Teams

Different Strokes 4.5

2025 Montgomery Adult 18 & Over · Montgomery Adult 18 & Over 4.5 Women

18 players · average NTRP 4.43 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2025-06-22vs Breaking PointWon 20
W#1 DoublesTara Jakubik / Sarah Monsheimer vs Carol Besse / Arina Kravitz6-2, 6-3
W#3 DoublesDao Phan-Vissering / Crystal Cornell vs Catalina Tafur / Jaime Lewis6-1, 6-2
2025-05-20vs Smart Aces 4.5Lost 02
L#2 DoublesDao Phan-Vissering / Jenna Gietl vs Jennifer McGraw / Natalie Eatedali6-7, 2-6
L#3 DoublesAnne Jagodits / Jennifer Beekman vs Christine Becer / Alison Bailey6-7, 0-6
2025-05-12vs Breaking PointSplit 11
L#1 DoublesAnne Jagodits / Crystal Cornell vs Pamela Dean / Arina Kravitz2-6, 6-7
W#3 DoublesKayley Duval / Sarah Monsheimer vs Sharon Walsh / Catalina Tafur7-5, 6-3
2025-05-10vs Smart Aces 4.5Won 20
W#1 DoublesIrene Chen / Anne Jagodits vs N/A6-0, 6-0
W#3 DoublesDao Phan-Vissering / Lucy Wang vs Natalie Eatedali / Simone Feldman6-3, 5-6
2025-04-30vs Breaking PointWon 21
W#1 DoublesDao Phan-Vissering / Nathalie Davis vs Pamela Dean / Carol Besse6-2, 6-6
W#2 DoublesJenna Gietl / Margie Davis vs Eboni Lance / Verna Flemming3-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#3 DoublesKatya White / Lucrecia Ledesma vs Vanessa Ogilvie / Sharon Walsh4-6, 4-6
2025-04-27vs Breaking PointLost 03
L#1 DoublesRachel Mingus / Anne Jagodits vs Carol Besse / Eboni Lance2-6, 4-6
L#1 SinglesJenna Gietl vs Kim Dowd7-5, 3-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLucrecia Ledesma / Lora Bacanskas vs Kathleen Su / Vicki Williamson1-6, 2-6
2025-04-25vs Smart Aces 4.5Split 11
L#1 DoublesNathalie Davis / Dao Phan-Vissering vs Natalie Eatedali / Laurie Cohen7-5, 1-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesAnne Jagodits / Rachel Mingus vs Simone Feldman / Ana Maria Pena Castro6-7, 6-1, 1-0
2025-04-15vs Smart Aces 4.5Split 11
W#1 SinglesJenna Gietl vs Ana Maria Pena Castro6-4, 4-5
L#2 DoublesAnne Jagodits / Lora Bacanskas vs Christine Becer / Sarah Stearman4-6, 4-6
2025-04-07vs Breaking PointWon 30
W#1 DoublesDao Phan-Vissering / Irene Chen vs Arina Kravitz / Jennifer Mitchell6-1, 6-4
W#1 SinglesJenna Gietl vs Vanessa Ogilvie6-3, 6-0
W#3 DoublesLucrecia Ledesma / Sarah Monsheimer vs Catalina Tafur / Sharon Walsh6-1, 5-7, 1-0
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 standings for Montgomery Adult 18 & Over 4.5 Women have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 4.10 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.

4.33
Margie Davis
published
4.31
Jenna Gietl
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 4.5
Crystal Cornell
published 4.5
4.23
Anne Jagodits
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.21
Sarah Monsheimer
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.18
Helen Shepherd
published
4.17
Rachel Mingus
published
4.13
Maraya Pratt
published
4.10
Lora Bacanskas
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
3.96
Dao Phan-Vissering
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.94
Jennifer Beekman
published
3.93
Lucrecia Ledesma
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.92
Kayley Duval
published
3.85
Lucy Wang
published
Irene Chen
published
Jennifer Nyman
published
Katya White
published
Tara Jakubik
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.

Anne Jagodits + Dao Phan-Vissering41046% games+5.5% vs expected
Dao Phan-Vissering + Kayley Duval314 matchesnot enough data
Anne Jagodits + Lora Bacanskas123 matchesnot enough data
Dao Phan-Vissering + Margie Davis123 matchesnot enough data
Dao Phan-Vissering + Lucy Wang123 matchesnot enough data
Lucrecia Ledesma + Sarah Monsheimer123 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.

Margie Davis
36W–18L career · no lines in 2025
1%88%11%
4.33
4.5
Jenna Gietl
133W–117L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
4.31
4.5
Crystal Cornell
1W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
4.5
Anne Jagodits
208W–213L career · 6 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
4.23
4.5
Sarah Monsheimer
45W–79L career · 3 lines in 2025
7%91%2%
4.21
Helen Shepherd
26W–17L career · no lines in 2025
10%89%1%
4.18
Rachel Mingus
5W–15L career · no lines in 2025
11%88%1%
4.17
Maraya Pratt
7W–3L career · no lines in 2025
17%82%<1%
4.13
4.5
Lora Bacanskas
53W–46L career · 2 lines in 2025
24%76%<1%
4.10
4.5
Dao Phan-Vissering
232W–271L career · 6 lines in 2025
62%38%<1%
3.96
Jennifer Beekman
6W–22L career · no lines in 2025
66%34%<1%
3.94
4
Lucrecia Ledesma
16W–33L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%70%30%
3.93
Kayley Duval
6W–20L career · no lines in 2025
71%29%<1%
3.92
Lucy Wang
34W–15L career · no lines in 2025
86%14%<1%
3.85
Irene Chen
3W–0L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Jennifer Nyman
8W–7L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Katya White
27W–33L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Tara Jakubik
36W–19L 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.