Thomas Ryder
46 matches · 16W–30L · seasons 2019–2026
Captains: add Thomas Ryder to your scout list and get a weekly note on what they did. Create a free account to start one.
Match history46 matches
L
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
4-6, 4-6
W
Jim Stuck / Mark Goetz
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
5-7, 7-5, 1-0
L
Kenneth Spencer / Brian Good
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
3-6, 3-6
W
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
6-1, 6-1
W
Chuck Rigoulot / Daniel Smith
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
6-0, 7-5
W
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
6-3, 7-5
W
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
7-5, 6-2
W
David Diefenthaler / John McCarthy
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
6-1, 7-5
L
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
3-6, 1-6
L
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
4-6, 1-6
W
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
2-6, 7-5, 1-0
Teams11 teams · 2021–2026
Over timerating by season, and how you rank
By level3 levels played
3.0
52.2%
12W–11L · 53.6% of games
3.5
30.8%
4W–9L · 36.3% of games
7.0mixed
0%
0W–10L · 29.2% of games
Games won matters more than matches won — NTRP adjusts on margins.
By lineusually #3 Doubles, 78% of the time
#3 Doubles
78%
36 matches
#2 Doubles
20%
9 matches
#1 Doubles
2%
1 match
How often, across every team and every match we hold — including ones that do not count toward a rating. Advanced stats has a court-position table too, and it answers a different question: how well you do there, over matches that count. A team’s own page shows how that one team uses you.
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.
The mark of great sportsmen is not how good they are at their best, but how good they are at their worst.