Teams

AMD 30 for 30

Adult 18 & Over · 5.0 Men

9 players · average NTRP 4.75 / ALLEGHENY MNTN.

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-08-02vs Oxford TrentLost 02
L#1 DoublesClint Boling / Derek Chen vs Trent Goerk / Eric Elek1-2
L#1 SinglesJJulius Bolock vs Jose Raymundo4-6, 7-5, 0-1
2026-07-26vs Oxford TrentLost 01
L#1 DoublesGrant Veltman / JJulius Bolock vs Jose Raymundo / Jeremy McClelland3-6, 6-3, 0-1
2026-06-28vs Oxford TrentWon 20
W#1 SinglesNicolas Kshatri vs Adeel Piracha4-6, 6-0, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJJulius Bolock / Dane Bendel vs Ameet Karambelkar / Eric Elek2-6, 7-5, 1-0
2026-06-14vs Oxford TrentLost 01
L#1 DoublesNicolas Kshatri / Christopher Perry vs Mitchell Maroscher / Adam Blasinsky3-6, 2-6
2026-05-17vs Oxford TrentLost 03
L#1 DoublesLuke Phillips / Grant Veltman vs Tomasz Dudek / Marcus Sundh2-6, 5-7
L#1 SinglesClint Boling vs Mitchell Maroscher1-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesDane Bendel / Derek Chen vs Garrett Gardner / Adam Blasinsky2-6, 3-6
2026-05-03vs Oxford TrentLost 03
L#1 DoublesChristopher Perry / Grant Veltman vs Marcus Sundh / Adam Blasinsky6-4, 5-7, 0-1
L#1 SinglesClint Boling vs Mitchell Maroscher2-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 DoublesDerek Chen / Nicolas Kshatri vs Garrett Gardner / Jeremy McClelland4-6, 2-6
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 · 5.0 Men
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Oxford Trent0613514132
2AMD 30 for 300641430194

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 4.61 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.

4.79
Nicolas Kshatri
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
Dane Bendel
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.72
Grant Veltman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.49
Clint Boling
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.43
JJulius Bolock
usually #1 Singles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Derek Chen
published 4.5
Jayanth Kashyap
published
Luke Phillips
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Nicolas Kshatri + Christopher Perry303 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.

Nicolas Kshatri
18W–11L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.79
5
Christopher Perry
5W–1L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
5
Dane Bendel
10W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Grant Veltman
13W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.72
4.5
Clint Boling
9W–13L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%52%48%
4.49
JJulius Bolock
19W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.43
4.5
Derek Chen
9W–3L career · type S · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Jayanth Kashyap
2W–0L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Luke Phillips
0W–1L career · 1 line 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.