1HV-CLARKE AD18&O 40M TU SEM F2
2023 SEM ADULT 18 & OVER NIGHT MEN · 4.0 MEN TUES PM SEM
21 players · average NTRP 3.83 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings21 teams · 4.0 MEN TUES PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11BT-ROSEN AD18&O 40M TU SEM F5 | 9 | 0 | 17 | 272 |
| 22EAST-KEAN AD18&O 40M TU SEM F3 | 8 | 1 | 27 | 349 |
| 32DEER-ARENS AD18&O 40M TU SEM F4 | 7 | 2 | 32 | 347 |
| 41LIB-LAMMERS AD18&O 40M TU SEM F2 | 7 | 2 | 33 | 345 |
| 51EAST-LEAVER AD18&O 40M TU SEM F4 | 7 | 2 | 35 | 331 |
| 62VTC-inside-CROUSON AD18&O 40M TU SEM F2 | 7 | 2 | 38 | 379 |
| 73RCAA-SHAW AD18&O 40M TU SEM F1 | 7 | 2 | 39 | 376 |
| 84FAC-MAHMOOD AD18&O 40M TU SEM F3 | 6 | 3 | 37 | 374 |
| 94PINE-inside-SNELL AD18&O 40M TU SEM F5 | 6 | 3 | 45 | 386 |
| 103FAC-GORDON AD18&O 40M TU SEM F4 | 4 | 5 | 48 | 402 |
| 112AAREC-sky-ISRAEL AD18&O 40M TU SEM F1 | 4 | 5 | 53 | 409 |
| 124DET-RICHARDSON AD18&O 40M TU SEM F1 | 4 | 5 | 56 | 446 |
| 131PEACH-ITCHON AD18&O 40M TU SEM F3 | 4 | 5 | 64 | 450 |
| 141HV-CLARKE AD18&O 40M TU SEM F2 | 3 | 6 | 61 | 455 |
| 154CHIP-MICHAELS AD18&O 40M TU SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 58 | 438 |
| 162TROY-FORCHE AD18&O 40M TU SEM F5 | 2 | 7 | 63 | 442 |
| 173MONY-GLENN AD18&O 40M TU SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 69 | 495 |
| 183BRC-FOLEY AD18&O 40M TU SEM F5 | 1 | 8 | 75 | 489 |
| 19holding cell 18's 4.0 men | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 203LIFE-SINGH AD18&O 40M TU SEM F3 | 0 | 9 | 71 | 474 |
| 214WESS-EWALD AD18&O 40M TU SEM F4 | 0 | 9 | 77 | 507 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.61 estimated across 15 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Chih Lin + Noe Erasga | 7–3 | 55% games | +11.8% vs expected |
| Kamran Diba + Chih Lin | 15–11 | 53% games | +8.4% vs expected |
| Timothy Brewer + Noe Erasga | 5–6 | 49% games | −1.8% vs expected |
| Colin Wilcox + Asif Sami | 2–5 | 43% games | −5.2% vs expected |
| Timothy Brewer + Greg Clarke | 4–3 | 55% games | not enough data |
| Keith Meisel + Greg Clarke | 1–4 | 38% games | not enough data |
| Kevin Konkle + Joel Abramson | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Colin Wilcox + Matthew Cuff | 1–3 | 4 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.