← Teams

SAC-Marsh

2023 Mixed 40 & Over · 7.0 Mixed

10 players · average NTRP 3.67 · USTA/PACIFIC NW / NORTHERN OREGON

View scouting list →
Scouting

Roster averages 3.64 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.

4.12
Kristin Spear
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.95
Kristie Leake
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published 4.5
3.82
Teresa Sullivan
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
—
Julie Legassick
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
—
Michael Leake
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.18
America Hopson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Matt Curtis
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
—
Jeff Legassick
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
—
Tim Fernstrom
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
—
Todd Spear
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 0
Results8 ties
2023-03-11Lost 0–2
L#1 DoublesTim Fernstrom / Kristin Spear vs Chris van Leeuwen / John van Leeuwen6-1, 6-2
L#2 DoublesMichael Leake / Julie Legassick vs Mike Baker / Rhonda Baker6-4, 7-6
2023-02-26Won 1–0
W#1 DoublesMatt Curtis / Kristin Spear vs Janet Mills / Patrick Clancy6-3, 6-1
2023-02-11Lost 1–2
L#1 DoublesTeresa Sullivan / Tim Fernstrom vs Amy Bucher / Christian Paulsen6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesMegan Meagher / Jeff Legassick vs Nicola Ash / Nick Hooker6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesKristie Leake / Todd Spear vs Mary Green-Zwemke / Lawrence Cooper6-2, 4-6, 1-0
2023-02-05Lost 0–2
L#2 DoublesMatt Curtis / Kristie Leake vs Wenyan Li / Erin Casey4-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#3 DoublesTeresa Sullivan / Tim Fernstrom vs Alan Liang / Jing Feng6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2023-02-04Lost 0–2
L#2 DoublesMegan Meagher / Matt Curtis vs Annette Hill / Tri Pham6-1, 6-1
L#3 DoublesAmerica Hopson / Michael Leake vs Colleen Kellogg / Gabor Muskat7-6, 5-4
2023-01-29Won 2–1
W#1 DoublesMatt Curtis / Kristie Leake vs Sev Flores / Debbie Spitzer7-5, 5-7, 1-0
W#2 DoublesKristin Spear / Michael Sullivan vs Andalib Khan / Maryam Farinola6-4, 7-5
L#3 DoublesStephen Marsh / America Hopson vs Xiaolu Huang / Gabriel Weaver6-1, 6-2
2023-01-15Won 2–0
W#2 DoublesTodd Spear / Kristie Leake vs Andrea Hobi / Gregory Hobi7-5, 6-1
W#3 DoublesJeff Legassick / Julie Legassick vs Kamran Sajadi / Ashley Sajadi6-1, 4-6, 1-0
2023-01-07Lost 1–2
W#1 DoublesMegan Meagher / Matt Curtis vs Tina Prassas / Deepak Shenoy6-3, 6-4
L#2 DoublesKristie Leake / Michael Sullivan vs Benjamin Moore / Naun Yvonne Kim6-3, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesStephen Marsh / Julie Legassick vs Adam Smith / Christine Steele Smith6-2, 6-3
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.
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.

4.5
Kristin Spear
110W–39L career
3%97%0%
4.12
4.5
Kristie Leake
126W–83L career · type A
26%74%0%
3.95
4
Teresa Sullivan
112W–57L career
0%98%1%
3.82
3.5
Julie Legassick
32W–33L career
not enough data
—
3.5
Michael Leake
16W–40L career
not enough data
—
3.5
America Hopson
22W–43L career
7%93%0%
3.18
3.5
Matt Curtis
45W–35L career
6%94%0%
3.15
3
Jeff Legassick
31W–47L career
not enough data
—
3
Tim Fernstrom
20W–31L career
not enough data
—
0
Todd Spear
23W–21L career
not enough data
—

Three percentages are the year-end projection — chance of moving down, staying, moving up — and the number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. 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.