Teams

G.Smith/18/3.0/WN/Bocage

2023 City Championship 18 & Over - Women Night · 3.0 (18&O) Women Night

15 players · average NTRP 3.17 / LOUISIANA

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 standings9 teams · 3.0 (18&O) Women Night
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1deVeer/18/3.0/WN/BREC71281228262
2Rosenfeld/18/3.0/WN/UC62291124281
3Pearson/18/3.0/WN/LSU-I53231736306
4Watson/18/3.0/WN/LSU-I53241638338
5J.SMITH/18/3.0/WN/BREC44202044350
6G.Smith/18/3.0/WN/Bocage44202044356
7LeJeune/18/3.0/WN/BREC35172349327
8Donovan/18/3.0/WN/CCL26152552404
9MAY/18/3.0/WN/BREC0843674472

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 3.03 estimated across 10 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.

3.80
Kathryn Baker
published
3.26
3.23
Anna Price
published 3.5
3.13
Jill Kindler
published
3.12
3.05
Katherine Kellum
published
3.05
Lauren Gleason
published
2.88
Kelsie LeBlanc
published
Aimee Woodard
published 3
Hallie Anderson
published 3
2.52
Kelly Finan
published
2.28
Mollie Carby
published
Kaleigh Redhead
published
Natalie Gaines
published
Natasha Engle
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.

Katherine Kellum + Jill Kindler5263% games+24.9% vs expected
Lauren Gleason + Jill Kindler6268% games+11.3% vs expected
Katherine Kellum + Tiffany Wesley Ardoin6159% games+4.0% vs expected
Kelly Finan + Mollie Carby5255% games+0.5% vs expected
Hallie Anderson + Katherine Kellum6077% gamesnot enough data
Jessica Luparello Marks + Katherine Kellum4161% gamesnot enough data
Anna Price + Kelsie LeBlanc314 matchesnot enough data
Natalie Gaines + Tiffany Wesley Ardoin303 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.

Kathryn Baker
66W–14L career · no lines in 2023
1%93%6%
3.80
Jessica Luparello Marks
37W–17L career · no lines in 2023
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Anna Price
81W–44L career · no lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.23
Jill Kindler
43W–17L career · no lines in 2023
17%83%<1%
3.13
Tiffany Wesley Ardoin
21W–5L career · no lines in 2023
19%81%<1%
3.12
Katherine Kellum
60W–27L career · no lines in 2023
35%65%<1%
3.05
Lauren Gleason
19W–8L career · no lines in 2023
36%64%<1%
3.05
Kelsie LeBlanc
29W–14L career · no lines in 2023
83%17%<1%
2.88
3
Aimee Woodard
4W–3L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3
Hallie Anderson
8W–3L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Kelly Finan
17W–27L career · no lines in 2023
45%55%<1%
2.52
Mollie Carby
16W–29L career · no lines in 2023
0%96%4%
2.28
Kaleigh Redhead
3W–3L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Natalie Gaines
3W–2L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Natasha Engle
13W–10L career · no lines in 2023
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.