Teams

Martin

2026 Anne Arundel Tri-Level · Anne Arundel Tri-Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Women

17 players · average NTRP 3.50 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-08-29vs BaldwinWon 21
W#1 DoublesJill Rose / Stephanie Riley vs Erin McVeigh / Sadie Simpson6-2, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMasako Murphy / Bari Abensohn vs Tracy Seybert / Nicole Gownley3-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#3 DoublesPeggy Bailey / Mary Corbiere vs Julie Webster / Jennifer Baldwin2-6, 1-6
2026-08-25vs WalshLost 12
L#1 DoublesShalita Williams / Helen Patterson vs June Means / Lisa Mendenhall2-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesCindy Mexcur / Masako Murphy vs Sherry Orebaugh / Sabrina Alban1-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesMeg Daniels / Aine McKee vs Christine Fichtner / Julie Anderson6-1, 6-2
2026-08-23vs Party at the NetLost 12
L#1 DoublesHelen Patterson / Dina Caddeo vs Rachel Price / Katherine Tindall0-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesCatherine Hopkin / Masako Murphy vs Ellyn McLaughlin / Nicole Geis6-4, 5-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesAine McKee / Meg Daniels vs DIANE CASANOVA / Lori Trull6-3, 6-7, 0-1
2026-08-09vs BaldwinLost 12
L#1 DoublesStephanie Riley / Jill Rose vs Tina Rohm / Kelsey Forbes3-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#2 DoublesKaren Francis / Catherine Hopkin vs Kim Reed / Marina Anglim6-3, 6-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesPeggy Bailey / Mary Corbiere vs Lorra Baker / Gail Poole-Vaughn2-6, 0-6
2026-08-05vs WalshWon 21
W#1 DoublesShalita Williams / Xenia Baranova vs Amy LaMoure / Lisa Mendenhall3-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#2 DoublesMarie Sokoloff / Cindy Mexcur vs Sherry Orebaugh / Lisa Walsh2-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesAine McKee / Meg Daniels vs Christine Fichtner / Cynthia Wofford7-6, 6-4
2026-08-01vs Party at the NetWon 30
W#1 DoublesXenia Baranova / Shalita Williams vs Ellen McLaughlin / Brandie Sparr4-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 DoublesKaren Francis / Bari Abensohn vs Jennifer Cohen / Nicole Geis6-2, 6-0
W#3 DoublesAine McKee / Mary Corbiere vs Jill Huntington / DIANE CASANOVA6-2, 7-6
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 Anne Arundel Tri-Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Women 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 3.26 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.

3.96
Jill Rose
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.91
Xenia Baranova
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.70
Helen Patterson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.62
Shalita Williams
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Bari Abensohn
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.46
Dina Caddeo
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.43
Marie Sokoloff
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.38
Karen Francis
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.33
Cindy Mexcur
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.19
Catherine Hopkin
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Masako Murphy
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.14
Aine McKee
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.99
Meg Daniels
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.85
Peggy Bailey
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.71
Julie Fisher
published 3
2.63
Mary Corbiere
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.54
Patricia Lopez
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.

Shalita Williams + Helen Patterson4258% games+7.0% vs expected
Cindy Mexcur + Masako Murphy3450% gamesnot enough data
Bari Abensohn + Marie Sokoloff314 matchesnot enough data
Marie Sokoloff + Xenia Baranova404 matchesnot enough data
Cindy Mexcur + Dina Caddeo033 matchesnot enough data
Cindy Mexcur + Marie Sokoloff213 matchesnot enough data
Dina Caddeo + Helen Patterson033 matchesnot enough data
Bari Abensohn + Masako Murphy123 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.

Jill Rose
49W–17L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%63%37%
3.96
4
Xenia Baranova
204W–68L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%75%24%
3.91
4
Helen Patterson
10W–14L career · 3 lines in 2026
7%92%1%
3.70
4
Shalita Williams
156W–174L career · 3 lines in 2026
18%82%<1%
3.62
3.5
Bari Abensohn
96W–87L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%52%48%
3.50
4
Dina Caddeo
138W–171L career · 1 line in 2026
62%38%<1%
3.46
3.5
Marie Sokoloff
277W–199L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%71%28%
3.43
Karen Francis
57W–66L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%82%18%
3.38
3.5
Cindy Mexcur
161W–157L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
3.33
3.5
Catherine Hopkin
2W–8L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
7%92%1%
3.19
3.5
Masako Murphy
132W–138L career · 3 lines in 2026
13%87%<1%
3.15
3
Aine McKee
80W–72L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%15%85%
3.14
3
Meg Daniels
79W–60L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%54%46%
2.99
Peggy Bailey
18W–17L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%87%13%
2.85
3
Julie Fisher
22W–18L career · no lines in 2026
5%94%1%
2.71
3
Mary Corbiere
67W–149L career · 3 lines in 2026
16%84%<1%
2.63
Patricia Lopez
4W–6L career · no lines in 2026
38%62%<1%
2.54

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.