Teams

Mystery Team 4.0W

2021 Adult 18 & Over · 4.0 Women

8 players · average NTRP 3.60 / ALASKA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2021-05-15vs AK - Nicolle & SarahLost 03
L#1 DoublesAlice Knapp / Marcia Howell vs Allison Erickson / Catherine Stone2-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesAracelis Bell vs Rebecca Kinworthy1-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesMarlys Morton / Triin Minton vs Nicolle Welch / Sarah Gillstrom0-6, 2-6
2021-05-14vs AK - Nicolle & SarahLost 04
L#1 DoublesSandy Durrell / Alice Knapp vs Rebecca Kinworthy / Sarah Gillstrom1-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesDana Griffin / Bette Belanger vs Nicolle Welch / Lucille Abe0-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesLeilah Hemmen vs Catherine Stone1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesTriin Minton / Marlys Morton vs Allison Erickson / ELIZE Rumley2-6, 3-6
2021-05-14vs AK - Nicolle & SarahLost 04
L#1 DoublesSandy Durrell / Alice Knapp vs Catherine Stone / ELIZE Rumley3-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesLeilah Hemmen / Bette Belanger vs Nicolle Welch / Sarah Gillstrom0-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesAracelis Bell vs Rebecca Kinworthy1-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesTriin Minton / Marlys Morton vs Lucille Abe / Allison Erickson1-6, 3-6
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 standings2 teams · 4.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1AK - Nicolle & Sarah30150033
2Mystery Team 4.0W0301530180

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 3.36 estimated across 5 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.

3.65
Alice Knapp
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Triin Minton
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.36
Marlys Morton
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
3.24
Leilah Hemmen
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.06
Dana Griffin
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3.5
Aracelis Bell
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 0
Marcia Howell
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 0
Sandy Durrell
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.

Triin Minton + Marlys Morton353851% games−2.0% vs expected
Marcia Howell + Dana Griffin2736% gamesnot enough data
Alice Knapp + Marlys Morton1442% 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.

4
Alice Knapp
46W–50L career · 3 lines in 2021
13%87%<1%
3.65
3.5
Triin Minton
123W–112L career · type A · 5 lines in 2021
<1%51%49%
3.50
3.5
Marlys Morton
161W–112L career · type A · 6 lines in 2021
<1%85%15%
3.36
3.5
Leilah Hemmen
35W–23L career · type S · 4 lines in 2021
3%94%2%
3.24
3.5
Dana Griffin
111W–86L career · 3 lines in 2021
33%67%<1%
3.06
0
Aracelis Bell
21W–28L career · 2 lines in 2021
not enough data
0
Marcia Howell
45W–56L career · 4 lines in 2021
not enough data
Sandy Durrell
97W–83L career · no 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.