Teams

Cornelius - All The Singles Ladies

2025 Montgomery Singles · Montgomery Singles 3.0 Women

6 players · average NTRP 3.00 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-08-20vs Smith - Sets In The CityWon 10
W#2 SinglesEmily Schabacker vs Wendy Wasserman6-1, 6-2
2025-08-12vs Kau - Honey Deuce 3.0 SinglesLost 01
L#1 SinglesEmily Schabacker vs Hrachuhi Babayan3-6
2025-08-07vs Smith - Sets In The CityWon 10
W#2 SinglesEmily Schabacker vs Alina Sharafutdinova3-6, 6-2, 1-0
2025-07-29vs Kau - Honey Deuce 3.0 SinglesWon 10
W#3 SinglesEmily Schabacker vs Angela Sharma6-4, 6-2
2025-07-17vs Nelson - Smash ForceWon 10
W#3 SinglesEmily Schabacker vs Johanne Maher6-0, 6-1
2025-07-08Lost 01
L#3 SinglesEmily Schabacker vs Jennifer Spence1-6, 3-6
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 Montgomery Singles 3.0 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 2.91 estimated across 6 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.

3.10
2.95
Laura Feiveson
published
2.94
Emily Schabacker
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3
2.94
Paula Pels
published
2.83
Margaret Cornelius
published
2.70
Sanam Boroumand
published
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.

3
Daniella Casseres
3W–1L career · no lines in 2025
<1%22%78%
3.10
Laura Feiveson
10W–2L career · no lines in 2025
<1%66%34%
2.95
3
Emily Schabacker
158W–173L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%68%32%
2.94
Paula Pels
5W–6L career · no lines in 2025
69%31%<1%
2.94
Margaret Cornelius
14W–21L career · no lines in 2025
1%90%10%
2.83
Sanam Boroumand
7W–26L career · no lines in 2025
6%93%1%
2.70

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.