Teams

Marlys & Triin

2021 Adult 40 & Over · 3.5 Women

7 players · average NTRP 3.42 / ALASKA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2021-05-08vs Mystery 3.5WSplit 22
W#1 DoublesKaren Loeffler / Allison Erickson vs Denise Henderson / Stacia Green6-0, 6-2
W#1 SinglesAracelis Bell vs Zareena Clendaniel6-1, 6-2
L#2 DoublesTriin Minton / Marlys Morton vs Cindy Nunn / Bonnie Hemry4-6, 6-0, 0-1
L#3 DoublesSusan Brunner / Conita Mullett vs Sandy Durrell / Jessie Lief4-6, 2-6
2021-05-08vs Mystery 3.5WSplit 22
W#1 DoublesKaren Loeffler / Allison Erickson vs Zareena Clendaniel / Vicki Moe6-1, 3-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesAracelis Bell vs Cindy Nunn6-4, 4-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesSusan Brunner / Conita Mullett vs Bonnie Hemry / Sandy Durrell6-7, 4-6
W#3 DoublesTriin Minton / Marlys Morton vs Denise Henderson / Stacia Green6-3, 6-4
2021-05-07vs Mystery 3.5WWon 31
W#1 DoublesKaren Loeffler / Aracelis Bell vs Stacia Green / Sandy Durrell6-0, 7-6
W#1 SinglesAllison Erickson vs Cindy Nunn7-6, 6-1
W#2 DoublesTriin Minton / Marlys Morton vs Dana Griffin / Bonnie Hemry2-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#3 DoublesConita Mullett / Susan Brunner vs Zareena Clendaniel / Vicki Moe1-6, 0-6
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 standings2 teams · 3.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Marlys & Triin03751298
2Mystery 3.5W035716119

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 3.35 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.

3.99
Allison Erickson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 4
3.50
Triin Minton
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.36
Marlys Morton
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.22
Karen Loeffler
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.02
Susan Brunner
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
3.01
Conita Mullett
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
Aracelis Bell
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 0
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.

Susan Brunner + Conita Mullett51042% games+0.2% vs expected
Triin Minton + Marlys Morton353851% games−2.0% vs expected
Allison Erickson + Karen Loeffler5352% games−3.5% vs expected
Susan Brunner + Marlys Morton314 matchesnot enough data
Karen Loeffler + Marlys Morton213 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.

4
Allison Erickson
166W–36L career · 3 lines in 2021
<1%53%47%
3.99
3.5
Triin Minton
123W–112L career · type A · 3 lines in 2021
<1%51%49%
3.50
3.5
Marlys Morton
161W–112L career · type A · 3 lines in 2021
<1%85%15%
3.36
3.5
Karen Loeffler
68W–83L career · type A · 3 lines in 2021
4%94%2%
3.22
3
Susan Brunner
112W–99L career · 3 lines in 2021
<1%45%55%
3.02
3
Conita Mullett
83W–94L career · 3 lines in 2021
<1%46%54%
3.01
0
Aracelis Bell
21W–28L career · 3 lines in 2021
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.