Teams

SIMS:Ace of Base:Pascal/Steinberg

2022-23 NCT Tri Level Women · 3.0 Women 1

4 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTHERN CONNECTICUT

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2022-12-04Won 10
W#1 DoublesTerrylynn Pearlman / Amy Steinberg vs Bella Zeisler / Sarah Lingenheld6-3, 7-6
2022-11-27vs BSF:Slice girls:Langlais/MahonskiLost 01
L#1 DoublesCheyenne Brindle / Amy Steinberg vs Kimberlee Hart / Nancy Langlais5-7, 3-6
2022-11-15vs GTC:Love at First Serve:Mabe/RammLost 01
L#1 DoublesTerrylynn Pearlman / Cheyenne Brindle vs Xia Lu / Kim Consoli6-3, 2-6, 0-1
2022-11-02vs SIMS:Dolls with Balls:SullivanWon 10
W#1 DoublesTerrylynn Pearlman / Amy Steinberg vs Jennifer Herbek / Marisa Sullivan4-6, 7-5, 1-0
2022-10-26vs BSF:Slice girls:Langlais/MahonskiLost 01
L#1 DoublesAmy Pascal / Terrylynn Pearlman vs JoAnne Mahonski / Nancy Langlais7-6, 3-6, 0-1
2022-10-11vs SIMS:Dolls with Balls:SullivanLost 01
L#1 DoublesCheyenne Brindle / Terrylynn Pearlman vs Nan Flanagan / Marisa Sullivan5-7, 4-6
W#1 DoublesAmy Steinberg / Amy Pascal vs Christina Wilde / Angela Clohessy6-4, 6-3
2022-09-28vs GTC:Love at First Serve:Mabe/RammLost 01
L#1 DoublesAmy Steinberg / Terrylynn Pearlman vs Xia Lu / Kim Consoli4-6, 4-6
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 standings4 teams · 3.0 Women 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1SIMS:Dolls with Balls:Sullivan5353662
2BSF:Slice girls:Langlais/Mahonski35351181
3SIMS:Ace of Base:Pascal/Steinberg35351188
4FV:Double Trouble:Crowal/Comperatore17171591

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 3.04 estimated across 2 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.

3.05
Cheyenne Brindle
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
3.02
Amy Pascal
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
Amy Steinberg
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
Terrylynn Pearlman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Cheyenne Brindle + Terrylynn Pearlman8558% games+8.5% vs expected
Amy Steinberg + Cheyenne Brindle10355% games+4.2% vs expected
Amy Steinberg + Amy Pascal10852% games+2.5% vs expected
Amy Pascal + Cheyenne Brindle2454% gamesnot enough data
Amy Steinberg + Terrylynn Pearlman2347% gamesnot enough data
Amy Pascal + Terrylynn Pearlman4169% gamesnot 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
Cheyenne Brindle
97W–53L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%36%64%
3.05
3
Amy Pascal
57W–61L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%44%56%
3.02
3
Amy Steinberg
83W–79L career · 5 lines in 2023
not enough data
Terrylynn Pearlman
42W–23L career · 6 lines in 2023
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.