Teams

Bad Boys-4.5

2024 Montgomery Singles · Montgomery Singles 4.5 Men

11 players · average NTRP 4.58 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2024-09-19vs High Noon BallersSplit 11
W#1 SinglesThomas Cyrnak vs Brent Kendall6-0, 6-2
L#2 SinglesLukas Sanidas vs Johan Holmberg2-6, 6-3, 1-0
2024-09-12vs High Noon BallersWon 20
W#2 SinglesThomas Cyrnak vs Jonathan Bentley6-0, 6-0
W#3 SinglesLukas Sanidas vs Allen Rakotoniaina6-1, 6-1
2024-08-21vs High Noon BallersWon 20
W#2 SinglesNEERAV GANJOO vs Allen Rakotoniaina6-3, 6-4
W#3 SinglesThomas Cyrnak vs Corey Glocker6-2, 6-1
2024-08-12vs High Noon BallersLost 01
L#3 SinglesLukas Sanidas vs Jonathan Bentley2-6, 7-6, 0-1
2024-07-23Won 10
W#3 SinglesLukas Sanidas vs Allen Rakotoniaina6-2, 6-1
2024-07-18vs High Noon BallersWon 20
W#1 SinglesNEERAV GANJOO vs Johan Holmberg6-4, 6-4
W#3 SinglesLukas Sanidas vs Eric Mattelson6-7, 6-3, 1-0
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 Montgomery Singles 4.5 Men 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 4.23 estimated across 10 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.

4.53
Thomas Cyrnak
usually #3 Singles 33%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 4.5
4.52
NEERAV GANJOO
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 4.5
4.36
Aravind Krishna
published 5
4.27
Hector Barrera
published
4.24
Barry Weiner
published 4.5
4.13
Lukas Sanidas
usually #3 Singles 80%, also #2 Singles 20% · published 4.5
4.12
Hong Hu
published
4.12
Yue She
published
4.04
Shuang Chen
published
3.99
Paul Levine
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.

Lukas Sanidas + Thomas Cyrnak6452% games+5.3% vs expected
NEERAV GANJOO + Lukas Sanidas404 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
Thomas Cyrnak
311W–89L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%41%59%
4.53
4.5
NEERAV GANJOO
81W–15L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%44%56%
4.52
5
Aravind Krishna
37W–48L career · no lines in 2024
no projection at this level
4.36
Hector Barrera
20W–4L career · no lines in 2024
3%92%5%
4.27
4.5
Abdoul Miloud Agbere
32W–23L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
4.5
Barry Weiner
12W–7L career · no lines in 2024
4%93%3%
4.24
4.5
Lukas Sanidas
142W–110L career · 5 lines in 2024
17%82%<1%
4.13
Hong Hu
10W–13L career · no lines in 2024
19%81%<1%
4.12
Yue She
7W–17L career · no lines in 2024
20%80%<1%
4.12
Shuang Chen
16W–3L career · no lines in 2024
<1%39%61%
4.04
Paul Levine
6W–5L career · no lines in 2024
53%47%<1%
3.99

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.