CIN A18 3.5W CSWC Hackney
Winter USTA Central Indiana Adult 18 & Over · CIN Indy 18 & Over 3.5 Women, W
11 players · average NTRP 3.25 / CENTRAL INDIANA
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule11 played
i
Flight standings17 teams · CIN Indy 18 & Over 3.5 Women, W
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1CIN A18 3.5W IRCD Rothbard | 10 | 0 | 11 | 143 |
| 2CIN A18 3.5W CRC Nelson | 8 | 2 | 23 | 210 |
| 3CIN A18 3.5W IRCD Ewing | 7 | 1 | 12 | 186 |
| 4CIN A18 3.5W IRCD Inselberg | 7 | 1 | 13 | 131 |
| 5CIN A18 3.5W CSWC Hackney | 6 | 2 | 21 | 187 |
| 6CIN A18 3.5W IUTC Coghlan | 6 | 4 | 25 | 234 |
| 7CIN A18 3.5W IRCE Chop | 5 | 3 | 29 | 200 |
| 8CIN A18 3.5W CRC Stevning | 4 | 4 | 24 | 199 |
| 9CIN A18 3.5W IRCD Trotter | 4 | 4 | 28 | 229 |
| 10CIN A18 3.5W IRCD Cook | 4 | 6 | 39 | 275 |
| 11CIN A18 3.5W IRCD Lieber-Hale | 3 | 5 | 30 | 225 |
| 12CIN A18 3.5W IRCD Flaningham | 3 | 5 | 30 | 233 |
| 13CIN A18 3.5W IRCD Bellamy | 2 | 6 | 34 | 253 |
| 14CIN A18 3.5W IRCD McFarren | 2 | 6 | 40 | 258 |
| 15CIN A18 3.5W IHP Rasmussen | 1 | 7 | 37 | 257 |
| 16CIN A18 3.5W CRC Kennedy | 1 | 9 | 47 | 315 |
| 17CIN A18 3.5W IRCD Mowry | 1 | 9 | 53 | 330 |
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 3.15 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Anne Nevitt + Natalie Robbins | 18–10 | 57% games | +7.3% vs expected |
| Jennifer Medler + Sarah Steele | 21–6 | 58% games | +6.0% vs expected |
| Katy Burke + Beth Erskine | 3–2 | 51% games | +4.5% vs expected |
| Beth Erskine + Melissa Kunkleman | 2–4 | 43% games | −4.2% vs expected |
| Katy Burke + Kathryn Kaster | 1–4 | 38% games | not enough data |
| Anne Nevitt + Susan Akers | 5–0 | 63% games | not enough data |
| Sharon Hackney + Beth Erskine | 1–3 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Sharon Hackney + Anne Nevitt | 1–3 | 4 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.