Teams

MTC - Moore

2026 Adult 18 & Over Men Fall - Mobile · 4.5 Men 18

10 players · average NTRP 4.50 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2025-12-11vs OW - SandsSplit 11
W#1 DoublesJack Meador / Mark Moore vs Reggie Oyler / Jerry Dyess7-6, 6-4
L#1 SinglesLes Steiner vs Vincent Leo McZeek6-7, 4-6
2025-12-10vs OW - SandsWon 20
W#1 DoublesMark Moore / Jack Meador vs Jerry Dyess / Reggie Oyler7-6, 6-4
W#1 SinglesLes Steiner vs Joey Campbell6-4, 6-4
2025-11-19vs OW - SandsWon 30
W#1 DoublesJack Meador / Les Steiner vs Joey Campbell / Jeremy Tapper6-1, 6-0
W#1 SinglesJacob Stokes vs Vincent Leo McZeek6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesMark Moore / Craig Campbell vs Jeff Williams / Jerry Dyess6-1, 5-7, 1-0
2025-11-11vs OW - SandsWon 30
W#1 DoublesJack Meador / William Hooper vs Larry Trice / TImothy McSpadden6-4, 6-2
W#1 SinglesPatrick McGowin vs Patrick Yamane6-2, 6-0
W#2 DoublesJacob Stokes / Chad Necaise vs Kenny Sands / Reggie Oyler6-3, 6-3
2025-11-06vs OW - SandsWon 30
W#1 DoublesMark Moore / Chad Necaise vs Kenny Sands / Lance Hunter7-6, 6-4
W#1 SinglesJack Meador vs Michael Ross6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesCraig Campbell / Les Steiner vs TImothy McSpadden / Reshad Bell6-3, 6-4
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 · 4.5 Men 18
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MTC - Moore411325103
2OW - Sands1421326169

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 4.29 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.

4.42
Cedric Nitz
published 4.5
4.42
Craig Campbell
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.37
Jacob Stokes
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
4.36
Jack Meador
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #1 Singles 20% · published
4.20
Les Steiner
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.97
Chad Necaise
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
Nicholas Anez
published
Patrick McGowin
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Trey Hamlin
published
William Hooper
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.

Jack Meador + Les Steiner303 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.

4.5
Cedric Nitz
6W–1L career · no lines in 2026
<1%72%28%
4.42
4.5
Craig Campbell
11W–0L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%72%28%
4.42
Jacob Stokes
9W–0L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%82%17%
4.37
Jack Meador
15W–0L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%83%16%
4.36
Les Steiner
22W–2L career · 4 lines in 2026
8%91%2%
4.20
4.5
Chad Necaise
6W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
59%41%<1%
3.97
Nicholas Anez
2W–0L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Patrick McGowin
1W–0L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Trey Hamlin
6W–0L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
William Hooper
3W–2L 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.