Teams

NPT:Arnold:Gibbs

2023 NH Adult 18 & Over Women Weekend · 3.0 Women 1

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NEW HAMPSHIRE

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2022-11-20vs YMCA:Skilton:HendryWon 10
W#3 DoublesGabrielle Egger / Carol Herrick vs Joreen Hendry / Marsha Baray6-2, 7-5
2022-10-30vs CON:Walsh:BlatsosLost 01
L#3 DoublesCarol Herrick / Gabrielle Egger vs Janice Leviton / Kelley Kugel7-5, 1-6, 0-1
2022-10-02vs MITC:TheRacquettes:TaylorWon 10
W#3 DoublesCarol Herrick / Gabrielle Egger vs Elizabeth MacEachran / Martha Gilroy6-3, 6-0
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 standings6 teams · 3.0 Women 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1EXE:Bruno:Gamache010191124244
2YMCA:Murphy010181227238
3NPT:Arnold:Gibbs010151534269
4CON:Walsh:Blatsos010141636299
5YMCA:Herz010141638300
6MITC:TheRacquettes:Taylor010102042299

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 2.70 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.

2.84
C Lewis
usually #1 Doubles 90%, also #3 Doubles 10% · published 3
2.83
Elizabeth Truax
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published
2.77
Linda Arnold
usually #1 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published
Ashleigh McFarlin
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.72
Sara Lang
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.70
Monique Fong
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published
2.67
Carol Herrick
usually #3 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3
2.34
Julie Deacon
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Gabrielle Egger
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Michelle Gibbs
usually #1 Doubles 89%, also #2 Doubles 11% · published
Pat Tivnan
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · 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.

C Lewis + Linda Arnold10655% games+8.6% vs expected
Monique Fong + Elizabeth Truax3355% games+7.1% vs expected
Monique Fong + Sara Lang7557% games+5.6% vs expected
Elizabeth Truax + Linda Arnold7453% games−2.7% vs expected
C Lewis + Pat Tivnan71244% games−7.0% vs expected
Elizabeth Truax + C Lewis1834% gamesnot enough data
Julie Deacon + Carol Herrick3449% gamesnot enough data
Monique Fong + Carol Herrick3255% 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
C Lewis
48W–57L career · 10 lines in 2023
1%87%12%
2.84
Elizabeth Truax
37W–49L career · 7 lines in 2023
1%88%11%
2.83
Linda Arnold
50W–40L career · 7 lines in 2023
3%92%5%
2.77
3
Ashleigh McFarlin
4W–6L career · 5 lines in 2023
not enough data
Sara Lang
17W–19L career · 6 lines in 2023
6%92%2%
2.72
Monique Fong
17W–19L career · 7 lines in 2023
7%91%2%
2.70
3
Carol Herrick
25W–23L career · 7 lines in 2023
11%88%1%
2.67
Julie Deacon
10W–33L career · 3 lines in 2023
87%13%<1%
2.34
Gabrielle Egger
3W–1L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
Michelle Gibbs
4W–11L career · 9 lines in 2023
not enough data
Pat Tivnan
13W–35L career · 5 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.