Teams

NITA E 40W40h Glenbrook-Corey/Varcheva

2026 NITA1 ESL Adult 40 & Over · NITA ESL 40 & Over 4.0 Women

22 players · average NTRP 3.89 / NORTHERN ILLINOIS

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 →
Schedule7 played
L#1 DoublesJulie Weidner / Masako Ueda vs Jean Soh / Allison Goldberg7-6, 0-6, 0-1
L#1 SinglesMonique Melnick vs Laura Hansen3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesAngela Hanson / Elizabeth Burns vs Katherine Martin / Kristy Sweigard2-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesPam Fisher / Fran Wiechart vs Leah Starkman / Anna Dau1-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesKelly O'Donnell / Julie Weidner vs Cindy Bielik / Nancy Cushing3-6, 3-6
L#1 SinglesTeodora Varcheva vs Tracy Reece4-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesPam Fisher / Elizabeth Burns vs Tracy Richards / Ngozi Ezike2-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesAngela Hanson / Maria Lobo-Corey vs Ann Murtaugh / Sarah Korreck3-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#1 DoublesKelly Matthews-Pluta / Maria Lobo-Corey vs Bess Celio / Deborah Poe2-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesElizabeth Burns / Laura Purcell vs Mary Dickie / Robin Funk6-3, 6-3
W#3 DoublesAngela Hanson / Gail Wilson vs Sheryl Martin / Anastasia Valentine1-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#1 DoublesMasako Ueda / Priscilla Ewaldz vs Darci Trout / Jackie Smith2-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesMonique Melnick vs N/A6-0, 6-0
L#2 DoublesKelly O'Donnell / Molly Shapiro vs Rachel Gabuzda / Molly McGinnis4-6, 6-5, 1-0
L#3 DoublesStephanie Thompson / Julie Weidner vs Jacquie Crowley / Erica White2-6, 4-6
2025-09-28vs NITA E 40W40g Vaughan-Sleezer/MedusSplit 22
L#1 DoublesElizabeth Burns / Rochelle Meng vs Jennifer Shields / Lisa Vlach5-7, 6-5, 1-0
W#1 SinglesTeodora Varcheva vs Laura Maslowski6-2, 6-2
L#2 DoublesLaura Purcell / Dawn Pollack vs Anna Hartford / Cheri Medus6-1, 6-7, 0-1
W#3 DoublesKelly Matthews-Pluta / Fran Wiechart vs Andrea Church / Jane Strien5-7, 6-4, 1-0
W#1 DoublesRochelle Meng / Molly Shapiro vs Agnieszka Fijol / Heather Hayden6-3, 5-3
W#1 SinglesMonique Melnick vs Maria Lourdes Bandelow6-0, 6-2
W#2 DoublesSusan Kalina / Pam Fisher vs Tanja Boskovic / Dimitrina Schoyer6-1, 6-4
W#3 DoublesDawn Pollack / Gail Wilson vs Alja Hessami-Maas / Patricia Lozada6-4, 6-1
2025-09-07vs NITA E 40W40e Oak Brook-LukasSplit 22
W#1 DoublesPriscilla Ewaldz / Masako Ueda vs Angela Lukas / Shannon Ebner6-0, 6-4
W#1 SinglesDanielle Patrow vs Dace Lilo6-0, 6-4
L#2 DoublesKelly O'Donnell / Stephanie Thompson vs Kara Levin / Julie Boruff2-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesBeth Robitaille / Laura Purcell vs Katrin Maldre / Ann Ko2-6, 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 standings8 teams · NITA ESL 40 & Over 4.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NITA E 40W40f Score-Knutte/Odenbeck702626150
2NITA E 40W40a Wilmette Tennis-Jurczyk/Wright5220820198
3NITA E 40W40h Glenbrook-Corey/Varcheva43141431236
4NITA E 40W40g Vaughan-Sleezer/Medus43131531229
5NITA E 40W40b Courts Plus-Trout/Peterson34151331248
6NITA E 40W40e Oak Brook-Lukas34111736258
7NITA E 40W40d Tennis Centre Oak Park-Poe/Sujack2591942288
8NITA E 40W40c River Trails-Lund/Lam0742449320

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 3.61 estimated across 19 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.

3.87
Masako Ueda
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.76
Molly Shapiro
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Elizabeth Burns
published 4
Gail Wilson
published 4
3.71
Monique Melnick
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4
3.70
Priscilla Ewaldz
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.69
Danielle Patrow
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4
3.69
Laura Purcell
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.68
Dawn Pollack
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.68
Teodora Varcheva
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.67
Fran Wiechart
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.63
Susan Kalina
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.61
Rochelle Meng
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.61
Stephanie Thompson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.61
Julie Weidner
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.60
Pam Fisher
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.55
Angela Hanson
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.47
Maria Lobo-Corey
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.38
Kelly Matthews-Pluta
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.34
Lisa Hans
published
3.25
Beth Robitaille
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Kelly O'Donnell
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.

Stephanie Thompson + Masako Ueda9165% games+11.0% vs expected
Priscilla Ewaldz + Masako Ueda4354% games+4.8% vs expected
Julie Weidner + Masako Ueda5258% games+3.5% vs expected
Laura Purcell + Fran Wiechart5451% games+3.3% vs expected
Stephanie Thompson + Angela Hanson5450% games+2.9% vs expected
Maria Lobo-Corey + Julie Weidner203349% games+2.3% vs expected
Julie Weidner + Angela Hanson6951% games+2.2% vs expected
Stephanie Thompson + Julie Weidner4446% games+1.8% vs expected
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.

Masako Ueda
166W–96L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%84%15%
3.87
Molly Shapiro
58W–42L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%3%
3.76
4
Elizabeth Burns
34W–41L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
4
Gail Wilson
25W–44L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
4
Monique Melnick
93W–91L career · 3 lines in 2026
5%94%1%
3.71
4
Priscilla Ewaldz
145W–184L career · 2 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.70
4
Danielle Patrow
22W–21L career · 1 line in 2026
7%92%1%
3.69
Laura Purcell
158W–161L career · 3 lines in 2026
8%92%1%
3.69
4
Dawn Pollack
90W–111L career · 2 lines in 2026
8%91%1%
3.68
Teodora Varcheva
103W–129L career · 2 lines in 2026
9%91%1%
3.68
4
Fran Wiechart
40W–41L career · 2 lines in 2026
9%90%1%
3.67
Susan Kalina
52W–41L career · 1 line in 2026
16%83%<1%
3.63
4
Rochelle Meng
184W–198L career · 2 lines in 2026
20%80%<1%
3.61
4
Stephanie Thompson
146W–154L career · 2 lines in 2026
20%80%<1%
3.61
Julie Weidner
167W–156L career · 3 lines in 2026
20%80%<1%
3.61
4
Pam Fisher
88W–71L career · 3 lines in 2026
22%78%<1%
3.60
4
Angela Hanson
119W–137L career · 3 lines in 2026
34%66%<1%
3.55
3.5
Maria Lobo-Corey
276W–244L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%59%41%
3.47
3.5
Kelly Matthews-Pluta
59W–30L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%83%17%
3.38
Lisa Hans
71W–103L career · no lines in 2026
88%12%<1%
3.34
3.5
Beth Robitaille
6W–5L career · 1 line in 2026
3%95%3%
3.25
Kelly O'Donnell
71W–38L career · no lines in 2026
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.