2AAREC-PIO-ISRAEL 40M TU 18&O SEM F2
2025 bSEM ADULT 18 & OVER NIGHT MEN · 4.0 MEN TUES PM SEM
19 players · average NTRP 3.71 / 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 standings20 teams · 4.0 MEN TUES PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15BT-ROSEN 40M TU 18&O SEM F4 | 10 | 0 | 24 | 313 |
| 25EAST-KEAN 40M TU 18&O SEM F1 | 8 | 0 | 18 | 250 |
| 33RCAA-SHAW 40M TU 18&O SEM F3 | 8 | 1 | 33 | 352 |
| 43VTC-inside-CROUSON 40M TU 18&O SEM F2 | 8 | 1 | 41 | 392 |
| 53FAC-GORDON 40M TU 18&O SEM F4 | 8 | 2 | 55 | 467 |
| 61HV-CLARKE 40M TU 18&O SEM F3 | 7 | 2 | 42 | 371 |
| 74DTS-RICHARDSON 40M TU 18&O SEM F4 | 6 | 4 | 46 | 449 |
| 81LIFE-REVELLO 40M TU 18&O SEM F1 | 4 | 4 | 52 | 373 |
| 94CHELSEA HS-ATKINSON 40M TU 18&O SEM F2 | 4 | 5 | 43 | 387 |
| 101CHIP-MICHAELS 40M TU 18&O SEM F2 | 4 | 5 | 58 | 455 |
| 113EAST-WARNER 40M TU 18&O SEM F1 | 3 | 5 | 46 | 371 |
| 124PEACH-ITCHON 40M TU 18&O SEM F1 | 3 | 5 | 48 | 375 |
| 136WESS-EWALD 40M TU 18&O SEM F4 | 3 | 7 | 66 | 505 |
| 142TROY-FORCHE 40M TU 18&O SEM F1 | 2 | 6 | 62 | 427 |
| 152AAREC-PIO-ISRAEL 40M TU 18&O SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 63 | 444 |
| 164LIB-STPIERRE 40M TU 18&O SEM F3 | 2 | 7 | 67 | 450 |
| 171BRC-FOLEY 40M TU 18&O SEM F4 | 2 | 8 | 75 | 531 |
| 182MONY-WEBER 40M TU 18&O SEM F3 | 1 | 8 | 66 | 460 |
| 192PINE-inside-ZUCHELLI 40M TU 18&O SEM F4 | 1 | 9 | 75 | 520 |
| 20team drop 025372 331 4p FAC-ROBERTS 40M TU 18&O | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 3.59 estimated across 10 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.
| Kevin Konkle + Andrew Israel | 3–2 | 54% games | +4.9% vs expected |
| Andrew Israel + Jerome Ng | 7–3 | 55% games | +0.1% vs expected |
| Kevin Konkle + Joel Abramson | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Joel Abramson + Kartheek Gangadhara | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Tim Kipp + Jeff Rearick | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Kartheek Gangadhara + Jeff Rearick | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Kartheek Gangadhara + Andrew Israel | 2–1 | 3 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.