs Hank Adorno / Matthew Ellman6-4, 6-3
L#2 DoublesBob Tamietti / Wen Chen vs William Lark / Daniel Hill7-6, 6-7, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJeff Young / Howard Chambers vs Robert Zimpfer / Robert Peiffer2-6, 1-6
2026-04-02vs LCTA70/Geller/Pine ForestLost 02
L#1 DoublesWen Chen / Mark Laskowski vs Daryl Bishop / Raymond Lloyd3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesJoseph John / Bob Tamietti vs Donald Balderson / Pete Lebhar5-7, 1-6
2026-03-12vs LCTA (A) 3.5M 70 & Over (Peiffer)Lost 03
L#1 DoublesGreg Garvan / Paul Lambert vs Hank Adorno / Jack Barker2-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesMark Laskowski / Joseph John vs Thomas Felix / David Hubbard3-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesBob Tamietti / Bernard Mcfadden vs Matthew Ellman / Michael Ward0-6, 0-6
2026-03-05vs LCTA70/Geller/Pine ForestLost 03
L#1 DoublesWen Chen / Mark Laskowski vs Daryl Bishop / Leon Geller5-7, 2-6
L#2 DoublesPaul Lambert / John McDougald vs Pete Lebhar / Raymond Lloyd0-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesJoseph John / Jeff Young vs Donald Balderson / Richmond Welch5-7, 3-5
2026-03-05vs LCTA70/Geller/Pine ForestLost 12
L#1 DoublesGreg Garvan / George Neill vs Mark Brodeur / Leon Geller5-7, 4-6
L#2 DoublesMark Laskowski / Jeff Young vs Daryl Bishop / Raymond Lloyd2-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesJoseph John / Bob Tamietti vs Robert Armstrong / Frank Grubb6-4, 6-3
2026-02-19vs LCTA (A) 3.5M 70 & Over (Peiffer)Lost 12
W#1 DoublesGreg Garvan / Mark Laskowski vs David Hubbard / Michael Ward6-4, 7-5
L#2 DoublesDrew Kapur / Wen Chen vs Hank Adorno / Matthew Ellman3-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesDavid Brennan / Jeff Young vs Thomas Felix / Robert Zimpfer2-6, 0-6
2026-02-12vs LCTA70/Geller/Pine ForestLost 03
L#1 DoublesWen Chen / Drew Kapur vs Pete Lebhar / Raymond Lloyd5-7, 5-7
L#2 DoublesJoseph John / Bernard Mcfadden vs Daryl Bishop / Kenneth Dauses0-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesHoward Chambers / John McDougald vs Donald Balderson / Richmond Welch0-6, 3-6
2026-02-10vs LCTA (A) 3.5M 70 & Over (Peiffer)Lost 03
L#1 DoublesDavid Brennan / Wen Chen vs John Baiardi / Jack Barker1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesBob Tamietti / Paul Lambert vs David Hubbard / Michael Ward0-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesMark Laskowski / Jeff Young vs Thomas Felix / William Lark2-6, 1-6
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 standings3 teams · 3.5 Men
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LCTA (A) 3.5M 70 & Over (Peiffer)7119513155
2LCTA70/Geller/Pine Forest53141021198
3LCTA70/Garvin/Maybank0832142283

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 2.87 estimated across 9 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.

3.49
Greg Garvan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.17
Bob Tamietti
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.03
Mark Laskowski
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published
3.02
Joseph John
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
2.88
Paul Lambert
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Bernard Mcfadden
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.68
George Neill
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.64
Jeff Young
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.53
John McDougald
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.41
Howard Chambers
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
David Brennan
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Drew Kapur
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Wen Chen
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.

George Neill + Howard Chambers1635% games−5.6% vs expected
Wen Chen + Drew Kapur2436% gamesnot enough data
Mark Laskowski + Howard Chambers033 matchesnot enough data
Howard Chambers + John McDougald033 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.

Greg Garvan
33W–14L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%53%47%
3.49
3.5
Bob Tamietti
3W–8L career · type S · 5 lines in 2026
11%88%1%
3.17
Mark Laskowski
13W–48L career · 7 lines in 2026
41%59%<1%
3.03
Joseph John
9W–22L career · 5 lines in 2026
46%54%<1%
3.02
Paul Lambert
0W–3L career · 3 lines in 2026
81%19%<1%
2.88
3
Bernard Mcfadden
0W–2L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
George Neill
6W–30L career · 1 line in 2026
10%89%1%
2.68
Jeff Young
0W–5L career · 5 lines in 2026
>99%<1%<1%
2.64
John McDougald
3W–21L career · 2 lines in 2026
41%59%<1%
2.53
Howard Chambers
9W–54L career · 2 lines in 2026
75%25%<1%
2.41
David Brennan
0W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Drew Kapur
2W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Wen Chen
17W–24L career · no lines 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.