Teams

MI 7.0 CV Aten

2022 NEOTA Monday Interclub B · NEOTA 7.0 Monday Interclub

21 players · average NTRP 3.50 / NORTHEASTERN OHIO

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 →
Schedule3 played
2022-03-21vs MI 7.0 CRC TaylorLost 12
L#1 DoublesCarol Oglesbee / Shelley Beebe vs Jennifer Wrubel / Rona Adams-Brody3-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesNancy Adams / Kitty Finelli vs Robin Outcalt / Gena Cohen3-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesMamie Manchester / Cheryl Tewksbury vs Nancee Taylor-Kilbane / Debora Bork1-6, 6-2, 1-0
2022-02-07vs MI 7.0 CRC TaylorLost 03
L#1 DoublesShelley Beebe / Carol Oglesbee vs Gena Cohen / Robin Outcalt6-7, 2-6
L#2 DoublesKaren Lovejoy / Laurel Cohen vs Jennifer Wrubel / Theresa Bidwell3-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesMonica Lozano / Denise Derbyshire vs Erin Oakley / Nancee Taylor-Kilbane0-6, 0-6
2022-01-31vs MI 7.0 MV GustafsonSplit 11
L#1 DoublesKaren Lovejoy / Cheryl Tewksbury vs Kristen Davet / Lisa Rock2-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesNancy Adams / Mamie Manchester vs Vicki Muschkin / Pamela Thomas6-2, 6-3
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 standings5 teams · NEOTA 7.0 Monday Interclub
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MI 7.0 CRC Taylor7118615166
2MI 7.0 PW Reid4211715119
3MI 7.0 CV Aten12361387
4MI 7.0 KI Scovil133919132
5MI 7.0 MV Gustafson0541124151

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 2.92 estimated across 13 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.

Greg Aten
published 4.5
3.33
Kristin Hofer
published
Denise Zavagno
published 3.5
Ellen Martin
published 3.5
3.23
Carol Oglesbee
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.19
Sharon Prindle
published
3.16
Stephanie Levine
published
3.11
Trish Landsman
published
3.08
Rejeanne Desrosiers
published
2.94
2.83
Cheryl Tewksbury
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.79
Karen Lovejoy
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.68
Mamie Manchester
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.65
Denise Derbyshire
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.57
Shelley Beebe
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.37
Monica Lozano
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Eileen Davis
published
Janice Kovalcheck
published
Kitty Finelli
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Laurel Cohen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Norman
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.

Mamie Manchester + Kristin Hofer6557% games+3.9% vs expected
Ellen Martin + Kristin Hofer5453% games+3.8% vs expected
Sharon Prindle + Stephanie Levine5844% games−1.8% vs expected
Karen Lovejoy + Constance Croasdaile4543% games−2.3% vs expected
Carol Oglesbee + Shelley Beebe151950% games−3.9% vs expected
Laurel Cohen + Rejeanne Desrosiers121446% games−4.5% vs expected
Mamie Manchester + Denise Derbyshire8950% games−5.4% vs expected
Cheryl Tewksbury + Shelley Beebe9654% games−7.5% 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.

4.5
Greg Aten
67W–30L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Kristin Hofer
110W–99L career · no lines in 2022
1%90%10%
3.33
3.5
Denise Zavagno
20W–16L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Ellen Martin
44W–37L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Carol Oglesbee
73W–91L career · 2 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.23
Sharon Prindle
114W–147L career · no lines in 2022
7%92%1%
3.19
Stephanie Levine
40W–48L career · no lines in 2022
11%89%<1%
3.16
Trish Landsman
21W–20L career · no lines in 2022
20%80%<1%
3.11
Rejeanne Desrosiers
43W–54L career · no lines in 2022
27%73%<1%
3.08
3.5
Constance Croasdaile
35W–43L career · type S · no lines in 2022
66%34%<1%
2.94
3
Cheryl Tewksbury
77W–60L career · 2 lines in 2022
1%90%10%
2.83
Karen Lovejoy
137W–136L career · 2 lines in 2022
1%94%5%
2.79
Mamie Manchester
93W–93L career · 2 lines in 2022
9%91%1%
2.68
3
Denise Derbyshire
78W–100L career · 1 line in 2022
13%87%<1%
2.65
Shelley Beebe
54W–76L career · 2 lines in 2022
28%71%<1%
2.57
Monica Lozano
30W–59L career · 1 line in 2022
84%16%<1%
2.37
Eileen Davis
15W–19L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Janice Kovalcheck
52W–38L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Kitty Finelli
34W–30L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Laurel Cohen
37W–57L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Mary Norman
12W–29L 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.