Teams

GD-Ford, Jr.

2025 Ann · Gadsden

11 players · average NTRP 3.88 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-06-02vs tri levelWon 10
W#2 DoublesJohn Chambless / Alan Kwan vs Charlie Rogers / Dale Hurst6-2, 6-2
2025-05-20vs tri levelWon 20
W#1 DoublesJacob McAllister / James Ragan vs Bob Sims / Patrick Mills6-0, 6-4
W#2 DoublesJohn Chambless / Alan Kwan vs Dale Hurst / Charlie Rogers6-2, 6-3
2025-05-08vs tri levelWon 20
W#1 DoublesCharlton Giles / James Ragan vs Bob Sims / Patrick Mills6-2, 6-1
W#2 DoublesAdam Cohn / John Chambless vs Dale Hurst / Keith Chasteen6-3, 6-2
2025-05-08vs tri levelWon 20
W#1 DoublesJames Ragan / Charlton Giles vs Patrick Mills / Bob Sims6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesAlan Kwan / John Chambless vs Dale Hurst / Craig Tumlin6-2, 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 standings for Gadsden 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 3.66 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.

4.12
Charlton Giles
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.97
Adam Cohn
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.79
Jacob McAllister
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Alan Kwan
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
2.76
Brett Wilborn
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 3
James Ragan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
John Chambless
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Jon Ford
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Jon Ford Jr
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Ramesh Chellamuthi
usually #3 Doubles 83%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published
Tyler Harrell
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · 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.

John Chambless + Alan Kwan303 matchesnot enough data
Tyler Harrell + Ramesh Chellamuthi213 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
Charlton Giles
7W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
4.12
4
Adam Cohn
21W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%59%41%
3.97
Jacob McAllister
5W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
93%7%<1%
3.79
4
Alan Kwan
7W–0L career · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Brett Wilborn
4W–6L career · type S · 7 lines in 2025
3%92%5%
2.76
James Ragan
5W–0L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
John Chambless
4W–1L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jon Ford
1W–8L career · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jon Ford Jr
7W–3L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Ramesh Chellamuthi
7W–3L career · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
Tyler Harrell
5W–2L career · 4 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.