Teams

FF:Mao

2023 Summer Tri-Level · 4.0 Women

5 players · average NTRP 4.00 / MAINE

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2023-09-12vs WOOD:PondWon 10
W#1 DoublesDeanna Mao / Lisa Ford vs Heidi Allen / Susie Coughlin6-4, 5-7, 1-0
2023-08-28vs Apex:NetAssets:DoyleWon 10
W#1 DoublesDeanna Mao / Polly Colvin MacKenzie vs Diana Doyle / Heidi Rentz6-0, 6-1
2023-08-10vs Apex:ColpittsLost 01
L#1 DoublesLisa Ford / Alice Wagg vs Hiroko Meserve / Niamh Colpitts4-6, 6-4, 0-1
2023-08-02vs FF:BosworthLost 01
L#1 DoublesPolly Colvin MacKenzie / Lorraine Fagela vs Barbee Gilman / Anne Bosworth2-6, 4-6
2023-07-14vs WOOD:StrasenburghWon 10
W#1 DoublesPolly Colvin MacKenzie / Lorraine Fagela vs Sue Strasenburgh / Barbara Marr6-2, 6-4
2023-07-12vs Apex:MarroquinLost 01
L#1 DoublesPolly Colvin MacKenzie / Lorraine Fagela vs Claudia Marroquin / Emily Silver2-6, 6-4, 0-1
2023-07-08vs Apex:KapothanasisLost 01
L#1 DoublesLisa Ford / Polly Colvin MacKenzie vs Agathi Haxhi / Valentina Kapothanasis2-6, 3-6
2023-07-07vs Apex:McArdleWon 10
W#1 DoublesLisa Ford / Alice Wagg vs Deborah Cavanaugh / Anne Vaillancourt6-4, 6-0
2023-07-02vs Apex:ConroyWon 10
W#1 DoublesLisa Ford / Alice Wagg vs Allison Bitter / Jill Federico6-2, 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 standings7 teams · 4.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1FF:Bosworth9090362
2WOOD:Pond7272666
3FF:Mao5454971
4Apex:Kapothanasis54541084
5Apex:NetAssets:Doyle27271599
6WOOD:Strasenburgh272715101
7Apex:Conroy18181691

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 3.70 estimated across 2 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.

3.86
Deanna Mao
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
Alice Wagg
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.54
Polly Colvin MacKenzie
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Lisa Ford
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Lorraine Fagela
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Deanna Mao + Polly Colvin MacKenzie9360% games+1.0% vs expected
Deanna Mao + Lisa Ford4159% games+0.9% vs expected
Lorraine Fagela + Polly Colvin MacKenzie224 matchesnot enough data
Lorraine Fagela + Alice Wagg213 matchesnot enough data
Alice Wagg + Lisa Ford213 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.

4
Deanna Mao
110W–66L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%86%14%
3.86
4
Alice Wagg
7W–5L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
Polly Colvin MacKenzie
93W–72L career · 5 lines in 2023
37%63%<1%
3.54
Lisa Ford
18W–6L career · 5 lines in 2023
not enough data
Lorraine Fagela
62W–48L career · 3 lines in 2023
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.