Teams

CDTA S 18&OW3.5 4.Wilm Lund Thu 7 $22

1Summer 18&O WN · WE

20 players · average NTRP 3.53 / 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 →
Schedule7 played
W#1 DoublesMandy Shaw / Christine Kupfer vs Stephanie Racine / Lauren Carr6-2, 6-3
2026-07-16Won 10
W#1 SinglesDenise Lam vs Meg Hui6-4, 6-2
W#1 SinglesDenise Lam vs Rebecca De Leon6-1, 6-2
W#2 SinglesMara Berkun vs Abbey Peters6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesSharon Kerr-Zygmunt / Mara Berkun vs Martha Billen / SoYoung Grote6-4, 4-3
W#3 DoublesVicki Groo / Erin Ross vs Amalea Tshilds / Emily Guido6-3, 6-1
W#2 DoublesDimitrina Schoyer / Brianna Keane vs Janeen Sutherland / Anne Lewis6-0, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesMandy Shaw / Christine Kupfer vs Catherine Lange / Jennifer Cicciu6-2, 6-2
L#1 DoublesMara Berkun / Magdalena Galinska vs Libby Holdren / Nikki Veen5-7, 2-6
W#1 SinglesDenise Lam vs Ariel Cantieri6-4, 5-3
W#2 DoublesPatty Lynch / Brianna Keane vs Joan Cooney / Cecilia Lauterbach6-0, 6-1
W#3 DoublesSharon Kerr-Zygmunt / Vicki Groo vs Jill Werts / Lynn Callahan6-1, 6-0
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 standings14 teams · WE
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 3.37 estimated across 19 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.

3.72
Tina Werber
published 3.5
3.63
Emily Lund
published 4
3.61
Denise Lam
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.45
Brianna Keane
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.43
Alja Hessami-Maas
published 3.5
3.43
Apple Naughton
published 3.5
3.42
Mandy Shaw
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.41
Tanja Boskovic
published 3.5
3.39
Dimitrina Schoyer
published 3.5
3.38
Christine Kupfer
published 3.5
3.35
Mara Berkun
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.33
Agnieszka Fijol
published 3.5
3.32
Naomi Fujimoto
published 3.5
3.22
Erin Ross
usually #2 Singles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.21
Vina Maniquis
published 3.5
3.20
Vicki Groo
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.20
Miyuki Landt
published 3.5
3.15
Sharon Kerr-Zygmunt
published 3.5
3.13
Magdalena Galinska
published 3.5
Patty Lynch
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.

Sharon Kerr-Zygmunt + Mara Berkun7161% games+13.9% vs expected
Tanja Boskovic + Emily Lund7262% games+13.1% vs expected
Agnieszka Fijol + Emily Lund7065% games+13.1% vs expected
Alja Hessami-Maas + Emily Lund23662% games+8.0% vs expected
Dimitrina Schoyer + Denise Lam21461% games+7.9% vs expected
Mandy Shaw + Vina Maniquis11655% games+5.9% vs expected
Tanja Boskovic + Dimitrina Schoyer322452% games+3.2% vs expected
Mara Berkun + Magdalena Galinska1445% games+1.9% 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.

3.5
Tina Werber
131W–65L career · no lines in 2026
<1%4%96%
3.72
4
Emily Lund
256W–130L career · no lines in 2026
17%83%<1%
3.63
3.5
Denise Lam
320W–95L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%20%80%
3.61
3.5
Brianna Keane
102W–43L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%65%35%
3.45
3.5
Alja Hessami-Maas
214W–213L career · no lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
3.43
3.5
Apple Naughton
225W–194L career · no lines in 2026
<1%71%29%
3.43
Mandy Shaw
99W–76L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%72%28%
3.42
3.5
Tanja Boskovic
194W–136L career · no lines in 2026
<1%76%24%
3.41
3.5
Dimitrina Schoyer
286W–188L career · no lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
3.39
3.5
Christine Kupfer
111W–70L career · no lines in 2026
<1%83%17%
3.38
Mara Berkun
34W–24L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%87%13%
3.35
3.5
Agnieszka Fijol
130W–118L career · no lines in 2026
1%90%10%
3.33
3.5
Naomi Fujimoto
65W–56L career · no lines in 2026
1%91%8%
3.32
3.5
Erin Ross
28W–38L career · 5 lines in 2026
5%94%2%
3.22
3.5
Vina Maniquis
100W–105L career · no lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.21
Vicki Groo
24W–31L career · 2 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.20
3.5
Miyuki Landt
31W–61L career · no lines in 2026
7%92%1%
3.20
3.5
Sharon Kerr-Zygmunt
156W–115L career · no lines in 2026
12%87%<1%
3.15
3.5
Magdalena Galinska
96W–116L career · no lines in 2026
15%85%<1%
3.13
Patty Lynch
28W–31L 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.