NITA E 35W40b Naperville TC (Gabel/Larsen)
2022 NITA1 ESL Adult 40 & Over · NITA ESL 40 & Over 3.5 Women
19 players · average NTRP 3.50 / NORTHERN ILLINOIS
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule11 played
i
Flight standings14 teams · NITA ESL 40 & Over 3.5 Women
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1NITA 35W40 Courts Plus (Barsotti/Bursch) | 11 | 1 | 22 | 268 |
| 2NITA E 35W40c Racquet Club of LB (Cooper) | 10 | 1 | 17 | 218 |
| 3NITA E 35W40n Score (Bianchi/Knutte) | 8 | 3 | 27 | 293 |
| 4NITA E 35W40g Norris Center (Esler/Ludwig) | 8 | 3 | 45 | 375 |
| 5NITA E 35W40b Naperville TC (Gabel/Larsen) | 7 | 4 | 45 | 355 |
| 6NITA E 35W40k Wheaton SC (McClure) | 7 | 4 | 55 | 371 |
| 7NITA E 35W40l Rush Copley (Gudgeon) | 5 | 6 | 56 | 413 |
| 8NITA E 35W40a Homewood-Flossmoor (Anderson/Loo) | 4 | 7 | 57 | 388 |
| 9NITA E 35W40d Score (Michl/Moskowitz) | 3 | 8 | 57 | 410 |
| 10NITA E 35W40i Five Star (Delgrosso) | 3 | 9 | 66 | 420 |
| 11NITA E 35W40j Health Track (Beneventi/Detrick) | 2 | 9 | 63 | 429 |
| 12WITHDREW NITA E 35W40e C Fitness (Mullady/Kennedy) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 13WITHDREW NITA E 35W40h Hinsdale RC (Comey/Mosca) | 0 | 2 | 13 | 85 |
| 14NITA E 35W40f NMH&FCH (Campagna) | 0 | 11 | 82 | 497 |
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 3.28 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Christine Rothkopf + Lynn Park | 6–0 | 62% games | +9.6% vs expected |
| Lori Toney + Christine Rothkopf | 10–4 | 57% games | +6.6% vs expected |
| Lori Toney + Julie Burke-Concannon | 11–1 | 62% games | +4.5% vs expected |
| Lori Toney + Deborah Apicella | 5–2 | 53% games | +2.9% vs expected |
| Dana Kemp + Tracy Reese | 9–2 | 59% games | −1.1% vs expected |
| Christine Rothkopf + Julie Burke-Concannon | 5–7 | 45% games | −2.3% vs expected |
| Lori Toney + Michelle Yacullo | 5–4 | 52% games | −3.2% vs expected |
| Minja Baek-Jones + Lori Toney | 10–4 | 53% games | −4.0% vs expected |
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.