Teams

Abrams 18/6.5/M/StoneCreek

2025 Man · Cov Southern Combo 18 & Over - Men

16 players · average NTRP 3.50 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule
Flight standings6 teams · Cov Southern Combo 18 & Over - Men
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Abrams 18/6.5/M/StoneCreek9125515213
2Schluter-Ortis 18/6.5/M/Pelican73181230235
3Renwick 18/6.5/M/Tchefuncta45101741284
4Parvizian-18/6.5/M/StoneCreek46161431276
5Griffin 6.5/18/M/N Cypress37102042305
6Hoy-Wollfarth 18/6.5/M/Francos2781940260

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 3.28 estimated across 7 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.

Alex Billings
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.54
Dane Landry
usually #2 Doubles 42%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.40
Chris Corkern
usually #2 Singles 43%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published 3.5
3.33
David Appe
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.31
Carson Abrams
usually #1 Doubles 55%, also #2 Doubles 30% · published 3.5
3.28
Franco Centanni
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 36% · published 3.5
Bart Crader
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
Chase Ranlett
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 28% · published 3.5
3.23
Donald Rigaud
usually #3 Doubles 35%, also #1 Doubles 35% · published 3.5
2.90
Jake Springer
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 36% · published 3
Jared Matherne
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #2 Doubles 32% · published
Jordan Spinosa
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 22% · published
Kannon Otillio
usually #3 Doubles 47%, also #1 Doubles 16% · published
Paul Roy
usually #2 Doubles 37%, also #1 Doubles 37% · published
Shane Story
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published
Spencer Rossie
usually #3 Doubles 64%, also #2 Singles 18% · 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.

Franco Centanni + Dane Landry6070% gamesnot enough data
David Appe + Carson Abrams314 matchesnot enough data
Spencer Rossie + Kannon Otillio303 matchesnot enough data
Franco Centanni + Paul Roy213 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
Alex Billings
16W–2L career · 15 lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Dane Landry
22W–2L career · 12 lines in 2025
<1%39%61%
3.54
3.5
Chris Corkern
14W–6L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
3.40
3.5
David Appe
10W–7L career · 12 lines in 2025
1%90%10%
3.33
3.5
Carson Abrams
25W–4L career · 20 lines in 2025
1%92%7%
3.31
3.5
Franco Centanni
22W–8L career · 22 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Bart Crader
13W–4L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Chase Ranlett
14W–5L career · 17 lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Donald Rigaud
28W–8L career · 25 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.23
3
Jake Springer
17W–5L career · 11 lines in 2025
<1%78%22%
2.90
Jared Matherne
32W–11L career · 28 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jordan Spinosa
15W–4L career · 9 lines in 2025
not enough data
Kannon Otillio
23W–4L career · 17 lines in 2025
not enough data
Paul Roy
33W–5L career · 30 lines in 2025
not enough data
Shane Story
7W–0L career · 7 lines in 2025
not enough data
Spencer Rossie
15W–2L career · 11 lines in 2025
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.