Teams

Summer Love

Southern Tri Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 · Southern Women

13 players · average NTRP 3.50 / DELAWARE

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2023-08-17vs Peninsula PoachersWon 20
W#1 DoublesTara Day / Lu Ann Rubenstein vs Pamela Stohlman / Theresa Moore6-0, 7-5
W#2 DoublesAlison Naden / Jessica Butcher vs Debbie Polise / Jacqueline Kemp7-6, 4-6, 1-0
2023-08-12vs Bayside 4.0 Tri-LevelSplit 11
W#1 DoublesMiranda Harlan / Lu Ann Rubenstein vs N/A6-0, 6-0
L#2 DoublesAlison Naden / Amy Gough vs Anne Vogel Flaherty / Sarah French0-6, 1-6
2023-07-09vs Peninsula PoachersLost 01
L#1 DoublesTara Day / Lu Ann Rubenstein vs Deborah Strauch / Pamela Stohlman2-6, 4-6
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 standings3 teams · Southern Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Summer Love000000
2Bayside 4.0 Tri-Level0103636
3Peninsula Poachers0103636

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 3.19 estimated across 8 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.

3.71
Lu Ann Rubenstein
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.32
Alison Naden
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.30
Julie Dreisch
published
3.24
Amy Gough
published 3.5
3.17
Marianne Owens
published
3.02
Rhonda Housley
published
2.94
Leslie Lake
published
2.84
Catherine Dillon
published 3
Jessica Butcher
published
Kati Green
published
Maureen McKee
published
Miranda Harlan
published
Tara Day
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.

Maureen McKee + Catherine Dillon5650% gamesnot enough data
Rhonda Housley + Julie Dreisch314 matchesnot enough data
Rhonda Housley + Marianne Owens134 matchesnot enough data
Amy Gough + Julie Dreisch404 matchesnot enough data
Alison Naden + Julie Dreisch123 matchesnot enough data
Kati Green + Julie Dreisch123 matchesnot enough data
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.

4
Lu Ann Rubenstein
69W–47L career · 3 lines in 2023
5%94%1%
3.71
3.5
Alison Naden
117W–72L career · 2 lines in 2023
1%91%8%
3.32
Julie Dreisch
45W–19L career · no lines in 2023
1%93%6%
3.30
3.5
Amy Gough
25W–10L career · no lines in 2023
3%95%2%
3.24
Marianne Owens
21W–17L career · no lines in 2023
9%90%1%
3.17
Rhonda Housley
13W–13L career · no lines in 2023
44%56%<1%
3.02
Leslie Lake
11W–33L career · no lines in 2023
69%31%<1%
2.94
3
Catherine Dillon
24W–35L career · no lines in 2023
<1%89%10%
2.84
Jessica Butcher
4W–4L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Kati Green
6W–8L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Maureen McKee
26W–31L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Miranda Harlan
6W–7L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Tara Day
21W–19L career · no lines in 2023
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.