Teams

Moukad/Ieni

2025 40&Over Women · 3.0 Women

23 players · average NTRP 3.00 / METROPOLITAN REGION

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
2025-04-03vs Abecasis/KimSplit 22
W#1 DoublesTomoko Sekiguchi / Elisabeth de Bourbon vs Inok Kim / Sarah Silliman6-2, 3-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesLorea Canales vs Rie Bohn3-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesLucy Dew / Marcelle de Soares vs Miwako Smith / Ying Yang7-5, 4-4
L#3 DoublesMelanie Petsch / Allison Rosenberg vs Ayako Mahoney / Ming Ong3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2025-03-24vs UlinWon 21
L#1 DoublesCaroline Flandrin / Geraldine Tait vs Cynthia Wasserberger / Katie Danziger3-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesLucy Dew / Elisabeth de Bourbon vs Ashley Toth / Amanda Cook6-4, 6-1
W#3 DoublesChing-lynn Chen / Suzanne Robotti vs Tani Sanghvi / Nicole LeFever7-5, 6-0
2025-03-20vs Funfgeld/HaidukLost 04
L#1 DoublesLucy Dew / Elisabeth de Bourbon vs Sharon Haiduk / Lysa Scarselli1-6, 6-7
L#1 SinglesGeraldine Tait vs Tara St-Pierre1-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesBeth Dragan / Suzanne Robotti vs Adrienne Ubertini / Ailsa Trinidad7-6, 3-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesTomoko Sekiguchi / Nancy Aranow vs Elaine Florio / Milica Zgaljic4-6, 2-3
2025-03-15vs Metro: D'Amore/WilsonSplit 22
L#1 DoublesGeraldine Tait / Edwina Wong vs Deanna D'Amore / Virginia Terry4-6, 4-4
L#1 SinglesAllison Creekmore vs Jill Teitel0-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesEspinosa Maria del Mar / Beth Dragan vs Deborah Fantera / Julia Nelson6-3, 6-3
W#3 DoublesRosemary Moukad / Tomoko Sekiguchi vs Nicole Mull / Ledra Solomon6-1, 6-0
2025-03-04vs UlinLost 13
L#1 DoublesMarcelle de Soares / Lucy Dew vs Abby Ziluca / Daily Lambert5-7, 3-6
W#1 SinglesLorea Canales vs Cynthia Wasserberger6-4, 6-2
L#2 DoublesMaria Ieni / Florina Klingbaum vs Alicia Ulin / Jaime Fliman6-7, 2-6
L#3 DoublesAllison Creekmore / Nancy Aranow vs Ashley Toth / Katie Danziger1-6, 5-7
2025-02-12vs IshizawaSplit 22
L#1 DoublesNancy Aranow / Lisa Berg vs Takako Kawana / Fumie Ishizawa1-6, 0-6
W#1 SinglesKathryn Gayner vs Annie Yao6-2, 3-5
L#2 DoublesCaroline Flandrin / Allison Rosenberg vs Argine Choremi / Kavitha Shastry2-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 DoublesEspinosa Maria del Mar / Edwina Wong vs Sunayna Samtani / Keiko Kita6-1, 6-2
2025-02-03vs KaranWon 21
W#1 DoublesElisabeth de Bourbon / Suzanne Robotti vs Sally Chame / Frances Ning7-6, 6-0
W#2 DoublesAllison Creekmore / Ivy Venafro vs Jennifer Karan / Olawa Gibson6-4, 6-2
L#3 DoublesRosemary Moukad / Ching-lynn Chen vs Tia Williams / Elaine Philis6-4, 5-7, 0-1
2025-01-28vs Abecasis/KimSplit 22
L#1 DoublesLucy Dew / Caroline Flandrin vs Sarah Silliman / Emiko Mizumura7-5, 3-6, 0-1
W#1 SinglesKathryn Gayner vs Mayan Abecasis6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMaria Ieni / Florina Klingbaum vs Joanna Frank / Inok Kim6-4, 6-2
L#3 DoublesStefanie Roth / Espinosa Maria del Mar vs Miwako Smith / Ying Yang3-6, 6-6
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 standings for 3.0 Women have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 2.67 estimated across 12 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.

Beth Dragan
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.98
Kathryn Gayner
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.84
Marcelle de Soares
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.81
Tomoko Sekiguchi
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Ching-lynn Chen
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Edwina Wong
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
Espinosa Maria del Mar
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
Florina Klingbaum
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
Geraldine Tait
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
Ivy Venafro
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.68
Nancy Aranow
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published 3
2.68
Allison Rosenberg
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.67
Rosemary Moukad
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.67
Maria Ieni
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.60
Melanie Petsch
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.58
Caroline Flandrin
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.57
Lucy Dew
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
2.54
Elisabeth de Bourbon
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.38
Allison Creekmore
usually #1 Singles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 2.5
Lisa Berg
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Lorea Canales
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Stefanie Roth
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Suzanne Robotti
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · 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.

Maria Ieni + Florina Klingbaum3355% games+5.0% vs expected
Lucy Dew + Elisabeth de Bourbon3448% games+3.7% vs expected
Maria Ieni + Rosemary Moukad3349% games−1.1% vs expected
Allison Rosenberg + Nancy Aranow2340% games−3.0% vs expected
Lucy Dew + Rosemary Moukad1543% games−11.4% vs expected
Maria Ieni + Kathryn Gayner3257% gamesnot enough data
Allison Rosenberg + Elisabeth de Bourbon134 matchesnot enough data
Maria Ieni + Lucy Dew314 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.

3.5
Beth Dragan
1W–1L career · type S · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Kathryn Gayner
64W–32L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%57%43%
2.98
Marcelle de Soares
34W–47L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%89%11%
2.84
Tomoko Sekiguchi
12W–29L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%92%7%
2.81
3
Ching-lynn Chen
4W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Edwina Wong
6W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Espinosa Maria del Mar
6W–5L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Florina Klingbaum
18W–14L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Geraldine Tait
5W–9L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Ivy Venafro
8W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
3
Nancy Aranow
66W–138L career · 8 lines in 2025
8%91%1%
2.68
3
Allison Rosenberg
26W–112L career · 4 lines in 2025
8%91%1%
2.68
Rosemary Moukad
57W–83L career · 2 lines in 2025
9%90%1%
2.67
Maria Ieni
46W–51L career · 4 lines in 2025
10%90%1%
2.67
Melanie Petsch
21W–30L career · 1 line in 2025
23%77%<1%
2.60
3
Caroline Flandrin
15W–11L career · 3 lines in 2025
27%73%<1%
2.58
Lucy Dew
70W–93L career · 5 lines in 2025
30%70%<1%
2.57
3
Elisabeth de Bourbon
11W–32L career · 4 lines in 2025
37%63%<1%
2.54
2.5
Allison Creekmore
3W–6L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%83%17%
2.38
Lisa Berg
6W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Lorea Canales
36W–29L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Stefanie Roth
3W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Suzanne Robotti
5W–6L career · 3 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.