Teams

MO - Cooper

2025 Tri-Level 40 & Over - Mobile · 40 & Over 4.5

11 players · average NTRP 3.62 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-06-02vs MTC - SandsWon 20
W#1 DoublesChad Necaise / Les Steiner vs Kenneth Strong / Anthony Nguyen7-6, 7-5
W#2 DoublesJason Brannon / Jeremy Tapper vs Kenny Sands / Michael Ross6-7, 7-6, 1-0
2025-05-28vs MTC - SandsWon 20
W#1 DoublesMatthew Davis / Vincent Leo McZeek vs Kenny Sands / Anthony Nguyen7-5, 7-5
W#2 DoublesWes Steiner / Jason Brannon vs Reshad Bell / Michael Ross6-7, 7-6, 1-0
2025-05-27vs MTC - SandsWon 10
W#1 DoublesChad Necaise / Les Steiner vs Reggie Oyler / Anthony Nguyen6-3, 6-3
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 · 40 & Over 4.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MO - Cooper3090264
2MTC - Sands030918118

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 3.65 estimated across 11 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.

4.20
Vincent Leo McZeek
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.17
Les Steiner
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.95
Chad Necaise
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.90
Wes Steiner
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.73
Jason Brannon
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.58
Jeremy Tapper
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.57
Eric Brechtel
published 3.5
3.42
Patrick McPhillips
published
3.41
David Gilmore
published 3.5
3.38
John McAnnally
published
2.90
Bryan Cooper
published 3
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.

David Gilmore + Patrick McPhillips7067% games+2.9% vs expected
Jeremy Tapper + Wes Steiner10259% games+2.5% vs expected
Patrick McPhillips + John McAnnally2339% gamesnot enough data
Eric Brechtel + John McAnnally224 matchesnot enough data
Eric Brechtel + David Gilmore213 matchesnot enough data
Jason Brannon + Jeremy Tapper303 matchesnot enough data
Les Steiner + Wes Steiner213 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.

Vincent Leo McZeek
9W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
6%93%1%
4.20
Les Steiner
24W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
9%90%1%
4.17
4.5
Chad Necaise
8W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
65%35%<1%
3.95
Wes Steiner
41W–15L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%78%22%
3.90
Jason Brannon
32W–24L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.73
Jeremy Tapper
51W–34L career · 1 line in 2025
28%72%<1%
3.58
3.5
Eric Brechtel
41W–22L career · no lines in 2025
<1%31%69%
3.57
Patrick McPhillips
28W–11L career · no lines in 2025
<1%72%28%
3.42
3.5
David Gilmore
24W–12L career · no lines in 2025
<1%75%25%
3.41
John McAnnally
21W–21L career · no lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
3.38
3
Bryan Cooper
11W–17L career · type A · no lines in 2025
<1%78%22%
2.90

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.