Teams

YMCA-Simmons

2022 OH OV A55&O Charleston · 2022 SUMMER A55&O 7.0 MEN Charleston

9 players · average NTRP 3.00 / OHIO VALLEY

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 →
Schedule3 played
2022-08-21vs Greenmont-PolitzSplit 11
W#1 DoublesPeyton Montgomery / Sam White vs Dale McEwuen / Gary Schade7-5, 6-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesSteve Melton / Lonnie Simmons vs David Mongilio / Ack Morgan3-6, 1-6
2022-07-17vs Greenmont-PolitzSplit 11
L#1 DoublesMark Jacobs / George Ferrell vs Dale McEwuen / Gary Schade4-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesL Cochran / Richard Ellington vs Ack Morgan / Scott Creel6-7, 7-5, 1-0
2022-06-11vs Greenmont-PolitzSplit 11
L#1 DoublesSam White / William Croson vs Dale McEwuen / Gary Schade5-7, 4-6
W#2 DoublesPeyton Montgomery / Mark Jacobs vs Scott Creel / Michael Politz6-2, 6-4
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 standings3 teams · 2022 SUMMER A55&O 7.0 MEN Charleston
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Greenmont-Politz4210817158
2Teays Valley-Hess339920161
3YMCA-Simmons2471124172

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 2.89 estimated across 3 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
L Cochran
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.95
Lonnie Simmons
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.76
Steve Melton
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
George Ferrell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
Mark Jacobs
published
Peyton Montgomery
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Richard Ellington
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Sam White
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
William Croson
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.

Lonnie Simmons + George Ferrell4447% gamesnot enough data
L Cochran + Steve Melton3345% gamesnot enough data
Peyton Montgomery + Mark Jacobs224 matchesnot enough data
Lonnie Simmons + L Cochran224 matchesnot enough data
Peyton Montgomery + George Ferrell213 matchesnot enough data
Lonnie Simmons + Mark Jacobs303 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.

L Cochran
64W–88L career · 1 line in 2022
<1%64%36%
2.95
Lonnie Simmons
32W–45L career · 1 line in 2022
<1%64%36%
2.95
Steve Melton
23W–30L career · 1 line in 2022
2%95%3%
2.76
3
George Ferrell
17W–16L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Mark Jacobs
33W–34L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Peyton Montgomery
17W–17L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Richard Ellington
1W–0L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Sam White
21W–34L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
William Croson
2W–1L 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.