1TP-SKOCHELAK AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F2
2023 SEM ADULT 40 & OVER NIGHT WOMEN · 3.0 WOMEN TUES PM SEM
16 players · average NTRP 3.09 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings19 teams · 3.0 WOMEN TUES PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16TROY-YOUNG AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F3 | 9 | 1 | 31 | 296 |
| 23WESS-BROWN AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F4 | 8 | 0 | 31 | 278 |
| 34HV-BAHROU AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F2 | 8 | 1 | 18 | 286 |
| 42EAST-THOMAS AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F3 | 7 | 3 | 51 | 415 |
| 54RCAA-BAUER AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F1 | 6 | 3 | 47 | 389 |
| 61DCD-MOORE AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F3 | 6 | 4 | 48 | 408 |
| 76SCWB-LUBIN AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F4 | 5 | 3 | 37 | 327 |
| 82HV-NEWTON AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F1 | 5 | 4 | 47 | 405 |
| 92NAC-CONWAY AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F2 | 5 | 4 | 51 | 406 |
| 101AAREC-sky-JOHNSTON AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F1 | 5 | 4 | 52 | 424 |
| 115TROY-VONDELL AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F3 | 5 | 5 | 57 | 458 |
| 122LIFE-DEJAEGER AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F4 | 4 | 4 | 43 | 325 |
| 131FAC-LEWIS AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F4 | 3 | 5 | 45 | 343 |
| 141TP-SKOCHELAK AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F2 | 3 | 6 | 63 | 463 |
| 153PEACH-HARTEL AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F3 | 3 | 7 | 64 | 462 |
| 163VTC-outside-BUTLER AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F1 | 2 | 7 | 64 | 440 |
| 173LIB-KERR AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 71 | 504 |
| 185BT-DANOWSKI AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F4 | 0 | 8 | 71 | 461 |
| 194WESS-BEESLEY AD40&O 30NW TU SEM F3 | 0 | 10 | 86 | 547 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 2.81 estimated across 13 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Natascha Barney + Hunjin Jung | 5–0 | 72% games | +15.6% vs expected |
| Janice Roe + Jennifer Bae | 4–4 | 57% games | +7.2% vs expected |
| Jennifer Bae + Hunjin Jung | 5–5 | 51% games | +6.6% vs expected |
| Elizabeth Skochelak + Janice Roe | 6–3 | 53% games | +5.7% vs expected |
| Elizabeth Skochelak + Carrie Bake-Wong | 2–4 | 48% games | +4.8% vs expected |
| Lori Ferris + Jaclynn Tracy | 4–2 | 53% games | +4.2% vs expected |
| Elizabeth Skochelak + Jennifer Bae | 26–12 | 56% games | +3.8% vs expected |
| Natascha Barney + Lori Ferris | 4–3 | 50% games | +3.6% vs expected |
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.
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.