Indy A55 7.0W D CRC Kirk
Summer USTA Central Indiana Adult 55 & Over · CIN Indy 55 & Over 7.0 Women, S
10 players · average NTRP 3.17 / CENTRAL INDIANA
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule7 played
i
Flight standings19 teams · CIN Indy 55 & Over 7.0 Women, S
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Indy A55 7.0W E IRCD Pruitt | 10 | 0 | 9 | 158 |
| 2Indy A55 7.0W E IRCD Dalton | 8 | 1 | 14 | 159 |
| 3Indy A55 7.0W D CNHS Scott | 7 | 0 | 7 | 108 |
| 4Indy A55 7.0W E IRCD Akers | 7 | 2 | 17 | 174 |
| 5Indy A55 7.0W D RRRC DiPrimio | 6 | 1 | 16 | 145 |
| 6Indy A55 7.0W D CRC Nelson | 5 | 2 | 15 | 157 |
| 7Indy A55 7.0W E CRC Gates | 5 | 4 | 27 | 228 |
| 8Indy A55 7.0W D CRC Kirk | 4 | 3 | 22 | 177 |
| 9Indy A55 7.0W E MRC Vorhees | 4 | 5 | 28 | 203 |
| 10Indy A55 7.0W E IRCD Gupta | 4 | 5 | 33 | 244 |
| 11Indy A55 7.0W E BRE McNamar | 4 | 5 | 35 | 257 |
| 12Indy A55 7.0W D IHP Ries | 3 | 4 | 22 | 161 |
| 13Indy A55 7.0W E IRCD Melcher | 3 | 6 | 39 | 265 |
| 14Indy A55 7.0W E IRCD Cook | 3 | 6 | 39 | 271 |
| 15Indy A55 7.0W D IRCD Roberts | 2 | 5 | 32 | 220 |
| 16Indy A55 7.0W D HTGBC Montgomery | 1 | 6 | 38 | 243 |
| 17Indy A55 7.0W E PATC Ackerman | 1 | 8 | 46 | 291 |
| 18Indy A55 7.0W E PATC Kern | 1 | 8 | 47 | 310 |
| 19Indy A55 7.0W D IRCD Rubenstein | 0 | 7 | 37 | 232 |
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 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Julie Mangano + Megan Gregor | 5–7 | 49% games | −4.6% vs expected |
| Marilyn Langston + Debbie Lackey | 6–2 | 59% games | not enough data |
| Robbyn Kizer + Debbie Lackey | 4–3 | 50% games | not enough data |
| Anna Fagg + Susie Kirk | 2–3 | 33% games | not enough data |
| Robbyn Kizer + Susie Kirk | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Anna Fagg + Susan Woodhouse | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Anna Fagg + Debbie Lackey | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Robbyn Kizer + Tiffany Pendl | 2–1 | 3 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.