Teams

TRI B AVB Pallante

2024 NEOTA Tri-Level · NEOTA Women's Tri-Level B

16 players · average NTRP 3.62 / NORTHEASTERN OHIO

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 →
Schedule4 played
2024-01-28vs OH NEO TRI 3.0W KaraLost 01
L#3 DoublesTeresa Santilli / Judith Pallante vs Clare Stacey / Carolyn Kara4-6, 3-6
2024-01-14vs TRI B NR CarbeckWon 10
W#3 DoublesTeresa Santilli / Judith Pallante vs Sherry Carbeck / Paula Drapcho3-6, 6-2, 1-0
2024-01-13vs TRI B CC ButlerLost 01
L#3 DoublesSwati Sethi / Shirley Neher vs Tisha Bell / Shelby Novick6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2024-01-06vs TRI B MV KirchickLost 01
L#3 DoublesJudith Pallante / Swati Sethi vs Liza Brady / Holly Vanjo1-6, 2-6
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 standings5 teams · NEOTA Women's Tri-Level B
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1OH NEO TRI 3.0W Kara40931092
2TRI B CC Butler318413106
3TRI B AVB Pallante22751297
4TRI B MV Kirchick134818118
5TRI B NR Carbeck0421021127

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 3.26 estimated across 12 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.

3.88
Jane Moose
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.60
Susan Aey
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.54
Camilla Hill
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.50
Kasey Bland
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.40
Debra Evan
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.36
Pamela Hudson
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Carla Elenz
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.22
Dina Hopps
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.05
Lori Digiacomo
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.01
Joan Kerosky
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.97
Judith Pallante
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.85
Teresa Santilli
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.68
Swati Sethi
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Megan Bryan
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Shannon Tareshawty
published
Shirley Neher
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Jane Moose + Joan Kerosky4163% games+10.3% vs expected
Pamela Hudson + Debra Evan16560% games+8.5% vs expected
Susan Aey + Judith Pallante9164% games+4.5% vs expected
Susan Aey + Dina Hopps171055% games+3.2% vs expected
Debra Evan + Joan Kerosky3552% games+3.0% vs expected
Dina Hopps + Carla Elenz7452% games+2.9% vs expected
Teresa Santilli + Judith Pallante6847% games+2.4% vs expected
Debra Evan + Judith Pallante5358% games+2.3% 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.

Jane Moose
103W–73L career · 8 lines in 2024
<1%81%19%
3.88
Susan Aey
92W–59L career · 1 line in 2024
23%77%<1%
3.60
4
Camilla Hill
86W–109L career · 2 lines in 2024
36%64%<1%
3.54
Kasey Bland
74W–25L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%51%49%
3.50
3.5
Debra Evan
44W–44L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%79%21%
3.40
Pamela Hudson
48W–60L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%86%14%
3.36
3.5
Carla Elenz
27W–75L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
3.5
Dina Hopps
153W–106L career · 5 lines in 2024
5%94%2%
3.22
Lori Digiacomo
81W–120L career · 2 lines in 2024
34%66%<1%
3.05
Joan Kerosky
120W–106L career · 4 lines in 2024
48%52%<1%
3.01
Judith Pallante
84W–65L career · 3 lines in 2024
58%42%<1%
2.97
Teresa Santilli
32W–51L career · 2 lines in 2024
88%12%<1%
2.85
Swati Sethi
18W–42L career · 2 lines in 2024
99%1%<1%
2.68
Megan Bryan
44W–30L career · 8 lines in 2024
not enough data
Shannon Tareshawty
46W–81L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Shirley Neher
35W–58L career · 1 line in 2024
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.