Teams

Wentz/Knoxville

2025 Tri-Level 40 & Over-Knoxville · 4.0,3.5,3.0 Women

12 players · average NTRP 3.30 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-02-16vs Snyder/KnoxvilleLost 12
L#1 DoublesTammy Shrivalle / Shelly Ren vs Angela Strange / Gina O'Neil2-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesHelen Ericson / Claudia Stallings vs Jennifer Lea / Amanda Mize6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesHelena Liuag / Anita Downes vs Gina Grubbs / Sarah Attkisson3-6, 3-6
2025-01-26vs Snyder/KnoxvilleLost 12
L#1 DoublesSusan Lahrs / Sharie Gaby vs Angela Strange / Rita Edlein1-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesHelen Ericson / Nancy Wentz vs Isabelle Snyder / Amanda Mize3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#3 DoublesAnita Downes / Helena Liuag vs Gina Grubbs / Angela Rae Rhody6-2, 6-4
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 4.0,3.5,3.0 Women 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 3.18 estimated across 11 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.

3.47
Susan Lahrs
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.31
Angie Herzog
published 3.5
3.31
Tammy Shrivalle
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.28
Helen Ericson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.26
Deborah Szwarc
published 3.5
3.19
Shelly Ren
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.14
Sharie Gaby
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.14
Anita Downes
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
3.07
Claudia Stallings
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.95
Martha Wilds
published
2.83
Helena Liuag
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Bonnie Hebert
published 3
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.

Angie Herzog + Helen Ericson2345% games+3.7% vs expected
Anita Downes + Helena Liuag4358% games+2.9% vs expected
Angie Herzog + Deborah Szwarc2540% gamesnot enough data
Deborah Szwarc + Shelly Ren4159% gamesnot enough data
Martha Wilds + Helena Liuag224 matchesnot enough data
Helen Ericson + Claudia Stallings123 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.

Susan Lahrs
6W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%59%41%
3.47
3.5
Angie Herzog
19W–21L career · no lines in 2025
1%89%9%
3.31
Tammy Shrivalle
43W–59L career · 4 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.31
Helen Ericson
12W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%92%5%
3.28
3.5
Deborah Szwarc
20W–17L career · no lines in 2025
3%92%4%
3.26
Shelly Ren
8W–15L career · 1 line in 2025
9%90%1%
3.19
Sharie Gaby
6W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
16%83%<1%
3.14
3
Anita Downes
12W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%17%83%
3.14
3.5
Claudia Stallings
4W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
32%68%<1%
3.07
Martha Wilds
25W–5L career · no lines in 2025
<1%64%36%
2.95
Helena Liuag
12W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%88%12%
2.83
3
Bonnie Hebert
3W–3L career · no lines in 2025
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.