Teams

CIN A18 2.5W CSWC Hackney

Winter USTA Central Indiana Adult 18 & Over · CIN Indy 18 & Over 2.5 Women, W

12 players · average NTRP 2.60 / CENTRAL INDIANA

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
2025-03-05vs CIN A18 2.5W IRCD GuptaLost 03
L#1 DoublesSue Spicer / Crystal Wirstiuk vs Ashley Welch / Andrea Turner3-6, 3-6
L#1 SinglesMarisa Brooks vs Mindy Golightly3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesCindy Senseman / Shannon Swindell vs Megan Madia / Katherine Kikalos1-6, 5-7
2025-03-01vs CIN A18 2.5W JCC WesselsWon 21
W#1 DoublesFusako Omiya / Cindy Senseman vs Sara McClammer / Sarah Werner6-4, 5-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesSue Spicer vs Erin Wessels6-7, 6-2, 1-0
L#2 DoublesCrystal Wirstiuk / Julie Okotie vs Sara Thomas / Sarah Wallace4-6, 3-6
2025-02-27vs CIN A18 2.5W IRCD TaylorWon 20
W#1 DoublesCindy Senseman / Shannon Swindell vs Jo Fowler / Annette Moore6-3, 2-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesSue Spicer vs Kim Taylor6-0, 6-1
2025-02-19vs CIN A18 2.5W IND CarnesWon 21
W#1 DoublesFusako Omiya / Shannon Swindell vs Kelsey Carnes / Alyssha Cloud7-6, 0-4, 1-0
W#1 SinglesMarisa Brooks vs Susan Bentley7-6, 6-1
L#2 DoublesJulie Okotie / Crystal Wirstiuk vs Molly Carnes / Glenia Pena Lugo2-6, 5-7
2025-02-13vs CIN A18 2.5W IRCD GuptaLost 02
L#1 DoublesCindy Senseman / Shannon Swindell vs Megan Madia / Denise Katz3-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesMarisa Brooks vs Mindy Golightly3-6, 4-6
2025-02-09vs CIN A18 2.5W IRCD TaylorLost 12
L#1 DoublesSue Spicer / Dianne Ebling vs Annette Moore / Heather Karazim3-6, 1-6
W#1 SinglesFusako Omiya vs Kim Taylor6-1, 6-2
L#2 DoublesShannon Swindell / Rachel Johnson vs Jo Fowler / Ann DeLaney2-6, 1-6
2025-01-22vs CIN A18 2.5W CRC MeyerWon 21
L#1 DoublesShannon Swindell / Cindy Senseman vs Eleny Hostetler / Jill Maynard1-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#1 SinglesMarisa Brooks vs Grace Koscal6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesFusako Omiya / Julie Okotie vs Joan Lawrence / Cecilia Waterman6-0, 6-0
2025-01-15vs CIN A18 2.5W JCC FritzWon 30
W#1 DoublesSue Spicer / Dianne Ebling vs Gayle Jones / Allison Luthe6-1, 6-1
W#1 SinglesMia Dennett vs Emily Rudolph6-4, 6-2
W#2 DoublesBecky Schwegman / Shannon Swindell vs Sohyoung Ward / Katie Ranger6-1, 6-1
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 standings7 teams · CIN Indy 18 & Over 2.5 Women, W
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CIN A18 2.5W IRCD Gupta8122511155
2CIN A18 2.5W CSWC Hackney53141024183
3CIN A18 2.5W IND Carnes53141025205
4CIN A18 2.5W IRCD Taylor54141329217
5CIN A18 2.5W JCC Wessels34111023173
6CIN A18 2.5W CRC Meyer2681635223
7CIN A18 2.5W JCC Fritz0712040249

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 2.53 estimated across 7 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.

3.12
Sharon Hackney
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.78
Fusako Omiya
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.52
Sue Spicer
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #1 Singles 40% · published
2.49
Marisa Brooks
usually #1 Singles 88%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published
2.33
Shannon Swindell
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published
2.29
Dianne Ebling
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Becky Schwegman
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Crystal Wirstiuk
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 2.5
2.14
Cindy Senseman
usually #2 Doubles 56%, also #1 Doubles 44% · published 2.5
Julie Okotie
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Mia Dennett
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Rachel Johnson
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.

Cindy Senseman + Shannon Swindell1837% games−7.3% vs expected
Julie Okotie + Rachel Johnson2440% gamesnot enough data
Sue Spicer + Dianne Ebling2349% gamesnot enough data
Cindy Senseman + Julie Okotie123 matchesnot enough data
Julie Okotie + Fusako Omiya213 matchesnot enough data
Fusako Omiya + Shannon Swindell213 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.

Sharon Hackney
39W–39L career · 4 lines in 2025
17%83%<1%
3.12
3
Fusako Omiya
11W–5L career · 4 lines in 2025
2%94%5%
2.78
Sue Spicer
10W–10L career · 5 lines in 2025
44%56%<1%
2.52
Marisa Brooks
16W–28L career · 8 lines in 2025
52%48%<1%
2.49
Shannon Swindell
10W–21L career · 7 lines in 2025
90%10%<1%
2.33
2.5
Dianne Ebling
2W–4L career · type S · 2 lines in 2025
0%94%6%
2.29
2.5
Becky Schwegman
2W–4L career · type A · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
2.5
Crystal Wirstiuk
2W–7L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
2.5
Cindy Senseman
25W–87L career · 9 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.14
Julie Okotie
7W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Mia Dennett
2W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Rachel Johnson
2W–4L 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.