Teams

NPT:Tivnan:Arnold

2022 NH Adult 18 & Over Women Weekend · 3.0 Women 1

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NEW HAMPSHIRE

View scouting list →
Schedule10 played
2021-12-05vs YMCA:Johnson:WhiteLost 02
L#1 DoublesC Lewis / Betty Ann Giles vs Nicole Driscoll / Allison Ropes2-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesShelia Cardamone / Michelle Gibbs vs Shannon Gagnon / Jennifer Cannon6-3, 3-6, 0-1
2021-11-21vs EXE:Law:RichmondSplit 11
W#1 DoublesC Lewis / Betty Ann Giles vs Vivien Law / Kristin Morgenstern6-4, 6-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesAshleigh McFarlin / Julie Deacon vs Lamia Bosli / Leslie Rifkin2-6, 2-6
2021-11-14vs CON:Cremeno:CarrollLost 02
L#2 DoublesShelia Cardamone / Michelle Gibbs vs Megan Crandall / Frances Plunkett2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesPat Tivnan / Ashleigh McFarlin vs Sandy Morin / Kelley Kugel0-6, 2-6
2021-11-07vs MITC:Barker:TwitchellLost 02
L#2 DoublesElizabeth Truax / Michelle Gibbs vs Cher Barker / Libby Twitchell7-5, 2-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesShelia Cardamone / Ashleigh McFarlin vs Eileen Rodier / Elizabeth MacEachran5-7, 3-6
2021-10-31vs YMCA:Willett:ChrissisLost 02
L#1 DoublesBetty Ann Giles / C Lewis vs Julie Chrissis / Lori Wiechers2-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesElizabeth Truax / Michelle Gibbs vs Catherine Gagnon / Rebecca Krasnof4-6, 6-4, 0-1
2021-10-24vs YMCA:Johnson:WhiteLost 02
L#1 DoublesC Lewis / Betty Ann Giles vs JOLENE JOHNSON / Nicole Driscoll3-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesJulie Deacon / Julie Segien vs Shannon Gagnon / Jennifer Cannon6-7, 1-6
2021-10-17vs EXE:Law:RichmondSplit 11
W#2 DoublesMichelle Gibbs / Betty Ann Giles vs Tracey Gamache / Kristin Morgenstern7-6, 6-2
L#3 DoublesSara Lang / Julie Segien vs Kristine Quintal / Jillian Hegarty4-6, 6-7
2021-10-03vs CON:Cremeno:CarrollWon 20
W#1 DoublesC Lewis / Betty Ann Giles vs Jane Cremeno / Debbie Blatsos6-1, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesPat Tivnan / Shelia Cardamone vs Nancy Stehno / Sandy Morin6-1, 2-6, 1-0
2021-09-26vs MITC:MorisonLost 02
L#2 DoublesShelia Cardamone / Michelle Gibbs vs Annette Taylor / Libby Twitchell5-7, 6-7
L#3 DoublesPat Tivnan / Julie Segien vs Elizabeth MacEachran / Eileen Rodier4-6, 1-6
2021-09-19vs YMCA:Koshy:WhiteLost 03
L#1 DoublesC Lewis / Betty Ann Giles vs Nisha Koshy / Lori Wiechers5-7, 4-6
L#2 DoublesLinda Arnold / Shelia Cardamone vs Lara Shilling / Cynthia Willett3-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesPat Tivnan / Julie Segien vs Joreen Hendry / Rebecca Krasnof1-6, 6-2, 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 standings5 teams · 3.0 Women 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1EXE:Law:Richmond01022821240
2YMCA:Koshy:Wiechers01021924254
3MITC:Morison010121840302
4NPT:Tivnan:Arnold010102044312
5CON:Cremeno:Carroll01072350321

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 2.70 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.

2.83
C Lewis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.81
Elizabeth Truax
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published 3
2.78
Linda Arnold
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Ashleigh McFarlin
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.71
Sara Lang
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
2.71
Betty Ann Giles
usually #1 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 3
2.34
Julie Deacon
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
Julie Segien
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Michelle Gibbs
usually #2 Doubles 83%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published
Pat Tivnan
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
Shelia Cardamone
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · 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.

C Lewis + Linda Arnold10655% games+5.8% vs expected
Betty Ann Giles + C Lewis3942% games−2.9% vs expected
Elizabeth Truax + Linda Arnold7453% games−7.6% vs expected
C Lewis + Pat Tivnan71244% games−7.7% vs expected
Betty Ann Giles + Linda Arnold3749% gamesnot enough data
Elizabeth Truax + C Lewis1834% gamesnot enough data
Shelia Cardamone + Julie Deacon1634% gamesnot enough data
Betty Ann Giles + Elizabeth Truax1432% gamesnot 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.

3
C Lewis
48W–57L career · 11 lines in 2022
1%89%10%
2.83
3
Elizabeth Truax
37W–49L career · 7 lines in 2022
1%92%7%
2.81
Linda Arnold
50W–40L career · 8 lines in 2022
2%94%5%
2.78
3
Ashleigh McFarlin
4W–6L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Sara Lang
17W–19L career · 7 lines in 2022
5%94%1%
2.71
3
Betty Ann Giles
23W–39L career · 7 lines in 2022
6%93%1%
2.71
Julie Deacon
10W–33L career · 5 lines in 2022
89%11%<1%
2.34
Julie Segien
2W–10L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Michelle Gibbs
1W–5L career · 6 lines in 2022
not enough data
Pat Tivnan
13W–35L career · 8 lines in 2022
not enough data
Shelia Cardamone
9W–27L career · 6 lines in 2022
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.