Teams

Mesh

2025 Sequoyah Southern Tri-Level 18 & Over - Christmas Tourn · 18 & Over Men's Tri-Level(3.0

13 players · average NTRP 3.75 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2024-12-08vs Sequoyah/Shaun LackeyLost 02
L#2 DoublesJudson Peacock / Philip Schmidt vs Joseph Richard / Jantzen Calvo1-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesScott King / Parmesh Venkatesu vs Brian Chastain / Trent Farrer6-1, 3-6, 0-1
2024-11-25vs Sequoyah/Shaun LackeyLost 12
W#1 DoublesTristan LeBoeuf / Joe Stewart vs Bryce Curry / Carl Phillips7-5, 5-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesScott Higgins / Jeff McBrayer vs Kireeth Karunakaran / Jalen Wilburn0-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesScott King / Parmesh Venkatesu vs Andrew Stewart / Shaun Lackey0-6, 3-6
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 18 & Over Men's Tri-Level(3.0 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 3.17 estimated across 12 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.

3.62
Barry Owen
published 4
3.43
Tristan LeBoeuf
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.33
Reico Knox
published
3.26
Joe Stewart
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.21
Wayne Harper
published
3.18
James Angland
published
3.15
Philip Schmidt
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.11
Scott Higgins
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.11
Brian Hammontree
published 3.5
3.06
Scott King
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.90
Parmesh Venkatesu
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.71
Jeff McBrayer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Judson Peacock
usually #2 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.

Brian Hammontree + Scott King5072% games+12.9% vs expected
Parmesh Venkatesu + Scott King4266% games+1.1% vs expected
Wayne Harper + James Angland3450% games+0.7% vs expected
Philip Schmidt + James Angland303 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
Barry Owen
25W–30L career · no lines in 2025
20%79%<1%
3.62
Tristan LeBoeuf
13W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
69%31%<1%
3.43
Reico Knox
1W–9L career · no lines in 2025
88%12%<1%
3.33
Joe Stewart
9W–15L career · 1 line in 2025
96%4%<1%
3.26
Wayne Harper
14W–13L career · no lines in 2025
7%91%2%
3.21
James Angland
14W–17L career · no lines in 2025
10%89%1%
3.18
Philip Schmidt
17W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
15%85%1%
3.15
Scott Higgins
31W–24L career · 1 line in 2025
22%78%<1%
3.11
3.5
Brian Hammontree
30W–7L career · no lines in 2025
22%78%<1%
3.11
Scott King
42W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%<1%>99%
3.06
Parmesh Venkatesu
21W–11L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%75%25%
2.90
Jeff McBrayer
15W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
0%7%93%
2.71
Judson Peacock
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
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.