Teams

NCrawford (Veterans Park)

2026 Singles 18 & Over League · 18 & Over Singles 3.0 Men - Mon PM

5 players · average NTRP 2.83 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2026-07-27vs MPaul (Veterans Park)Won 20
W#1 SinglesConnor Doyle vs Joey Chen6-7, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 SinglesHemang Bhatt vs Robert Sproule5-7, 7-5, 1-0
2026-07-20vs MPaul (Veterans Park)Won 21
W#1 SinglesParker Cliatt vs Kyle Mclaughlin6-3, 6-1
L#2 SinglesHunter Bishop vs Justin Murphy6-3, 3-6
W#3 SinglesNile Crawford vs Robert Sproule6-1, 6-2
2026-07-13vs MPaul (Veterans Park)Won 20
W#1 SinglesParker Cliatt vs Joey Chen5-7, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 SinglesNile Crawford vs Walter Wingard6-1, 6-1
2026-07-06vs MPaul (Veterans Park)Split 11
W#1 SinglesParker Cliatt vs Robert Sproule6-2, 7-5
L#2 SinglesHemang Bhatt vs Justin Murphy2-6, 4-6
2026-06-29vs MPaul (Veterans Park)Lost 02
L#1 SinglesHemang Bhatt vs Joey Chen0-6, 3-6
L#3 SinglesHunter Bishop vs Kyle Mclaughlin4-6, 6-4, 0-1
2026-06-22vs MPaul (Veterans Park)Won 20
W#1 SinglesNile Crawford vs Robert Sproule6-3, 6-4
W#3 SinglesParker Cliatt vs Kevin Nguyen5-7, 7-5, 1-0
2026-06-15vs MPaul (Veterans Park)Split 11
W#1 SinglesParker Cliatt vs Walter Wingard6-4, 7-5
L#2 SinglesHemang Bhatt vs Joey Chen2-6, 1-6
2026-06-08vs MPaul (Veterans Park)Won 20
W#1 SinglesHunter Bishop vs Kevin Nguyen6-0, 6-2
W#3 SinglesNile Crawford vs Walter Wingard6-1, 6-4
2026-06-01vs MPaul (Veterans Park)Split 11
W#1 SinglesConnor Doyle vs Justin Murphy6-4, 3-6, 1-0
L#2 SinglesNile Crawford vs Joey Chen4-6, 2-6
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 standings2 teams · 18 & Over Singles 3.0 Men - Mon PM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NCrawford (Veterans Park)8121620216
2MPaul (Veterans Park)1862144288

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 2.79 estimated across 5 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.

2.95
Hunter Bishop
usually #3 Singles 33%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3
2.79
Nile Crawford
usually #2 Singles 38%, also #1 Singles 38% · published
2.79
Parker Cliatt
usually #1 Singles 80%, also #3 Singles 20% · published
2.75
Connor Doyle
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 2.5
2.67
Hemang Bhatt
usually #2 Singles 75%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 3
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.

3
Hunter Bishop
1W–2L career · type S · 3 lines in 2026
<1%64%36%
2.95
Nile Crawford
5W–5L career · 8 lines in 2026
1%93%6%
2.79
Parker Cliatt
5W–3L career · 5 lines in 2026
1%94%5%
2.79
2.5
Connor Doyle
9W–1L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%3%97%
2.75
3
Hemang Bhatt
1W–3L career · type S · 4 lines in 2026
9%90%1%
2.67

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.