Teams

LCRICHARDS/NMP

2022 Lake USTA 40 & Over League · Women 4.5 Sunday

10 players · average NTRP 4.42 / 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 →
Schedule5 played
2022-04-10vs LAMO-Morris/NMPLost 02
L#2 DoublesKari Andrews / Janet Marek vs Amy Adams / Diana West6-4, 1-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesFelicia Dean / Suzette Watson vs Andreina Morris / Maria Tautjo2-6, 1-6
2022-04-03vs LSAgar/PACWon 10
W#1 DoublesDebbie Titlestad / Kari Andrews vs Robin Dann / Kathleen Milligan3-6, 6-2, 1-0
2022-03-20Won 10
W#3 DoublesLiz Barton / Debbie Titlestad vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2022-03-14vs LAMO-Morris/NMPSplit 11
L#1 DoublesKari Andrews / Janet Marek vs Lori Little / Becky Tennyson0-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesIrma Laney / Debbie Titlestad vs Amy Adams / Andreina Morris6-4, 6-2
2022-03-13vs LSAgar/PACSplit 11
L#1 DoublesSuzette Watson / Christine Richards vs Kathleen Milligan / Britt Ruby0-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesKari Andrews / Felicia Dean vs C E Swanson / Lori Scherrman4-6, 6-1, 1-0
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 standings for Women 4.5 Sunday 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 4.03 estimated across 10 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.

4.25
Kari Andrews
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.25
Felicia Dean
published 4.5
4.14
Irma Laney
published 4.5
4.10
Tessa Radziej
published
4.09
Debbie Titlestad
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.07
Christine Richards
published 4.5
3.91
Suzette Watson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.90
Julie Busha
published
3.88
Liz Barton
published
3.74
Janet Marek
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.

Felicia Dean + Kari Andrews314 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.

4.5
Kari Andrews
20W–7L career · type S · 4 lines in 2022
3%95%3%
4.25
4.5
Felicia Dean
11W–5L career · no lines in 2022
3%95%3%
4.25
4.5
Irma Laney
42W–20L career · no lines in 2022
14%86%<1%
4.14
Tessa Radziej
39W–43L career · no lines in 2022
22%78%<1%
4.10
4.5
Debbie Titlestad
53W–52L career · 3 lines in 2022
25%75%<1%
4.09
4.5
Christine Richards
22W–19L career · no lines in 2022
30%70%<1%
4.07
4
Suzette Watson
61W–39L career · 6 lines in 2022
<1%76%24%
3.91
Julie Busha
35W–22L career · no lines in 2022
<1%78%22%
3.90
Liz Barton
10W–5L career · no lines in 2022
<1%82%18%
3.88
Janet Marek
0W–6L career · no lines in 2022
98%2%<1%
3.74

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.