Teams

WHCC - J. Burns

2022 Polk Adult 18 & Over - Women · 3.0 Adult 18 & Over - Women

7 players · average NTRP 3.30 / REGION_4

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2022-06-13Won 10
W#2 SinglesJennifer Burns vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2022-05-23vs Winter Haven - J. PayneWon 20
W#2 SinglesJan Hyman vs Kathleen Collany6-1, 6-0
W#3 DoublesJennifer Burns / Hannah Taylor vs Kim Schmucker / Lisa Pearce6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesJennifer Burns / Hannah Taylor vs Karen Hogg / Allison Sorenson6-2, 7-6
W#3 DoublesLeilani Guinn / Jan Hyman vs Jihyeon Choe / Kristin Wyatt3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2022-05-16vs Polk/T. LoveLost 01
L#1 DoublesHannah Taylor / Jan Hyman vs Tiffany Love / Leslie Simmons3-6, 3-6
2022-05-09vs Beerman - Grieger/EspitiaSplit 11
L#1 DoublesJennifer Burns / Hannah Taylor vs Kim Martin / Ginger Davis2-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesJan Hyman / Lauren Mason vs Regina Espitia / Karen Volkmann6-3, 6-3
2022-04-25vs Alley Kittens - Beerman TchipanovaLost 01
L#1 DoublesJennifer Burns / Hannah Taylor vs Angie Shoemaker / Nathaly Arredondo4-6, 3-6
2022-04-18vs Winter Haven - J. PayneSplit 11
L#1 DoublesJan Hyman / Lauren Mason vs Geraldine Tardy / Debra Edwards2-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesJennifer Burns / Hannah Taylor vs Christina Beissinger / Laura Barben6-1, 6-3
2022-04-11vs Polk/T. LoveSplit 11
L#1 DoublesJan Hyman / Christine Ingram vs Tiffany Love / Leslie Simmons4-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesJennifer Burns / Hannah Taylor vs Julie Goodwin / Angela Johnson6-4, 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 standings for 3.0 Adult 18 & Over - 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 3.07 estimated across 6 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.

3.41
Leilani Guinn
published
3.33
Meghan Savant
published 3.5
Brittany Ward
published 3.5
3.10
Jennifer Burns
usually #2 Doubles 36%, also #3 Doubles 36% · published 3.5
2.99
Andrea Jahna
published 3
2.96
Hannah Taylor
published 3
2.62
Jan Hyman
usually #1 Doubles 50%, 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.

Jennifer Burns + Meghan Savant14858% games+6.2% vs expected
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.

Leilani Guinn
13W–13L career · no lines in 2022
<1%76%23%
3.41
3.5
Meghan Savant
82W–39L career · no lines in 2022
1%89%10%
3.33
3.5
Brittany Ward
1W–1L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Jennifer Burns
89W–64L career · 11 lines in 2022
22%78%<1%
3.10
3
Andrea Jahna
4W–0L career · no lines in 2022
<1%52%48%
2.99
3
Hannah Taylor
8W–3L career · no lines in 2022
<1%63%37%
2.96
Jan Hyman
66W–86L career · 6 lines in 2022
18%81%<1%
2.62

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.