Teams

PTA

Adult 40 & Over · 4.5 Women

16 players · average NTRP 4.40 / ALLEGHENY MNTN.

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2026-07-25vs Highland ParkLost 12
L#1 DoublesKathy Radick / Emma Pickering vs Fran Bolanis / Meredith Waltenbaugh2-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#1 SinglesDeborah Brill vs Jacquelyn Connell6-4, 2-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesEleni Dedousis / Lauren Diulus vs Rajeeta Bazaz / Ann Graff1-6, 2-6
2026-07-11vs Highland ParkLost 03
L#1 DoublesDeborah Brill / Eleni Dedousis vs Kirsten Rydstrom / Lori Baran2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesKathy Radick / Cathy Chi vs Ann Graff / Heather Gallagher5-7, 2-6
L#3 DoublesLinda Trevenen / Hiromi Katayama vs Janelle Kotyk / Meredith Waltenbaugh1-6, 2-6
2026-06-13vs Highland ParkLost 04
L#1 DoublesAngelica Singh / Emma Pickering vs Jacquelyn Connell / Stephanie Crowley0-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesDeborah Brill vs Ann Graff0-6, 7-5, 0-1
L#2 DoublesBritt Eubanks / Eleni Dedousis vs Lori Baran / Kirsten Rydstrom0-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesKathy Radick / Cathy Chi vs Rajeeta Bazaz / Melissa King3-6, 3-6
2026-06-06vs Highland ParkLost 02
L#1 DoublesAngelica Singh / Eleni Dedousis vs Fran Bolanis / Meredith Waltenbaugh3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesDeborah Brill / Cathy Chi vs Lori Baran / Rajeeta Bazaz3-6, 1-6
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 standings1 teams · 4.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1PTA0421837227

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 3.73 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.

4.28
Emma Pickering
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.92
Deborah Brill
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
3.86
Lesley Williams
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.82
Hiromi Katayama
usually #1 Singles 57%, also #1 Doubles 14% · published
3.82
Angelica Singh
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.81
Lauren Diulus
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published
3.75
Kathy Radick
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.73
Julie Lichtenstein
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published
3.69
Linda Trevenen
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.69
Eleni Dedousis
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.68
Britt Eubanks
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.61
Cathy Chi
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.50
Arla Baker
usually #3 Doubles 43%, also #4 Doubles 43% · published 4
3.12
Michelle Saad
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #4 Doubles 40% · published
Katie Rogers
published
Kristen Campbell
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.

Arla Baker + Lauren Diulus8157% games+3.4% vs expected
Arla Baker + Michelle Saad3742% games−0.9% vs expected
Kathy Radick + Cathy Chi5945% games−4.3% vs expected
Kristen Campbell + Lauren Diulus6168% gamesnot enough data
Eleni Dedousis + Kathy Radick134 matchesnot enough data
Kathy Radick + Arla Baker303 matchesnot enough data
Deborah Brill + Lauren Diulus213 matchesnot enough data
Linda Trevenen + Julie Lichtenstein213 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.

Emma Pickering
10W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%92%5%
4.28
4.5
Deborah Brill
73W–79L career · 4 lines in 2026
71%29%<1%
3.92
Lesley Williams
41W–23L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%1%99%
3.86
Hiromi Katayama
31W–27L career · 7 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
3.82
4.5
Angelica Singh
50W–22L career · 2 lines in 2026
90%10%<1%
3.82
Lauren Diulus
85W–38L career · 6 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
3.81
Kathy Radick
35W–52L career · 3 lines in 2026
96%4%<1%
3.75
Julie Lichtenstein
21W–13L career · 7 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.73
Linda Trevenen
54W–61L career · 6 lines in 2026
8%90%1%
3.69
Eleni Dedousis
21W–45L career · 4 lines in 2026
99%1%<1%
3.69
4.5
Britt Eubanks
17W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
99%1%<1%
3.68
4.5
Cathy Chi
37W–16L career · 3 lines in 2026
>99%<1%<1%
3.61
4
Arla Baker
185W–125L career · type A · 7 lines in 2026
51%49%<1%
3.50
Michelle Saad
130W–161L career · 10 lines in 2026
<1%19%81%
3.12
Katie Rogers
33W–35L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Kristen Campbell
59W–22L career · no lines in 2026
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.