Teams

FC: Racine/Yang

2022 RI Adult 40 & Over Men · 3.5 Men Flight 1

12 players · average NTRP 3.30 / RHODE ISLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
L#1 DoublesTully Cunningham / Stu Yang vs Jonathan McPhillips / Tim Simonson0-6, 6-7
L#1 SinglesRob Ganim vs Theodore Pietz3-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesJohn McCoy / Paul Racine vs Jonathan Bell / Joshua Bell1-6, 3-6
L#2 SinglesMichael Cardin vs Joe Caranci6-7, 2-6
L#3 DoublesDrew Langin / Daniel Sheridan vs David Gwizdowski / Timothy Logan2-6, 2-6
L#1 DoublesGary Gill / Paul Racine vs Roger Scholl / Tim Simonson3-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesStu Yang vs Theodore Pietz3-6, 0-6
L#2 SinglesJohn McCoy vs Kenneth Wells3-6, 5-7
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 3.5 Men Flight 1 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 3.08 estimated across 7 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.

3.32
Peter Alba
published
3.26
DAVID LEBLANC
published 3.5
Daniel Sheridan
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.13
Federico Read
published 3.5
3.08
Stu Yang
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.03
Paul Racine
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.90
Alexander Scott
published 3
2.85
John McCoy
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Drew Langin
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Michael Cardin
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
Rob Ganim
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Tully Cunningham
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Stu Yang + Peter Alba9753% games−0.8% vs expected
Paul Racine + John McCoy11032% games−12.4% vs expected
Peter Alba + John McCoy4350% gamesnot enough data
Paul Racine + Stu Yang0533% gamesnot enough data
DAVID LEBLANC + Tully Cunningham123 matchesnot enough data
DAVID LEBLANC + Federico Read123 matchesnot enough data
Stu Yang + John McCoy123 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.

Peter Alba
26W–27L career · no lines in 2022
1%91%8%
3.32
3.5
DAVID LEBLANC
22W–38L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Daniel Sheridan
4W–6L career · type S · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Federico Read
49W–97L career · no lines in 2022
15%85%<1%
3.13
Stu Yang
31W–40L career · 2 lines in 2022
26%74%<1%
3.08
Paul Racine
12W–38L career · 2 lines in 2022
40%60%<1%
3.03
3
Alexander Scott
55W–50L career · no lines in 2022
<1%77%23%
2.90
John McCoy
12W–31L career · 2 lines in 2022
88%12%<1%
2.85
3
Drew Langin
1W–13L career · type A · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Michael Cardin
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Rob Ganim
20W–18L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Tully Cunningham
12W–19L career · 1 line in 2022
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.