Teams

Tan-Grand Oaks High School

2026 Adult 18 & Over 2.5 - 4.5 NoHo Men · 3.5

6 players · average NTRP 3.50 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-07-13vs Wideman-Woodlands ParksLost 12
L#1 DoublesJuan Guzman / Gabe Flores vs Patrick LaFleur / Shrirang Deshmukh3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesTin Dang / Pin Chiu vs Jackson Oehl / Ashdin Kade3-6, 4-6
W#2 SinglesCooper Borski vs Doug Yarger6-3, 6-2
2026-07-11vs Wideman-Woodlands ParksLost 12
W#1 SinglesCooper Borski vs Gavin Robards6-3, 6-3
L#2 DoublesGarrett van Osdell / Juan Guzman vs Doug Yarger / Jackson Oehl6-7, 6-7
L#3 DoublesGabe Flores / Pin Chiu vs Travis Kho / Ashdin Kade4-6, 4-6
2026-06-27vs Briggs-Grand Oaks High SchoolSplit 11
W#1 SinglesCooper Borski vs Leland Joe6-1, 6-0
L#2 SinglesPin Chiu vs Eric Storey3-4
2026-06-27vs Briggs-Grand Oaks High SchoolWon 20
W#1 DoublesGabe Flores / Juan Guzman vs Adriano Soria Jr / Deon Hoang5-7, 7-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesCooper Borski vs Khoa Nguyen6-1, 6-1
2026-06-20vs Wideman-Woodlands ParksLost 13
L#1 DoublesJuan Guzman / Gabe Flores vs Gavin Robards / Hugh Heslep4-6, 4-6
W#1 SinglesCooper Borski vs Doug Yarger6-4, 6-4
L#2 DoublesGarrett van Osdell / Pin Chiu vs Ethan Lammayot / Ashdin Kade3-6, 3-6
L#2 SinglesTin Dang vs Jason Freeman3-3
2026-06-06vs Briggs-Grand Oaks High SchoolWon 30
W#1 DoublesJuan Guzman / Gabe Flores vs Deon Hoang / Adriano Soria Jr6-4, 6-4
W#1 SinglesCooper Borski vs Leland Joe6-1, 6-1
W#2 SinglesPin Chiu vs Steven Briggs6-1, 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.
Flight standings3 teams · 3.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Wideman-Woodlands Parks6025510148
2Tan-Grand Oaks High School24121837265
3Briggs-Grand Oaks High School1582244282

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 3.41 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.

3.58
Cooper Borski
usually #1 Singles 83%, also #2 Singles 17% · published 3.5
3.48
Juan Guzman
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
3.37
Gabe Flores
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
3.20
Pin Chiu
usually #2 Singles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
Tin Dang
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Victor Tan
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.

Tin Dang + Pin Chiu134 matchesnot enough data
Juan Guzman + Gabe Flores224 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.

3.5
Cooper Borski
9W–4L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%28%72%
3.58
Juan Guzman
14W–16L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%57%43%
3.48
Gabe Flores
25W–27L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%82%18%
3.37
Pin Chiu
17W–15L career · 5 lines in 2026
8%91%2%
3.20
Tin Dang
3W–17L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Victor Tan
0W–2L career · no lines in 2026
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.