Teams

CIN A18 4.5W IRCD Curtiss

Winter USTA Central Indiana Adult 18 & Over · CIN Indy 18 & Over 4.5 Women, W

10 players · average NTRP 4.00 / CENTRAL INDIANA

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 →
Schedule8 played
2025-03-09vs CIN A18 4.5W IHP DeitersLost 02
L#1 DoublesYaping Saran / Amy Deckard vs Kate Bode / Donna Deiters1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesPeggy Waldal / Nancy Clemens vs Hannah Samson / Yamana Uno0-6, 3-6
2025-03-02vs CIN A18 4.5W CRC TrottLost 03
L#1 DoublesJill Davidson / Charlene Tay vs Linda Richman / Stacia Gudgel3-6, 3-6
L#1 SinglesAmy Deckard vs Amy Schmidt0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesBelinda Denning / Sheri Faulkenberg vs Theresa Bayt / Lisa Hirschfeld6-7, 4-3, 0-1
2025-02-16vs CIN A18 4.5W IHP HawkinsLost 02
L#1 DoublesNancy Clemens / Erica Curtiss vs Zoy Brown / Katie Boroski0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesJill Davidson / Charlene Tay vs Emily Thompson / Rania Abbasi4-6, 5-7
2025-02-09vs CIN A18 4.5W IHP DeitersLost 12
L#1 DoublesLeah Gehring / Sheri Faulkenberg vs Margot Burke / Ruth Gaston0-6, 1-6
W#1 SinglesCharlene Tay vs Megan Fernandez6-4, 6-3
L#2 DoublesNancy Clemens / Peggy Waldal vs Kate Bode / Yamana Uno2-6, 1-6
2025-02-02vs CIN A18 4.5W PATC SquiresLost 03
L#1 DoublesNancy Clemens / Peggy Waldal vs Annie Chechitelli / Tiffany Squires4-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesBelinda Denning vs Emily Wandel3-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesErica Curtiss / Wei Wang vs Breelyn Finegan / Courtney Petesch2-6, 2-6
2025-01-26vs CIN A18 4.5W IND FrazerLost 02
L#1 DoublesBelinda Denning / Erica Curtiss vs Madison Hentschel / Laura Rudicle2-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesPeggy Waldal / Sheri Faulkenberg vs Elizabeth Sheets / Michelle Cantwell1-6, 1-6
2025-01-19vs CIN A18 4.5W CRC TrottLost 02
L#1 DoublesYaping Saran / Amy Deckard vs Linda Richman / Amy Schmidt3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesLeah Gehring / Jill Davidson vs Thetchen Price / Brenda Harper6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2025-01-12vs CIN A18 4.5W IRCD ThompsonLost 12
L#1 DoublesPeggy Waldal / Sheri Faulkenberg vs Maria Thompson / Jennifer Barnes3-6, 1-6
L#1 SinglesYaping Saran vs Galina Blomenkamp0-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesBelinda Denning / Erica Curtiss vs Katie Morrison / Melissa Hehmann6-7, 4-3, 1-0
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 standings7 teams · CIN Indy 18 & Over 4.5 Women, W
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CIN A18 4.5W IRCD Thompson9018921197
2CIN A18 4.5W IHP Hawkins7220719195
3CIN A18 4.5W IND Frazer54151225215
4CIN A18 4.5W IHP Deiters44101432218
5CIN A18 4.5W PATC Squires36141330243
6CIN A18 4.5W CRC Trott26101430225
7CIN A18 4.5W IRCD Curtiss0832143268

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 3.53 estimated across 10 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.

3.89
Belinda Denning
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.61
Charlene Tay
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.56
Yaping Saran
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.54
Nancy Clemens
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 44% · published
3.54
Jill Davidson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
3.46
Amy Deckard
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #1 Singles 29% · published 4
3.45
Erica Curtiss
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.45
Sheri Faulkenberg
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.42
Leah Gehring
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.40
Peggy Waldal
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · 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.

Sheri Faulkenberg + Belinda Denning4354% games+14.3% vs expected
Sheri Faulkenberg + Leah Gehring191353% games+11.7% vs expected
Erica Curtiss + Belinda Denning5554% games+5.6% vs expected
Charlene Tay + Erica Curtiss5460% games+2.7% vs expected
Erica Curtiss + Sheri Faulkenberg3645% games+1.9% vs expected
Amy Deckard + Yaping Saran3735% games−1.1% vs expected
Nancy Clemens + Peggy Waldal11452% games−7.0% vs expected
Nancy Clemens + Amy Deckard1537% 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.

4
Belinda Denning
154W–69L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
3.89
4
Charlene Tay
110W–40L career · 5 lines in 2025
22%78%<1%
3.61
Yaping Saran
96W–97L career · 5 lines in 2025
34%65%<1%
3.56
Nancy Clemens
132W–96L career · 9 lines in 2025
39%61%<1%
3.54
Jill Davidson
75W–66L career · 6 lines in 2025
40%60%<1%
3.54
4
Amy Deckard
134W–128L career · 7 lines in 2025
60%40%<1%
3.46
Erica Curtiss
192W–146L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%64%36%
3.45
Sheri Faulkenberg
102W–93L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%65%35%
3.45
Leah Gehring
65W–54L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%71%29%
3.42
Peggy Waldal
118W–78L career · 10 lines in 2025
76%24%<1%
3.40

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.