Teams

CDTA S A40W4.0 2Tam Lund Thu 7 $22

CDTA 1Summer Adult 40 & Over wknd · nght

22 players · average NTRP 3.79 / CHICAGO

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
L#2 DoublesHaina Shin / Rebecca Daly vs Yuko Suzuki / Urszula Farry4-6, 6-5, 0-1
L#1 DoublesRebecca Daly / Sarah Blankenbaker vs Jeanine Stathopoulos / Cheryl Jasinski3-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesLaura Purcell / Gail Wilson vs Kristen Lay / Catherine Battin6-1, 1-6, 1-0
L#1 DoublesAnna Gjerlow / Laura Purcell vs KAREN MAJERCZAK / Shannon Pirron4-6, 3-5
2025-06-12Lost 01
L#2 DoublesLaura Purcell / Alja Hessami-Maas vs Elise Bergman / Jane Ford4-6, 5-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesGaelle Gravot / Tanja Boskovic vs Dawn Pollack / Tracy Meyer3-6, 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 standings11 teams · nght
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S A40W4.0 1Tam Corey Sun 11 $226019512128
2CDTA S A40W4.0 6Barrington Gray Sat 9 $245117718179
3CDTA S A40W4.0 5Nielsen Sheridan Sat 4 $224217719157
4CDTA S A40W4.0 4Barrington Willis Tue 7 $254215923186
5CDTA S A40W4.0 7MT Bann Coy Tue 6:30 $2733131125194
6CDTA S A40W4.0 9Hinsdale Cashman Tue 6:30 $2233121226200
7CDTA S A40W4.0 2Tam Lund Thu 7 $223391533221
8CDTA S A40W4.0 10Glenbrook Hans Sat 10 $252491532232
9CDTA S A40W4.0 8Nielsen Burnside Sat 4 $251581633215
10CDTA S A40W4.0 11Forest View Hayashida Mon 7 $231571737241
11CDTA S A40W4.0 3River Trails Jasinski Tue 7 $261561838243

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 3.59 estimated across 19 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.

4.17
Marie Reece
published 4
3.94
Haina Shin
published 4
3.92
Dawn Baumann
published 4
3.69
3.67
Laura Purcell
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.62
Bonny Tovar
published 4
3.61
Hilary Fife
published 4
3.59
Denise Lam
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.56
Heather Hayden
published
3.53
Amy Antoniolli
published 4
3.52
Rebecca Daly
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.50
3.50
Anna Gjerlow
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.48
Gaelle Gravot
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.44
Emily Lund
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.42
Alja Hessami-Maas
published 3.5
3.41
Tanja Boskovic
published 3.5
3.38
Dimitrina Schoyer
published 3.5
3.33
Agnieszka Fijol
published 3.5
Ela Lewis
published
Gail Wilson
published
Jennifer Peck
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.

Tanja Boskovic + Emily Lund6264% games+16.2% vs expected
Agnieszka Fijol + Emily Lund7065% games+13.3% vs expected
Alja Hessami-Maas + Emily Lund23662% games+9.8% vs expected
Alja Hessami-Maas + Sarah Blankenbaker7459% games+8.1% vs expected
Dimitrina Schoyer + Denise Lam21461% games+7.6% vs expected
Tanja Boskovic + Hilary Fife3448% games+4.3% vs expected
Tanja Boskovic + Denise Lam2351% games+3.8% vs expected
Alja Hessami-Maas + Laura Purcell345945% games+2.7% 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
Marie Reece
177W–44L career · no lines in 2025
<1%11%89%
4.17
4
Haina Shin
200W–104L career · no lines in 2025
<1%68%32%
3.94
4
Dawn Baumann
397W–165L career · no lines in 2025
<1%70%30%
3.92
4
Sarah Blankenbaker
173W–172L career · no lines in 2025
8%90%1%
3.69
Laura Purcell
152W–152L career · 3 lines in 2025
11%88%1%
3.67
4
Bonny Tovar
55W–32L career · no lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
3.62
4
Hilary Fife
102W–65L career · no lines in 2025
21%79%<1%
3.61
3.5
Denise Lam
315W–90L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%25%75%
3.59
Heather Hayden
7W–20L career · no lines in 2025
34%66%<1%
3.56
4
Amy Antoniolli
33W–44L career · no lines in 2025
42%58%<1%
3.53
Rebecca Daly
121W–136L career · 2 lines in 2025
43%56%<1%
3.52
3.5
Maria Lourdes Bandelow
93W–66L career · no lines in 2025
<1%49%51%
3.50
4
Anna Gjerlow
20W–27L career · 1 line in 2025
51%49%<1%
3.50
Gaelle Gravot
33W–38L career · 1 line in 2025
56%44%<1%
3.48
Emily Lund
241W–111L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.44
3.5
Alja Hessami-Maas
212W–213L career · no lines in 2025
<1%71%29%
3.42
3.5
Tanja Boskovic
194W–136L career · no lines in 2025
<1%75%25%
3.41
3.5
Dimitrina Schoyer
286W–188L career · no lines in 2025
<1%80%20%
3.38
3.5
Agnieszka Fijol
128W–115L career · no lines in 2025
1%87%12%
3.33
Ela Lewis
4W–16L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Gail Wilson
20W–39L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Jennifer Peck
123W–58L career · no lines in 2025
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.