Teams

ETC:Penn Pals:Ingram

2023 WMA Adult 18 & Over Women Summer · 2.5 Women 1

7 players · average NTRP 3.00 / WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS

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 →
Schedule5 played
2023-07-10vs ETC:Matchmakers 2.0:VeresLost 12
W#1 DoublesMartha Lopez / Mika Inoue vs Dena Przybyl / Teresa Shea6-2, 6-1
L#1 SinglesKimberly Ingram vs Maxine Cirillo0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesHelena Ingram / Jennifer Crean vs Amy Veres / Patty Gill7-5, 2-5, 0-1
2023-06-24vs ETC:Matchmakers 2.0:VeresLost 12
L#1 DoublesKimberly Ingram / Jennifer Crean vs Amy Veres / Patty Gill3-6, 1-6
L#1 SinglesAlexandra Yevsyuk vs Dena Przybyl2-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesHelena Ingram / Mika Inoue vs Rachel Combe / Teresa Shea2-6, 6-4, 4-3
2023-06-14vs ETC:Matchmakers 2.0:VeresLost 02
L#1 DoublesKimberly Ingram / Alexandra Yevsyuk vs Patty Gill / Amy Veres1-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesJennifer Crean / Nancy Paulides vs Dena Przybyl / Rachel Combe4-6, 1-6
2023-06-07vs ETC:Matchmakers 2.0:VeresLost 12
L#1 DoublesKimberly Ingram / Jennifer Crean vs Maxine Cirillo / Rachel Combe0-6, 4-6
L#1 SinglesMartha Lopez vs Amy Huang4-6, 6-4, 1-4
W#2 DoublesAlexandra Yevsyuk / Mika Inoue vs Patty Gill / Urvi Patel6-4, 6-0
2023-05-31vs ETC:Matchmakers 2.0:VeresLost 12
L#1 DoublesJennifer Crean / Kimberly Ingram vs Urvi Patel / Patty Gill4-6, 5-7
W#1 SinglesAlexandra Yevsyuk vs Maxine Cirillo3-6, 8-6, 5-3
L#2 DoublesNancy Paulides / Helena Ingram vs Dena Przybyl / Amy Lonczak2-6, 3-6
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 2.5 Women 1 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 2.60 estimated across 5 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.

3.12
Mika Inoue
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.75
Alexandra Yevsyuk
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.69
Martha Lopez
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.29
Jennifer Crean
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
2.16
Nancy Paulides
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Helena Ingram
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Kimberly Ingram
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #1 Singles 20% · 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.

Martha Lopez + Mika Inoue4260% gamesnot enough data
Jennifer Crean + Kimberly Ingram044 matchesnot enough data
Alexandra Yevsyuk + Martha Lopez303 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.

Mika Inoue
82W–59L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%21%79%
3.12
3
Alexandra Yevsyuk
23W–21L career · 4 lines in 2023
4%93%4%
2.75
Martha Lopez
29W–34L career · 2 lines in 2023
9%90%1%
2.69
Jennifer Crean
20W–33L career · 5 lines in 2023
0%94%6%
2.29
Nancy Paulides
11W–14L career · 2 lines in 2023
0%99%1%
2.16
Helena Ingram
1W–2L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
Kimberly Ingram
0W–10L career · 5 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.