Teams

Winter Haven - A. Brakefield

Polk Casual League · Polk Ladies Casual Play Fall

12 players · average NTRP 3.75 / REGION_4

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2022-08-23Lost 01
L#1 DoublesArabia Brakefield / Daniela Schick vs Denise Maqueira / Mollie Simpson3-6, 4-6
2022-08-16vs Bartow - D. PyleWon 10
W#1 DoublesArabia Brakefield / Daniela Schick vs Lindsay Mahler / Maria Ramka2-6, 6-1, 1-0
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.

Flight standings for Polk Ladies Casual Play Fall 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 3.43 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.

4.16
Sonia Patrick
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.91
Jennifer Myers
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.87
Meagan McGill
usually #1 Doubles 73%, also #2 Doubles 18% · published 4
3.71
Arabia Brakefield
usually #1 Doubles 79%, also #2 Doubles 16% · published 4
3.65
Daniela Schick
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.43
Jackie Edwards
published 4
3.37
Susan McGill
published
3.22
Marcia Whitney
published 3.5
3.09
Paige Turner
published
3.08
Janet Platania
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published
2.90
Geraldine Tardy
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 22% · published 3
2.80
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.

Geraldine Tardy + Marcia Whitney4447% games+10.4% vs expected
Meagan McGill + Susan McGill3258% games+3.6% vs expected
Arabia Brakefield + Meagan McGill421562% games+3.6% vs expected
Janet Platania + Susan McGill3348% games−0.1% vs expected
Janet Platania + Marcia Whitney2540% games−8.1% vs expected
Arabia Brakefield + Daniela Schick6642% gamesnot enough data
Jennifer Myers + Sonia Patrick3252% gamesnot enough data
Meagan McGill + Daniela Schick314 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.

4.5
Sonia Patrick
95W–102L career · 3 lines in 2022
11%88%<1%
4.16
Jennifer Myers
60W–71L career · 7 lines in 2022
77%23%<1%
3.91
4
Meagan McGill
120W–78L career · 11 lines in 2022
<1%83%16%
3.87
4
Arabia Brakefield
164W–119L career · 19 lines in 2022
5%93%1%
3.71
4
Daniela Schick
82W–85L career · 2 lines in 2022
12%88%<1%
3.65
4
Jackie Edwards
5W–10L career · no lines in 2022
70%30%<1%
3.43
Susan McGill
14W–20L career · no lines in 2022
<1%83%16%
3.37
3.5
Marcia Whitney
61W–80L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.22
Paige Turner
13W–8L career · no lines in 2022
23%76%<1%
3.09
Janet Platania
55W–81L career · 13 lines in 2022
27%73%<1%
3.08
3
Geraldine Tardy
102W–114L career · 16 lines in 2022
<1%78%22%
2.90
3
Catherine Mueller
26W–27L career · no lines in 2022
1%93%6%
2.80

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.