Teams

CDTA W 18&OW2.5 1.MTC Brown-1 Sat 5 $33.5

CDTA 1Winter 18 & Over W · E

7 players · average NTRP 2.50 / 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 →
Schedule3 played
2026-04-10Won 10
W#2 DoublesAleksandra Jurczyszyn / Abbey Cullen vs Raechelle Paik / Hannah Thornton6-0, 6-3
W#2 DoublesAleksandra Jurczyszyn / Shanna Palmersheim vs Elizabeth Vandesteeg / Andrea Lederman-cotton6-3, 6-3
W#1 SinglesAleksandra Jurczyszyn vs Julie Matzen6-0, 6-4
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 standings5 teams · E
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA W 18&OW2.5 3.RT Ciuca Fri 7:30 $2762141023186
2CDTA W 18&OW2.5 1.MTC Brown-1 Sat 5 $33.55315919170
3CDTA W 18&OW2.5 4.TF Oak Keidan Sat 5 $2853141022193
4CDTA W 18&OW2.5 5.MTB Woods Sun 10 $2735111330229
5CDTA W 18&OW2.5 2.MTC Brown-2 Sat 7 $33.51761837233

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 2.28 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.

2.49
Holly Krois
published 2.5
2.48
Sandra Holl
published 2.5
2.38
Anita Kim
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #1 Singles 29% · published 2.5
2.35
Rachel Leifield
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
2.11
Abbey Cullen
published 2.5
2.11
Aleksandra Jurczyszyn
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 2.5
2.04
Shanna Palmersheim
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · 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.

Abbey Cullen + Anita Kim0529% gamesnot enough data
Holly Krois + Sandra Holl3256% gamesnot enough data
Sandra Holl + Rachel Leifield4175% gamesnot enough data
Abbey Cullen + Shanna Palmersheim044 matchesnot enough data
Abbey Cullen + Aleksandra Jurczyszyn224 matchesnot enough data
Abbey Cullen + Sandra Holl213 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.

2.5
Holly Krois
10W–11L career · no lines in 2026
0%54%46%
2.49
2.5
Sandra Holl
13W–13L career · no lines in 2026
0%56%44%
2.48
2.5
Anita Kim
11W–15L career · 7 lines in 2026
0%81%19%
2.38
Rachel Leifield
10W–7L career · 5 lines in 2026
0%85%15%
2.35
2.5
Abbey Cullen
11W–28L career · no lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.11
2.5
Aleksandra Jurczyszyn
6W–5L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.11
Shanna Palmersheim
12W–29L career · 4 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.04

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.