Teams

Maryland Madness

2022 Montgomery Adult Other Women's Day Fall · Montgomery Adult Other Women's Day Fall 3.5 Women

18 players · average NTRP 3.54 / MARYLAND

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 →

Flight standings for Montgomery Adult Other Women's Day Fall 3.5 Women have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 3.23 estimated across 16 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.

Diane Fletcher
published 4
3.48
Wendy Beale
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.39
Paige Bartlett
published
3.37
Diane Schuler
published 3.5
3.35
Alba Williams
published 3.5
3.33
Asli Dervis
published 3.5
3.30
Christine Hopkins
published 3.5
3.30
Alexis Martin
published 3.5
3.27
Mandy Bertin
published
3.27
Joanne Good
published 3.5
3.23
Holly Glauser
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.23
Joan-Marie Turchiano
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.13
Elizabeth Marcotte
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.08
Annie Baba
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.03
Elizabeth Pyszka
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.01
Sheila Mead
published
2.97
Stephanie Peebles
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
Suzanne Feigert
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.

Elizabeth Marcotte + Stephanie Peebles4347% games−7.7% vs expected
Joan-Marie Turchiano + Elizabeth Marcotte7650% gamesnot enough data
Joan-Marie Turchiano + Stephanie Peebles5646% gamesnot enough data
Elizabeth Marcotte + Joanne Good4640% gamesnot enough data
Joan-Marie Turchiano + Joanne Good2352% gamesnot enough data
Elizabeth Marcotte + Holly Glauser033 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.

4
Diane Fletcher
7W–6L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Wendy Beale
315W–201L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%55%45%
3.48
Paige Bartlett
21W–16L career · no lines in 2022
<1%79%21%
3.39
3.5
Diane Schuler
7W–5L career · no lines in 2022
<1%84%16%
3.37
3.5
Alba Williams
3W–4L career · no lines in 2022
<1%87%13%
3.35
3.5
Asli Dervis
5W–5L career · no lines in 2022
1%90%9%
3.33
3.5
Christine Hopkins
10W–21L career · no lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.30
3.5
Alexis Martin
24W–19L career · no lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.30
Mandy Bertin
3W–4L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Joanne Good
85W–87L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Holly Glauser
86W–91L career · 3 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Joan-Marie Turchiano
153W–162L career · 3 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Elizabeth Marcotte
166W–176L career · 3 lines in 2022
16%83%<1%
3.13
3.5
Annie Baba
96W–86L career · 2 lines in 2022
26%74%<1%
3.08
3.5
Elizabeth Pyszka
133W–196L career · 2 lines in 2022
40%60%<1%
3.03
Sheila Mead
8W–4L career · no lines in 2022
<1%46%54%
3.01
3.5
Stephanie Peebles
124W–100L career · 4 lines in 2022
58%42%<1%
2.97
Suzanne Feigert
0W–1L career · no lines in 2022
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.