Teams

Pearson/18/3.0/WN/LSU-I

2023 City Championship 18 & Over - Women Night · 3.0 (18&O) Women Night

15 players · average NTRP 3.19 / LOUISIANA

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 →
Schedule
Flight standings9 teams · 3.0 (18&O) Women Night
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1deVeer/18/3.0/WN/BREC71281228262
2Rosenfeld/18/3.0/WN/UC62291124281
3Pearson/18/3.0/WN/LSU-I53231736306
4Watson/18/3.0/WN/LSU-I53241638338
5J.SMITH/18/3.0/WN/BREC44202044350
6G.Smith/18/3.0/WN/Bocage44202044356
7LeJeune/18/3.0/WN/BREC35172349327
8Donovan/18/3.0/WN/CCL26152552404
9MAY/18/3.0/WN/BREC0843674472

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 2.84 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.

3.33
Anna Wall
published 3.5
Dana Clegg
published 3.5
Diana Pham
published 3.5
3.18
Danielle Pearson
published 3
2.89
Jeanne Herry
published
2.84
Megan Harrell
published
Chelsea Harrell
published 3
Donna Ahmad
published 3
Fabiola Bustos
published 3
2.74
Tracye Russo
published
2.70
Mary Saporito
published
2.60
Shannon Scott
published
2.42
Dawn McManus
published 3
McKensey Lynch
published
Rebecca Mabey
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.

Jeanne Herry + Tracye Russo2353% games−1.1% vs expected
Danielle Pearson + Dana Clegg11357% games−1.9% vs expected
Megan Harrell + Tracye Russo7456% games−2.8% vs expected
Mary Saporito + Jeanne Herry81147% games−3.2% vs expected
Megan Harrell + Chelsea Harrell2743% games−7.7% vs expected
Megan Harrell + Mary Saporito2338% gamesnot enough data
Anna Wall + Dana Clegg224 matchesnot enough data
Danielle Pearson + Tracye Russo134 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.

3.5
Anna Wall
36W–22L career · no lines in 2023
1%90%9%
3.33
3.5
Dana Clegg
78W–29L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3.5
Diana Pham
14W–7L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3
Danielle Pearson
97W–39L career · type A · no lines in 2023
<1%9%91%
3.18
Jeanne Herry
34W–38L career · no lines in 2023
<1%80%20%
2.89
Megan Harrell
45W–38L career · no lines in 2023
<1%89%10%
2.84
3
Chelsea Harrell
10W–11L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3
Donna Ahmad
7W–4L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3
Fabiola Bustos
5W–5L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Tracye Russo
38W–41L career · no lines in 2023
3%94%2%
2.74
Mary Saporito
43W–42L career · no lines in 2023
6%93%1%
2.70
Shannon Scott
25W–33L career · no lines in 2023
22%78%<1%
2.60
3
Dawn McManus
1W–9L career · no lines in 2023
72%28%<1%
2.42
McKensey Lynch
5W–2L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Rebecca Mabey
1W–3L 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.