Teams

CDTA W 55&OW9.0 2.Glenbrook Pirron Sun 3 $25

CDTA Winter 55 & over W · E

11 players · average NTRP 4.25 / CHICAGO

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 →
Schedule3 played
L#1 DoublesDawn Baumann / Christina Turdo vs Michelle Granger / Alison Hartline5-7, 5-3
L#1 DoublesJennifer Langtry / Julie Hood vs Lisa Musgrave / Alison Hartline3-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesChristina Turdo / Jennifer Langtry vs Laurie Seward / Michelle Granger5-7, 5-6
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 standings2 teams · E
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA W 55&OW9.0 1.Lake Bluff Ewaldz Sun 4 $2260180258
2CDTA W 55&OW9.0 2.Glenbrook Pirron Sun 3 $250601835209

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 3.92 estimated across 9 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.

Christina Turdo
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.18
Debbie Reyna
published 4.5
4.14
Jennifer Langtry
published 4.5
4.09
Hoda Elshakankery
published 4.5
4.08
Julie Hood
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.92
Dawn Baumann
published 4
3.92
Cara Waddle
published 4
3.67
Gayle Dominicis
published 4
3.65
Carlene Motto
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 4
3.60
Shannon Pirron
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
Karen Light
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.

Karen Light + Shannon Pirron4354% games+5.2% vs expected
Hoda Elshakankery + Gayle Dominicis632059% games+2.1% vs expected
Debbie Reyna + Hoda Elshakankery51149% games−1.4% vs expected
Gayle Dominicis + Shannon Pirron9951% games−2.4% vs expected
Carlene Motto + Gayle Dominicis4351% games−6.5% vs expected
Dawn Baumann + Gayle Dominicis4250% gamesnot enough data
Dawn Baumann + Shannon Pirron4164% gamesnot enough data
Carlene Motto + Dawn Baumann404 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.

4.5
Christina Turdo
6W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
4.5
Debbie Reyna
130W–61L career · no lines in 2025
10%89%1%
4.18
4.5
Jennifer Langtry
244W–109L career · no lines in 2025
16%84%1%
4.14
4.5
Hoda Elshakankery
216W–111L career · no lines in 2025
25%74%<1%
4.09
Julie Hood
29W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
29%71%<1%
4.08
4
Dawn Baumann
397W–165L career · no lines in 2025
<1%70%30%
3.92
4
Cara Waddle
150W–116L career · no lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
3.92
4
Gayle Dominicis
229W–135L career · no lines in 2025
12%88%1%
3.67
4
Carlene Motto
107W–113L career · 5 lines in 2025
14%86%1%
3.65
Shannon Pirron
56W–29L career · 5 lines in 2025
25%75%<1%
3.60
Karen Light
6W–4L 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.