Teams

MD.Ligay

2022 CTRL Fall Singles 18 & Over · Fall Singles 18 & Over 3.0 Women

8 players · average NTRP 3.42 / NORTH CAROLINA

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 →
Schedule6 played
2022-10-26vs TOC.FranksWon 20
W#1 SinglesCait Bauer vs Elizabeth Maulhardt6-2, 6-0
W#2 SinglesBrooke Rawls vs Meghan Fulton6-0, 6-0
2022-10-19Won 10
W#2 SinglesAmy Kell vs Tracy Lowrance6-2, 6-1
2022-10-10vs TOC.IrishSplit 11
L#1 SinglesCait Bauer vs Kinsey Wennerstrom6-7, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 SinglesAmy Kell vs Yelizaveta Petrova6-1, 6-4
2022-10-04vs PW.StegmanWon 10
W#3 SinglesAmy Kell vs Melinda Reinicker6-7, 6-3, 1-0
2022-09-21vs PW.BologaWon 10
W#3 SinglesAmy Kell vs Helen Bologa7-5, 6-2
2022-09-14vs MD.OldhamWon 20
W#1 SinglesCait Bauer vs Brinette Myers6-0, 6-4
W#3 SinglesBrooke Rawls vs Angie Bostrom6-4, 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 standings for Fall Singles 18 & Over 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 3.23 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.

3.71
Amy Kell
usually #3 Singles 75%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 4
3.58
Allie Ligay
usually #2 Singles 71%, also #1 Singles 14% · published 3.5
3.51
Cait Bauer
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.46
Katherine Henry
published
3.10
Brooke Rawls
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3.5
2.87
Shari McCandlish
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · published 3
2.81
Drew Long
published 3
2.75
Kari Wetherall
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.

Amy Kell + Katherine Henry5057% games+6.0% vs expected
Brooke Rawls + Shari McCandlish314 matchesnot enough data
Brooke Rawls + Amy Kell404 matchesnot enough data
Allie Ligay + Cait Bauer314 matchesnot enough data
Allie Ligay + Katherine Henry213 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.

4
Amy Kell
186W–64L career · 4 lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.71
3.5
Allie Ligay
203W–66L career · 7 lines in 2022
<1%26%74%
3.58
3.5
Cait Bauer
88W–53L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%46%54%
3.51
Katherine Henry
21W–6L career · no lines in 2022
<1%61%39%
3.46
3.5
Brooke Rawls
196W–121L career · 2 lines in 2022
21%78%<1%
3.10
3
Shari McCandlish
82W–75L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%85%15%
2.87
3
Drew Long
5W–7L career · no lines in 2022
1%92%7%
2.81
Kari Wetherall
1W–5L career · no lines in 2022
3%95%3%
2.75

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.