Indy A18 3.5W MON CSWC Hackney
Winter USTA Central Indiana Adult 18 & Over · CITA Indy 18 & Over 3.5 Women, W
10 players · average NTRP 3.30 / CENTRAL INDIANA
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule8 played
i
Flight standings18 teams · CITA Indy 18 & Over 3.5 Women, W
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Indy A18 3.5W SAT IRCD Trotter | 8 | 0 | 21 | 186 |
| 2Indy A18 3.5W MON CSWC Hackney | 7 | 1 | 19 | 174 |
| 3Indy A18 3.5W SAT CRC Nelson | 7 | 1 | 21 | 184 |
| 4Indy A18 3.5W MON IRCD Inselberg | 6 | 2 | 13 | 130 |
| 5Indy A18 3.5W SAT WIRC Moore | 5 | 3 | 20 | 195 |
| 6Indy A18 3.5W MON CRC Ditto | 5 | 3 | 22 | 187 |
| 7Indy A18 3.5W MON IRCD Banister | 5 | 3 | 25 | 198 |
| 8Indy A18 3.5W MON IRCE Chop | 5 | 3 | 28 | 217 |
| 9Indy A18 3.5W MON CRC LoCascio | 4 | 4 | 24 | 186 |
| 10Indy A18 3.5W SAT IRCD Cook | 4 | 4 | 26 | 190 |
| 11Indy A18 3.5W SAT PATC Ackerman | 4 | 4 | 27 | 212 |
| 12Indy A18 3.5W SAT IRCD Faulkenberg | 3 | 5 | 25 | 188 |
| 13Indy A18 3.5W SAT IRCD Warr | 3 | 5 | 29 | 216 |
| 14Indy A18 3.5W SAT CRC Kennedy | 2 | 6 | 34 | 236 |
| 15Indy A18 3.5W MON CRC Stevning | 2 | 6 | 35 | 242 |
| 16Indy A18 3.5W MON IRCD Bellamy | 2 | 6 | 40 | 255 |
| 17Indy A18 3.5W SAT IRCD Mowry | 0 | 8 | 40 | 250 |
| 18Indy A18 3.5W MON IRCD Kirch | 0 | 8 | 40 | 260 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.25 estimated across 8 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Anne Nevitt + Natalie Robbins | 18–10 | 57% games | +8.2% vs expected |
| Katy Burke + Beth Erskine | 3–2 | 51% games | +5.8% vs expected |
| Katy Burke + Kathryn Kaster | 1–4 | 38% games | not enough data |
| Jennifer Medler + Callie Conatser | 5–0 | 76% games | not enough data |
| Choey Kubek + Callie Conatser | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Katy Burke + Jennifer Medler | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Katy Burke + Natalie Robbins | 3–0 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Jennifer Medler + Natalie Robbins | 3–0 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.