Teams

Camargo

2022 OH OV SPRING · SUMMER A40&O Cincinnati

13 players · average NTRP 3.60 / 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 →
Schedule2 played
2022-07-14vs Mercy AndersonWon 21
W#1 DoublesAshley Long / Liz Zipfel vs Julia Fox / Maria Holaday6-3, 6-2
L#2 DoublesMacKenzie Curt / Lauren Grote vs Rachel Williams / Beth Keith1-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesAbby McNerney / Hadley Huffman vs Rachel Gleason / Sara Johnston6-3, 6-2
2022-06-09vs Mercy AndersonWon 31
L#1 DoublesMandy Longbottom / Hadley Huffman vs Julia Fox / Connie Haussman2-6, 6-4, 4-2
W#1 SinglesAshley Long vs Kristin Baca6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesLauren Grote / Kerry Foley vs Gretchen McKnight / Beth Keith6-4, 6-3
W#3 DoublesLiz Zipfel / Allison Parlin vs Maria Holaday / Rachel Gleason6-2, 6-1
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 standings5 teams · SUMMER A40&O Cincinnati
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Camargo7125724250
2Five Seasons Ohio7123926236
3Queen City44171536290
4Harpers1782450336
5Mercy Anderson1772550358

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 3.56 estimated across 4 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.

3.79
MacKenzie Curt
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Ashley Long
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.51
Kerry Foley
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.49
Angela Buckley
published 3.5
3.46
Mandy Longbottom
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Abby McNerney
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Allison Parlin
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Hiromi Kashiwakura
published 3.5
Hadley Huffman
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Lauren Grote
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Lauren Shteiwi
published
Liz Zipfel
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Meghan Guitron
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 Guitron + Angela Buckley2544% gamesnot enough data
MacKenzie Curt + Ashley Long213 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.

MacKenzie Curt
11W–14L career · 1 line in 2022
1%94%5%
3.79
4
Ashley Long
9W–9L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Kerry Foley
6W–12L career · 1 line in 2022
48%52%<1%
3.51
3.5
Angela Buckley
8W–12L career · type S · no lines in 2022
<1%52%48%
3.49
Mandy Longbottom
7W–21L career · 1 line in 2022
<1%61%39%
3.46
3.5
Abby McNerney
6W–16L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Allison Parlin
3W–0L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Hiromi Kashiwakura
7W–5L career · type S · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Hadley Huffman
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Lauren Grote
9W–4L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Lauren Shteiwi
2W–2L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Liz Zipfel
3W–4L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Meghan Guitron
2W–13L career · no 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.