Greenhill/Nevelow W4.0
2025 DALLAS TENNIS 18 & Over ADULT S · S W. Thursday League
16 players · average NTRP 3.90 / TEXAS
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule3 played
i
Flight standings27 teams · S W. Thursday League
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1High Point/Soldan-Dove W4.0 | 8 | 0 | 28 | 275 |
| 2Greenhill/Newberg-Schonwald W4.0 | 7 | 1 | 22 | 263 |
| 3Lakes/Buckalew-Criswell W4.0 | 7 | 1 | 36 | 339 |
| 4Garland/Smith-Bradley W4.0 | 7 | 1 | 37 | 325 |
| 5Colleyville Park/Coffindaffer W4.0 (F2025 WC) | 6 | 2 | 32 | 300 |
| 6Greenhill/Nevelow W4.0 | 6 | 2 | 38 | 329 |
| 7Samuell Grand/McGill-Beirute W4.0 | 6 | 2 | 38 | 329 |
| 8High Point/Davis-Jenkins W4.0 | 6 | 2 | 42 | 364 |
| 9Royal Oaks/Munir W4.0 | 6 | 2 | 45 | 343 |
| 10Samuell Grand/Musick-Thornton W4.0 | 5 | 3 | 27 | 299 |
| 11Samuell Grand/Roos-Oliver W4.0 | 5 | 3 | 36 | 335 |
| 12Oak Creek/Jackson-Trousil W4.0 | 5 | 3 | 39 | 349 |
| 13Canyon Creek/Kramer-Thomas W4.0 | 5 | 3 | 39 | 325 |
| 14SMU/Park W4.0 | 4 | 4 | 40 | 335 |
| 15McKinney/Jacobs-Chapman W4.0 | 4 | 4 | 44 | 361 |
| 16DCC/Beecherl W4.0 | 4 | 4 | 45 | 361 |
| 17DAC/Fellman-Jolly W4.0 | 3 | 5 | 47 | 391 |
| 18Huffhines/Ethington W4.0 | 3 | 5 | 53 | 399 |
| 19DAC/Moore-Carothers W4.0 | 3 | 5 | 60 | 409 |
| 20Chandlers Landing/Owenby W4.0 | 2 | 6 | 53 | 383 |
| 21Gleneagles/Shukis-Lofgren W4.0 | 2 | 6 | 53 | 385 |
| 22Stonebriar/Woodson W4.0 | 2 | 6 | 56 | 396 |
| 23McKinney/Cady W4.0 | 1 | 7 | 53 | 386 |
| 24The Nelson/Wood W4.0 | 1 | 7 | 54 | 384 |
| 25RGAC/Hill W4.0 | 0 | 8 | 59 | 410 |
| 26Lakewood/Diaz-Dix W4.0 | 0 | 8 | 72 | 452 |
| 27T bar M/Dodgen-LaRosen W4.0 | 0 | 8 | 76 | 466 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.72 estimated across 13 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Julie Murray + Candice Ewing | 5–1 | 56% games | +8.5% vs expected |
| Julie Murray + Elizabeth Nevelow | 20–3 | 62% games | +3.8% vs expected |
| Monique Black + Candice Ewing | 13–5 | 54% games | +3.6% vs expected |
| Monique Black + Elizabeth Nevelow | 17–4 | 59% games | +2.1% vs expected |
| Elizabeth Nevelow + Candice Ewing | 5–3 | 55% games | +1.9% vs expected |
| Patricia Arvanitis + Elizabeth Nevelow | 6–4 | 52% games | +1.8% vs expected |
| Monique Black + Patricia Arvanitis | 6–7 | 54% games | −4.1% vs expected |
| Brittani Yoo + Kristen Lampe | 5–1 | 65% games | −4.5% vs expected |
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.
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.