Teams

5FAC-FINKLEBERG 3.0- men win singles SEM F2

2025 aSEM WINTER TEAM SINGLES · 2025 MEN 3.0 & 2.5 WINTER SINGLES SEM

9 players · average NTRP 3.12 / 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.

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
W#1 SinglesVick Kheny vs Josef Provido6-2, 7-6
W#2 SinglesMichael Fleischer vs Damon Carter6-1, 6-1
L#2 SinglesWarren Brasch vs Lijo Jacob3-6, 2-4
W#1 SinglesAndreas Heesch vs Christian Ibanez6-0, 4-6
W#2 SinglesMichael Fleischer vs Dan DeLong6-4, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 SinglesTony Silber vs Hugo Moran6-3, 6-2
W#1 SinglesJeffrey Kahan vs Albert Johnson6-2, 6-1
W#2 SinglesVick Kheny vs Ronald Perkins6-1, 7-6
W#3 SinglesHarvey Finkelberg vs NICHOLAS JOHNSON6-2, 6-3
L#1 SinglesHarvey Finkelberg vs Edin Trsic3-6, 2-6
W#2 SinglesVick Kheny vs Jeffrey Froggett6-3, 4-2
L#3 SinglesHarvey Finkelberg vs Jacopo Alaimo2-6, 2-6
W#3 SinglesHarvey Finkelberg vs Hugo Moran6-1, 6-1
L#1 SinglesWarren Brasch vs Sam Wood1-6, 4-4
L#2 SinglesMichael Fleischer vs Ronald Perkins4-6, 0-4
W#3 SinglesJeffrey Kahan vs NICHOLAS JOHNSON6-0, 6-2
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 standings14 teams · 2025 MEN 3.0 & 2.5 WINTER SINGLES SEM
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 2.88 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.

3.30
Michael Fleischer
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
3.28
Vick Kheny
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3.5
2.84
Andreas Heesch
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.74
Warren Brasch
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.63
Harvey Finkelberg
usually #3 Singles 75%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
2.51
Eric Nicolson
published
Jeffrey Kahan
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
Tony Silber
usually #3 Singles 100% · 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.

Eric Nicolson + Harvey Finkelberg1442% gamesnot enough data
Jeffrey Kahan + Michael Fleischer404 matchesnot enough data
Eric Nicolson + Warren Brasch033 matchesnot enough data
Andreas Heesch + Michael Fleischer303 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.

Michael Fleischer
82W–42L career · 3 lines in 2025
2%91%7%
3.30
3.5
Vick Kheny
39W–23L career · 3 lines in 2025
2%92%5%
3.28
3
Andrew Jakubowski
32W–35L career · no lines in 2025
1%86%13%
2.84
3
Andreas Heesch
48W–35L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
3
Warren Brasch
25W–55L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%93%3%
2.74
Harvey Finkelberg
81W–84L career · 4 lines in 2025
17%82%<1%
2.63
Eric Nicolson
33W–41L career · no lines in 2025
47%53%<1%
2.51
Jeffrey Kahan
27W–15L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Tony Silber
3W–10L career · 1 line 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.