Teams

KTC Brooks

2025 OH OV SUMMER A55&O Dayton · 2025 SUMMER Daytime A55&O 6.0W Dayton

11 players · average NTRP 2.88 / 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 →
Schedule4 played
2025-07-12vs QRRC StapletonWon 10
W#2 DoublesAnnette Oakes / Mary Timm vs Candace Holthouse / Phyllis Adams6-1, 6-4
2025-06-28vs QRRC StapletonLost 01
L#3 DoublesSandra Smith / Mary Timm vs Mary Welfle / Leslie Guinto6-7, 1-6
2025-06-14vs QRRC StapletonLost 01
L#3 DoublesDebbie Michal / Mary Timm vs Sherry Stapleton / Tonya Peters1-6, 6-7
2025-05-31vs QRRC StapletonLost 01
L#2 DoublesDebbie Michal / Mary Timm vs Michelle Lewis / Mary Welfle1-6, 2-6
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 · 2025 SUMMER Daytime A55&O 6.0W Dayton
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1QRRC Stapleton4211716134
2KTC Brooks2471126191

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 2.58 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.

2.87
Sharon Vance
published
Annette Oakes
published 3
2.74
Debbie Michal
published 3
2.69
Sheri Hayes
published
2.67
Laura Darden
published
2.51
Susan Holm
published
2.47
Starlene Brooks
published
2.41
Daphne Warner
published 3
2.26
Mary Timm
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 2.5
Jo Bouchard
published
Sandra Smith
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.

Starlene Brooks + Susan Holm4249% games−1.5% vs expected
Annette Oakes + Jo Bouchard132739% games−8.8% vs expected
Laura Darden + Starlene Brooks21233% games−9.7% vs expected
Starlene Brooks + Daphne Warner2450% gamesnot enough data
Starlene Brooks + Sandra Smith134 matchesnot enough data
Laura Darden + Sheri Hayes033 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.

Sharon Vance
17W–32L career · no lines in 2025
<1%83%17%
2.87
3
Annette Oakes
14W–31L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Debbie Michal
9W–9L career · no lines in 2025
5%92%3%
2.74
Sheri Hayes
75W–62L career · no lines in 2025
9%89%1%
2.69
Laura Darden
20W–42L career · no lines in 2025
11%88%1%
2.67
Susan Holm
16W–18L career · no lines in 2025
48%52%<1%
2.51
Starlene Brooks
47W–76L career · no lines in 2025
58%42%<1%
2.47
3
Daphne Warner
31W–61L career · no lines in 2025
73%27%<1%
2.41
2.5
Mary Timm
15W–30L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%95%5%
2.26
Jo Bouchard
19W–38L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Sandra Smith
5W–11L 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.