← Teams

WHRC-Eastwood

2021 Adult 40 & Over · 3.5 Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.36 · USTA/PACIFIC NW / NORTHERN OREGON

View scouting list →
Scouting

Roster averages 3.08 estimated across 9 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.

3.43
Karen Harlow
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.25
Cara Williams
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
—
Maryam Farinola
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
—
Yanchen Qi
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.20
Inge Marshall
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.10
Tracey Hodgson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
3.01
Ann Kitchen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.00
Wendy Nakatani
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
2.98
Toni Lipke
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.95
Tara Morissette
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.79
Eunhee Heller
published 3
Results6 ties
2021-07-25Split 2–2
W#1 DoublesToni Eastwood / Inge Marshall vs Lisa Littleton / Elizabeth Large6-3, 6-3
W#1 SinglesMaryam Farinola vs Mia Birk6-1, 6-3
L#2 DoublesKaren Harlow / Wendy Nakatani vs Melissa Gibson / Brooke Daniel6-1, 7-5
L#3 DoublesEunhee Heller / Yanchen Qi vs Yoko Moore / Janet Dowty6-4, 6-2
2021-07-17Split 2–2
W#1 DoublesToni Eastwood / Cara Williams vs Janet Lee / Rachel Novak6-3, 5-7, 1-0
L#1 SinglesYanchen Qi vs Nichole Anglin7-5, 6-4
L#2 DoublesMaritess Mayer / Ann Kitchen vs Lana Lane / Nozomi Bray6-3, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesWendy Nakatani / Karen Harlow vs Gena Martinez / Paula Conway7-6, 6-4
2021-07-10Lost 1–3
L#1 DoublesInge Marshall / Cara Williams vs Leah Buxman / Kacie Wise6-2, 6-0
L#1 SinglesYanchen Qi vs Kimberly Parks6-3, 6-0
L#2 DoublesTara Morissette / Maritess Mayer vs Elizabeth Schwarz / Gabriela McIntosh6-2, 6-4
W#3 DoublesKaren Harlow / Wendy Nakatani vs Melissa Smith / GERI DADDIO6-1, 6-3
2021-06-20Lost 0–2
L#1 DoublesCara Williams / Maryam Farinola vs Robin Fernstrom / Cynthia Hill7-6, 6-4
L#2 DoublesAnn Kitchen / Inge Marshall vs Julie Legassick / Shari Levelle6-0, 6-3
2021-06-19Lost 1–3
W#1 DoublesMaritess Mayer / Toni Eastwood vs Lynne Nieda / Kyra John6-4, 3-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesMaryam Farinola vs Carrie Willis6-1, 3-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesWendy Nakatani / Ann Kitchen vs Natalya Ramras / Janet Mills6-2, 6-1
L#3 DoublesYanchen Qi / Tracey Hodgson vs Dayna Porter / Jennifer Bane6-1, 6-1
2021-06-13Won 3–1
L#1 DoublesCara Williams / Tracey Hodgson vs Bin He / Patty Chen3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#1 SinglesYanchen Qi vs Jinquan Wu6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesToni Eastwood / Maritess Mayer vs Jeny Joseph / Laura Shier7-5, 0-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesInge Marshall / Eunhee Heller vs Wanda Ng / Jennifer Fei7-6, 7-6
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.
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.

3.5
Karen Harlow
80W–58L career
0%92%8%
3.43
3.5
Cara Williams
56W–42L career
3%95%1%
3.25
3.5
Maryam Farinola
55W–59L career
not enough data
—
3.5
Yanchen Qi
29W–55L career
not enough data
—
3.5
Inge Marshall
58W–32L career
6%93%1%
3.20
3.5
Tracey Hodgson
29W–34L career · type A
19%81%0%
3.10
3.5
Ann Kitchen
27W–36L career
33%67%0%
3.01
3.5
Wendy Nakatani
30W–41L career
36%64%0%
3.00
3
Toni Lipke
44W–74L career
0%86%14%
2.98
3
Tara Morissette
16W–20L career
1%75%24%
2.95
3
Eunhee Heller
13W–12L career
2%95%3%
2.79

Three percentages are the year-end projection — chance of moving down, staying, moving up — and the number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. 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.