Teams

SCWB-Tanguay 40&O 80 Mix F

2026 aSEM MIX WINTER 40 & OVER · 2026 80 MIXED 40 & OVER SEM F

21 players · average NTRP 3.88 / S.E. MICHIGAN

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 →
Schedule2 played
2026-04-12vs HV-Cooper 40&O 80 Mix FWon 10
W#2 DoublesRebecca Tanguay / Robert Nagle vs Sara Chang / Joseph Hamilton6-3, 3-6, 1-0
2026-02-28Won 10
W#3 DoublesLora Kazanjian / Robert Nagle vs Sean Howard / Elizabeth King7-5, 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 standings13 teams · 2026 80 MIXED 40 & OVER SEM F
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1EAST-Kean 40&O 80 Mix F10227926278
2CHIP-Slade 40&O 80 Mix8019513166
3PINE-Knight 40&O 80 Mix F62131127217
4PH-Hepting 40&O 80 Mix F66201637322
5WESS-Palarz 40&O 80 Mix5315921218
6SCWB-Tanguay 40&O 80 Mix F53131125198
7CHIP-Palmer 40&O 80 Mix F53121228229
8LT-Pietrangelo 40&O 80 Mix F57162045365
9PEACH-DeGuzman 40&O 80 Mix3992757394
10HV-Cooper 40&O 80 Mix F26101433251
11FAC-Bartholomew 40&O 80 Mix2691534237
12LIB-Arthur 40&O 80 Mix2691534252
13FAC-Roberts 40&O 80 Mix F1781636259

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 3.66 estimated across 19 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.

4.43
Naoko McKelvey
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
Barbara Friesen
published 4.5
4.21
Daniel Tanguay
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published 4.5
3.96
Nisha Jam
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.94
Erin Robinson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.91
Robert Nagle
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.83
Kevin Friesen
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.76
Heather Enright
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #3 Doubles 14% · published 4
3.75
Jay Dalal
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.68
Rebecca Tanguay
usually #3 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 4
3.63
Piper Copeland
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.59
Lora Kazanjian
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.57
Peter Fredericks
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.56
Timothy Harry
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.48
Robert Vondell
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
3.43
Colette Comeau
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.38
Preetham Chandrasekhar
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.21
Leigh Grubbs
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.11
Chee Cheong
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.11
Laurel Kalkanis
published 3.5
Joerg Schmidt
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.

Naoko McKelvey + Jay Dalal7272% games+13.3% vs expected
Daniel Tanguay + Naoko McKelvey8171% games+10.3% vs expected
Daniel Tanguay + Leigh Grubbs10163% games+9.9% vs expected
Daniel Tanguay + Colette Comeau6255% games+7.2% vs expected
Naoko McKelvey + Chee Cheong8261% games+4.9% vs expected
Jay Dalal + Lora Kazanjian6355% games+4.2% vs expected
Daniel Tanguay + Rebecca Tanguay332750% games+3.4% vs expected
Heather Enright + Peter Fredericks321259% games+2.7% vs expected
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.

Naoko McKelvey
174W–82L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
4.43
4.5
Barbara Friesen
61W–65L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
4.5
Daniel Tanguay
182W–120L career · 8 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
4.21
4
Nisha Jam
136W–73L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%61%39%
3.96
Erin Robinson
55W–32L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%66%34%
3.94
Robert Nagle
93W–70L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%74%26%
3.91
4
Kevin Friesen
196W–105L career · 1 line in 2026
1%88%11%
3.83
4
Heather Enright
175W–115L career · 7 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
3.76
4
Jay Dalal
227W–145L career · 4 lines in 2026
3%93%4%
3.75
4
Rebecca Tanguay
111W–102L career · 8 lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.68
4
Piper Copeland
39W–50L career · 2 lines in 2026
17%83%<1%
3.63
4
Lora Kazanjian
138W–123L career · 3 lines in 2026
25%75%<1%
3.59
4
Peter Fredericks
57W–40L career · 3 lines in 2026
31%69%<1%
3.57
4
Timothy Harry
75W–84L career · 4 lines in 2026
33%67%<1%
3.56
3.5
Robert Vondell
123W–45L career · 8 lines in 2026
<1%56%44%
3.48
3.5
Colette Comeau
68W–73L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%69%31%
3.43
3.5
Preetham Chandrasekhar
78W–32L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%80%20%
3.38
3.5
Leigh Grubbs
95W–80L career · 2 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
3.21
3.5
Chee Cheong
54W–22L career · 3 lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
3.11
3.5
Laurel Kalkanis
57W–54L career · no lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
3.11
Joerg Schmidt
17W–8L career · no lines in 2026
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.