Teams

CDTA S 65&OM8.0 1.River Trails Robin Tue 6:30 $25

CDTA 1Summer Adult 65 & Over · CDTA 65 & Over M 8.0

9 players · average NTRP 3.40 / CHICAGO

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 →
Schedule5 played
2024-08-06Lost 01
L#3 DoublesMichael Schultz / Andrew Rubanovich vs John Danko / Bill Johnston4-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesRobert Hughes / Clyde Woods vs Donald O'Malley / Craig Williams6-4, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesAndrew Rubanovich / Michael Schultz vs Stephen Chertok / John Griffin1-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesClyde Woods / Andrew Rubanovich vs Mark Campanile / Joseph Costigan2-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesDaniel Robin / Andrew Rubanovich vs Mark Campanile / Donald O'Malley4-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesMichael Schultz / Clyde Woods vs Stephen Chertok / Richard McLean6-3, 3-6, 0-1
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.
Flight standings2 teams · CDTA 65 & Over M 8.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S 65&OM8.0 2.River Trails Gilbertson Tue 6:30 $2560171590
2CDTA S 65&OM8.0 1.River Trails Robin Tue 6:30 $250611735211

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 3.21 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.

3.46
Brian Lowy
published 3.5
3.39
Daniel Robin
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Gary Spangler
published 3.5
3.11
Clyde Woods
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
2.87
Andrew Rubanovich
usually #3 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 3
David Leahy
published
John van Duzer
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Michael Schultz
published
Robert Hughes
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 van Duzer + Brian Lowy3541% gamesnot enough data
Andrew Rubanovich + Clyde Woods3353% 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.

3.5
Brian Lowy
31W–21L career · no lines in 2024
<1%64%36%
3.46
3.5
Daniel Robin
25W–19L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%80%20%
3.39
3.5
Gary Spangler
9W–2L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3.5
Clyde Woods
58W–30L career · 6 lines in 2024
19%81%<1%
3.11
3
Andrew Rubanovich
75W–109L career · 6 lines in 2024
<1%83%17%
2.87
David Leahy
0W–3L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
John van Duzer
32W–14L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Michael Schultz
0W–1L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Robert Hughes
0W–10L career · no 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.