Teams

Lagoon-Cone-7.5-40

2023 Night 40 & Over Southern Combo Doubles - Montgomery · 7.5 Combo Men

12 players · average NTRP 3.90 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2023-07-24vs Lagoon-Harris-7.5-40Won 10
W#1 DoublesGreg Alford / John Searcy vs Bruce MacPherson / Dale Rayborn6-1, 6-0
2023-07-17vs Lagoon-Harris-7.5-40Won 10
W#2 DoublesGreg Alford / David Dennis vs Sukno Park / Todd Russell6-0, 6-2
2023-07-10vs Lagoon-Harris-7.5-40Won 10
W#2 DoublesGreg Alford / Charles Reynolds vs Sukno Park / Bryant Sadler6-0, 3-6, 1-0
2023-06-19vs Lagoon-Harris-7.5-40Won 10
W#1 DoublesGreg Alford / Morris Capouya vs Mark DePlanche / Bruce Rogers5-7, 7-6, 1-0
2023-06-13vs Lagoon-Harris-7.5-40Won 10
W#1 DoublesGreg Alford / David Dennis vs Bruce Rogers / Mark DePlanche6-2, 7-6
2023-06-05vs Lagoon-Harris-7.5-40Lost 01
L#1 DoublesGreg Alford / David Dennis vs Keith Wilson / Dale Rayborn3-6, 4-6
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 7.5 Combo Men 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 3.80 estimated across 7 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.

4.02
Brian Cone
published 4
3.90
Jarred Kaplan
published
3.88
Mark Caradori
published
3.87
David Burke
published 4
3.83
Greg Alford
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.70
James Armstrong
published 4
3.42
John Searcy
published
David Dennis
published 3.5
Davis Campbell
published
Mark Moody
published
Morris Capouya
published
Robert Pitman
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.

Jarred Kaplan + Greg Alford3354% games+6.8% vs expected
Mark Caradori + Greg Alford4161% gamesnot enough data
Jarred Kaplan + James Armstrong224 matchesnot enough data
James Armstrong + Greg Alford404 matchesnot enough data
David Burke + Brian Cone303 matchesnot enough data
Jarred Kaplan + Morris Capouya303 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
Brian Cone
31W–15L career · no lines in 2023
<1%45%55%
4.02
Jarred Kaplan
33W–25L career · no lines in 2023
<1%77%23%
3.90
Mark Caradori
18W–6L career · no lines in 2023
<1%83%17%
3.88
4
David Burke
35W–6L career · no lines in 2023
<1%84%16%
3.87
4
Greg Alford
89W–45L career · 6 lines in 2023
1%89%10%
3.83
4
James Armstrong
23W–21L career · no lines in 2023
6%93%1%
3.70
John Searcy
13W–14L career · no lines in 2023
74%26%<1%
3.42
3.5
David Dennis
3W–2L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Davis Campbell
3W–1L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Mark Moody
2W–0L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Morris Capouya
4W–0L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Robert Pitman
1W–1L career · no lines in 2023
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.