2TROY-LIVINGSTON 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F1
2024 SEM ADULT 18 & OVER NIGHT WOMEN · 4.0 WOMEN TUES PM SEM
21 players · average NTRP 3.73 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule10 played
i
Flight standings17 teams · 4.0 WOMEN TUES PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13BRC-CLEARY 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F1 | 9 | 1 | 36 | 354 |
| 21BCC-STRACHAN 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F1 | 8 | 2 | 43 | 351 |
| 33BLOOM-EBERT 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F3 | 7 | 2 | 31 | 329 |
| 44HV-WANG 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F2 | 6 | 2 | 33 | 334 |
| 52LIFE-SZYMANSKI 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F3 | 6 | 3 | 38 | 339 |
| 61LIB-LEVASSEUR 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F2 | 5 | 3 | 35 | 328 |
| 73CHIP-RUSCHE 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F2 | 5 | 3 | 44 | 377 |
| 86FAC-STEINER 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F3 | 5 | 4 | 39 | 369 |
| 96PEACH-DEGUZMAN 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F1 | 5 | 5 | 61 | 459 |
| 102MONY-MORGAN 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F2 | 4 | 4 | 49 | 373 |
| 115FAC-JAM 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F3 | 4 | 5 | 62 | 447 |
| 125COURT 4-HELD 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F1 | 4 | 6 | 59 | 460 |
| 134NAC-MALY 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F3 | 3 | 6 | 63 | 449 |
| 142TROY-LIVINGSTON 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F1 | 3 | 7 | 66 | 468 |
| 154DCD-COOLEY 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F1 | 1 | 9 | 85 | 556 |
| 161DEER-HARTZELL 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F3 | 0 | 5 | 42 | 265 |
| 176AAREC-SKY-GOVE 18&O TU 40 NW SEM F2 | 0 | 8 | 67 | 423 |
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 3.46 estimated across 17 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.
| Kelly Hill + Rebecca Barry | 3–3 | 52% games | +15.4% vs expected |
| Ann Marie Valentine + Marianna Perakis | 27–5 | 64% games | +8.1% vs expected |
| Julie Boike + Cita Greve | 5–3 | 59% games | +7.0% vs expected |
| Kim Baslock + Sara Van Wormer | 9–1 | 64% games | +7.0% vs expected |
| Danica Cousens + Stephanie Stepulla | 12–8 | 52% games | +2.0% vs expected |
| Carrie Barnes + Margaret Mowbray | 16–13 | 53% games | +1.6% vs expected |
| Michelle Livingston + Heather Green | 32–20 | 56% games | −0.5% vs expected |
| Kelly Hill + Patricia Selasky-Bennie | 6–12 | 48% games | −1.7% vs expected |
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.