Teams

OV 180&O 5.0W Buerschen (Dayton Quail Run Racquet Club)

2022 OH OV WINTER A18&O · 2022 Winter A18&O 5.0 Women Weekend

7 players · average NTRP 4.50 / OHIO VALLEY

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 →
Schedule5 played
2022-05-01vs KTC-TaylorLost 01
L#1 SinglesTaylor Pritt vs Amy Salimian1-6, 3-6
2022-04-03vs STC-EnslenLost 01
L#1 DoublesKatie Boeckman / Taylor Pritt vs Amy Fritz / Shannon Young3-6, 3-6
2022-03-20vs KTC-TaylorLost 01
L#1 SinglesLauren Hawley vs Amy Salimian6-7, 4-6
2022-02-20vs STC-EnslenLost 01
L#1 SinglesTaylor Pritt vs Shannon Young2-6, 3-6
2022-01-29vs KTC-TaylorLost 02
L#1 DoublesTaylor Pritt / Lauren Hawley vs Courtney Taylor / Kelly Fackel1-6, 5-7
L#1 SinglesMichelle Henley vs Amy Salimian4-6, 1-6
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 · 2022 Winter A18&O 5.0 Women Weekend
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1OV 180&O 5.0W Buerschen (Dayton Quail Run Racquet Club)5111715146
2KTC-Taylor4212612137
3STC-Enslen0641428181

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 4.54 estimated across 5 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.

4.73
Mara Sheley
published
4.70
Meghan Sorensen
published
4.46
Katie Boeckman
usually #1 Doubles 78%, also #2 Doubles 11% · published
4.44
Taylor Pritt
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
4.38
Emily Buerschen
usually #2 Doubles 63%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published 4.5
Lauren Hawley
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
Michelle Henley
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Meghan Sorensen + Mara Sheley15367% games+5.3% vs expected
Meghan Sorensen + Emily Buerschen4262% gamesnot 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.

Mara Sheley
56W–31L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
4.73
Meghan Sorensen
44W–26L career · no lines in 2022
6%93%1%
4.70
Katie Boeckman
133W–31L career · 9 lines in 2022
<1%61%39%
4.46
Taylor Pritt
23W–12L career · 4 lines in 2022
68%32%<1%
4.44
4.5
Emily Buerschen
75W–30L career · 8 lines in 2022
<1%81%19%
4.38
Lauren Hawley
49W–19L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Michelle Henley
16W–27L career · 3 lines in 2022
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.