Teams

Simpson/18/4.0/WD/UC

2023 City Championship 18 & Over - Women Day · 4.0 (18&O) Women Day

18 players · average NTRP 3.83 / LOUISIANA

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 →
Schedule
Flight standings6 teams · 4.0 (18&O) Women Day
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Westerfield/18/4.0/WD/BREC91371335335
2Silvey/18/4.0/WD/BOC82361438357
3Koenen/18/4.0/WD/CCLA64252555450
4Raetzsch/18/4.0/WD/BRCC46212967477
5Campbell 18/4.0/WD/LEGA37203068476
6Simpson/18/4.0/WD/UC010113983551

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 3.43 estimated across 14 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.

DeAnne Murrey
published 4
3.74
Kellie Momenzadeh
published
3.73
Kim Elston
published
3.68
Lisa Marie Raiford
published
3.66
Laura Hottes
published
3.49
3.44
Michelle Bartels
published
3.43
Kristine Jones
published
3.42
3.33
Leslie Fernandez
published
3.24
Marcia Weger
published
3.22
Leanne Palma
published
3.20
Katherine Hines
published
3.19
Dana Baggett
published 3.5
3.18
Paula Simpson
published
Kennan Bruser
published
Marjorie Person
published
Rain Adams
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.

Dana Baggett + Marcia Weger121351% games+3.7% vs expected
Kim Elston + Marcia Weger2348% games−0.4% vs expected
Leanne Palma + Kim Elston3350% games−0.6% vs expected
Kellie Momenzadeh + Marcia Weger3249% games−2.8% vs expected
Robin McCullough-Bade + Paula Simpson0631% games−9.5% vs expected
Dana Baggett + Katherine Hines1439% gamesnot enough data
Michelle Bartels + Lisa Marie Raiford044 matchesnot enough data
Leanne Palma + Paula Simpson314 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
DeAnne Murrey
10W–13L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Kellie Momenzadeh
29W–14L career · no lines in 2023
3%94%2%
3.74
Kim Elston
42W–56L career · no lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.73
Lisa Marie Raiford
65W–88L career · no lines in 2023
8%91%1%
3.68
Laura Hottes
77W–24L career · no lines in 2023
10%89%<1%
3.66
4
Cindy Plaia Meaux
31W–43L career · no lines in 2023
53%47%<1%
3.49
Michelle Bartels
12W–35L career · no lines in 2023
67%33%<1%
3.44
Kristine Jones
22W–9L career · no lines in 2023
<1%70%30%
3.43
Robin McCullough-Bade
3W–22L career · no lines in 2023
73%27%<1%
3.42
Leslie Fernandez
6W–20L career · no lines in 2023
90%10%<1%
3.33
Marcia Weger
57W–60L career · no lines in 2023
3%94%2%
3.24
Leanne Palma
26W–24L career · no lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.22
Katherine Hines
22W–53L career · no lines in 2023
6%93%1%
3.20
3.5
Dana Baggett
40W–76L career · no lines in 2023
7%92%1%
3.19
Paula Simpson
29W–29L career · no lines in 2023
8%91%1%
3.18
Kennan Bruser
0W–2L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Marjorie Person
23W–15L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Rain Adams
15W–1L career · no 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.