Teams

CSU GREEN

2021 CTA TWILIGHT - NOCO · MEN 4.5 - TWILIGHT - NOCO

7 players · average NTRP 4.50 / COLORADO

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2021-09-09vs LVTA WHITEWon 20
W#1 DoublesMichael Boyle / Chad Schneider vs Jameson Lumpkin / Patrick Smith4-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 DoublesReeves Anderson / Jeff Keepman vs Ian McCusker / John Behm6-1, 6-2
2021-08-26vs FCCCLost 02
L#1 SinglesChad Schneider vs Shawn Farnell3-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesReeves Anderson / Daniel Andrews vs Christian Bachelet / Tom Weller3-6, 4-6
2021-08-19vs LVTA REDLost 01
L#2 DoublesReeves Anderson / Jeff Keepman vs Taylor Nguyen / Jesse Chavez4-6, 5-7
2021-08-12vs LVTA BLUEWon 10
W#1 DoublesChad Schneider / Michael Boyle vs Joshua Fields / Nikolas Bote7-6, 7-6
2021-08-05Lost 01
L#1 SinglesChad Schneider vs Connor Clancy3-6, 4-6
2021-08-03vs HMTCWon 10
W#2 DoublesJeff Keepman / Reeves Anderson vs Ryan Brownhill / Wes Marlan6-4, 6-2
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 4.5 - TWILIGHT - NOCO 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 4.27 estimated across 6 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.

4.33
Chad Schneider
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.27
Reeves Anderson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.27
Zachary Bekkedahl
published 4.5
4.25
Michael Dirvonas
published
4.25
Michael Boyle
published
4.25
Jeff Keepman
published
Daniel Andrews
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.

Reeves Anderson + Zachary Bekkedahl6254% games+8.5% vs expected
Reeves Anderson + Jeff Keepman3251% games−2.4% vs expected
Chad Schneider + Zachary Bekkedahl11456% games−3.1% vs expected
Chad Schneider + Michael Dirvonas314 matchesnot enough data
Chad Schneider + Reeves Anderson303 matchesnot enough data
Reeves Anderson + Michael Boyle123 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.

4.5
Chad Schneider
59W–46L career · 4 lines in 2021
1%90%10%
4.33
4.5
Reeves Anderson
92W–41L career · 4 lines in 2021
2%94%4%
4.27
4.5
Zachary Bekkedahl
70W–30L career · no lines in 2021
2%94%4%
4.27
Michael Dirvonas
20W–27L career · no lines in 2021
3%95%3%
4.25
Michael Boyle
41W–14L career · no lines in 2021
3%95%3%
4.25
Jeff Keepman
12W–11L career · no lines in 2021
3%95%3%
4.25
Daniel Andrews
1W–1L career · no lines in 2021
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.