Teams

CDTA S 18&OW4.5 2.Wilm Burns Sun 3 $20

1Summer 18&O WN · WE

23 players · average NTRP 4.37 / CHICAGO

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 →
Schedule8 played
L#1 DoublesOlga Ovnanyan / Jill Siegel vs Tammy Mitchell / Courtney Shuster7-6, 1-3, 0-1
W#2 DoublesJennifer Goldfarb / Laurie Seward vs Cathy Bloedorn / Diedre Dunn6-4, 6-0
L#1 DoublesJill Siegel / Jean Soh vs Keara Miller / J'Ana Diamond4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesOlga Ovnanyan / Laurie Seward vs Alice Copland / Tara Robey1-6, 4-6
W#1 DoublesAllison Solberg / Elaine Ni vs Miranda Rodriguez / Jenna Reisch6-0, 6-4
W#1 SinglesJennifer Goldfarb vs Heather Stenmark6-1, 6-3
L#3 DoublesLaurie Seward / Jean Soh vs Katherine Martin / Marie Reece3-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesLaurie Seward / Jean Soh vs Nancy Cushing / Jennifer Langtry1-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesEmily Singh vs Alexandra Lichtor6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesElaine Ni / Erin Kramer vs Marialin Lomongo / Ayano Nakamura6-3, 6-5
L#3 DoublesLaurie Seward / Jean Soh vs Michelle Lee / Mary DaVanti2-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#1 DoublesErin Kramer / Ashley Martin vs Randi Wind / Lilliam Dockal2-6, 6-3, 0-1
L#1 SinglesEmily Singh vs Heather Mixon4-6, 2-4
L#2 DoublesAllison Solberg / Margaret Sabatino vs Alison Donnelly / Anne Ordway6-2, 1-6, 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 standings5 teams · WE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S 18&OW4.5 5.STP Wright Sat 3 $228034619237
2CDTA S 18&OW4.5 3.NTC Richards Wed 7 $2444221842339
3CDTA S 18&OW4.5 1.Score Kamel Sat 11 $2044182247370
4CDTA S 18&OW4.5 4.Wilm Miller Fri 7 $2026142655369
5CDTA S 18&OW4.5 2.Wilm Burns Sun 3 $2026122856377

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 4.04 estimated across 21 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.

4.36
Jennifer Goldfarb
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
4.33
Colette Gramins
published 4.5
4.32
Allison Solberg
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.27
Elaine Ni
published 4.5
4.19
Olga Ovnanyan
published 4.5
4.19
Emily Singh
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
4.15
Chandana Namburi
published 4.5
4.13
4.12
Heike Spahn
published 4.5
4.09
Perry Mimms
published 4.5
4.08
Christine Meade
published 4.5
4.08
Erin Kramer
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
4.03
Jill Siegel
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.97
Kerry Nowicki
published 4.5
3.94
Haina Shin
published 4
3.91
3.88
Laurie Seward
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
3.86
Amanda Ellsworth
published 4.5
3.80
Jean Soh
published 4
3.74
Mary Kate Montgomery
usually #2 Singles 80%, also #1 Singles 20% · published
3.53
Amy Antoniolli
published 4
Elizabeth Burns
published
Erin Alvarez
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.

Elaine Ni + Heike Spahn7262% games+11.8% vs expected
Janet Rauschenberger + Chandana Namburi4256% games+8.1% vs expected
Christine Meade + Erin Kramer6355% games+6.5% vs expected
Jean Soh + Kerry Nowicki8452% games+2.1% vs expected
Elaine Ni + Janet Rauschenberger4648% games+0.9% vs expected
Amanda Ellsworth + Heike Spahn6457% games−0.3% vs expected
Heike Spahn + Kerry Nowicki3651% games−1.7% vs expected
Heike Spahn + Laurie Seward4549% games−2.0% 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.

Jennifer Goldfarb
61W–19L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%84%16%
4.36
4.5
Colette Gramins
69W–40L career · no lines in 2026
1%88%11%
4.33
4.5
Allison Solberg
27W–13L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
4.32
4.5
Elaine Ni
61W–42L career · no lines in 2026
3%92%5%
4.27
4.5
Olga Ovnanyan
54W–31L career · no lines in 2026
8%90%1%
4.19
Emily Singh
10W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
9%90%1%
4.19
4.5
Chandana Namburi
64W–47L career · no lines in 2026
15%85%1%
4.15
4.5
Janet Rauschenberger
44W–36L career · no lines in 2026
17%82%<1%
4.13
4.5
Heike Spahn
161W–144L career · no lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
4.12
4.5
Perry Mimms
120W–59L career · no lines in 2026
26%73%<1%
4.09
4.5
Christine Meade
273W–175L career · no lines in 2026
29%71%<1%
4.08
Erin Kramer
61W–55L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
4.08
Jill Siegel
70W–67L career · 2 lines in 2026
42%58%<1%
4.03
4.5
Kerry Nowicki
91W–109L career · no lines in 2026
59%41%<1%
3.97
4
Haina Shin
200W–104L career · no lines in 2026
<1%68%32%
3.94
4
Sotiria Tryfonopoulos
64W–24L career · no lines in 2026
<1%73%27%
3.91
Laurie Seward
35W–59L career · 5 lines in 2026
81%19%<1%
3.88
4.5
Amanda Ellsworth
47W–69L career · no lines in 2026
85%15%<1%
3.86
4
Jean Soh
455W–271L career · no lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.80
Mary Kate Montgomery
31W–17L career · 5 lines in 2026
4%93%3%
3.74
4
Amy Antoniolli
33W–44L career · no lines in 2026
42%58%<1%
3.53
Elizabeth Burns
28W–40L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Erin Alvarez
46W–16L 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.