Teams

WCGCC

Adult Tri-Level League · Men's Tri Level 3.0 to 4.0

9 players · average NTRP 3.75 / PHILADELPHIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2023-10-28vs Naylor's Run 10.5Split 11
W#1 DoublesJoe Schorn / Lee Sullivan vs Omer Sarfraz / Kevin Wong3-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#2 DoublesSteven Han / Ken Seewald vs Bocky Sannoh / Danny Calise2-6, 2-6
2023-10-22vs GCCWon 10
W#2 DoublesDavid Himsworth / Rob Boswell vs Michael Brafman / Suresh Swaminathan6-4, 0-6, 1-0
2023-10-21vs Hoffman ParkLost 01
L#1 DoublesRussell Vance / Joe Schorn vs Anthony Blansfield / John Bishop0-6, 1-6
2023-10-07vs ParksideLost 01
L#2 DoublesJon Anderson / Ken Seewald vs Lu Kang / Joe Picerno2-6, 0-6
2023-09-16vs UMLY Tri 4.0Lost 01
L#2 DoublesDavid Himsworth / John Stacey vs ZHIPING QIU / Dennis Krijt0-6, 5-7
2023-09-09Split 11
W#1 DoublesJoe Schorn / Santosh Gaikwad vs Butch Gorman / John McShane6-0, 6-1
L#2 DoublesJohn Stacey / Ken Seewald vs Charles Freeman / Peter Crovo3-6, 7-5, 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 standings7 teams · Men's Tri Level 3.0 to 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Hoffman Park6116512141
2UMLY Tri 4.05114411131
3Parkside5212921160
4WCGCC3361227174
5Naylor's Run 10.534101124197
6Upper Dublin0541124167
7Men of the Dam0521327167

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 3.42 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.

3.83
Lee Sullivan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.79
Russell Chamberlin
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 4
3.59
Santosh Gaikwad
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.40
David Himsworth
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.05
Ken Seewald
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.84
Thomas Padula
published
Rob Boswell
published
Russell Vance
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Steven Hanford
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.

Lee Sullivan + Russell Chamberlin12461% games+6.8% vs expected
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.

Lee Sullivan
156W–87L career · 1 line in 2023
1%90%10%
3.83
4
Russell Chamberlin
211W–118L career · 5 lines in 2023
1%93%5%
3.79
Santosh Gaikwad
152W–122L career · 1 line in 2023
24%75%<1%
3.59
3.5
David Himsworth
58W–70L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%78%21%
3.40
Ken Seewald
7W–13L career · 3 lines in 2023
34%66%<1%
3.05
Thomas Padula
4W–5L career · no lines in 2023
<1%89%11%
2.84
Rob Boswell
25W–5L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Russell Vance
8W–10L career · 1 line in 2023
not enough data
Steven Hanford
4W–0L 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.