Teams

VAC-Casebier/Clerget

2022 Adult 55 & Over · 7.0 Men

2 players · average NTRP 3.5 · USTA/PACIFIC NW / SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON

View scouting list →
Scouting

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.

Richard Graham
usually #1 Doubles 62%, also #2 Doubles 23% · published 4
Steve Pace
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3
Results7 ties
2022-06-25Lost 01
L#3 DoublesDavid Casebier / Steve Pace vs Richard Drollinger / Terry Coe6-1, 6-2
2022-06-25Lost 01
L#1 DoublesMichael Davis / Steve Pace vs Tony Humpage / Zachary Wright6-2, 6-1
2021-10-16Won 10
W#2 DoublesJim Clerget / Steve Pace vs Karl Jensen / Robert Johnston4-6, 6-4, 1-0
2021-10-10Won 10
W#1 DoublesRichard Graham / Jerry Saul vs Kevin Robinson / Joseph Hartman6-0, 6-3
2021-10-02Won 10
W#2 DoublesMichael Davis / Steve Pace vs Clarence Hollins / Bill Parretta6-2, 6-4
2021-09-26Split 11
L#1 DoublesDavid Casebier / Steve Pace vs Thomas Reber / Bill Fahey6-2, 7-6
W#2 DoublesRichard Graham / Jerry Saul vs Don White / Al Boling6-4, 6-3
2021-09-18Won 10
W#3 DoublesRichard Graham / Jerry Saul vs Joseph Hartman / Lance Lanese6-2, 6-1
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.
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.

4
Richard Graham
131W–70L career
not enough data
3
Steve Pace
12W–16L career
not enough data

Three percentages are the year-end projection — chance of moving down, staying, moving up — and the number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. 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.