Teams

Roedel/Memphis

2026 Adult 55 & Over-Memphis · 4.0 Men 55 & Over

7 players · average NTRP 3.75 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-05-03vs Overstreet/MemphisSplit 11
W#2 DoublesJohn Matsek / David Kam vs Xuezhong Li / Bin Li7-5, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJames Thomas / Rob Dannemiller vs David Ziebart / Brandon Wellford2-6, 6-7
2026-04-12vs Overstreet/MemphisLost 02
L#1 DoublesJohn Matsek / David Kam vs David Ziebart / William Pettit2-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesDavid Jackson / Rob Dannemiller vs Steve Hardgrave / Leonard Moss1-6, 3-6
2026-03-15vs Overstreet/MemphisWon 20
W#1 DoublesJohn Matsek / David Kam vs Edgar Mendoza / William Pettit6-0, 7-5
W#2 DoublesJames Thomas / Tim Whitehorn vs Jeff Earnest / Steve Hardgrave4-1
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 standings4 teams · 4.0 Men 55 & Over
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Roedel/Memphis7221616152
2Jackson/Memphis6318922192
3Reesman/Memphis54131432242
4Howard/Memphis0922551312

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 3.54 estimated across 7 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.

3.86
Tim Whitehorn
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.83
David Kam
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.58
John Matsek
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.53
ROBERT LEBLANC
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.44
Bret Sokoloff
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 22% · published 3.5
3.38
Kevin Roedel
usually #3 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published
3.17
Rob Dannemiller
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · 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.

Bret Sokoloff + Kevin Roedel4167% gamesnot enough data
Rob Dannemiller + Bret Sokoloff033 matchesnot enough data
David Kam + John Matsek213 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.

Tim Whitehorn
3W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
1%84%15%
3.86
4
David Kam
17W–17L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%88%11%
3.83
John Matsek
2W–2L career · 3 lines in 2026
29%71%<1%
3.58
ROBERT LEBLANC
23W–16L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%42%58%
3.53
3.5
Bret Sokoloff
9W–7L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%65%34%
3.44
Kevin Roedel
26W–16L career · 8 lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
3.38
Rob Dannemiller
6W–15L career · 5 lines in 2026
11%88%1%
3.17

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.