Teams

Liberty Park-Visser

2022 Fall Indoor League-Saturday · 3.0M

13 players · average NTRP 2.93 / UTAH

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2023-01-07vs Salt Lake Tennis-BrackenLost 01
L#2 Male DoublesMichael Fordham / Endhi Visser vs Dan Murray / Nick Rowe0-6, 3-6
2022-12-17vs Sports Mall-NelsonLost 01
L#2 Male DoublesMichael Fordham / Endhi Visser vs Nathan Nguyen / Jacob Jaskierny4-6, 2-4
2022-12-03vs Cottonwood Club-Arico/RuprechtLost 01
L#2 Male DoublesMichael Fordham / Endhi Visser vs Howard Davis / David Klein4-6, 0-6
2022-11-19vs Salt Lake Tennis-Smith/FolletteLost 01
L#2 Male DoublesEndhi Visser / Michael Fordham vs Mark Follette / Manti Hansen3-6, 0-6
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 3.0M 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 2.67 estimated across 5 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.

2.94
Andrew Keller
published 3
2.92
Dylan Richardson
published 3
2.83
Endhi Visser
usually #2 Male Doubles 100% · published 3
Daniel Labuz
published 3
Ford Berry
published 3
2.33
Michael Fordham
usually #2 Male Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.32
Ken Holleman
published
Kendall Schmalz
published
Michael Mejia
published
Mikael Johnson
published
Tim Bacheller
published
Tony Herrman
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.

Endhi Visser + Andrew Keller4647% games+4.6% vs expected
Endhi Visser + Tony Herrman3443% games+2.2% vs expected
Endhi Visser + Kendall Schmalz3351% games+1.7% vs expected
Endhi Visser + Michael Fordham113141% games−4.4% vs expected
Andrius Sidlauskas + Ken Holleman2348% gamesnot enough data
Daniel Labuz + Michael Mejia123 matchesnot enough data
Mikael Johnson + Kendall Schmalz123 matchesnot enough data
Mikael Johnson + Tony Herrman033 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.

3
Andrew Keller
40W–23L career · no lines in 2022
<1%67%32%
2.94
3
Dylan Richardson
52W–48L career · no lines in 2022
<1%72%28%
2.92
3
Endhi Visser
75W–119L career · 4 lines in 2022
1%90%9%
2.83
3
Andrius Sidlauskas
4W–12L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3
Daniel Labuz
1W–7L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3
Ford Berry
6W–15L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
2.5
Michael Fordham
20W–64L career · 4 lines in 2022
0%90%10%
2.33
Ken Holleman
10W–69L career · no lines in 2022
0%91%9%
2.32
Kendall Schmalz
9W–12L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Michael Mejia
4W–36L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Mikael Johnson
17W–36L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Tim Bacheller
3W–24L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Tony Herrman
6W–15L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data

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.