Teams

FCCC PURPLE

2023 CTA TWILIGHT - NOCO · MEN 4.0 - TWILIGHT - NOCO

7 players · average NTRP 4.00 / COLORADO

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 →
Schedule6 played
2023-09-05vs CSU GREENSplit 11
L#1 SinglesJoseph Hannah vs Federico Pardina6-0, 3-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesPaul Gronewoller / Mark Orr vs Mark Hartman / Dan Bikos2-6, 7-6, 1-0
2023-08-29vs HMTC REDSplit 11
W#1 DoublesJosh Shelby / Joseph Lillis vs Keith Babcock / Kent Mueller4-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 DoublesMatthew Hoeven / Christopher Jones vs Jameel Chohan / Thomas Munoz2-6, 4-6
2023-08-22vs MLF BLACKLost 02
L#1 SinglesJoseph Hannah vs Tyler Hempstead2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesMark Koepke / Paul Gronewoller vs Joe Ashbee / Wil Buchanan2-6, 6-7
2023-08-15vs LVTA NAVYSplit 11
L#1 DoublesJosh Shelby / Mark Koepke vs Adam Less / Brian Smith4-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesChristopher Jones / Matthew Hoeven vs Daniel Ault / Brian Petersen6-4, 5-7, 1-0
2023-08-05vs CSU GREENLost 01
L#1 DoublesMatthew Hoeven / Paul Gronewoller vs David van Thuyne / Jim Kelly3-6, 0-6
2023-07-25vs HMTC REDSplit 11
L#1 DoublesPaul Gronewoller / Josh Shelby vs Kent Mueller / Thomas Munoz2-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesMatthew Hoeven / Christopher Jones vs Keith Montey / Jameel Chohan4-6, 6-4, 1-0
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 MEN 4.0 - TWILIGHT - NOCO 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 3.72 estimated across 6 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.

4.01
Gregory Gibbs
published
3.74
Joseph Lillis
published
3.73
Joseph Hannah
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4
3.68
Josh Shelby
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.64
Matthew Hoeven
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.51
Paul Gronewoller
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
Mark Koepke
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.

Paul Gronewoller + Matthew Hoeven61146% gamesnot enough data
Paul Gronewoller + Josh Shelby2438% gamesnot enough data
Paul Gronewoller + Joseph Hannah303 matchesnot enough data
Paul Gronewoller + Gregory Gibbs213 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.

Gregory Gibbs
44W–20L career · no lines in 2023
<1%47%53%
4.01
Joseph Lillis
9W–9L career · no lines in 2023
4%92%3%
3.74
4
Joseph Hannah
13W–10L career · 2 lines in 2023
5%92%2%
3.73
4
Josh Shelby
48W–51L career · 3 lines in 2023
9%89%1%
3.68
4
Matthew Hoeven
30W–57L career · 4 lines in 2023
15%84%1%
3.64
4
Paul Gronewoller
90W–93L career · 4 lines in 2023
46%54%<1%
3.51
Mark Koepke
2W–1L 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.