Teams

Burkwood Carter

2023 Richmond Tri-Level 18 & Over Weeknight · Richmond Tri-Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Men

15 players · average NTRP 3.81 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2023-11-09vs MAC Snow (4.5)Won 10
W#1 DoublesAdam Decker / William Walton vs Jeff Kane / Dylan Brod6-4, 6-4
2023-11-02vs SCC StembridgeWon 10
W#1 DoublesAdam Decker / William Walton vs Chris Martin / Richard Lloyd6-2, 7-5
2023-10-04Lost 01
L#1 DoublesGreg Deeb / Adam Decker vs Ayush Gandhi / Alex Neuwelt2-6, 5-7
2023-10-03vs Belmont GauthierWon 10
W#1 DoublesAdam Decker / Greg Deeb vs Alton Howell / Vernon Heishman6-2, 6-1
2023-09-05vs WOCC BresslerWon 10
W#1 DoublesLUDINEI PICELLI / Adam Decker vs Timothy Moore / Robert Preservati6-2, 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.

Flight standings for Richmond Tri-Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Men have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 3.52 estimated across 11 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.

4.07
LUDINEI PICELLI
published
4.04
Tyler Sinsabaugh
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published 4.5
3.86
Adam Decker
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.78
Sam McKelvey
published 4
Brady Smith
published 4
Greg Deeb
published 4
3.69
William Walton
published
3.43
Andrew Barth
published 3.5
3.42
Jonathan Kovarcik
published
3.19
James Driggs
published 3
3.19
Kevin Carter
published
3.17
Steven Walworth
published
2.92
Charlie Chien Le
published 3.5
Joseph Golden
published
Michael Jernigan
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.

Tyler Sinsabaugh + Adam Decker1450% games−1.2% vs expected
Tyler Sinsabaugh + Sam McKelvey7456% gamesnot enough data
Adam Decker + Sam McKelvey6153% 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.

LUDINEI PICELLI
5W–10L career · no lines in 2023
29%71%<1%
4.07
4.5
Tyler Sinsabaugh
141W–63L career · 7 lines in 2023
39%61%<1%
4.04
4
Adam Decker
149W–62L career · 5 lines in 2023
<1%85%14%
3.86
4
Sam McKelvey
158W–91L career · no lines in 2023
1%94%5%
3.78
4
Brady Smith
3W–0L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
4
Greg Deeb
1W–0L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
William Walton
12W–2L career · no lines in 2023
8%91%1%
3.69
3.5
Andrew Barth
17W–19L career · no lines in 2023
<1%71%29%
3.43
Jonathan Kovarcik
7W–2L career · no lines in 2023
<1%74%26%
3.42
3
James Driggs
4W–2L career · no lines in 2023
<1%7%93%
3.19
Kevin Carter
11W–5L career · no lines in 2023
7%92%1%
3.19
Steven Walworth
2W–6L career · no lines in 2023
9%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Charlie Chien Le
1W–4L career · no lines in 2023
73%27%<1%
2.92
Joseph Golden
15W–6L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Michael Jernigan
12W–9L career · no lines in 2023
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.