Teams

NIN FW 18&O Tri-Level 3.0,3.5,4.0 W: Heastan/Markley

NIN FW 18&O Tri-Level · NIN FW Spring 18&O Tri-Level Women 3.0, 3.5, 4.0

15 players · average NTRP 3.50 / NORTHERN INDIANA

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 →
Schedule
Flight standings2 teams · NIN FW Spring 18&O Tri-Level Women 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NIN FW 18&O Tri-Level 3.0,3.5,4.0 W: Jakacki/Gregory43111022185
2NIN FW 18&O Tri-Level 3.0,3.5,4.0 W: Heastan/Markley34101124189

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 3.17 estimated across 14 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.

3.61
Maci Doden
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.53
Diane Cowan
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.47
Gail Rhoades
published
3.43
Monica French
published
3.32
Kathleen Markley
published
3.27
Laura Wallstrom
published
3.24
Pam Lunsford
published
3.14
Deb Hewes
published 3.5
3.03
Karen Hellinger
published
3.01
Kristine Valcarcel
published
2.96
Kristina Robertson
published
2.89
Cindy Friend
published 3
2.84
Lisa Heastan
published
2.62
Leigh Roberson
published
Sandra Sweet
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.

Deb Hewes + Kathleen Markley20559% games+8.8% vs expected
Kathleen Markley + Laura Wallstrom16757% games+2.7% vs expected
Cindy Friend + Kristina Robertson261856% gamesnot enough data
Sandra Sweet + Kathleen Markley7356% gamesnot enough data
Deb Hewes + Gail Rhoades5263% gamesnot enough data
Diane Cowan + Maci Doden6158% gamesnot enough data
Kristine Valcarcel + Kristina Robertson5260% gamesnot enough data
Deb Hewes + Pam Lunsford3342% 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.

Maci Doden
76W–33L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%22%78%
3.61
4
Diane Cowan
116W–22L career · 5 lines in 2026
43%57%<1%
3.53
Gail Rhoades
150W–72L career · no lines in 2026
<1%60%40%
3.47
Monica French
71W–72L career · no lines in 2026
70%30%<1%
3.43
Kathleen Markley
173W–79L career · no lines in 2026
1%89%10%
3.32
Laura Wallstrom
89W–35L career · no lines in 2026
3%92%5%
3.27
Pam Lunsford
53W–48L career · no lines in 2026
97%3%<1%
3.24
3.5
Deb Hewes
147W–109L career · no lines in 2026
15%84%1%
3.14
Karen Hellinger
41W–86L career · no lines in 2026
<1%42%58%
3.03
Kristine Valcarcel
110W–132L career · no lines in 2026
<1%47%53%
3.01
Kristina Robertson
124W–73L career · no lines in 2026
<1%62%38%
2.96
3
Cindy Friend
157W–86L career · no lines in 2026
<1%78%22%
2.89
Lisa Heastan
23W–47L career · no lines in 2026
1%87%12%
2.84
Leigh Roberson
32W–137L career · no lines in 2026
20%80%<1%
2.62
Sandra Sweet
68W–43L career · no lines in 2026
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.