Teams

Martin-L&T

2022 Sandhills Tri Level 18 & over · 3.5

14 players · average NTRP 4.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2022-07-27vs Barton - Pinehurst No.9Won 10
W#2 DoublesChristina McKenzie / Sushma Patel vs Heather Barnwell / Jane Barton2-6, 6-3, 1-0
2022-06-20Won 10
W#2 DoublesRobin McClymont / Sushma Patel vs Tara Platt / Annie Osterman7-5, 7-6
2022-05-16vs Strong - MazarickLost 01
L#1 DoublesSushma Patel / Christina McKenzie vs Ayanna Spencer / Erika Harris1-6, 1-6
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 3.5 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 3.65 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.

Christy Clark
published 4.5
4.22
Christina McKenzie
published 4.5
3.89
Jennifer Furie
published
3.79
Robin McClymont
published
3.70
Katrina Bullard
published
3.60
Christina Powers
published 4
3.60
Joy Martin
published
3.59
Ann Tucker
published 3.5
3.41
Sushma Patel
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.36
Lisa Blalock
published
3.34
Amity Aldridge
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Kate King
published
Maggie Wells
published
Megan Hunt
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.

Ann Tucker + Amity Aldridge6656% games+6.3% vs expected
Christina McKenzie + Ann Tucker9165% gamesnot enough data
Christy Clark + Robin McClymont4645% gamesnot enough data
Amity Aldridge + Katrina Bullard6357% gamesnot enough data
Sushma Patel + Christina McKenzie3442% gamesnot enough data
Sushma Patel + Amity Aldridge2547% gamesnot enough data
Christina McKenzie + Katrina Bullard5057% gamesnot enough data
Christina McKenzie + Robin McClymont314 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.

4.5
Christy Clark
48W–29L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
4.5
Christina McKenzie
50W–28L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
4.22
Jennifer Furie
7W–19L career · no lines in 2022
81%19%<1%
3.89
Robin McClymont
49W–34L career · no lines in 2022
1%93%5%
3.79
Katrina Bullard
23W–16L career · no lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.70
4
Christina Powers
30W–45L career · no lines in 2022
21%79%<1%
3.60
Joy Martin
56W–80L career · no lines in 2022
21%79%<1%
3.60
3.5
Ann Tucker
64W–37L career · no lines in 2022
<1%25%75%
3.59
4
Sushma Patel
86W–150L career · 3 lines in 2022
77%23%<1%
3.41
Lisa Blalock
7W–35L career · no lines in 2022
86%14%<1%
3.36
3.5
Amity Aldridge
113W–101L career · 8 lines in 2022
<1%89%10%
3.34
Kate King
7W–0L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Maggie Wells
6W–12L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Megan Hunt
8W–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.