Teams

All That!

2021 Tri Level · Tri LeveL WOMEN

10 players · average NTRP 4.33 / MONTANA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2021-09-26vs TeamWon 20
W#1 DoublesAmy Johnson / Hailey Kern vs Karen Spierling / Christine Caldwell6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesWilla Craig / Irma Spang vs Elizabeth Brennan / Tara Jensen6-4, 4-6, 1-0
2021-09-26vs TeamLost 02
L#1 DoublesSally Lentz / Amy Johnson vs Christine Caldwell / Kathy Hayes6-1, 3-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesMary Bursack / Miki Fukushima vs Elizabeth Brennan / Trish Madsen3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2021-09-25vs TeamWon 21
W#1 DoublesHailey Kern / Jill Roberts vs Karen Spierling / Kathy Hayes6-4, 7-5
W#2 DoublesIrma Spang / Kathryn Kelly vs Elizabeth Brennan / Tara Jensen4-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 DoublesWilla Craig / Mary Bursack vs Trish Madsen / Shelly Johnson5-7, 4-6
2021-09-24vs TeamWon 21
W#1 DoublesJill Roberts / Sally Lentz vs Karen Spierling / Christine Caldwell6-3, 6-3
L#2 DoublesWilla Craig / Irma Spang vs Shelly Johnson / Trish Madsen6-7, 6-7
W#3 DoublesAMY BELLAMAH-DANIEL / Miki Fukushima vs Elizabeth Brennan / Tara Jensen6-1, 6-2
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 standings1 teams · Tri LeveL WOMEN
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1All That!31841088

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 3.95 estimated across 4 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.

4.44
Miki Fukushima
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
4.29
AMY BELLAMAH-DANIEL
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
Irma Spang
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.64
Hailey Kern
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.41
Jennifer Molinar
published
Jill Roberts
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Kathryn Kelly
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Bursack
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Sally Lentz
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Willa Craig
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · 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.

Kathryn Kelly + Irma Spang6549% games+0.3% vs expected
Jill Roberts + Sally Lentz224 matchesnot enough data
Willa Craig + Irma Spang123 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.

Miki Fukushima
24W–11L career · 2 lines in 2021
<1%68%32%
4.44
4.5
AMY BELLAMAH-DANIEL
46W–12L career · 1 line in 2021
1%94%5%
4.29
4.5
Irma Spang
20W–20L career · 3 lines in 2021
not enough data
4
Hailey Kern
12W–3L career · 2 lines in 2021
14%86%<1%
3.64
Jennifer Molinar
51W–28L career · no lines in 2021
<1%75%24%
3.41
Jill Roberts
8W–6L career · 2 lines in 2021
not enough data
Kathryn Kelly
14W–15L career · 1 line in 2021
not enough data
Mary Bursack
15W–13L career · 2 lines in 2021
not enough data
Sally Lentz
16W–22L career · 2 lines in 2021
not enough data
Willa Craig
29W–19L career · 3 lines in 2021
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.