Teams

CDTA S 40&OW4.0 6.RT Fuller Sun 12 $27

1Summer 40&O WN · WE

21 players · average NTRP 3.64 / CHICAGO

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 →
Schedule5 played
L#2 DoublesRachel Fuller / Sarah Nicoletta Portsche vs Denise Huth / Gysel Goitia6-3, 1-6, 0-1
L#1 SinglesReatha Kay vs Sara Desai3-6, 7-6
L#3 DoublesJamie Burns / Janet Hanks vs Joanne Lund / Janine Sheridan2-6, 3-6
L#1 DoublesMichele Berman / Reatha Kay vs Julie Miller / Sally Washlow4-6, 3-5
L#2 DoublesRachel Fuller / Elise Bergman vs Leah Starkman / Julie Steinberg1-6, 3-6
L#1 DoublesRachel Fuller / Janet Hanks vs Priscilla Ewaldz / Jean Soh3-6, 4-5
L#2 DoublesErin Baker / Jamie Burns vs Ling Arenson / Angela Hanson5-7, 2-3
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 standings11 teams · WE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S 40&OW4.0 2.Tam Lund Thu 7 $226020410126
2CDTA S 40&OW4.0 8.Nielsen Sheridan Sat 4 $226020411122
3CDTA S 40&OW4.0 4.Tam Corey Sun 11 $22512138124
4CDTA S 40&OW4.0 9.MTB Meng Tue 6:30 $295120413121
5CDTA S 40&OW4.0 3.SBC Gray Sat 9 $273291124183
6CDTA S 40&OW4.0 10.RT Jasinski Tue 7 $2733121225186
7CDTA S 40&OW4.0 7.Hins Cashman Tue 6:30 $221461432202
8CDTA S 40&OW4.0 5.Gnbk Hans Sat 1 $301451533214
9CDTA S 40&OW4.0 1.Nielsen Burnside Sat 4 $221561837229
10CDTA S 40&OW4.0 11.FV Hayashida Sat 11 $250502040237
11CDTA S 40&OW4.0 6.RT Fuller Sun 12 $270651939265

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 3.47 estimated across 18 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.

4.08
Amy Pouba
published 4
3.66
Michele Berman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.65
Tracey Sartino
published 4
3.59
Reatha Kay
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
3.59
Michelle Ramker
published 3.5
3.54
Suzanne Losasso
published 3.5
3.54
Libby Holdren
published 3.5
3.50
3.50
Annalisa Tsai
published 4
3.47
Kim Johnson Flodin
published 3.5
3.45
Elizabeth Opie
published
3.40
Sherry Polachek
published 3.5
3.28
3.28
Jamie Burns
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.26
Elise Bergman
published 3.5
3.23
Rachel Fuller
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.21
Janet Hanks
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.17
Jill Buckley
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Ela Lewis
published
Erin Baker
published
Jennifer Roche
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.

Jill Buckley + Suzanne Losasso6152% games+10.3% vs expected
Jamie Burns + Rachel Fuller10559% games+8.5% vs expected
Jill Buckley + Janet Hanks4452% games+6.6% vs expected
Kim Johnson Flodin + Amy Pouba8163% games+5.7% vs expected
Rachel Fuller + Michelle Ramker5646% games+5.2% vs expected
Jamie Burns + Erin Baker6456% games+4.8% vs expected
Tracey Sartino + Maria Lourdes Bandelow7655% games+4.2% vs expected
Sarah Nicoletta Portsche + Michelle Ramker3348% games−2.2% vs expected
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
Amy Pouba
41W–9L career · no lines in 2026
<1%30%70%
4.08
Michele Berman
27W–23L career · 1 line in 2026
13%86%1%
3.66
4
Tracey Sartino
36W–29L career · no lines in 2026
15%84%1%
3.65
Reatha Kay
26W–36L career · 2 lines in 2026
25%74%<1%
3.59
3.5
Michelle Ramker
38W–30L career · no lines in 2026
<1%26%74%
3.59
3.5
Suzanne Losasso
33W–15L career · no lines in 2026
<1%39%61%
3.54
3.5
Libby Holdren
29W–11L career · no lines in 2026
<1%40%60%
3.54
3.5
Maria Lourdes Bandelow
93W–66L career · no lines in 2026
<1%49%51%
3.50
4
Annalisa Tsai
122W–81L career · no lines in 2026
50%50%<1%
3.50
3.5
Kim Johnson Flodin
35W–78L career · no lines in 2026
<1%57%43%
3.47
Elizabeth Opie
20W–26L career · no lines in 2026
65%35%<1%
3.45
3.5
Sherry Polachek
138W–76L career · no lines in 2026
<1%77%23%
3.40
3.5
Sarah Nicoletta Portsche
24W–21L career · no lines in 2026
2%92%6%
3.28
Jamie Burns
60W–43L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%2%98%
3.28
3.5
Elise Bergman
70W–94L career · no lines in 2026
3%93%4%
3.26
Rachel Fuller
43W–50L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%5%95%
3.23
Janet Hanks
50W–34L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%7%93%
3.21
Jill Buckley
94W–94L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%11%89%
3.17
Ela Lewis
4W–16L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Erin Baker
25W–17L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Jennifer Roche
20W–25L 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.