2SCWB-LOVY 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F5
2024 SEM ADULT 18 & OVER NIGHT WOMEN · 2.5 WOMEN MON PM SEM
12 players · average NTRP 2.62 / 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.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings22 teams · 2.5 WOMEN MON PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11WESS-BARRY 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F5 | 9 | 0 | 10 | 156 |
| 24AAREC-SKY-LAPOINTE 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F2 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 140 |
| 34EAST-MCLEOD 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F1 | 7 | 2 | 16 | 172 |
| 45OHCC-CHESTNUT 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F4 | 6 | 2 | 15 | 160 |
| 54LIB-GONZALEZ 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F3 | 6 | 3 | 25 | 228 |
| 63CHIP-BAI 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F3 | 6 | 3 | 29 | 208 |
| 71BRC-SHAYNE 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F4 | 5 | 3 | 23 | 186 |
| 82BOH-ACCIAIOLI 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F4 | 5 | 3 | 24 | 190 |
| 92RCAA-KUSTARZ 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F2 | 5 | 3 | 26 | 209 |
| 101HAWK-BAKER 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F3 | 5 | 4 | 29 | 221 |
| 113WESS-SCHEPPER 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F1 | 5 | 4 | 34 | 257 |
| 123AAREC-SKY-CHIEN 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F2 | 4 | 4 | 30 | 230 |
| 132PH-NEATON 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F1 | 4 | 5 | 31 | 248 |
| 143BEV-STEMPKY 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F5 | 4 | 5 | 32 | 238 |
| 154DCD-SINGER 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F5 | 3 | 6 | 32 | 223 |
| 166HV-WASHINGTON 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F2 | 2 | 6 | 34 | 234 |
| 173FOREST-JANES 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F4 | 2 | 6 | 36 | 244 |
| 186OHCC-SOKOL 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F4 | 2 | 6 | 37 | 250 |
| 191MONY-MASON 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F2 | 2 | 6 | 40 | 259 |
| 201WESS-STICKNEY 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F1 | 2 | 7 | 39 | 293 |
| 212SCWB-LOVY 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F5 | 2 | 7 | 42 | 284 |
| 222HAWK-EWERS 18&O MO 25 NW SEM F3 | 1 | 8 | 41 | 281 |
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 2.23 estimated across 6 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.
| Carol Kellman + Barbara Goode | 0–6 | 30% games | −13.1% vs expected |
| Halle Saperstein + Lezlie Foreman | 0–6 | 20% games | −19.3% vs expected |
| Karla Middlebrooks + Jennifer Lovy | 3–2 | 57% games | not enough data |
| Barbara Goode + Jennifer Lovy | 3–2 | 48% games | not enough data |
| Jennifer Lovy + Angela Hogan | 0–4 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Anita Smorra + Karla Middlebrooks | 0–3 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Carol Kellman + Halle Saperstein | 0–3 | 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.