Teams

Tri-Breakers

2025 TRI-LEVEL - BOISE · TV

10 players · average NTRP 4.00 / IDAHO

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 →
Schedule5 played
2025-08-09vs Ball Of DutyLost 01
L#3 DoublesJames Wallmann / Jacob Fong vs Bob Haycock / Ira Fagin2-6, 2-6
2025-08-02vs MSA (Mas Serve Aces)Lost 01
L#3 DoublesRyan Cook / James Wallmann vs Jeffrey Pugsley / Blake Ediss6-7, 1-6
2025-07-20vs Ball Of DutyLost 02
L#2 DoublesJames Wallmann / Carson Emili vs Matt Sheils / JAYDIP GUHA4-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesDave Gopalakrishnan / Jacob Fong vs Ira Fagin / Jacob Wingerd1-6, 3-6
2025-07-13vs MSA (Mas Serve Aces)Lost 01
L#3 DoublesJacob Fong / James Wallmann vs Blake Ediss / Michael Simpson1-6, 2-6
2025-07-12vs ID1/MARTIN/TRILEVEL/M3.5/4.0/4.5Lost 01
L#3 DoublesJames Wallmann / Jacob Fong vs James Hart / Dax Lundstedt2-6, 1-6
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 standings4 teams · TV
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Ball Of Duty5112616168
2ID1/MARTIN/TRILEVEL/M3.5/4.0/4.54213510134
3MSA (Mas Serve Aces)3381021173
4Tri-Breakers0631532210

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 3.64 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.

Jordan Smith
published 4.5
4.06
Kevin Malecha
published 4.5
3.93
Rick Roby
published 4
Connor Brown
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.75
Carson Emili
published 4
3.64
Ryan Cook
published 4
3.31
Darwin Sloop
published 3.5
3.14
Dave Gopalakrishnan
published 3.5
Jacob Fong
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
James Wallmann
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · 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.

Jordan Smith + Kevin Malecha1439% gamesnot enough data
Carson Emili + Connor Brown044 matchesnot enough data
James Wallmann + Jacob Fong033 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
Jordan Smith
1W–4L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
4.5
Kevin Malecha
5W–17L career · no lines in 2025
34%66%<1%
4.06
4
Rick Roby
279W–89L career · no lines in 2025
<1%70%30%
3.93
4
Connor Brown
19W–15L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
4
Carson Emili
45W–24L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%4%
3.75
4
Ryan Cook
143W–65L career · no lines in 2025
16%84%1%
3.64
3.5
Darwin Sloop
10W–30L career · no lines in 2025
1%90%8%
3.31
3.5
Dave Gopalakrishnan
56W–118L career · no lines in 2025
16%84%1%
3.14
Jacob Fong
0W–7L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
James Wallmann
22W–46L career · 5 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.