5FAC-XU 35M MO 40&O SEM F4
2025 bSEM ADULT 40 & OVER NIGHT MEN · 3.5 MEN MON PM SEM
16 players · average NTRP 3.25 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule8 played
i
Flight standings20 teams · 3.5 MEN MON PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11LIB-DIHLE 35M MO 40&O SEM F3 | 8 | 0 | 10 | 211 |
| 23PEACH-SELLERS 35M MO 40&O SEM F2 | 8 | 1 | 30 | 323 |
| 31BRC-ALOUSI 35M MO 40&O SEM F1 | 8 | 1 | 38 | 391 |
| 42NAC-FITZPATRICK 35M MO 40&O SEM F4 | 7 | 1 | 23 | 267 |
| 53HV-BAHROU 35M MO 40&O SEM F3 | 6 | 2 | 25 | 279 |
| 66FAC-ADAPA 35M MO 40&O SEM F4 | 6 | 2 | 27 | 282 |
| 71TROY-SINGH 35M MO 40&O SEM F2 | 6 | 3 | 40 | 358 |
| 83SCWB-GAY 35M MO 40&O SEM F1 | 5 | 4 | 48 | 393 |
| 94DEER-GURN 35M MO 40&O SEM F4 | 4 | 4 | 54 | 393 |
| 104BOH-CONTI 35M MO 40&O SEM F1 | 3 | 5 | 51 | 391 |
| 116VTC-inside-MINTZ 35M MO 40&O SEM F3 | 3 | 5 | 58 | 395 |
| 125CHIP-BOWMAN 35M MO 40&O SEM F3 | 2 | 6 | 62 | 444 |
| 133SCWB-WOODS 35M MO 40&O SEM F4 | 2 | 6 | 62 | 423 |
| 142PH-TOUMA 35M MO 40&O SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 65 | 440 |
| 154EAST-BONVENTRE 35M MO 40&O SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 70 | 472 |
| 162DCD-NOLAN 35M MO 40&O SEM F1 | 1 | 7 | 58 | 391 |
| 175FAC-XU 35M MO 40&O SEM F4 | 1 | 7 | 58 | 405 |
| 182LIB-ROSENWASSER 35M MO 40&O SEM F3 | 1 | 7 | 65 | 424 |
| 19drop team 025629 0P MONY-CRONEWETT 35M MO 40&O | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 20drop team 025628 1P BT-CHUK 35M MO 40&O | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.17 estimated across 13 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Cliff Tsai + Qing Tian | 6–1 | 63% games | +20.5% vs expected |
| Yong Hong + Zijie Lu | 3–3 | 51% games | +8.3% vs expected |
| Yong Hong + Hai Xu | 4–8 | 44% games | −7.5% vs expected |
| Cliff Tsai + Yu-Chen Chen | 2–3 | 42% games | −10.2% vs expected |
| Khu Do + Qijun Zhang | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Khu Do + Qing Tian | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Yong Hong + Zhangjun Tang | 3–1 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Luo Xie + AIWU Wu | 3–1 | 4 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.