Teams

3DEER-SUTKIEWICZ win tri DAY 40 35 30 W SEM

2025 aSEM TRI-LEVEL - WINTER · 2025 Tri-Level DAYS Jan Low 4.0 3.5 3.0 Women SEM

14 players · average NTRP 3.50 / 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.

View scouting list →
Schedule10 played
L#3 DoublesLaine Johnson / Carmen Mollicone vs Maya Clem / Xuerong Mu3-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMichelle Sutkiewicz / Shannon Morgan vs Michelle Aikin / Rebecca Barry3-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLaine Johnson / Sherry Snudden vs Carlee Meyers / Jennifer Bae7-6, 6-2
L#1 DoublesLeslie Schneemann / Shannon Morgan vs Jean Wang / Heather Cooper6-4, 3-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesMonica Padilla / Carmen Mollicone vs Noelle Todd / Anne Steinhauer3-6, 7-5, 0-1
L#2 DoublesBeth Fahr / Shannon Morgan vs Chikayo Ueda / Akiko Uno7-5, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesMonica Padilla / Sherry Snudden vs Konomi Aino / Ashley Bahri6-7, 6-7
L#3 DoublesIvona Gorry / Sherry Snudden vs Alice Currier / Lina E Bata1-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesShannon Morgan / Michelle Sutkiewicz vs Ashley Mooney / Katherine Arst3-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesCarmen Mollicone / Monica Padilla vs Libby Hemphill / Teressa Funkhouser4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesMichelle Sutkiewicz / Shannon Morgan vs Michelle Aikin / Jessica Brandt4-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesMonica Padilla / Carmen Mollicone vs Jennifer Bae / Carlee Meyers1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesShannon Morgan / Susan Joseph vs JENNIFER O'FARRILL DIAZ / Tammy Watson4-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesIvona Gorry / Laine Johnson vs Kaitlyn Moore / Noelle Todd1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesIvona Gorry / Carmen Mollicone vs Otome Kitamura / Chiharu Kanaoka6-7, 2-6
L#2 DoublesShannon Morgan / Terri Martin vs Tracy Jackson / Ana Rotar6-7, 4-6
L#3 DoublesLaine Johnson / Monica Padilla vs Alice Currier / Jenna Klar0-6, 0-6
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 standings6 teams · 2025 Tri-Level DAYS Jan Low 4.0 3.5 3.0 Women SEM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
11HV-WATSON win tri DAY 40 35 30 W SEM9122824248
26FAC-LAU win tri DAY 40 35 30 W SEM64171329254
32WESS-LI win tri DAY 40 35 30 W SEM55161430253
45SCWB-CHAN win tri DAY 40 35 30 W SEM55171331269
54LIB-HAESSLER win tri DAY 40 35 30 W SEM46121838296
63DEER-SUTKIEWICZ win tri DAY 40 35 30 W SEM1962451337

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 3.14 estimated across 11 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.

3.78
Nikole Carlson
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.71
Julie Zerba
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.42
Leslie Schneemann
usually #1 Doubles 88%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published 4
3.40
Susan Joseph
usually #3 Doubles 58%, also #2 Doubles 42% · published
3.22
Beth Fahr
usually #2 Doubles 83%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
3.12
Sherry Snudden
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
3.09
Michelle Sutkiewicz
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.02
Shannon Morgan
usually #2 Doubles 86%, also #1 Doubles 14% · published
2.59
Carmen Mollicone
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.59
Ivona Gorry
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.57
Monica Padilla
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Laine Johnson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Michelle Watson
published
Terri Martin
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.

Michelle Watson + Leslie Schneemann13756% games+13.9% vs expected
Susan Joseph + Shannon Morgan101252% games+8.5% vs expected
Susan Joseph + Nikole Carlson5654% games+7.9% vs expected
Julie Zerba + Nikole Carlson4158% games+2.9% vs expected
Leslie Schneemann + Susan Joseph7550% games−0.9% vs expected
Michelle Sutkiewicz + Leslie Schneemann10359% games−1.1% vs expected
Julie Zerba + Michelle Watson8455% games−1.3% vs expected
Leslie Schneemann + Nikole Carlson8849% 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.

4
Nikole Carlson
75W–59L career · 5 lines in 2025
2%92%5%
3.78
4
Julie Zerba
40W–38L career · 3 lines in 2025
7%91%2%
3.71
4
Leslie Schneemann
105W–86L career · 8 lines in 2025
72%28%<1%
3.42
Susan Joseph
112W–134L career · 12 lines in 2025
75%25%<1%
3.40
3.5
Beth Fahr
29W–43L career · 6 lines in 2025
6%92%2%
3.22
3
Sherry Snudden
14W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%19%81%
3.12
3.5
Michelle Sutkiewicz
68W–50L career · 3 lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
3.09
Shannon Morgan
39W–68L career · 7 lines in 2025
43%57%<1%
3.02
3
Carmen Mollicone
35W–97L career · 5 lines in 2025
26%73%<1%
2.59
3
Ivona Gorry
22W–39L career · 3 lines in 2025
27%73%<1%
2.59
Monica Padilla
58W–106L career · 5 lines in 2025
31%69%<1%
2.57
Laine Johnson
10W–7L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Michelle Watson
42W–41L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Terri Martin
6W–14L career · no lines in 2025
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.