Teams

HHTL70/Harding/Long Cove

Adult 70 & Over - SC · Men 3.5

13 players · average NTRP 3.50 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
L#1 DoublesJim Bankes / Ed Morgret vs Larry Fleming / Scott Stevens0-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesLawrence Son Hing / Drew Nathan vs David Stemerman / David Wellinghoff6-2, 6-2
W#3 DoublesAlan Engelson / Reggie Register vs Arthur Patterson / Gary Phoebus6-2, 6-2
W#1 DoublesJim Bankes / Ed Morgret vs Arthur Patterson / Scott Stevens6-3, 6-4
W#2 DoublesAlan Engelson / Reggie Register vs Kenneth Dauses / David Wellinghoff3-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#1 DoublesAlan Engelson / Joe Reimer vs Larry Fleming / Scott Stevens3-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesEd Morgret / Lawrence Son Hing vs Ken Kolbe / Brian Fatzinger6-7, 6-3, 1-0
L#3 DoublesNicholas Castricone / John Hasen vs Arthur Patterson / Gary Phoebus2-6, 0-6
L#1 DoublesEd Morgret / Alan Engelson vs Larry Fleming / Scott Stevens5-7, 2-6
L#2 DoublesLawrence Son Hing / John Hasen vs Ken Kolbe / Brian Fatzinger4-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesJames Sain / Reggie Register vs Arthur Patterson / Kenneth Dauses4-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#1 DoublesEd Morgret / Drew Nathan vs Arthur Patterson / Larry Fleming7-6, 6-2
W#2 DoublesJim Bankes / Lawrence Son Hing vs Ken Kolbe / Scott Stevens2-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJames Sain / Reggie Register vs Alan George / David Stemerman2-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#1 DoublesJim Bankes / James Sain vs Arthur Patterson / Larry Fleming3-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesLawrence Son Hing / Reggie Register vs Ken Kolbe / Scott Stevens4-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#3 DoublesAlan Engelson / Joe Reimer vs David Wellinghoff / Gary Phoebus7-5, 3-6, 1-0
W#1 DoublesLawrence Son Hing / Jim Bankes vs Arthur Patterson / Larry Fleming6-3, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesJames Sain / Alan Engelson vs Ken Kolbe / Scott Stevens1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesRobert Calcagni / James A Harding JR vs Kenneth Dauses / Richard Silver2-6, 1-6
W#1 DoublesLawrence Son Hing / James Sain vs Arthur Patterson / Larry Fleming6-3, 7-6
L#2 DoublesJim Bankes / Alan Engelson vs Ken Kolbe / Scott Stevens4-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesRobert Calcagni / Reggie Register vs David Wellinghoff / Brian Fatzinger5-7, 4-6
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 standings for Men 3.5 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 3.16 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.

3.41
Ed Morgret
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
3.32
James Sain
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
3.29
Lawrence Son Hing
usually #2 Doubles 71%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
3.26
Reggie Register
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.25
Alan Engelson
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.25
Jim Bankes
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.14
Drew Nathan
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.81
Nicholas Castricone
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.73
Joe Reimer
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
James A Harding JR
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
John Hasen
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Robert Calcagni
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Robert Cullen
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.

Lawrence Son Hing + Ed Morgret8359% games+6.3% vs expected
Drew Nathan + James A Harding JR3447% gamesnot enough data
Jim Bankes + Lawrence Son Hing4153% gamesnot enough data
Jim Bankes + Ed Morgret4158% gamesnot enough data
Robert Calcagni + Ed Morgret4160% gamesnot enough data
Lawrence Son Hing + Alan Engelson3254% gamesnot enough data
Robert Calcagni + Lawrence Son Hing224 matchesnot enough data
Drew Nathan + Lawrence Son Hing224 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.

Ed Morgret
26W–19L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%74%26%
3.41
James Sain
62W–22L career · 5 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
3.32
Lawrence Son Hing
37W–20L career · 7 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.29
Reggie Register
41W–20L career · 6 lines in 2026
3%93%4%
3.26
3.5
Alan Engelson
15W–9L career · 7 lines in 2026
4%93%4%
3.25
Jim Bankes
9W–11L career · 6 lines in 2026
4%93%4%
3.25
Drew Nathan
13W–11L career · 2 lines in 2026
16%83%<1%
3.14
Nicholas Castricone
1W–10L career · 1 line in 2026
91%9%<1%
2.81
Joe Reimer
21W–23L career · 2 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
2.73
James A Harding JR
11W–18L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
John Hasen
1W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Robert Calcagni
14W–19L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Robert Cullen
7W–10L 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.