2BEV-BRUECKMAN 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F2
2022 SEM FALL COMBO DOUBLES · WOMEN 55 COMBO SEM
10 players · average NTRP 2.75 / 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.
Schedule8 played
i
Flight standings15 teams · WOMEN 55 COMBO SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12LIB-BARDEN 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F1 | 7 | 1 | 12 | 146 |
| 23WESS-BROWN 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F3 | 6 | 3 | 22 | 210 |
| 32BRC-BORQUEZ 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F3 | 6 | 3 | 28 | 245 |
| 44EAST-BATES 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F2 | 5 | 2 | 16 | 150 |
| 55WESS-REAMER 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F2 | 5 | 2 | 20 | 158 |
| 65TRAVIS-SKOCHELAK 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F1 | 5 | 3 | 23 | 192 |
| 71TROY-VONDELL 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F3 | 5 | 4 | 23 | 213 |
| 86FAC-OHGATA 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F2 | 4 | 3 | 23 | 179 |
| 93VTC-RESKO 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F1 | 4 | 4 | 24 | 191 |
| 104VTC-STEWART 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F1 | 4 | 4 | 29 | 221 |
| 111LIFE-HOVEY 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 80 |
| 124FAC-BROOKS 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F3 | 1 | 8 | 48 | 307 |
| 13drop 9.6 0P 761607 MONY-MASON 55 W/E WOMEN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 142BEV-BRUECKMAN 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F2 | 0 | 7 | 40 | 249 |
| 156CHIP-ANDRINGA 55 W/E WOMEN SEM F1 | 0 | 8 | 45 | 282 |
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 2.62 estimated across 8 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.
| Abbey Werder + Andrea Burg | 4–6 | 46% games | +6.5% vs expected |
| Calynn Berry + Ann Farrell | 3–4 | 42% games | −1.9% vs expected |
| Calynn Berry + Kate Brueckman | 3–5 | 44% games | −6.1% vs expected |
| Abbey Werder + Cara Bozyk | 4–1 | 64% games | not enough data |
| Ann Farrell + Kate Brueckman | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Abbey Werder + Stephanie Finland | 1–3 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Elizabeth Tschannen + Calynn Berry | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Elizabeth Tschannen + Carolyn Otto | 1–2 | 3 matches | 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.