3HV-WATSON 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F2
2022 SEM ADULT 40 & OVER NIGHT WOMEN · 3.0 WOMEN TUES PM SEM
20 players · average NTRP 3.17 / 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 standings18 teams · 3.0 WOMEN TUES PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11NAC-CONWAY 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F3 | 9 | 0 | 16 | 246 |
| 24VTC-outside-STEINHAUER 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F2 | 8 | 1 | 24 | 269 |
| 33HV-WATSON 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F2 | 7 | 2 | 33 | 309 |
| 43TROY-HORVATH 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F1 | 6 | 2 | 33 | 327 |
| 53SCWB-LUBIN 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F4 | 6 | 2 | 34 | 314 |
| 61EAST-THOMAS 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F1 | 6 | 2 | 36 | 321 |
| 74FAC-LEWIS 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F4 | 6 | 2 | 37 | 342 |
| 86WESS-BROWN 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F4 | 5 | 3 | 40 | 304 |
| 95DCD-MOORE 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F1 | 5 | 3 | 44 | 345 |
| 103VTC-outside-BUTLER 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F3 | 5 | 4 | 49 | 389 |
| 112LIFE-DEJAEGER 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F4 | 3 | 5 | 47 | 330 |
| 124HV-NEWTON 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F3 | 3 | 6 | 59 | 433 |
| 134BOH-VONDELL 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F1 | 2 | 6 | 48 | 363 |
| 142LIB-KERR 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 74 | 493 |
| 152PEACH-HARTEL 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F1 | 1 | 7 | 67 | 431 |
| 161TRAVIS-SKOCHELAK 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F2 | 1 | 8 | 71 | 474 |
| 172RCAA-BAUER 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F3 | 1 | 8 | 72 | 477 |
| 185BT-DANOWSKI 30NW 40&O AD TUES SEM F4 | 0 | 8 | 70 | 447 |
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 3.09 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.
| Linda Armiak + Tammy Watson | 7–0 | 73% games | +12.4% vs expected |
| Tammy Watson + Ashley Mooney | 13–2 | 70% games | +12.1% vs expected |
| Susan Najita + Marlene Hamme | 3–2 | 49% games | +5.4% vs expected |
| Marlene Hamme + Cathy Gendron Johns | 2–3 | 39% games | −11.6% vs expected |
| Lee Wu + Marlene Hamme | 2–7 | 35% games | −15.5% vs expected |
| Jeanne Cooper + Tammy Watson | 4–1 | 66% games | not enough data |
| Carla Tek + Nancy Cleland | 3–1 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Annette Kretzler + Amanda Bahrou | 4–0 | 4 matches | not enough data |
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.