Teams

CSRC BARKER

2024 CTA TWILIGHT - SOCO · MEN 3.5 - TWILIGHT - SOCO

8 players · average NTRP 3.58 / COLORADO

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 →
Schedule7 played
2024-09-03vs LTFCS ANEWALTSplit 11
L#1 DoublesNate Hopkins / Charlie Cuthill vs Greg Haynie / Scott VanDeVeer3-6, 5-7
W#2 DoublesMike Guinn / Mark Phelan vs Jason Garl / Steven Anewalt6-3, 1-6, 1-0
2024-08-27vs MEMPK GOLDSTEINWon 10
W#1 DoublesCharlie Cuthill / Nate Hopkins vs Todd Goldstein / Mark Dale6-0, 6-1
2024-08-20vs LTFCS CLIPSHAMWon 10
W#1 DoublesNate Hopkins / Mike Guinn vs Brandon Shannon / Vincent Lopez6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2024-08-13vs FLYHS CARVALHOLost 01
L#1 DoublesMike Guinn / Charlie Cuthill vs Chase Campbell / Matt Campbell1-6, 4-6
2024-08-06vs CSRC GAYDOSLost 01
L#2 DoublesNate Hopkins / Charlie Cuthill vs Craig Gaydos / David Morgan3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2024-07-30vs LTFCS ANEWALTWon 10
W#1 DoublesNate Hopkins / Mike Guinn vs Patrick Barrett / Greg Haynie6-2, 6-3
2024-07-23vs MEMPK GOLDSTEINWon 10
W#2 DoublesMike Guinn / Mark Phelan vs Todd Goldstein / Soowon Lee6-2, 6-0
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 standings for MEN 3.5 - TWILIGHT - SOCO have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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.

3.66
Mike Guinn
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.58
Richard Boyle
published
3.44
Nate Hopkins
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.33
Zach Barker
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.30
Mark Phelan
published
Bryce Church
published 3.5
Charlie Cuthill
published 3.5
3.21
Craig Gaydos
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
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.

Nate Hopkins + Mike Guinn15364% games+7.1% vs expected
Mark Phelan + Charlie Cuthill5349% games−8.3% vs expected
Craig Gaydos + Zach Barker303 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
Mike Guinn
84W–51L career · 5 lines in 2024
12%87%1%
3.66
Richard Boyle
23W–11L career · no lines in 2024
<1%28%72%
3.58
3.5
Nate Hopkins
66W–29L career · 5 lines in 2024
<1%67%33%
3.44
3.5
Zach Barker
114W–81L career · 3 lines in 2024
1%88%12%
3.33
Mark Phelan
26W–15L career · no lines in 2024
2%91%7%
3.30
3.5
Bryce Church
6W–4L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3.5
Charlie Cuthill
7W–8L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3.5
Craig Gaydos
95W–74L career · 3 lines in 2024
7%91%2%
3.21

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.