Teams

TIC Ream

2023 OH OV A18&O · 2023 Winter

10 players · average NTRP 3.00 / OHIO VALLEY

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 →
Schedule2 played
2023-05-13vs Teays Valley Nolan/YoungLost 12
W#1 DoublesJudy Arthur / Janet James vs Susan Creswell / Elizabeth Graham7-5, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesLoretta Dailey / Christin Withrow vs Lorie Nolan / Tammie Cooper6-4, 5-7, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJanet Simpson / Lora Kirk vs Paula Street / Carol Sticklen4-6, 1-6
2023-04-08vs Teays Valley Nolan/YoungSplit 22
W#1 DoublesJudy Arthur / Jennifer Hall vs Rita Casingal / Susan Creswell4-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesJanet James vs Joan St Clair3-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesAngela Cooke / Lora Kirk vs Tammie Cooper / Lorie Nolan6-1, 6-4
L#3 DoublesJanet Simpson / Amanda Ream vs Carol Sticklen / Elizabeth Graham3-6, 2-6
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 standings5 teams · 2023 Winter
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1GM Kline80301029258
2YMCA Swecker53202046346
3CTC Mitias44221843351
4TIC Ream26132759411
5Teays Valley Nolan/Young17152552372

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 2.59 estimated across 5 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.

3.25
Christin Withrow
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
Amanda Ream
published 3
2.51
Angela Cooke
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.49
Felice Joseph
published 3
2.38
Janet Simpson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.30
Barbara Wright
published 2.5
Janet James
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
Judy Arthur
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Lora Kirk
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Loretta Dailey
usually #2 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.

Lora Kirk + Angela Cooke4259% games+14.4% vs expected
Angela Cooke + Janet James111053% games+0.4% vs expected
Lora Kirk + Janet James5251% games−2.2% vs expected
Janet Simpson + Lora Kirk4644% games−5.1% vs expected
Felice Joseph + Angela Cooke4350% gamesnot enough data
Barbara Wright + Christin Withrow4357% gamesnot enough data
Janet Simpson + Judy Arthur0534% gamesnot enough data
Amanda Ream + Lora Kirk224 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.

3.5
Christin Withrow
44W–32L career · 4 lines in 2023
3%95%3%
3.25
3
Amanda Ream
8W–28L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3
Angela Cooke
30W–32L career · 1 line in 2023
48%52%<1%
2.51
3
Felice Joseph
10W–33L career · no lines in 2023
53%47%<1%
2.49
Janet Simpson
16W–44L career · 2 lines in 2023
82%18%<1%
2.38
2.5
Barbara Wright
10W–21L career · no lines in 2023
0%94%6%
2.30
Janet James
35W–45L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Judy Arthur
22W–26L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Lora Kirk
33W–39L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Loretta Dailey
18W–37L career · 1 line 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.