Teams

EW - Free Agents

2025 Adult 40 & Over · 4.5 Men

8 players · average NTRP 4.25 / EASTERN WASHINGTON

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-06-01vs EW-Peak-TommerupLost 12
W#1 DoublesKevin Jones / Jeff Judson vs Brady Tommerup / Duke Dixon8-4
L#2 DoublesMartin Janout / Charles Schulz vs Shaun Whitney / Marc Mowrer8-9
L#3 DoublesCraig Fager / Mark Jackson vs Jeffery Urie / David Robin0-8
2025-05-31vs EW-Peak-TommerupLost 03
L#1 DoublesCharles Adams / Craig Fager vs Jason Chapman / Jeffery Urie2-8
L#2 DoublesMartin Janout / Doug Conboy vs Michael Khounnala / Duke Dixon4-8
L#3 DoublesMark Jackson / Tim Qualls vs Corey DeLeonard / Shaun Whitney3-8
2025-05-30vs EW-Peak-TommerupLost 03
L#1 DoublesMartin Janout / Tim Qualls vs Corey DeLeonard / Michael Khounnala5-8
L#2 DoublesDoug Conboy / Craig Fager vs Brady Tommerup / Jason Chapman3-8
L#3 DoublesCharles Schulz / Kevin Jones vs Marc Mowrer / David Robin5-8
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
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1EW-Peak-Tommerup30111144
2EW - Free Agents031111193

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 3.70 estimated across 4 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.

Charles Schulz
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
3.79
Doug Conboy
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.79
Craig Fager
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.61
Mark Jackson
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
3.59
Kevin Jones
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4.5
Jeff Judson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Martin Janout
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Tim Qualls
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · 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.

Mark Jackson + Doug Conboy5066% gamesnot enough data
Doug Conboy + Tim Qualls314 matchesnot enough data
Mark Jackson + Tim Qualls123 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
Charles Schulz
0W–2L career · type S · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
4
Doug Conboy
92W–56L career · 6 lines in 2025
1%93%6%
3.79
4
Craig Fager
14W–28L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%93%5%
3.79
Mark Jackson
48W–35L career · 5 lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
3.61
4.5
Kevin Jones
26W–13L career · 7 lines in 2025
>99%<1%<1%
3.59
Jeff Judson
8W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Martin Janout
1W–5L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Tim Qualls
59W–40L career · 5 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.