Teams

CIN Indianapolis, A40&O 4.0 M, Shippy (JCC)

Fall CIN Adult 40 & Over · CIN Indy 40 & Over 4.0 Men, F

12 players · average NTRP 4.00 / CENTRAL INDIANA

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
W#1 DoublesLee Phillips / Michael Cline vs Kerry Beidelman / David Kupinski6-3, 7-6
W#1 SinglesSean Keller vs Justin Nevitt7-6, 6-1
L#2 DoublesDaniel Segal / Josh Husmann vs Robert Tully / Terry Warrum6-4, 4-6, 0-1
W#1 DoublesDaniel Segal / Jeff Dettelbach vs Carlos Spencer / David Wright6-4, 3-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesAhmed Haider / Sean Keller vs Eric Steele / Benjamin Housh6-2, 4-6, 0-1
L#1 DoublesEric Ratner / Jeff Springer vs Joe Bauer / Matthew Tully1-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesMichael Cline / Brian Killeen vs James Ferguson / Roger Harvey7-5, 4-6, 1-0
W#1 DoublesLee Phillips / Michael Cline vs Steven Kim / Paul Lee7-5, 7-6
W#1 SinglesSean Keller vs Kurt Ackerman6-3, 6-4
L#2 DoublesDavid Klaus / Brian Killeen vs William Calvert / Anjan Kaushik5-7, 4-6
L#1 DoublesMichael Cline / Jeff Springer vs Jamey Squires / Shahid Khokhar5-7, 3-6
L#2 DoublesJeff Dettelbach / Daniel Segal vs Gareth Nissley / Jeff Wawok6-4, 1-6, 0-1
L#1 DoublesDavid Klaus / Brian Killeen vs Sal Miano / David Webber2-6, 4-6
L#1 SinglesSean Keller vs Rolf Kreutz5-7, 5-7
L#2 DoublesAhmed Haider / Lee Phillips vs Dennis Boom / Wayne Fledderman6-7, 2-6
W#1 DoublesBrian Killeen / Lee Phillips vs Jonathan Scott / Eric Steele6-2, 6-3
W#1 SinglesRyan Fischer vs Jason Fordham6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesAhmed Haider / Josh Husmann vs Carlos Spencer / Benjamin Housh6-1, 5-7, 1-0
W#1 DoublesMichael Cline / Lee Phillips vs Joe Bauer / Matthew Tully3-6, 6-1, 1-0
L#1 SinglesSean Keller vs James Frohardt6-7, 3-6
W#2 DoublesJeff Dettelbach / Daniel Segal vs John Deignan / Nicholas Winings2-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#1 DoublesEric Ratner / Jeff Springer vs Brian Upchurch / Justin Nevitt6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesRyan Fischer / Josh Husmann vs David Kupinski / John Stanley6-3, 7-5
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 standings7 teams · CIN Indy 40 & Over 4.0 Men, F
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CIN Indianapolis, A40&O 4.0 M, Gupta (IRC-D)7118615191
2CIN Indianapolis, A40&O 4.0 M, Shippy (JCC)72171026240
3CIN Indianapolis, A40&O 4.0 M, Tammen (IRC-E)53141024204
4CIN Indianapolis, A40&O 4.0 M, Benjamin (CRC)44131123212
5CIN Indianapolis, A40&O 4.0 M, Nelson (CRC)45151226215
6CIN Indianapolis, A40&O 4.0 M, Verde (IRC-D)2781942294
7CIN Indianapolis, A40&O 4.0 M, Davis (WIRC)1852247300

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 3.74 estimated across 3 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.

3.85
Josh Husmann
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Ahmed Haider
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
Brian Killeen
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
Daniel Segal
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
David Klaus
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.73
Jeff Springer
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.63
Ryan Fischer
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
Eric Ratner
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Jeff Dettelbach
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Lee Phillips
published
Michael Cline
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
Sean Keller
usually #1 Singles 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.

Michael Cline + Lee Phillips5159% games+4.7% vs expected
David Klaus + Jeff Dettelbach3450% games+1.4% vs expected
Michael Cline + Jeff Dettelbach4448% games−1.6% vs expected
Daniel Segal + Jeff Dettelbach7648% games−7.6% vs expected
Michael Cline + Brian Killeen5542% games−9.1% vs expected
Ahmed Haider + Josh Husmann5253% gamesnot enough data
Ryan Fischer + Josh Husmann4153% gamesnot enough data
Brian Killeen + Lee Phillips134 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.

Josh Husmann
43W–26L career · 3 lines in 2024
1%85%14%
3.85
4
Ahmed Haider
17W–27L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
4
Brian Killeen
18W–29L career · 4 lines in 2024
not enough data
4
Daniel Segal
12W–22L career · 4 lines in 2024
not enough data
4
David Klaus
10W–19L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Jeff Springer
52W–38L career · 3 lines in 2024
5%92%3%
3.73
Ryan Fischer
68W–41L career · 2 lines in 2024
19%81%<1%
3.63
Eric Ratner
2W–4L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Jeff Dettelbach
23W–38L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Lee Phillips
44W–23L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Michael Cline
45W–34L career · 5 lines in 2024
not enough data
Sean Keller
29W–16L career · 5 lines in 2024
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.