MV SWIENTON/JACKSON
2026 FW USTA Adult Fall Ladies · Friday 3.5 ladies
15 players · average NTRP 3.21 / TEXAS
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule8 played
i
Flight standings24 teams · Friday 3.5 ladies
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1CCC SMALL/OWRE | 8 | 0 | 17 | 187 |
| 2TCU MILAM/MILNER | 8 | 0 | 27 | 267 |
| 3RC CAGLE | 7 | 0 | 13 | 169 |
| 4RID EVANS | 7 | 1 | 22 | 235 |
| 5TRO MORRILL | 6 | 2 | 28 | 243 |
| 6WAL LUNNINGHAM/GRADY | 6 | 2 | 28 | 248 |
| 7CCC MILLER | 5 | 2 | 25 | 215 |
| 8WAG SCHULTZ/RAMEY | 5 | 2 | 26 | 219 |
| 9CCC SKILLMAN/SPURGEON | 5 | 3 | 21 | 239 |
| 10RC BOURGEOIS | 5 | 3 | 24 | 209 |
| 11STC ZVONECEK | 5 | 3 | 30 | 256 |
| 12ATC ROBINSON | 5 | 3 | 34 | 270 |
| 13RC RAVNAAS | 5 | 3 | 35 | 294 |
| 14LTF TARKINGTON | 5 | 3 | 39 | 297 |
| 15RID RUTTER/KELLER | 5 | 3 | 40 | 314 |
| 16SO LEON | 3 | 4 | 32 | 248 |
| 17MV SWIENTON/JACKSON | 3 | 5 | 45 | 327 |
| 18RTC COOPER/FRIZZELL | 3 | 5 | 47 | 317 |
| 19CCC ROSS | 2 | 5 | 37 | 275 |
| 20SOAKS HALPERN | 2 | 6 | 48 | 328 |
| 21ATC GREEN | 1 | 7 | 48 | 337 |
| 22RC KING | 1 | 7 | 48 | 318 |
| 23STC HEITZ/PALMER | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 24STC LEINS | 0 | 8 | 57 | 359 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.03 estimated across 14 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Linda Kiraly + Tricia Spann | 5–1 | 66% games | +11.0% vs expected |
| Emily Watt + Melinda Rowland | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Charissa Kumar + Christina Jacobs | 0–4 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Emily Watt + Tricia Spann | 0–3 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Angel Baker + Christina Jacobs | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Melinda Rowland + Christina Jacobs | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Emily Stolz + Julia Murray | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.