Teams

DH-Thompson

2025 Adult 40 & Over-GC · Men 4.0

6 players · average NTRP 4.00 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2025-05-04vs Hutchinson 40+ BBTCLost 02
L#1 DoublesMichael Thompson / Sheldon Zhang vs Shane Hutchinson / William van Kirk2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesRock Rowell / Cultus Pearson vs Paul Benigno / Dana Ladnier3-6, 2-6
2025-04-15vs TOCC DAHLWon 30
W#1 DoublesJames Smith / Sheldon Zhang vs Tony Chapman / Charles Wilson6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesJoseph Gregory / Rock Rowell vs Otto M Vuyovich / Adam Mcdowell6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesShannon Hailes / Cultus Pearson vs Tristan Armer / Michael Johns6-4, 7-5
2025-03-23vs SRYC - Wilkinson/MartinLost 12
W#1 DoublesColin Jones / James Smith vs Christian Coney / Johnny Still6-4, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesDonald Geier / Michael Thompson vs Wes Steiner / Jeremy Tapper2-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesCultus Pearson / Rock Rowell vs Jason Brannon / David Ryan6-2, 0-6, 0-1
2025-03-16vs SRYC - Wilkinson/MartinWon 21
L#1 DoublesDonald Geier / Michael Thompson vs Dean Doty / Wade Hardy6-7, 3-6
W#1 SinglesSheldon Zhang vs Wes Steiner6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesCultus Pearson / Rock Rowell vs Jason Brannon / David Ryan6-4, 6-3
2025-03-12vs Hutchinson 40+ BBTCLost 03
L#1 DoublesJoseph Gregory / Sheldon Zhang vs Shane Hutchinson / William van Kirk3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesDonald Geier / Michael Thompson vs Ryan Canon / Paul Benigno2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesRock Rowell / Cultus Pearson vs Johnny Hisaw / William Hasty1-6, 3-6
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 4.0 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 3.58 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.

3.81
Colin Jones
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.76
Sheldon Zhang
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
3.55
Rock Rowell
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
3.55
Shannon Hailes
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.42
Cultus Pearson
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.38
Donald Geier
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Rock Rowell + Cultus Pearson134 matchesnot enough data
Shannon Hailes + Cultus Pearson213 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
Colin Jones
8W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
1%90%8%
3.81
Sheldon Zhang
20W–15L career · 4 lines in 2025
3%93%4%
3.76
Rock Rowell
4W–7L career · 5 lines in 2025
36%64%<1%
3.55
Shannon Hailes
3W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
36%64%<1%
3.55
4
Cultus Pearson
5W–17L career · 5 lines in 2025
72%28%<1%
3.42
Donald Geier
5W–13L career · 3 lines in 2025
81%19%<1%
3.38

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.