WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Mequon Elite Symes-Orosz
2024 WI Adult 40 & Over · WI Adult 40 & Over 4.0 Women (Eve)
15 players · average NTRP 3.77 / WISCONSIN
Schedule6 played
i
Flight standings14 teams · WI Adult 40 & Over 4.0 Women (Eve)
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Princeton Witt | 6 | 0 | 13 | 190 |
| 2WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Mequon Elite Levy | 5 | 1 | 16 | 217 |
| 3WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Lake Country WAC Picard | 5 | 1 | 19 | 204 |
| 4WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Heyer Park Kossoris | 4 | 2 | 22 | 226 |
| 5WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML FLAC Trost | 4 | 2 | 24 | 253 |
| 6WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML PVTC Neinas | 3 | 3 | 32 | 252 |
| 7WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Mequon Elite Symes-Orosz | 3 | 3 | 33 | 259 |
| 8WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Lake Country WAC Abhold | 3 | 3 | 35 | 276 |
| 9WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Mequon Elite Godden | 3 | 3 | 36 | 290 |
| 10WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Brookfield East Wille | 2 | 4 | 42 | 304 |
| 11WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Lifesport Racine Khan | 1 | 5 | 45 | 302 |
| 12WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Western Racquet Ferge | 1 | 5 | 48 | 317 |
| 13WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Wisc Hills MS Kalbach | 1 | 5 | 50 | 323 |
| 14WI Adult 40&O 4.0W GML Oconomowoc HS Hesse | 1 | 5 | 50 | 325 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 12 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Susan Fondrie + Diane Harmening | 4–6 | 46% games | +2.8% vs expected |
| Susan Fondrie + Deanna Weiss | 8–16 | 43% games | −5.1% vs expected |
| Catherine Curro + Heidi Dyer | 17–56 | 39% games | −6.6% vs expected |
| Catherine Curro + Sue Gryniewicz | 6–2 | 55% games | not enough data |
| Susan Fondrie + Rachel Symes Orosz | 2–4 | 44% games | not enough data |
| Susan Fondrie + Peggy Yang | 1–3 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Candace Walz + Deanna Weiss | 1–3 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Rachel Symes Orosz + Sally Haderlein | 3–1 | 4 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.