Teams

CDTA S 55&OM6.0 2.Wilm Mesh-2 Sat 11 $20

1Summer 55&O WN · WE

8 players · average NTRP 3.00 / CHICAGO

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 →
Schedule4 played
W#1 DoublesMichael Tribble / Mark Brodner vs John Compton / Jeff Siegel7-6, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesEarl Stoner / Andrew Rubanovich vs Gregory Franzo / Eric Esancy6-3, 5-6, 1-0
W#1 DoublesTodd Riggs / Andrew Rubanovich vs Eric Esancy / Michael Smith5-7, 4-2, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMark Brodner / Michael Tribble vs George Engeln / Lawrence Levin6-1, 6-4
L#2 DoublesEarl Stoner / Deane Johnson vs Jeff Siegel / John Compton4-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesEarl Stoner / Mark Androw vs Eric Sanders / Jeff Siegel3-6, 6-4, 0-1
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 standings2 teams · WE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S 55&OM6.0 2.Wilm Mesh-2 Sat 11 $20329615104
2CDTA S 55&OM6.0 1.Wilm Mesh-1 Sat 11 $20236919127

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 2.74 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.

2.87
Andrew Rubanovich
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.85
Todd Riggs
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.83
Gerald Gallagher
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.72
Martin Gruner
published
2.60
Earl Stoner
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.58
Alan Mesh
published 3
Mark Brodner
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Michael Tribble
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Earl Stoner + Alan Mesh0634% gamesnot enough data
Andrew Rubanovich + Todd Riggs3245% gamesnot enough data
Earl Stoner + Todd Riggs224 matchesnot enough data
Earl Stoner + Gerald Gallagher134 matchesnot enough data
Earl Stoner + Andrew Rubanovich123 matchesnot enough data
Mark Brodner + Alan Mesh033 matchesnot enough data
Andrew Rubanovich + Alan Mesh213 matchesnot enough data
Alan Mesh + Gerald Gallagher033 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.

3
Andrew Rubanovich
72W–105L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%82%17%
2.87
Todd Riggs
29W–44L career · 1 line in 2026
1%85%15%
2.85
Gerald Gallagher
19W–62L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%87%12%
2.83
Martin Gruner
2W–6L career · no lines in 2026
6%92%2%
2.72
Earl Stoner
31W–53L career · 3 lines in 2026
24%75%<1%
2.60
3
Alan Mesh
50W–156L career · type A · no lines in 2026
30%70%<1%
2.58
Mark Brodner
6W–28L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Michael Tribble
3W–3L career · 2 lines 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.