Teams

NITA W 45TLWa Score-Knutte

2025 NITA2 Winterz Tri Level 18&O · NITA W Tri Level 18&O Women 35

18 players · average NTRP 3.96 / NORTHERN ILLINOIS

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 →
Schedule8 played
L#1 DoublesHoda Elshakankery / Ayah Kamel vs Heather Mixon / Ayano Nakamura3-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesJessica Arnold / Laura Fausey vs Corinn Hanson / Crystal Leighton0-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesKatie Ketchum / Sarah Peto vs Denise Lam / Michelle Yuen6-4, 1-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJill Odenbeck / Ngozi Ezike vs Crystal Leighton / Dawn Baumann6-3, 6-1
L#3 DoublesMargaret Weiss / Laura Fausey vs Denise Lam / Michelle Yuen1-6, 4-6
2025-03-29vs NITA W 45TLWb Oak Brook-LukasSplit 11
W#1 DoublesHoda Elshakankery / Ayah Kamel vs Lisane Swartwood / Diedre Dunn4-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLeigh Champagne / Katie Ketchum vs Melissa Robinson / Kim Kuwabara4-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesNgozi Ezike / Jill Odenbeck vs Crystal Leighton / Kristine Jurczyk2-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLaura Fausey / Leigh Champagne vs Michelle Yuen / Denise Lam2-6, 3-6
2025-02-23vs NITA W 45TLWb Oak Brook-LukasWon 20
W#2 DoublesCindy Bielik / Ngozi Ezike vs Karen Materick / Wendy Leto7-6, 5-4
W#3 DoublesLeigh Champagne / Jessica Arnold vs Julie Coan / Julie Roth6-4, 7-5
2025-02-01vs NITA W 45TLWb Oak Brook-LukasLost 01
L#3 DoublesLeigh Champagne / Margaret Weiss vs Kim Kuwabara / Caroline Rosemeyer1-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesNgozi Ezike / Lisa Rowen vs Jennifer Langtry / Martha Davis7-6, 3-2
L#3 DoublesLaura Fausey / Margaret Weiss vs Denise Lam / GERELMAA BUDMANDAKH7-5, 2-6, 0-1
2025-01-12vs NITA W 45TLWb Oak Brook-LukasLost 01
L#3 DoublesLeigh Champagne / Sarah Peto vs Julie Coan / Caroline Rosemeyer4-6, 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 standings for NITA W Tri Level 18&O Women 35 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 3.86 estimated across 17 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.

4.48
Jennifer McClelland
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
4.39
Ayah Kamel
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.32
Susan DiMagno
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
4.16
Hoda Elshakankery
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.09
Janet Wolf
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
4.08
Cindy Bielik
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
4.08
Rebecca Bosack
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.01
Ngozi Ezike
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.96
Jill Odenbeck
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.90
Laurie Knutte
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.78
Lisa Rowen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.67
Leigh Champagne
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.59
Margaret Weiss
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.37
Katie Ketchum
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.33
Laura Fausey
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.31
Sarah Peto
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.17
Megan Kostal
published 3.5
Jessica Arnold
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.

Janet Wolf + Ayah Kamel10359% games+18.1% vs expected
Cindy Bielik + Jennifer McClelland13164% games+12.1% vs expected
Janet Wolf + Cindy Bielik8164% games+9.6% vs expected
Cindy Bielik + Ayah Kamel10261% games+9.0% vs expected
Cindy Bielik + Jill Odenbeck3457% games+8.8% vs expected
Lisa Rowen + Janet Wolf6066% games+7.6% vs expected
Ngozi Ezike + Janet Wolf4258% games+7.5% vs expected
Lisa Rowen + Cindy Bielik10461% games+6.2% 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.

Jennifer McClelland
108W–55L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%55%44%
4.48
4.5
Ayah Kamel
169W–94L career · 10 lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
4.39
Susan DiMagno
91W–66L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%91%9%
4.32
4.5
Hoda Elshakankery
216W–111L career · 2 lines in 2025
12%88%<1%
4.16
Janet Wolf
136W–76L career · 3 lines in 2025
24%75%<1%
4.09
4
Cindy Bielik
216W–91L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%26%74%
4.08
4.5
Rebecca Bosack
119W–46L career · 4 lines in 2025
28%72%<1%
4.08
4
Ngozi Ezike
301W–168L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%48%52%
4.01
4
Jill Odenbeck
215W–63L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%61%39%
3.96
4
Laurie Knutte
256W–121L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%77%23%
3.90
4
Lisa Rowen
153W–58L career · 1 line in 2025
2%94%5%
3.78
Leigh Champagne
65W–28L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%10%90%
3.67
Margaret Weiss
83W–41L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%24%76%
3.59
3.5
Katie Ketchum
70W–66L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%84%16%
3.37
3.5
Laura Fausey
107W–86L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%89%10%
3.33
3.5
Sarah Peto
48W–30L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%92%7%
3.31
3.5
Megan Kostal
74W–62L career · no lines in 2025
9%90%1%
3.17
Jessica Arnold
10W–1L career · no lines in 2025
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.