Teams

Kanchi

2025 FW Tri-Level · Mens 3.0-3.5-4.0

21 players · average NTRP 3.79 / TEXAS

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 →

Flight standings for Mens 3.0-3.5-4.0 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 3.56 estimated across 16 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.

4.23
Kyle Lundon
published 4.5
4.15
William Manhkong
published
3.95
Connor Colorado
published 4
3.87
Edgar Martinez
published 4
3.78
Daniel Jean
published 4
3.68
Irfan Zobayed
published 4.5
3.51
Ranganath Kanchi
published
3.44
Jack Vongsaly
published 3.5
3.44
Kevin Cates
published
3.38
Caleb Gentry
published 4
3.37
Jeffrey Yarbrough
published
3.33
Davis Huynh
published 3.5
3.31
Tri Doan
published
3.28
Eugene Yeoh
published 3.5
3.09
Alexander Heng
published 3
3.08
Gage Austin
published 3.5
Johann Cujardo
published
Jordan Odulio
published
Kyle Pham
published
Kyle Richard
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.

Kevin Cates + Davis Huynh224 matchesnot enough data
Kyle Richard + Daniel Jean314 matchesnot enough data
Tri Doan + Kyle Pham303 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
Kyle Lundon
107W–46L career · no lines in 2025
4%94%2%
4.23
William Manhkong
26W–10L career · no lines in 2025
13%87%<1%
4.15
4
Connor Colorado
11W–6L career · no lines in 2025
<1%66%34%
3.95
4
Edgar Martinez
16W–13L career · no lines in 2025
<1%85%15%
3.87
4
Daniel Jean
20W–4L career · no lines in 2025
2%94%5%
3.78
4.5
Irfan Zobayed
24W–10L career · no lines in 2025
99%1%<1%
3.68
Ranganath Kanchi
8W–25L career · no lines in 2025
46%54%<1%
3.51
3.5
Jack Vongsaly
14W–8L career · no lines in 2025
<1%67%33%
3.44
Kevin Cates
23W–26L career · no lines in 2025
<1%69%31%
3.44
4
Caleb Gentry
5W–9L career · no lines in 2025
81%19%<1%
3.38
Jeffrey Yarbrough
17W–10L career · no lines in 2025
<1%84%16%
3.37
3.5
Davis Huynh
17W–11L career · no lines in 2025
1%90%10%
3.33
Tri Doan
25W–4L career · no lines in 2025
<1%1%99%
3.31
3.5
James Carroll-Linden
21W–3L career · no lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Eugene Yeoh
6W–4L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Alexander Heng
8W–1L career · no lines in 2025
<1%24%76%
3.09
3.5
Gage Austin
0W–8L career · type A · no lines in 2025
27%73%<1%
3.08
Johann Cujardo
9W–10L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Jordan Odulio
36W–20L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Kyle Pham
3W–0L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Kyle Richard
44W–11L career · no lines 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.