1DEER-LATTIE 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F4
2024 SEM ADULT 18 & OVER NIGHT MEN · 4.0 MEN TUES PM SEM
17 players · average NTRP 4.25 / 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.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings20 teams · 4.0 MEN TUES PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12EAST-KEAN 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F1 | 9 | 0 | 19 | 280 |
| 24RCAA-SHAW 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F3 | 9 | 0 | 21 | 304 |
| 32VTC-inside-MCLOGAN 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F2 | 9 | 0 | 34 | 359 |
| 41DEER-LATTIE 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F4 | 8 | 1 | 22 | 281 |
| 51FAC-HACKETT 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F5 | 7 | 2 | 32 | 338 |
| 62BLOOM-ROSEN 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F4 | 7 | 2 | 37 | 336 |
| 73DET-RICHARDSON 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F5 | 6 | 3 | 47 | 393 |
| 83HV-CLARKE 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F3 | 5 | 4 | 54 | 403 |
| 91EAST-HIX 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F1 | 5 | 4 | 56 | 435 |
| 103CHIP-MICHAELS 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F2 | 4 | 5 | 48 | 392 |
| 112BRC-FOLEY 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F5 | 4 | 5 | 63 | 449 |
| 124AAREC-SKY-ISRAEL 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F2 | 3 | 6 | 57 | 420 |
| 134FAC-GORDON 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F4 | 3 | 6 | 59 | 444 |
| 142LIB-STPIERRE 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F3 | 3 | 6 | 60 | 433 |
| 154PEACH-ITCHON 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F1 | 3 | 6 | 64 | 463 |
| 161MONY-WEBER 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 68 | 465 |
| 173LIFE-REVELLO 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F1 | 1 | 8 | 61 | 440 |
| 184PINE-in-SNELL 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F5 | 1 | 8 | 62 | 462 |
| 191CHELSEA HS-ATKINSON 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F3 | 1 | 8 | 64 | 463 |
| 203TROY-FORCHE 18&O TU 40 MEN SEM F4 | 0 | 9 | 84 | 504 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.94 estimated across 12 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Timothy Harry + Mark Marison | 8–2 | 67% games | +14.9% vs expected |
| Troy Pozolo + Steven Arens | 8–1 | 62% games | +9.8% vs expected |
| Steven Arens + Drew Holcomb | 16–2 | 62% games | +6.3% vs expected |
| Brad Kerin + Connor Hoch | 28–4 | 59% games | +4.0% vs expected |
| Joshua Lattie + Steven Arens | 22–5 | 57% games | +2.5% vs expected |
| Jeffrey Seilkop + Troy Pozolo | 13–5 | 58% games | +1.0% vs expected |
| Ronald Puzio + Timothy Harry | 6–4 | 54% games | −1.5% vs expected |
| Mark Marison + Joshua Lattie | 7–0 | 65% games | not enough data |
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.
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.