Teams

Terminetters

2023 Washington D.C. Singles · Washington D.C. Singles 3.0 Men

5 players · average NTRP 3.00 / WASHINGTON D.C.

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 →
Schedule9 played
2023-08-27vs AcesWon 21
W#1 SinglesElliot Mamet vs Adnan Karimi6-3, 3-5
L#2 SinglesNeeraj Gupta vs Nate Eagle2-6, 4-4
W#3 SinglesJohn Burns vs Tim McNamara6-1, 6-0
2023-08-19vs Serve It UpWon 21
L#1 SinglesNeeraj Gupta vs Ted Kim3-6, 3-2
W#2 SinglesElliot Mamet vs Peter Tice6-4, 6-0
W#3 SinglesJohn Burns vs Peter Levine6-0, 6-1
2023-08-12vs Piney RunSplit 11
L#1 SinglesJohn Burns vs Malcolm Magee6-2, 0-6, 0-1
W#2 SinglesNeeraj Gupta vs Michael Bailey6-1, 4-5
2023-08-05vs AcesLost 02
L#1 SinglesNeeraj Gupta vs Bryan Bassig1-6, 1-4
L#2 SinglesJohn Burns vs Owen Despagne0-6, 6-2, 0-1
2023-07-29vs Serve It UpLost 02
L#1 SinglesSalvatore Scanio vs Tin Ho1-6, 2-6
L#3 SinglesDesmond LaMar vs Daren Bakst2-6, 1-6
2023-07-22vs Piney RunWon 20
W#1 SinglesNeeraj Gupta vs Mark Hill6-2, 4-4
W#3 SinglesElliot Mamet vs Chivas Merchant-Buckman6-0, 6-3
2023-07-16vs AcesSplit 11
L#1 SinglesJohn Burns vs Xavier Rouse6-7, 1-0
W#2 SinglesNeeraj Gupta vs Nate Eagle6-0, 4-3
2023-07-15vs Serve It UpWon 20
W#2 SinglesSalvatore Scanio vs Erick Siahaan6-3, 4-0
W#3 SinglesElliot Mamet vs Peter Levine6-2, 6-1
2023-07-08vs Piney RunLost 02
L#2 SinglesNeeraj Gupta vs Serge Hyacinthe2-6, 4-3
L#3 SinglesJohn Burns vs Chivas Merchant-Buckman4-6, 4-2
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 standings for Washington D.C. Singles 3.0 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 2.85 estimated across 4 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.

3.07
Neeraj Gupta
usually #2 Singles 57%, also #1 Singles 43% · published
2.86
Desmond LaMar
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3
2.81
Salvatore Scanio
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
2.67
Elliot Mamet
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 25% · published
John Burns
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 33% · 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.

Desmond LaMar + Elliot Mamet2443% gamesnot 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.

Neeraj Gupta
18W–21L career · 7 lines in 2023
30%70%<1%
3.07
3
Desmond LaMar
101W–129L career · 1 line in 2023
1%84%16%
2.86
Salvatore Scanio
14W–24L career · 2 lines in 2023
1%89%9%
2.81
Elliot Mamet
23W–26L career · 4 lines in 2023
11%88%1%
2.67
John Burns
6W–8L career · 6 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.