Teams

Titans - Maratta

2023 Brevard Adult 40 & Over · 4.0 Adult 40 & Over - Women

8 players · average NTRP 3.83 / REGION_4

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2023-04-01Lost 01
L#3 DoublesJulie Cole / Naomi Coleman vs Joyce Hayes / Jennifer Jackson7-5, 4-6, 0-1
2023-03-27vs Kiwi - JordanLost 01
L#2 DoublesNaomi Coleman / Licci Barham vs Dawn Barlow / Karin Mann3-6, 1-6
2023-03-18vs Brevard/Wolszczak/40&Over4.0WWon 10
W#3 DoublesLicci Barham / Naomi Coleman vs Anna Butler / Heather Schleicher6-4, 6-2
2023-02-26vs Brevard/Wolszczak/40&Over4.0WLost 01
L#3 DoublesLinda Stout / Naomi Coleman vs Lori Ewing / Amy Gregory6-7, 4-6
2023-02-18vs Kiwi - JordanWon 10
W#2 DoublesNaomi Coleman / Tanya Molony vs Joyce Hayes / Cheri McLachlan6-2, 1-6, 1-0
2023-02-04vs Brevard/Wolszczak/40&Over4.0WLost 01
L#2 DoublesLicci Barham / Tanya Molony vs Melissa Johnson / Yvette van der Wiel4-6, 6-4, 0-1
2023-01-14vs Brevard/Wolszczak/40&Over4.0WLost 02
L#2 DoublesLicci Barham / Tanya Molony vs Melissa Johnson / Yvette van der Wiel6-0, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesNaomi Coleman / Amy McIntosh vs Lori Ewing / Rima Campbell0-6, 2-6
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 standings for 4.0 Adult 40 & Over - Women have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 3.45 estimated across 7 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.

3.82
Tanya Molony
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.66
Cristina Engel
published 4
3.64
Licci Barham
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.54
Naomi Coleman
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.31
Sylvia Segura
published
3.22
Amy McIntosh
published 3.5
2.98
Brandi Maratta
published 3.5
Suzanne New
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.

Licci Barham + Naomi Coleman221454% games+2.0% vs expected
Licci Barham + Tanya Molony8556% gamesnot enough data
Naomi Coleman + Tanya Molony4256% gamesnot 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
Tanya Molony
164W–71L career · 3 lines in 2023
1%89%10%
3.82
4
Cristina Engel
4W–7L career · no lines in 2023
13%86%1%
3.66
4
Licci Barham
130W–81L career · 4 lines in 2023
16%84%1%
3.64
4
Naomi Coleman
169W–144L career · 6 lines in 2023
38%61%<1%
3.54
Sylvia Segura
18W–24L career · no lines in 2023
1%90%9%
3.31
3.5
Amy McIntosh
14W–12L career · no lines in 2023
6%92%2%
3.22
3.5
Brandi Maratta
0W–4L career · no lines in 2023
55%45%<1%
2.98
Suzanne New
0W–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.