← Teams

MAC-Mills

2023 Adult 18 & Over · 2.5 Women

3 players · average NTRP 2.83 · USTA/PACIFIC NW / NORTHERN OREGON

View scouting list →
Scouting

Roster averages 2.78 estimated across 2 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.

2.88
Amy Adams
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.67
Charlie Hilton
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published 3
—
Harshi Waters
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 2.5
Results6 ties
2023-03-19Won 1–0
W#2 DoublesCharlie Hilton / Shelby Tweto vs Stephanie Pelton / Joanna Han6-2, 6-2
2023-02-25Lost 0–3
L#1 DoublesAmy Adams / Jenny Bailey vs Laura Davies / Lee Gates6-2, 6-2
L#1 SinglesCharlie Hilton vs Haihua Su4-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#2 DoublesHarshi Waters / Jessica Decker vs Xiaobo Dai / ANN ROMANO6-3, 4-6, 1-0
2023-02-17Lost 0–1
L#1 SinglesCharlie Hilton vs Nancy Yen Shipley6-2, 7-6
2023-02-12Lost 0–1
L#1 SinglesCharlie Hilton vs Anita Heredia6-1, 6-0
2023-01-15Lost 0–2
L#1 DoublesHarshi Waters / Jennifer Fowler vs Heather Dale / Sarah Cariaga6-3, 6-0
L#1 SinglesCharlie Hilton vs CHRISTINE McNair6-2, 6-4
2023-01-07Won 1–0
W#1 DoublesAmy Adams / Charlie Hilton vs Micah Francesconi / Annie Lamb6-0, 6-0
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.
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.

3
Amy Adams
8W–20L career
0%91%9%
2.88
3
Charlie Hilton
9W–18L career
15%83%2%
2.67
2.5
Harshi Waters
22W–25L career
not enough data
—

Three percentages are the year-end projection — chance of moving down, staying, moving up — and the number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. 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.