Teams

Team Rahm

ADULT 40 & Over · 4.0 Women

13 players · average NTRP 3.60 / TEXAS

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
2022-03-27Lost 01
L#1 DoublesCandace Frank / Amy Hancock vs Shana Jeter / Angela Bailey2-6, 6-7
2022-03-26Won 10
W#1 DoublesAmy Hancock / Cindy Bittenbinder vs Melissa Patterson / Linda Costello6-3, 6-1
2022-03-26Lost 01
L#2 DoublesCindy Bittenbinder / Amy Hancock vs Tammy Bray / Angela Bailey6-7, 4-6
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 · 4.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Team Kavanagh000000
2Team Rahm000000

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 3.42 estimated across 10 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.

4.07
3.66
Wendy Moger
published
3.64
Niki Morgan
published
3.56
SHELLY BUUCK
published
3.53
Chris Whorley
published 4
3.22
Rachel Robles
published
3.20
Amy Hancock
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.18
Cathy Foreman
published 3.5
3.13
Debbie Curry
published 3.5
2.98
Christine Rahm
published 3.5
Candace Cohagan
published
Jennifer Conner
published
Jill Cable
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.

Jill Cable + Amy Hancock4357% games+8.9% vs expected
Debbie Curry + Amy Hancock9750% games+1.7% vs expected
Niki Morgan + Chris Whorley3947% games−0.8% vs expected
Cathy Foreman + SHELLY BUUCK3845% games−1.8% vs expected
Nina Escamilla Paradoski + Niki Morgan7263% gamesnot enough data
Amy Hancock + SHELLY BUUCK2736% gamesnot enough data
Christine Rahm + Chris Whorley1540% gamesnot enough data
Debbie Curry + Christine Rahm0537% 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.

Nina Escamilla Paradoski
39W–24L career · no lines in 2022
29%71%<1%
4.07
Wendy Moger
49W–46L career · no lines in 2022
10%89%<1%
3.66
Niki Morgan
26W–29L career · no lines in 2022
14%86%<1%
3.64
SHELLY BUUCK
27W–44L career · no lines in 2022
32%67%<1%
3.56
4
Chris Whorley
21W–33L career · no lines in 2022
41%59%<1%
3.53
Rachel Robles
52W–82L career · no lines in 2022
5%94%1%
3.22
3.5
Amy Hancock
71W–74L career · 3 lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.20
3.5
Cathy Foreman
22W–38L career · no lines in 2022
8%91%1%
3.18
3.5
Debbie Curry
23W–24L career · no lines in 2022
16%84%<1%
3.13
3.5
Christine Rahm
16W–46L career · no lines in 2022
57%43%<1%
2.98
Candace Cohagan
0W–2L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Jennifer Conner
0W–4L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Jill Cable
20W–20L career · no lines in 2022
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.